Far Cry Review PC Zone

[Sprite Machine]

Please don't make me quote from Dictionary.com

"A period of competition or challenge:"

"A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules"

Anyway, it looks like Crytek aren't completely dumb. You can quicksave by putting "\save_game XXX" into the console, and load with "\load_game XXX"

I hope I haven't just completely ruined the game for you

No, not at all. You've just opened up a potential "option 2" situation. One I'll avoid, probably. (unless it's built around an "option 4" game, of course. )

[Sng]

"A period of competition or challenge:"

"A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules"

Nice selective quoting there! I'll do the rest for you...

Hang on, yours was the second definition. This is the first...

An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.

Not just that but your quote seems to be more in relation to sport and competition.

No, not at all. You've just opened up a potential "option 2" situation. One I'll avoid, probably. (unless it's built around an "option 4" game, of course. )

Exactly! I just opened up a potential "option 2".

That's all I was asking for WAY back in the first page of this thread - The ability to quicksave.

[Pob]

Say without Quicksave you do a section, kill all these guys and then see a barrel of explosives in what looks like an amusing position. Without quicksave that is gone and you just have to carry on unless you wanna restart from the last section.

Interesting point. However, I like the idea of being forced to live with your actions. If I muddle through a section, taking heavy damage but triumphing nonetheless, I feel like Nicolas Cage at the end of The Rock.

If I replay each bit until I get it just right I feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day.

[Sprite Machine]

Nice selective quoting there! I'll do the rest for you...

Hang on, yours was the second definition. This is the first...

An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.

Not just that but your quote seems to be more in relation to sport and competition.

I did see that one, I just like to give people more work to do.

Furthermore, the first definition is flawed anyway. "an activity for providing entertainment or amusement"?

Well, wanking falls into that category, but wanking isn't a game, son.

That's all I was asking for WAY back in the first page of this thread - The ability to quicksave.

I never denied you it, sonny jim. B)

[Sng]

Furthermore, the first definition is flawed anyway. "an activity for providing entertainment or amusement"?

Well, wanking falls into that category, but wanking isn't a game, son.

Er... ANYTHING can fall into that category, doesn't mean it has to be a game. Jeeeez...

I never denied you it, sonny jim. B)

But you've been arguing against it being in the game. Although it is anyway, so ner ner.

[Sprite Machine]

Er... ANYTHING can fall into that category, doesn't mean it has to be a game. Jeeeez...

How does it "not have to be a game" in order to fall under the definition of "a game"?

But you've been arguing against it being in the game.

No, I've been arguing against the 'quick-death-reload/repeat' structure that some games impliment to counteract the lessened challenge of quick-saving.

[Sng]

Furthermore, the first definition is flawed anyway. "an activity for providing entertainment or amusement"?

Well, wanking falls into that category, but wanking isn't a game, son.

Do you honestly see nothing wrong with what you said? Does anyone?

That's like me saying "A period of competition or challenge:" is flawed. Your job could be competitive and challenging, doesn't mean it's a game, does it? I didn't pull you up on that cos 1, I'd be wrong, and 2, I'm not that fucking anal.

It's like you're saying you aren't allowed to use the words "entertainment" or "amusing" to define anything?

How does it "not have to be a game" in order to fall under the definition of "a game"?

What aaaaaare you talking about?!

No, I've been arguing against the 'quick-death-reload/repeat' structure that some games impliment to counteract the lessened challenge of quick-saving.

1. Just some games, then?

2. So just YOU'D prefer no quicksave? Fair enough, I'm not you so I don't care how you like to play games.

3. You know I would like quicksave because I would prefer them? And that's the end of that?

[Sprite Machine]

Do you honestly see nothing wrong with what you said? Does anyone?

You misunderstand.

A game without a challenge isn't actually a game - this is the stand I'm making.

You used the dictionary definition to show that a game can simply be something fun, but I stated this definition was flawed as many fun activities aren't actually games, thereby nullifying the definition. Wanking is fun, but wanking isn't a game.

A "game-without-challenge" may be fun, but it also isn't a game. So my point is that definition doesn't fit all games and that a "game" is a challenge to be played out with set of rules to govern it. If it doesn't ft this definition then it isn't a game, just like wanking isn't, despite it being quite fun.

1. Just some games, then?

Yes.

2. So just YOU'D prefer no quicksave? Fair enough, I'm not you so I don't care how you like to play games.

I know. I'm not suggesting anything else.

