Lo-Fi Games

Body Decay would be nice sometime, but I think it would tie in with Animals (they would eat the bodies) and day/night cycles ( it would happen under the cover of darkness) you could also make an option for how many days (if any) you want the bodies to last.

Yeah, this is probably on it's way with future patches.

Yeah, with body decay the player would not become extremely rich as fast (going back for the rest of the loot) but it seems I mostly worry as to how long will the body last in game time (i.e. if my character has a broken leg and can hardly walk how much time do I have). I do like the day/night cycle idea, but what happens if you kill an enemy during night will the body disappear at day? I think that the bodies should last at least a few day/night cycles.

toaster Assassin wrote:(i.e. if my character has a broken leg and can hardly walk how much time do I have).

Be glad you got away with only a broken leg and stop worrying about loot.

Chris had intended for there to be no save feature in this game.
He intended for you to have to crawl or stumble or be carried back to a town.
He intended for you to bleed out even when bandaged and lose that character forever and have to start over.

This was intended to be a hardcore game.

SynysterOne wrote: Chris had intended for there to be no save feature in this game.

This was intended to be a hardcore game.

That's far less hardcore, and far more annoying, to be honest.

How, that annoying? Oh no, I can't save the game and run into a giant horde hoping I live.

Oh no, I didn't equip my army well enough and ran into a 50v50 battle. Good thing I can just load and retry it later.


<_< Saving/Loading only helps you if you don't think things through, there's no reason to have it otherwise.

SynysterOne wrote: <_< Saving/Loading only helps you if you don't think things through, there's no reason to have it otherwise.

Bzzt. Saving and loading must be done if you are to play the same instance of the game for more than one session. Further, if loading a previously saved point in the game is not provided for, people will simply fall back on copying files.

At that point it does become a matter of annoyance instead of difficulty.

Obviously you'd be able to save on exit and load that back.

But fine, if you don't want to play the game the way it was intended then go ahead and cheat the system. It just means the game was too hard for you.

TBFProgrammer wrote: Bzzt. Saving and loading must be done if you are to play the same instance of the game for more than one session. Further, if loading a previously saved point in the game is not provided for, people will simply fall back on copying files.

You can still save on exit, so playing multiple sessions should not be a problem.

The only thing that changes in my opinion, is that you cant quicksave just before a big battle and "try it out" and then quickload when it turns out bad.
But if you really want to save before a battle, you just have to save/quit the game and enter again and if you dont like the outcome afterwards quit without saving.

1337 wrote:dont like the outcome afterwards quit without saving.

That wont be possible, if you quit it will force a save.
But I mean, if you don't want to roleplay the game that's fine.
If you want to maximize your stats and make sure you have the easiest time getting to the end of the game and max stats, then that's your decision.

Let's just leave it at that.

SynysterOne wrote: That wont be possible, if you quit it will force a save.

there's always a way even if u have to ctrl+alt+delete the game^^

anyway im all for hardcore

SynysterOne wrote:Obviously you'd be able to save on exit and load that back.

But fine, if you don't want to play the game the way it was intended then go ahead and cheat the system. It just means the game was too hard for you.

The point was two-fold:
1) The functionality already exists from the developers point of view
2) You can't actually stop people from using the option

So, why not let people save?

Hardcore: see 2
Waste of dev time (aka no point): see 1



By the way, since you can still play without using the saves as insurance, then what is the harm in letting others use it that way? Hardcore is fine (even great if it doesn't force a grind), but the game will go much further if it is simply supported, not mandated.

TBFProgrammer wrote: By the way, since you can still play without using the saves as insurance, then what is the harm in letting others use it that way? Hardcore is fine (even great if it doesn't force a grind), but the game will go much further if it is simply supported, not mandated.

I never said there was a harm.
But you are taking the point that I'm deviating from what the Dev had initially planned for the game. When it is in fact you who are.
The save/load feature is ONLY in this game for the TESTING phase.

I assume he will be removing later so that he can get his idea across as to how this game was supposed to be played and what it was meant to be like.

He wants it to be a growing persistent world that gives you both ups AND downs. A great movie makes you feel happy and sad.
I believe that is what Chris is aiming for. You are only going to get half the experience if you play in a manner not intended, such as saving before doing anything risky so that all you ever get are ups without downs.
Congrats, you maximized what was possible in this game, never lost a fight because you saved before hand. Shame it wasn't actually the game that everyone else was playing, or that the Dev intended it to be.
If you want everything handed to you on a silver platter, go DL the godmode mod I made for testing and people like you.
It's the best of everything you can do in the game at this current juncture, which is what you want, is it not? Easy way to the max.


