Put in a saving function ASAP

[burgzaza]

-Why is it a bad choice exactly ? because you're too busy to learn how to play without dying ?
-I said not the only modern game that use no manual save system. There are plenty rogue likes, and Dark souls is a RPG without manual save, but with checkpoints, like in the 90's ! ...
-A hardcore game requires you invesment, you know by advance it will be hard, take you time to learn, etc. Save is ammong the multiple things that makes this game a hardcore one.

 

[NachoDawg]

Yeah no, I'd be against any "normal" save function. A Dark Souls' like system would be just fine.

After spending about 4 hours every day since release on Exanima, I have to say that it is crucial not to make the game too cheap. Quick-saving and quick-loading would just ruin the satisfaction of completing something difficult.

As long as the deaths don't feel unwarranted, dealing with a respawn/checkpoint system is a lot of fun. Because every time you're able to advance, you know you did so in the face of a challenge. You probably learned something through all those tries, and you didn't just cheese your way with an infinite amount of attempts.

 

[Agnes]

"Design choice" - well this is the Feedback forum is it not? The feedback here, in regard to your point, is that not having a save system is a bad choice.
"why even back a hardcore game" - show me where on the Kickstarter page the word "hardcore" is listed. Show me where on the Kickstarter it says there won't be a save system. Not even to mention the fact that "hardcore" in no way implies lack of save system. Look at Age of Decadence, arguably one of the "hardest core" RPGs in development, even that has a save system.

Well it was mentioned on the Ks page...In the about the game section just below the second screenshot:

"As you advance in Sui Generis you won't see creatures or characters in the world becoming more powerful with you. Rather, you will be able to face opponents and explore locations that previously entailed certain death. Death will not be hard to come by and carries consequences, and there is no saving and loading. The game will put you in situations where trying to get out alive may be your only concern. We believe this is important to keep the game exciting. What's a game if you can't lose?"

 

[ShaolinG]

Well it was mentioned on the Ks page...In the about the game section just below the second screenshot:

"As you advance in Sui Generis you won't see creatures or characters in the world becoming more powerful with you. Rather, you will be able to face opponents and explore locations that previously entailed certain death. Death will not be hard to come by and carries consequences, and there is no saving and loading. The game will put you in situations where trying to get out alive may be your only concern. We believe this is important to keep the game exciting. What's a game if you can't lose?"

So there will be only checkpoints in the beginning of levels? I think you guys should write it in bold on steam page and on your site, because people will be pissed. I hope if there will be big levels, there will be some checkpoint opportunity. IMHO lose more than 30-40 minutes - will harm the game.

 

[Tony]

So there will be only checkpoints in the beginning of levels? I think you guys should write it in bold on steam page and on your site, because people will be pissed. I hope if there will be big levels, there will be some checkpoint opportunity. IMHO lose more than 30-40 minutes - will harm the game.

I believe losing 30-40 minutes of gameplay is an appropriate consequence for dying... I repeat: dying. Not stubbing your toe, not being tickled by a feather, but something that should be taken very seriously and have very real consequences. This makes a player stop and think about what they do instead of just mindlessly rushing through a game without worrying about it because they know there is always a way to go back in time and undo their choices (by saving and loading).

 

[ShaolinG]

I believe losing 30-40 minutes of gameplay is an appropriate consequence for dying... I repeat: dying. Not stubbing your toe, not being tickled by a feather, but something that should be taken very seriously and have very real consequences. This makes a player stop and think about what they do instead of just mindlessly rushing through a game without worrying about it because they know there is always a way to go back in time and undo their choices (by saving and loading).

I'm not saying about manually save/load - it will harm game too. But you know, with all this not rendered animations and another physics stuff, you can die in almost every place) and you have real life, where your back can ichy or wife can walk nearby in underwear. Or even computer lag. And you will lose 2-3 hours of progress. There is a wall between good hardcore gameplay and self punishment.

 

[Tony]

I'm not saying about manually save/load - it will harm game too. But you know, with all this not rendered animations and another physics stuff, you can die in almost every place) and you have real life, where your back can ichy or wife can walk nearby in underwear. Or even computer lag. And you will lose 2-3 hours of progress. There is a wall between good hardcore gameplay and self punishment.

If something in real life comes up, like the distractions you previously mentioned, simply press the 'esc' key once and it will bring up the menu and pause the game. This allows you to do whatever is necessary in real life without worrying about what is occurring in the game.

