I’m disappointed in your replies. Four out of the six replies basically sum up to:
“No, because I don’t want to do it, it should not be a feature, but here is a long, and annoying way to do it anyways.”
No one will debate your personal preference, nor would anyone have a right to do so. My suggestion was to merely make the game more accessible to a broader range of people without sacrificing the integrity of the game. I enjoy perma-death, as well. I would play on the Hardcore Mode that I previously mentioned. I’ve been playing Dwarf Fortress for 6 years and I understand the feeling of accomplishment a difficult task brings to a game.
But is it wrong to make an attempt to make a game accessible to others who may not feel the same way? I think CDDA is a fantastic game; the code is clean, and the design is sound. It has reasonable capabilities to becoming a simple game engine for total conversion mods because of this. That is another topic, however. I submitted a suggestion to increase it’s accessibility and a way to maintain the game’s integrity for those who prefer a higher difficulty and not a single reply with a constructive argument or suggestion was given or even a counter-arguement beyond “I don’t play that way, so screw everyone else.” and I find that rather unproductive.
[quote=“Reservoir, post:3, topic:5464”]No.
Simply because you can explore a building, die from whatever reason and quick-load a save. Ta-da you know where the good equipment is.
“Nothing interesting in the north road, better quick-load and take the south bridge!”
“Bionic installation/mutation gone wrong? Just quick-load a save and try again” (happened in FO3 with the conversation stuff) This applies to conversations and crafting (and possibly other things I cant think of)
Fallout 3/NV has a quick-load option because all the rooms aren’t randomly generated. That mininuke is going to appear in the same spot everytime you start a game.[/quote]
The basis of your argument is near to a philosophical discussion on the morality of allowing people to make their own decisions with the tools provided to them. You seem to say that because people will misuse a feature, regardless of those who may use it “correctly” (who decide that, I will never know), that no one should have access to that feature. Because a man named Ted doesn’t like difficult games, but likes zombies, and he may load a quick save if something goes wrong, that no one else should be allowed to have access to that feature because you feel that he would be misusing it. Then is that not the case with a variety of other implemented, customization game features such as setting your max skill points, or adjusting item and zombie spawn rates? These should be removed from the game then, as well, because these could possibly be misused by people to make the game easier, and not up to the standard of difficult set by yourself.
You’re the only one who, to now, has actually provided a strong counter-argument to my suggestion. Thank you. However, then, if my goal would be to increase accessibility of the game to the vastly larger group of people who prefer games that do not penalize them to that extent, do you have a suggestion how that might be accomplished?
Also, haven’t spent a great deal of time researching the progression of Cataclysm’s design, many features have been implemented that allow a form of difficulty manipulation now found in Dwarf Fortress either, and that the DF community responded to this by creating the Lazy Newbie Mod Pack and Masterwork, both of which allows manipulation of variables not made easily accessible to the user. Do you feel Cataclysm is different, even though implementation of variables such as item spawn rates, zombie spawn rates, and default skill point levels would clearly, at least to me, seem to provide evidence to the contrary? I understand that perma-death, a very widely accepted and criticized feature, is sacred to the definition of what a rogue-like is, but as I presented a way to not only keep perma-death, but allow those who do not prefer it to play the game their way, I am unsure as to where the problem lies beyond, as stated in the previous quote, a philosophical discussion on the morality of providing potentially misused tools to everyone instead of reserving the right to distribute those “features” to who “we” (still unsure who that is) decide, a discussion, I might add, which is both above, and beyond the scope of this game (or is it? I suppose we’ll find out).
[quote=“Robik, post:5, topic:5464”]I would not be against such feature. In the end, it is user who decide if he is using it or not. If implemented as optional toggle, it might be useful for testing purposes.
I am against making other changes to the game, “because save is possible now” though.
By the way, isn’t quick save and quick load implemented already, without key binding?[/quote]
I’m not entirely sure. From reviewing the systems already in the game, even if the feature was not already fully implemented it would only be a few steps away from being able to be introduced. I’m not sure if only adding a quick save/load feature would be good, though, without offering an option to disable it such as hardcore mode to remove any temptation, or moral ambiguity it could cause.
I fully agree perma-death should stay a thing. It’s an integral part of this game, as it is in all rogue-likes. Which is why I suggested that if a quick save/load feature (which you’ve already proven can be accomplished, but with a minor annoyance to only those who would prefer to utilize it, people who would surely be turned off, as they are, to being forced in to some kind of self-righteous punishment doled out by those who feel perma-death is more important and that all who dare play cataclysm should be subjected to it) that also a Hardcore Mode would be implemented for those who do not wish, me included, to use a quick save/load feature.
So as you’ve stated, it’s both possible and would be helpful in a few situations, I could only assume that if implementation of it would be done correctly then you’d have no problem with it? Then what would you consider the correct way to implement this feature in to game, and what concerns have you? Do you have other ways to achieve the same goal of making the game more accessible?
[quote=“Adrian, post:7, topic:5464”]No.
Because permadeath is more than a punishment for stupidity.
By having permadeath in the game the player will be encouraged to make tactical decisions regarding his course of action. I myself am currently thinking about how to sneak into town best to grab a masive cache of ammo and tools i discovered but was unable to bring with me during the zombie-less start of my game.[/quote]
I believe my first 2 responses also cover any response I would have to this reply as well. Perhaps more so due to your use of the phrase “punishment for stupidity” which, in this case, would only apply to those would play this game, but do not understand why they need to play on an arbitrary standard set by “us” (that word again… who gave “us” the right to dictate moral righteousness to everyone…).
Sure there are those who would understand the accomplishment that can be gained from playing a game with perma-death among other rewards, but at the same time not giving people who do not understand a means to step in to that environment seems almost unacceptable when no reasonable argument for not doing so is presented. I suggested a way to retain perma-death to the fullest extent along side of a way to increase the game’s accessibility to people who have not yet, or will not, come to see our side of that argument. As of 6 replies, 4 against, only one person has made the smallest attempt at giving a reasonable argument of opposition. But let us not end this discussion here, perhaps by the time we’re done we’ll have accomplished something important.
In the end, I had expected similar replies already as part of the reason I find rogue-likes so interested, beyond game mechanics, is that the communities structured around them appear to be a self-righteous bastion of hope for gaming as a whole. Refusal to sell out, or become even remotely accessible by diminishing their iconic features is ironically noble. Those who do sell out and lower themselves in order to turn a profit come under extensive scrutiny and condemnation by the entire community. It’s almost a gloriously primitive system of honour and nobility. But this is entirely a different topic, and not important towards my original suggestion.