If you don't want to play the game it was meant to be, why are you here?
Surely your not here because you like the game as a whole, but don't like a feature or 2, and you intend to bitch and moan until you get the Dev to change the way he envisioned his game and change the features to what you wanted?
If you don't like the game, don't buy it. Don't even waste our time posting on this forum.
Never buy a game and then bitch at the Devs to change it to the way you want.



I'm not going to try reasoning with you anymore, you just reject anything that isn't what you want.

^^^ Woah, chill man. No need to get up in arms about it. Just being realistic, Chris is probably going to end up keeping an exit-without-saving mode, just because I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people who'll want that, and he'll probably want those people to buy the game as much as anyone else. As long as it doesn't interfere with the "hardcore" mode, I don't see why he wouldn't accommodate them.

I'm not sure what this all has to do with body decay though.

P-Cat wrote:I'm not sure what this all has to do with body decay though.

Not a thing.

yea having both modes is fine, so people can choose if they want to play hardcore or not, can you imagine if fallout NV *Forced* hardcore mode? it would suck.

SynysterOne wrote: I never said there was a harm.
But you are taking the point that I'm deviating from what the Dev had initially planned for the game. When it is in fact you who are.

I am not, in fact, stating that. I am simply remarking on the futility of attempting to take the course that you (I can't find any place where Chris discusses options for saving the game, I don't suppose you have a source?) state has been planned for this game.

That said, I don't actually have a problem with the philosophy. I am just not seeing the feasibility.

I'm not going to try reasoning with you anymore, you just reject anything that isn't what you want.

P-Cat wrote: I'm not sure what this all has to do with body decay though.

Nothing, sorry.

TBFProgrammer wrote:(I can't find any place where Chris discusses options for saving the game, I don't suppose you have a source?) state has been planned for this game.

http://www.indiedb.com/games/kenshi/fea ... r-of-death

'Saving is bad.
Characters cannot die in games. Sure they can die, but the player will reload and try again until they don’t die. Imagine if we could save and re-load in real life - It would be a superpower, you could achieve anything you wanted to without even making a mistake. In games it is no different, it is also a superpower. Saving in games eliminates the fear, tension and emotion that would otherwise be present if it was an experience in real life.'

That is only part of what Captain DeathBeard A.K.A. Chris said.
Please read the rest of the article as it elaborates on his reasons and other interesting facts.

An interesting article. However, leaving the save ability in would provide good feedback on how well the medical system is balanced. I guess I would say that it should stay in at least through the beta and I still doubt whether removing it will actually dissuade people from saving if they are using it at the point it is removed.


If people feel the need to rely on the saves they will continue to do so, no matter how hard you make it for them. However, when you can show that even with saves easily accessible people are more than willing to roll with the punches, the philosophy of the article will be proven.

Basically, the game would actually manage to conduct a valid experiment on the merits of hardcore gaming, beyond the limits of feelings of superiority.



That said, Chris will do as deems fit and whether people work around his intentions or not remains an unknown. (Thanks for the source)

No problem.

Just one more thing though, it may prove to be more valid if we leave the save system in and people don't use it.

But, think of it this way.

We have a barrel of water with fish in it.
And we have a river with fish in it.

We give a man a fishing pole and tell him to pick from which object to fish.
We tell him it will be difficult to catch fish from the river.
We tell him it will be easy to catch fish from the barrel.

The man is obviously going to catch fish from the barrel.

What the man wasn't told is that it will be more enjoyable and more rewarding to fish from the river.


If we were to present a man who has been forced to fish from a river before, those same choices. He would un-doubtedly choose to fish from the river. Because having done so before, he knows that it's about the journey there and the experience of getting there. Rather than the end result of just having the fish.


The point of this being that if we give ppl both options they'll just choose to save because it's easier, and they've never known better or been forced to try it without saving.

IF people were to try the game without saving first, and I don't mean 30 minutes to an hour. I mean forced to try it for 24 hours or so of gameplay. And they still wanted the save feature. Then I wouldn't have any problem with them having it.


I apologize for my anger and ire at you earlier. It was un-reasonable for me to get so angry over something that didn't matter so much.

-Apologies
~SynysterOne