It is quite possible to survive in the game simply by making wise decisions since almost all combat can be avoided. I watched a new person who was playing the game for the first time reach the third level by doing just so. He was careful to not act aggressive towards zombies and keep his distance. If a zombie did try to attack him he'd run away and close a door. Using smart tactics enabled him to progress quite far despite not being very proficient at combat. He knew he wasn't very good at it so he was smart and avoided it. This is exactly what Bare Mettle want players to do: take the game seriously and think before acting since everything you do is permanent and has real consequences.

It is up to the player whether or not they choose to punish themselves in the game. If a player chooses to take more risks then they should expect a higher chance for failure. The game is fair and allows the player to make things as easy or as hard on themselves as they'd like since combat can be avoided and is not forced upon the player.

Almost all fights can be avoided by running away and most of the zombies are neutral unless provoked. This means it's up to the player to choose when, where and under what conditions a fight occurs. If a player is not confident in their fighting abilities then they should probably avoid fighting until they find decent gear to increase their odds of survival.

 

[ShaolinG]

If a zombie did try to attack him he'd run away and close a door.

It is up to the player whether or not they choose to punish themselves in the game. If a player chooses to take more risks then they should expect a higher chance for failure. The game is fair and allows the player to make things as easy or as hard on themselves as they'd like.

If honestly, I thought that zombies can't open doors because it's only beta))
I think there will be npc's that will be able to chase you? And i'm not talking about this weak creatures, but those big armored guy with huge swinging hammer. I don't think he will be as kindly. Well, it's all subjective, I hope developers will make right choices about balance between fun-harcore and nerdy-redeye-hardcore.

 

[Tony]

If honestly, I thought that zombies can't open doors because it's only beta))
I think there will be npc's that will be able to chase you? And i'm not talking about this weak creatures, but those big armored guy with huge swinging hammer. I don't think he will be as kindly. Well, it's all subjective, I hope developers will make right choices about balance between fun-harcore and nerdy-redeye-hardcore.

Zombies not being able to open doors is not a mistake and is quite intentional. Zombies can't open doors for the same reason they don't parry: they're simple-minded creatures. The devs intentionally did not add creatures at the start that were capable of opening doors for this exact reason; they wanted to keep the gameplay fair and allow the player other options than fighting when they are first starting out and trying to survive.

I do not think you need to worry about the devs making the game unfair by placing you in impossible situations just for difficulty's sake. They've put a lot of thought into designing everything and they always want the player to have many options and solutions instead of being forced down a narrow path. Again I stress this point: how difficult the game will be is determined by the choices the player makes.

 

[Ruusunpuna]

Here's a copy of my recent Steam-forum post with my view on the saving-topic:

"I oppose a standard save/load system, not because I want to play a "difficult" or artificially "hardcore" game. I feel much like Sir Galahad in his post:

Originally posted by Sir Galahad the pure:
"When I think of games with quick save/load... I see myself playing Fallout and loading everytime I feel I took too mutch damage or spent too mutch bullets. Never lost a battle in a Total War ( I loaded everytime I lost one ) etc... It truly kills the challenge. But Even if the option to not have saves is there, I often play with saves... and abuse it."

I truly think modern saving takes away from the experience and lessens meaning and immersion. If I meet a new or highly geared enemy and I save, then I can just run straight at it and fight it a thousand times till I win. I don't want that, I want to be afraid and have to think if it's worth it, I should probably avoid it... And that kind of thing to me, is very essential to Exanima. Now you say, "What's wrong with options?" Like Galahad, I know I would abuse a save system, and it would hurt my experience. I believe this is the case with most people.

Now, I'm not that happy with the current system either. And I don't think this is a black and white issue like most people are making it. I don't find much joy in bee-lining through the first maps, not reading the lore, just trying to get through the game as fast as possible...

I think it would be a cool solution to have maybe two items in the game that would let you put a one-time save whenever, so that if you die, you could restart once from that point. This item would ofcourse be lore-friendly. If not that, I believe I could submit to a checkpoint for each level. Ofcourse the global skill-system which will be implemented is going to help with the repetition..."

 

[Tony]

Now, I'm not that happy with the current system either. And I don't think this is a black and white issue like most people are making it. I don't find much joy in bee-lining through the first maps, not reading the lore, just trying to get through the game as fast as possible...

Hmm did someone recommend to beeline through the maps, skipping the lore and exploration? I would highly advise against this approach unless you've already experienced everything numerous times since the lore adds a lot to the atmosphere of the game.

I love the current approach of allowing the player to choose how difficult the game is based upon your actions and choices, which works well thanks to permadeath being a very strong detterent to playing recklessly. This gives a player incentive to think before acting, so allowing the player to bypass the permadeath system at will nullifies the only real consequence which currenlty exists and undermines the sense of survival being a real and important aspect of gameplay.

