Gaming Sins: The Quicksave - Your confessions

[Spaff]

Thou art a sinner! Confess now and maybe Treesus will be forgiving!

[manny_c44]

Its that damn half-life, thats the game that got me granny saving.

I agree about it being bad, I will do my best to quick save sparingly in Half-Life 2.

[ysbreker]

I must confess that I sinned with the quicksave & load once too often, but I got punished more than once when I quicksaved instead of quickloaded so my quicksave got overwritten at a point where there was no way to get out of a tricky situation alive.

I beg forgiveness.

[Ryam BaCo]

i remember this scene in american mcgee's alice, where i fell to death and quicksaved. i had to play the whole episode again. this was...brrrr...annoying.

[Jackal]

Consider this a very public crotch scratching. :grin: I'm a quick save junkie.

I'm not afraid of dying. I just hate with a passion having to repeat myself.* I'll carry 28 bags of groceries in from the car just so I don't have to make a second trip, even if it takes me twice as long.

Really, though, the quality of each game is what determines how often I use it. The games that are well designed and ALSO demonstrate good sportsmanship don't require it, so I don't do it nearly as often. Any game that has instant death - quicksave city. Cheap tactics like Doom 3 hidden doors - quicksave. Great story-driven, well-paced games like the NOLFS - long periods of no saving.

So don't blame us altar boys for our sins. It's the priests that... wait, never mind. This imagery is going nowhere good. :fart:

* Also, I really hate repeating myself.

[Wormsie]

The quicksave function is usually listed in the "shortcuts" -part of the manual or readme. I don't want to memorize that part. And in any case quicksave&load don't interest me.

[b0b]

Forgive me Father!

I have totally sinned. Spaff will attest to the fact that (in addition to being a bit shit at finding my way around, and generally getting lost in any level with a design more complex than The Library) I rap on that quicksave key waaay too much.

I guess it's because I play games for the immersion, but also for the story. And after I've played through a section, I don't want to have to play through it again, I want constant progress!

I know.. This sucks.

Father help me! In the catholic church, one can confess one's worldly sins, and the priest will instruct them in appropriate penance "Ten hail marys, and five our fathers" so that (in combination with their confession) they are absolved of their sins, and are now pure of heart.

Tell me, how may I purge my soul of the burden of my relentless granny-saving (I like that term :) and set myself back on the True Path to Gaming Nirvana; the Great Lan Party in Teh Sky!

Of course, I was raised a Protestant Methodist, so even though I'm now thoroughly apostate, I am uncomfortable at the thought of this Catholic ritual.. I'm curious to see what Treesus comes up with tho' :erm:

[Jayel]

I worship quicksave. Greatest feature found only in PC games.
I'd like console games more if they had quicksaves. repeating the same sequence 20 times over is not fun.

[Jake]

Of course, I was raised a Protestant Methodist, so even though I'm now thoroughly apostate, I am uncomfortable at the thought of this Catholic ritual.. I'm curious to see what Treesus comes up with tho' :erm:

You can communicate directly with God! He has already forgiven you.

You are free to go and sin again. Thank you.

[Spaff]

i just started playing through doom 3 again without saving ever.. it makes it so much more... life threatening and you care so much more about life preservation..

it brings into focus games like diablo 2 on nightmare where you die once it = game over. ARGH

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I agree with the dog Jackal. It depends on the quality/pacing/suspense of the game. I could see it being a 'breach of contract' for an edgy experience like Doom3 or a well paced one like No One Lives Forever. But if it's a game with crappy level design and unbalanced enemy/health placements I have no guilt whatsoever abusing the quicksave.

And this is for Treesus, aka Mr. Man Breasts:

http://boar.com/days/03-03-18_lanka/images/trollman02_thmb.jpg

Hope this pic haunts you for the rest of your sleepless nights!

[loonyboi]

I am a total, unrepentant quicksave whore.

That is all.

[b0b]

You can communicate directly with God! He has already forgiven you.

You are free to go and sin again. Thank you.