3. You know I would like quicksave because I would prefer them? And that's the end of that?

That's fine.

I'd personally not play a game that lazily used quicksave to impose stupid random deaths on me, however.

As I've said countless times, I really don't mind what you do at all.

[Sng]

OK, let's imagine for a minute that any game has to be challenging.

(Even though every dictionary definition says games don't have to be challenging... and various games with EyeToy are in no way challenging.)

Does that mean any game with quicksave is not actually a game because it's not challenging?

Firstly, why would having the option of a quicksave remove all challenging aspects of a game?

It wouldn't.

Secondly, why would including quicksave in Far Cry suddenly impose stupid random deaths?

It wouldn't.

Thirdly, "For me a good experience is being able to do whatever I want, try anything I want, knowing that if it all goes wrong I can just start again from wherever I want." How does me saying that mean I should play a tech demo and not a game? Does what I said have anything to do with not liking gameplay? It looks to me that being "able to do whatever I want, try anything I want" is surely nothing but IMPROVING gameplay.

I'm not even sure what points you're trying to make.

[Sprite Machine]

Does that mean any game with quicksave is not actually a game because it's not challenging?

No.

Firstly, why would having the option of a quicksave remove all challenging aspects of a game?

It wouldn't necessarily.

It would, however, reduce various aspects of the overall challenge.

Secondly, why would including quicksave in Far Cry suddenly impose stupid random deaths?

It wouldn't.

Thirdly, "For me a good experience is being able to do whatever I want, try anything I want, knowing that if it all goes wrong I can just start again from wherever I want." How does me saying that mean I should play a tech demo and not a game?

A bit over the top, I'll admit!

You want lots and lots and lots of freedom in your games, yes?

I (jokingly) suggested you just play with tech demos and game engines, etc., instead of finished games as these offer full freedom and 'God modes' to do whatever you like with, so to speak.

Too far? Yeah, alright, forget it then.

It looks to me that being "able to do whatever I want, try anything I want" is surely nothing but IMPROVING gameplay.

Challenge is fundamental to gameplay. You may be enjoying the extra freedom of quicksaving, but you aren't necessarily improving gameplay by reducing challenge and increasing freedom.

But as I said, I don't care what you do, if you're enjoying it it doesn't matter to me either way.

[Sng]

So when I said about the benefits of quicksave, then you say...

Sounds like a tech demo to me. You take out the challenge of the gameplay and the pacing of the encounters and you're left with a virtual world you can go around doing your own thing.

Then I say...

Does that mean any game with quicksave is not actually a game because it's not challenging?

THen you say...

No

It would, however, reduce various aspects of the overall challenge

If abused. What about people who limit quicksaves to make it harder but then are fucked off with stupid checkpoints that slow down gameplay for them? I really don't see how having a quicksave option is ANYTHING like a bad thing? If the option is there and you don't like quicksave, why would you use it?

I (jokingly) suggestly you just play with tech demos and game engines, etc., instead of finished games as these offer full freedom and 'God modes' to do whatever you like with, so to speak.

Difference being games are fun, tech demos aren't.

Challenge is fundamental to gameplay. You may be enjoying the extra freedom of quicksaving, but you aren't necessarily improving gameplay by reducing challenge and increasing freedom.

Wait... so you might be enjoying yourself more, but that doesn't mean gameplay has improved? How does that work?

[Sprite Machine]

So when I said about the benefits of quicksave, then you say...

[messed up quotes]

You add quicksave (as the only method of saving) to any given game and you automatically reduce part of the challenge of the game (the part that sees you being more careful between checkpoints.

Ja?

If abused.

But that's the thing, what counts as abuse?

How many times can you save the game in (my two current examples) Half Life or Tomb Raider 2 before it counts as 'abuse'? Answer being it isn't abuse, it's simply normal use of the save feature.

Adding quicksave artificially to an existing game with its own saving method, however, is a bit different, again depending on how you use it. If you don't use it at all it's not really a problem (though it does allow you to cheat if you use it).

I really don't see how having a quicksave option is ANYTHING like a bad thing?

As I've said, it's only a bad thing when the pacing of the game is designed around such a system. In any other case, it's simply like having a cheat-card to make it more enjoyable (which I've done in the past, muchos fun!), therefore (as I've said) I have no problem with this at all! Shall I write it in bold for you?

Difference being games are fun, tech demos aren't.

Tech demos are fun to play around with (In my opinion, obviously. We all have different ideas of what's 'fun' after all.)