 

[Ruusunpuna]

Hmm did someone recommend to beeline through the maps, skipping the lore and exploration? I would highly advise against this approach unless you've already experienced everything numerous times since the lore adds a lot to the atmosphere of the game.

No, of course I immerse myself and take in the whole world and it's lore the first times I encounter new things. But when I've "already experienced everything numerous times" I don't find much point in going through it all again, time after time... There are only so many times you can read a lore-text again and again.

I love the current approach of allowing the player to choose how difficult the game is based upon your actions and choices, which works well thanks to permadeath being a very strong detterent to playing recklessly. This gives a player incentive to think before acting, so allowing the player to bypass the permadeath system at will nullifies the only real consequence which currenlty exists and undermines the sense of survival being a real and important aspect of gameplay.

I'm with you. As I stated, I'm very much in support of meaningful gameplay and to a certain extent, permadeath. I do also believe my idea would preserve most of permadeaths good things while also catering to less repetitive gameplay.

 

[Downstairs Eddie]

I think a checkpoint after the first level would work, since the first level is probably the hardest. Once you've made it past the first level you probably have decent armour and weapons, so you'll be taking stamina damage mostly.

I don't think there's a need for any more checkpoints than that until more content is added.

 

[Colinski283]

Maybe an "Easy mode" could be implemented with some saves or something.

 

[Jean-Paul]

I think it is irrelevant what peoples opinion is on a save mechanic when you have the option to enable or disable it. Those who want a challenge can disable it those who get frustrated can save. There are a lot of different people who like different things. That's why i like this game: it is different. Not that it doesn't have a manual save mechanic but that it's general gameplay mechanics are so fun.
To me the gameplay is a story in itself. If I die, that complete story is lost. Telling me to not die is lame though because you can only learn by failing. If that means losing my progress then that just sucks.

 

[NachoDawg]

I think it is irrelevant what peoples opinion is on a save mechanic when you have the option to enable or disable it. Those who want a challenge can disable it those who get frustrated can save. There are a lot of different people who like different things. That's why i like this game: it is different. Not that it doesn't have a manual save mechanic but that it's general gameplay mechanics are so fun.
To me the gameplay is a story in itself. If I die, that complete story is lost. Telling me to not die is lame though because you can only learn by failing. If that means losing my progress then that just sucks.

I disagree. Because you can make that argument for any mechanic.

Any game could easily implementering a god mode that turns on and off from the option menu. The game design choices the devs decide on has a massive impact on how the game is percieved. If they to willy-nilly with what possible then that can be detrimental to the communal experience, and ultimately how the game is recieved in the press or by critics.

 

[Faelivrin]

Optional checkpoints for each level might be added:
http://steamcommunity.com/app/362490/discussions/0/620712999966468678/#c620712999966521691

 

[Jean-Paul]

I disagree. Because you can make that argument for any mechanic.

Any game could easily implementering a god mode that turns on and off from the option menu. The game design choices the devs decide on has a massive impact on how the game is percieved. If they to willy-nilly with what possible then that can be detrimental to the communal experience, and ultimately how the game is recieved in the press or by critics.

lol I don't care about the press. I'm a selfish consumer who only cares about his own experience. But you are actually right. But the thing is you could also argue that it is not only the opinion of the press that is affected by it. Also the opinion of the people who play it:

I could play a game that has a hardcore mode that I wouldn't enable cause I don't like it. Then the question is: could a certain person who would enable hardcore-mode (or ironman or whatever) enjoy the game as much as me knowing there was an option to play non hardcore?

 

[Jean-Paul]

Just read your post.

Optional checkpoints for each level might be added:
http://steamcommunity.com/app/362490/discussions/0/620712999966468678/#c620712999966521691

Yeah can't play it like the dev said. I find it very frustrating. Maybe I'll try the save copy thing then.

 

[Anthony Obilor]

Just read your post.


Yeah can't play it like the dev said. I find it very frustrating. Maybe I'll try the save copy thing then.

You find it frustrating because you are trying to finish the campaign before you know how to play properly. After playing for hours on end and getting used to the controls, I find the zombies most of the times very easy, even before I gear up. It depends what they are armed with and how I'm playing. I only really enjoy and am good when I totally immerse myself in the game, playing as if it was me, the controls respond quite immersively accurate alot of the time. There are those moments when the perfect thrust was just missing, I hope we have torso stab kills where u bury ur sword to the hilt and you freeze for a second and then draw out your blade to let him fall to the floor. *boom, too boss Yea.