Aww.. I wanted something along the lines of :

"My son, you have indeed sinned, go thou and strive, strive to complete thine love "Another World" in less than forty five minutes.. Through thy frustration with the floor chompers in the cavern section, and thy fury at the bit-where-like-three-people-try-and-shoot-you-from-both-sides-at-once thou shalt find thy gaming salvation"

:blink:

[JBRAA]

:shifty:

"But what's the point? Are you really that scared? Are you really that poor a gamer that you need to save every 3.5 minutes? I doubt it. I think you're a good gamer, and that you don't need to use the quicksave key so often. It's a matter of sportsmanship—a forgotten concept it seems. Let me remind you. There used to be a time in sports, from baseball to golf, when the players would play fair. Not because they would heavily fined, which is the reason now, but because it was the right thing to do... and because it proves how good you are. Only a crap player needs to cheat, and it stops you from getting better.

So here's my guideline: save every half hour, or if you die then save immediately before you meet the killer again. There's no excuse for saving before something that you think might possibly maybe could perhaps hurt you."

Wtf. I save as much as I want! If *you* wanna replay a whole area of a game, or even 2-5 minutes of a game, then fine, do what you want. Sportsmanship? Quite the imagination you got yeah. Saving doesn't apply in multiplayer. And sportsmanship doesn't apply with computer opponent... Put down the beer. "Gaming Sins: The Quicksave" What a joke.

[Beef]

Forgive me, for I have sinned. My F6 key is as worn out as my wasd keys.
Serious Sam, Painkiller and it's like where you can die every next second, quicksave is a must! After a few deaths, making you repeat that 'last half hour', quicksave becomes a habit.

I enjoyed operation flashpoint with it's "one save and that's it kid". Quick save would have been retarded in such a game.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Ah, but I do appreciate the limited saves in a game like Hitman 2. That works imo.

[Rodi]

I admit it too, quicksaving has become an automatic feature in my gaming experience. Virtually every game that has it and that requires flex muscles, a chance to die and unpredictability in terms of dangers becomes, I quote, 'quicksave city'.

I have some annotations here though. The stongest examples of me heavily quicksaving around every corner are Jedi Outcast (a consolegame for crying out loud!) and Morrowind.
The first is a classic example of Instant-Death-o-rama. Jump on the wrong texture and you're fried. Misplace one step and you're dead. Mix up one lightsabre stance and it's bye bye baby.
Morrowind then has a special reason of my quicksaving. See, I very rarely, if at all, die in Morrowind. I can't remember the last time I did. But the game is so freaking unstable that neither can I remember when was the last time I closed it off properly, instead of it crashing back to desktop! Through shame and frustration I learned to quicksave every few SECONDS if I'm not willing to do stuff over again. This is especially irritating if you're traversing Vivec, a hassle in itself without the game crashing on you :P

But still, I'm guilty as charged.

[Sirus]

I'm a filthy, filthy sinner. But why should you care? I'm having fun. That's all I care about.


P.S. F5 is quicksave. F6 is quickload.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

No, F9 is quickload.

:innocent:

[b0b]

Wtf. I save as much as I want! If *you* wanna replay a whole area of a game, or even 2-5 minutes of a game, then fine, do what you want. Sportsmanship? Quite the imagination you got yeah. Saving doesn't apply in multiplayer. And sportsmanship doesn't apply with computer opponent... Put down the beer. "Gaming Sins: The Quicksave" What a joke.


I think the point was - don't quicksave all the time - you cheapen the experience of the game because you remove any real penalty to dying?

In order to feel tension and suspense, you should leave some time between saves, so you have something to lose when you die. That's why designers limit quicksaves, or replace them with a checkpointed system in some titles. Of course, no one's saying that you can't quicksave whenever you want, just that you shouldn't unless you really need to if you want to experience the game closest to how the designers intended. I think it's a fair point - and I think you're being kind of rude.


Only a crap player needs to cheat, and it stops you from getting better.


:finger:

P.S. I now consider myself a reformed quicksave whore, and will be playing through Doom3 and HL2 with minimal use of QS.. as soon as I spend like £500 on my pc that is..

[Erkki]

No, F9 is quickload.
Nah, F9 is Kingdom Rankings.

Tell me, how may I purge my soul of the burden of my relentless granny-saving (I like that term :) and set myself back on the True Path to Gaming Nirvana; the Great Lan Party in Teh Sky!You could play Prince of Persia in less than 30 minutes or Sands of Time without saving.

How I use the quicksave depends on the game and what motivates my playing. Sometimes I forget to save for an hour or two, sometimes I save at every corner, depends on the situation. I don't really think dying and repeating a part is playing "how the designers intended" and if it is, well I don't care.

[JBRAA]

How I use the quicksave depends on the game and what motivates my playing. Sometimes I forget to save for an hour or two, sometimes I save at every corner, depends on the situation. I don't really think dying and repeating a part is playing "how the designers intended" and if it is, well I don't care.

Best sum up ever. :mrt:

[Jackal]

I agree with the dog Jackal.

Easy there, little baby. Some of my best friends are dingos. :(

I don't really buy the "cheapen the experience" bit, either. It's the developer's design, but it's the player's experience. :gaming: I throw the onus back on developers to give me gameplay that compels me to leave the quicksave alone.

[jokemaster]

The only game where I've saved every 3 seconds is AVP2.

[Tanukitsune]

I confess! ;(
I quicksave! In Dragin's Lair 3D, I quicksave right before a place I got killed, that is if I get killed, when I return to the place I quicksave before the danger...
Which happened often, near the end I had to quicksave every 5 minutes, which isn't so bad considering that each level takes about 20-30 minutes to beat... :blink:

[Simon]

Good article. I've often felt bad about quicksaving before every hard bit, even quickloading back when I lost a chunk of health. Yeah, I admit that's very, very bad way to approach a game, but I must confess that occasionally, I've been guilty of it.

As a gamer, I'm less at the top of my game today because of it. Back in the days of Sonic The Hedgehog 2, you were desperate not to have to start from the beginning, and you just had to get good. By the Wing Fortress level, you were a mechanical-animal killing machine, and it was a satisfying thing to complete the game knowing you had really mastered it.

With a game like Half-Life, I have the luxury of quicksaves. So rather than becoming a strafe-and-kill targeting expert, a lot of my progress would be through over-reliance on quicksaves, rather than stuff like really mastering the levels, and truly getting into how to deal with each kind of enemy. I've found that when you 'let go', and allow yourself to continue playing when you're down to 15 health or have run out of ammo for that really big powerful gun, it becomes a far more intense and exciting experience. The final feeling of completing a level is fulfilling instead of strangely empty, because you've done it like a pro.

[Kolzig]

I usually use quicksave feature too much, like when playing doom3 I was scared shitless every frigging second and I saved all-the-time.

And then on other occations like when I played JK2:Jedi Outcast a long time ago, I usually forgot about the damn quicksave and when I happened to die, I had to start from the beginning many times.

[toblix]

I think that in games where tension and fear of death is a big issue, lack of quicksaves will probably up the tension and create a more enjoyable experience if the game is balanced properly, but the player will still probably say afterwards that "Damn, that game was brilliant, but I wish it had quicksave". For example: I played Silent Hill 2 on the Xbox, and it had save points placed here and there in the world. I loved the game for its tension, but still wished for a quicksave button. I guess it was no different from wishing for a more powerful weapon or better flashlight or something, but because it's regarded as a feature "outside the game", I'm allowed to complain about it. Still, it would be lame to complain that the flashlight wasn't powerful enough, because that is part of the grand design, right?

So, I played Silent Hill 3 on the PC, with quicksave, and after I had finished it, I wasn't as satisifed. It hadn't been as scary or tense as SH2, because I could hit F5 at every corner. I had nothing invested in the characters survival, and there was no relief to finally find the next save point.

My point? You decide. Maybe quicksaves are bad.

[Kode]

Forgive me, for I have sinned.

Not so many games as in KOTOR. I realize now that first time I played KOTOR, I'd save every odd minute or two. It got crazy! It's just that I don't feel like replaying stuff again. Half-an-hour or one-hour, it's still against the flow of the game, and detrimental to enjoyment to have to replay one hour that you could have avoided by replaying only 3 minutes. That's my reasoning. I like to get along with the game, it seems. :hmph:

But I agree, it's a bad habit, and I am always pleasantly welcoming of any game that uses the checkpoint system. It heightens the excitement of the situation (ala Halo). :)

[baconian]

I quicksave when neccessary - when I get to a bit that I've died at more than once. replaying parts is enjoyable, if its an enjoyable game. If you're just playing to see how the next environment looks, or to see the next scripted event, you're not really enjoying the game for what it is. Games that vary when you replay them, even just in random timings and stuff, are a great incentive to do this.
I probably have sinned in half-life, but conciously try not to.

I've found that when you 'let go', and allow yourself to continue playing when you're down to 15 health or have run out of ammo for that really big powerful gun, it becomes a far more intense and exciting experience. The final feeling of completing a level is fulfilling instead of strangely empty, because you've done it like a pro.

Definitely.

[b0b]

I feel like I should mention Resident Evil here, and the "typewriter ribbon & typewriter" savegame structure.

This meant that not only were your saves limited, you had to make it back to a certain location before you could save. This imho made the game massively more tense and exciting, and introduced the concept of having to think of a saving strategy, rather than just pounding the F keys.

Good call I thought - unlike the incredibly limited inventory space, which annoyed the hell out of me.. :hmph:

[ragnar]

It really depends on the game how much I quick save. The FPS:s I've played, I tend to quick-save a lot. Other game genres less so. Quicksaving in an FPS is not a sin for me since I am not that fond of the gameplay. I play them for other things such as story (NOLF and Deus Ex etc).

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Exactly. But honestly I think that today the choice should be left up the player to decide where and when to save, it's more democratic that way. If you truly want to get plunged deep into the game you simply don't save every five seconds. If you suck at the gameplay but love the story and gameworld exploration you should have the choice to save wherever you want. Why not? I've found myself behaving differently with saving for each game I play, as you did, ragsie. So shouldn't that be a thought for designers to include?

[ragnar]

Indeed it should be up to the player. Even better was if there is a continuous save, as in The Last Express, so you can go back to whatever previous point you want, whenever you want. That way you get the best of both worlds. You get the immersion and when you need it, you can go back and get to the point you want to start over from. Complete freedom.

[DanJW]

I'm glad so many people enjoyed the article. "out of character" I'd just like to add that my intention was not to tell people how to play their games, but rather to remind them of the way they do. I know that I sometimes press the quicksave key almost totally unconciously. If you know that you are doing it, and you still want to do it, that is fine. But saying so in a light-hearted article would have been boring.

From a game design point of view I favour the limited saves sytem, such as Aliens Vs Predator on hard mode (and that was with a patch - the original release had no in-game save at all!). The save system can have a great impact on a game, as some people have pointed out already. Freedom is all very well - but should the player have the freedom to, for instance, use the best weapon right from the beginning? Would it make the game better or worse. The save system is part of the game, like the weapons and everything else.

By the way, if anyone has a gaming sin they would like to see an article on, do let me know (preferably sins committed by players rather than designers, but both will be covered eventually).

[Jackal]

Hard arguing on multiple fronts. :grin:

And why shouldn't those types of freedoms be allowed as well? Given the fact that most games (PC games, anyway) have cheat codes, it seems that developers acknowledge that really players SHOULD have it. Burying them in codes is really rather silly.

A definition like "Games are all about meaningful freedom through carefully managed constraints" is meant to serve as a description of design, not a boundary of gameplay experience. If people want to play through a shooter with God mode on, let 'em! No, they're not playing it as the developers intended, but they play it the way it's meaningful to them. It's got nothing to do with cultural values. It's just basic recognition that each person is different.

The answer to the question about making a game better or worse is completely subjective.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Right. If I wanted to play a game the way its designer intended me to, fine I'd do so. But who the hell said I should play it ONLY the way they wanted me to? That should ultimately be the suggested way of playing it, and if I deviate from it I and only I am the one to bear the consequences of my decision to deviate.

If I wanted to play Doom 3 on hardest setting without once hitting the quicksave key, that's fine and dandy. But that cannot ever guarantee I'll have the exact experience that Mr. Carmack wanted me to have. In reality I will be one fooking furious son-of-a-bitch out of frustration because I'd get killed and have to restart the entire game/level. Is that what Mr. Carmack wanted? Is that what I shelled out $50+ for? To be frustrated as hell?

:innocent:

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Oi. The two fronts dealio is really making this difficult. I'm going to hold off on making any more comments about this issue for now, and save the effort for an article.

[sees Walter's finger hovering over the F5 key to 'save the effort']

........ :blink:

[Intrepid Homoludens]

[sees Walter's finger hovering over the F9 key to reload his previous post]

...... :blink:

[Erkki]

And why shouldn't those types of freedoms be allowed as well? Given the fact that most games (PC games, anyway) have cheat codes, it seems that developers acknowledge that really players SHOULD have it. Burying them in codes is really rather silly.
You're kidding right? Anyway, I don't think they are features buried under cheat codes. They are necessary for debugging and testing the game and I suspect at some point it became a universal tradition to not disable them when the game is released to the public.

[Jackal]

Why would I be kidding? And what exactly is it you're questioning? I find "universal tradition" to be far more laughable, so there's really nothing to respond to here. Why cheat codes are used by developers is irrelevant. They're left in; dev's know they'll get used by players. This is pretty much no-brainer reasoning.

Hey, Walter, any chance of getting an advance screening so I can prepare a rebuttal? :D

[Erkki]

So you think there should be a convenient button to press for immortality? Maybe it should even be explained in a tutorial?

[spaceship789]

Right. If I wanted to play a game the way its
designer intended me to, fine I'd do so. But who the hell said I should play
it ONLY the way they wanted me to? That should ultimately be the
suggested way of playing it, and if I deviate from it I and only I am
the one to bear the consequences of my decision to deviate.
:innocent:

If you are giving a gamer choice to save whereever they wanted to, you must
also be able to choose a mode (for the entire game) where you cannot save
whenever you wanted to ( and let the save pts be up to the designer).

Same with pausing.

If not for anything, but to facilitate the existence of the "speedrun"
community.

Which focuses on a games challenge to the level where it is able to keep
track of the equivalent of "world records" for gaming.

Visit these sites for some truly spectacular feats of agility and mental
prowess:
http://home.comcast.net/~arcthelad/
http://www.planetquake.com/sda/other/rules.html

These would not be the same for the viewer, or the player:
- if the viewer knew that the player was pausing, or saving arbitrarily.
- or the player knew that even if he did record his feat, it wouldn't
achieve notoriety because people couldn't be sure of the conditions of its
creation.

Some of the games in these vids are old enough that they can be played on emulators, which have with full state save abilities and pausing/slowing down. The choice of this community to enforce restrictions on the ability to use emulators (ie ban them, or only allow save-less emulators), and the pleasure that results from this, is a strong argument that eventhough we have the technology to just give the gameplayer arbitrary fullstate save, we still should design discreet save points in to the game, and have a choice to enforce these all the way through the game.

[Jackal]

So you think there should be a convenient button to press for immortality? Maybe it should even be explained in a tutorial?

Are you going to actually make a case for your view, or just pretend sarcasm is a useful substitute? :fart: I didn't say they should be made MORE prominent than other control or difficulty options, did I? Of course not. But I've seen "cheat" options accessible from the main menu. Other games just have the console enabled by default. Entering cheats is EASIER than adjusting your mouse sensitivity (for example). Strangely, these games aren't ridiculed for not making people jump through arbitrary hoops. Go figger.

And just for the record, I don't use cheats, and play lots of games with limited saves. These games can be done well, and I've never denied it. But just as surely, they are spiting gamers that would otherwise buy them, finish them, or at least enjoy them more. People can argue theory all they want, but the practical fact is that it alienates some players, and costs sales. Just sounds like dumb business to me.

[Wrinewind]

I'm sorry father...I saved 1500+ times in Deus Ex...
*Hides in the dark crying for my terrible choices*
:blink:

[Noogle]

Well, on this same site you have an interview with Ron Gilbert saying games are poorly structured, demanding too much time at a go from most people. I love games, but I certainly can't put hours into it and facing a level where you have to get to the end of a level in order to save is frustrating, not challenging. Quicksaving should be used sparingly, but it has its place. Besides, who here could clock all the Call of Duty levels the first time while playing on Veteran?

Quicksaving is an option and you're never forced to use it, so no point complaining about it. If anything, it makes it easier for people like your mom to enjoy games, since they just aren't up to the challenge set to most gamers.

[Erkki]

But I've seen "cheat" options accessible from the main menu. Other games just have the console enabled by default. Entering cheats is EASIER than adjusting your mouse sensitivity (for example). Strangely, these games aren't ridiculed for not making people jump through arbitrary hoops. Go figger.Well, you could have immediately said you mean things like enabling the console by default etc. I thought you meant that there should not be 'cheat codes', but the cheats should be somehow as easy to access as any other feature.
I can agree though that if developers make it very difficult to cheat or delay releasing the codes, they kind of lose their point. And with "if they're there -- let me use it". But I don't think the cheats should be visible enough to tempt you even before you start the game (in a menu for example).

[Jackal]

I didn't say how I envisioned it, because I really didn't have an ideal in mind. Since those examples exist already, I didn't bother elaborating. All I meant to imply was that I'm not against simplifying the process in principle. Aside from the rare game, everyone knows the cheat codes are there, so it's kinda pointless to go through the rigamarole of changing the command line parameters, etc. I mean, "cheating" isn't some dirty little secret that only hackers can do anymore, so let's bring it out in the open and deal with it responsibly. It's the same as walkthroughs for adventures. I mean duh! Everyone knows they exist, and developers almost always have an advanced walkthrough prepared, so why not throw it on the CD? Why pretend? Why make the same person go to the internet to find the exact same thing.

See, I find all these restrictions sort of arbitrary. I understand the psychology of choosing the path of least resistance. But that's a generalized theory, and we're talking a specific case group, so to speak. We're not picking strangers up off the street and forcing them to play games. We're talking about gamers that WANT to play these games, and are generally comfortable with their own ability levels.

Basically, what it boils down to for me is that anyone who complains about being unable to resist quicksaves, cheats, or easy game settings are deluding themselves about their ability to enjoy the game otherwise (again, same as walkthroughs). So for the vast majority of people that pretend they'd enjoy the game more with greater restrictions, it's probably untrue.

OK, enough ranting on the matter. At least until Ludonauts ups the ante. :grin:

[Chris]

Well, on this same site you have an interview with Ron Gilbert saying games are poorly structured, demanding too much time at a go from most people.
Well, don't assume that everyone on staff shares the same opinions.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Right. Just because Ron Gilbert [or Warren Spector, or Peter Molly Knew, or your grandmother's dog] says so doesn't mean everyone should agree. Personally I agree with Mr. Gilbert - and the cute little doggie Jackal - and reiterate myself, just offer the damn quicksaves and such as an OPTION, and let the players themselves deal with the consequences of their own decisions in the face of the recommended way of experiencing the game. The games' designers are not babysitters.

:innocent:

[Chris]

Ludonauts totally upped the ante!

[Jackal]

Hey, I'm still waiting to hear who all these gamers are who are complaining that quicksaves and cheat codes are spoiling their fun. :blink:

To address your points, Walter, bringing addiction into the matter is completely irrelevant. The whole notion of chemical addiction runs counter to "free will", so I'll just have to throw that comparison out entirely. I would staunchly defend addiction as NOT a matter of choice (and I have personal experience in the matter). Having said that, overcoming it still comes down to an acceptance of personal responsibility. The poverty thing is an even worse example, because there are far more factors involved than choice/results.

I could just as easily get up in arms that your argument sounds like the "everyone's to blame but me" syndrome that pervades so much of society today. But I won't. We're talking one issue, one goal here. But if you want to get into psychology, I really don't see where you've presented a viable argument either. Is it natural to be tempted to take the path of least resistance? Of course. I'm not disregarding that psychology whatsoever. Never have. But that's only one little aspect, and if you jump straight to the conclusion that all people will therefore be unable to resist temptation when offered, that's a huge leap that you certainly haven't proven. If that were the case, all gamers would play on the easiest difficulty setting, wouldn't they?

I was making a generalization (which I noted), but I stick by it. Self-deception is a pretty basic psychological concept, so I'm not sure why you'd treat it with such skepticism. Certainly I can trot out all kinds of anecdotal evidence of people who abandoned games because they were too difficult, rather than become more determined to finish. That alone isn't enough for a conclusion, but it can't be discounted. Is it scientific? Nope, but it's no less scientific than your arguments.

You seem to be reading a heckuva lot more into my words than what I've actually said. Where did I comment on what people are capable of? Nowhere. I didn't address player ability at all - nor would I, because gamers have varying abilities. All I did was make a conditional statement about people that claim one thing and then do another. Also, when I use words like "for me" and "probably", I'm not just doing it to make my post longer. :shifty: It means it's not fact; it's my position. I'm really not sure how you reached the opposite conclusion.

Anyway, all I've ever been recommending for games is the option, as Trep is suggesting. Bury the choice in the main menu so it's not an ongoing temptation. I really don't care. I'm only defending the players' ability to make the choice, not have the matter decided for them.

Far as I'm concerned, we were always friends. Iron sharpening iron and all that. :grin:

[Noogle]

Well, don't assume that everyone on staff shares the same opinions.

Well, I didn't, but you have to admit the man makes some sense. Hell, I know he makes sense. Much as I love games, I don't have the time anymore to play them. Does that mean I should stop playing? I think a lot more people have this problem than we assume. What was that figure - something like 80% of games purchased are never finished. That has to do with a lot of titles not being worth finishing, but if an avid fan like myself can't get around to it, how will the more casual gamer react? We all have got other things to do, unless you happen to be sharing a flat in Memphis with otehr gamers...

Have ideals and standards is one thing, but bitching about quicksaving is akin to wanting the lesser difficulties stripped from a game. Different people, different strokes, so give them their options. If you allow those options to interfere with your game, then I think we know whose to blame.

[Jackal]

I keep emphasizing that I think we can find a better way, but everyone seems to think I must just be advocating horribly restrictive, anti-player systems. I'm not. I think there's a better way.

:innocent:

I never thought that. We were just both arguing theories that tended to emphasize the extremes of both cases. When, in fact, we completely and utterly agree on a middle ground approach. Isn't arguing surreal? :woohoo:

Sorry to hear about Ludonauts, by the way. Hope you can find a solution you're comfortable with. If you need some help kicking academic butt, how 'bout we unleash Trep on 'em? :benstein:

[Marek]

Walter: We wouldn't mind having you on the Thumbs staff (even though I enjoy reading Ludonauts when it's updated).

Let me preemptively welcome you to the staff... welcome to the staff! It's all up to you now. :yep:

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Agreed. Hooray! :clap: Can we all go back to being friends now?


No. I'm going to kick your ass in Soldier of Fortune II deathmatch, and then I'll buy you an ice cream cone.

Sorry to hear about Ludonauts, by the way. Hope you can find a solution you're comfortable with. If you need some help kicking academic butt, how 'bout we unleash Trep on 'em? :benstein:

WTF! What did I do?!

And many academics can be annoying anyway. They're way too critical, they need to pull those tomes out of their arses and learn to relax. :innocent: And have one too many scotch and soda.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Also, I seriously propose a Sartre smiley for the Idle Thumb forums!!!!

http://www.infoamerica.org/teoria/imagenes/sartre.jpg

[Jackal]

WTF! What did I do?!

And many academics can be annoying anyway. They're way too critical, they need to pull those tomes out of their arses and learn to relax. :innocent: And have one too many scotch and soda.

Exactly!! That's why you'd be just the tonic. :yep: (This is meant as a compliment, in case I've out-obscured myself)

I'll add a pre-emptive congrats to Walter now, too. I'm not sure he swears enough, though. :grin:

[Kingzjester]

:sartre: and :wtf: added.

I wanted to add the latter for a long while, but never got to it.

[Kingzjester]

I'll add a pre-emptive congrats to Walter now, too. I'm not sure he swears enough, though. :grin:Walter, I don't want you to get into anything without looking at all the options... have you considered joining the promising TastyBacon.com team?

:mrt: :ratched: :sartre: :benstein: :dopefish: :ponycrap: :wtf: :noskate:

[Marek]

Eh? Why not make this into an avatar:

http://files.db3nf.com/pictures/authors/russell.jpg

It's much better.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

:sartre: and :wtf: added.

I wanted to add the latter for a long while, but never got to it.

I want to French kiss you for this, but I thought better instead. Expect an original Caravaggio and Rodin's 'Portrait of Balzac' on your doorstep in a week.

[Kingzjester]

Eh? Why not make this into an avatar:

http://files.db3nf.com/pictures/authors/russell.jpg

It's much better.Ah, Bertrand Russell! I don't think our forums are worthy of his face...

http://www.nybooks.com/images/levines/russell_bertrand-19680822003R.2.gif

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Well, Waltsie (affectionately), I recommend you join up here. We'll turn the Thumb into a high brow/low brow affair. How can Ben, Marek, Jake, and the others refuse? Care for a scotch and soda?

(When all is said and done, it wasn't my fooking fault! :sartre: )

[Wormsie]

I want to French kiss you for this, but I thought better instead. Expect an original Caravaggio and Rodin's 'Portrait of Balzac' on your doorstep in a week.Oh, I can French kiss you, Trep. *French kisses Trep*

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Entire Thumb community:

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

:eek: :eek: :eek: :naughty: :eek:

[edlglide]

I want to French kiss you for this, but I thought better instead. Expect an original Caravaggio and Rodin's 'Portrait of Balzac' on your doorstep in a week.

An original Caravaggio! Could you please send me one instead? Any will do -- oh, how I love his work.