Wait... so you might be enjoying yourself more, but that doesn't mean gameplay has improved? How does that work?

GTA is great fun when you're invinsible! You can do all sorts of crazy shit and not get nicked for it! Just generally play around with the game. I've done it myself. I pretty much only ever played GTA2 with all the cheats activated because I enjoyed it more like that.

The core gameplay, however, was not 'improved', since it was impossible to lose and there was no challenge.

I still enjoyed it more, despite the obvious flaws with the difficulty/learning curve.

[Sng]

You add quicksave (as the only method of saving) to any given game and you automatically reduce part of the challenge of the game (the part that sees you being more careful between checkpoints.

Ja?

NEIN! What if the player is really good and doesn't need checkpoints all the time? I know of games that I've played where checkpoints just freeze the game while it saves at points where I don't want to save. If you wanna play the game and you wanna make it harder, the simple solution is to not use quicksave so much! Surely not a hard concept.

But that's the thing, what counts as abuse?

How many times can you save the game in (my two current examples) Half Life or Tomb Raider 2 before it counts as 'abuse'? Answer being it isn't abuse, it's simply normal use of the save feature.

The point is, it all depends on the player. The better they are, the less they need to save. Saving it every 2 seconds just shows the gamer wants no challenge, which is fair enough if that's what they want, that's just another option Quicksave gives.

As I've said, it's only a bad thing when the pacing of the game is designed around such a system. In any other case, it's simply like having a cheat-card to make it more enjoyable (which I've done in the past, muchos fun!), therefore (as I've said) I have no problem with this at all! Shall I write it in bold for you?

If you have nothing against Quicksave why are you going on so much?

As for your last point, you've completely contradicted yourself. On page three you said "Technically speaking, a game without challenge isn't actually a 'game'".

Yet just there you've said "The core gameplay, however, was not 'improved', since it was impossible to lose and there was no challenge."

So which do you mean, GTA is no longer a game if you cheat, or you can infact have a game without a challenge?

Either is a moot point because quicksave in no way removes all challenge from a game. Some would say it adds challenge. Say in an FPS you have a 10 min section split into 3 parts. Each part is full of action and inbetween each part is a quiet bit.

Which is more challenging, getting through the 3 parts and saving after that 10 min section with half your life left, or doing one part perfectly, then saving, then doing the next part perfectly, then saving, etc.

I'm pretty sure I'd manage to cain it through the 10mins and then save a lot easier than I would go through each part save by save, making sure I took out all the enemies really efficiently without losing life.

I guess everyone's different when it comes to that but I know when I finish that game it would feel a lot more 'complete' if I know I went through it all perfectly.

[___]

OK so after all that, you agree that having a quicksave option is a good thing?

. <- the point

soong -> .

[patriot]

i didn't think pc zone was out for a couple of more weeks. maybe i was thinking of pc gamer. anyway, pre-ordered it from play. something like €30.

and i agree with the checkpoit save thing. most pc games should implament that.

[Sprite Machine]

If you have nothing against Quicksave why are you going on so much?

It's just a discussion, man, about various problems quicksave can bring about.

I'm not having a go or anything.

NEIN! What if the player is really good and doesn't need checkpoints all the time?

Irrelevant.

I'm talking about the inherent change quicksaving brings about as opposed to the same game without it.

A game that uses save points (or rooms, or whatever) has getting to new checkpoints as part of the challenge, the game's pace matched to that, with various obstacles to overcome on the way.

The same scenario with a quicksave feature does not have this same challenge, because the pacing of the obstacles and the safety/danger ratio is skewed entirely in the player's favour.

Howver, like you say, it's only a problem if the player chooses to use it, however when quicksave is the only way to save the game (see HL, TR2, etc) then there is no way around it - the difficulty pacing is lost. You can't choose not to abuse it since you don't know what's coming and what normal use constitutes since you have to use it to save at all.

As for your last point, you've completely contradicted yourself. On page three you said "Technically speaking, a game without challenge isn't actually a 'game'".

Yet just there you've said "The core gameplay, however, was not 'improved', since it was impossible to lose and there was no challenge."

So which do you mean, GTA is no longer a game if you cheat, or you can infact have a game without a challenge?

No, infact(sic) you can't have a game without challenge, but then I slightly exagerated the point that GTA2 wihtout cheats was "without challenge" - I should have said it had "less challenge". So apologies for that, however I stand by my point that GTA2 with cheats active was inferior gameplay, and largely pointless, despite being quite entertaining.

Either is a moot point because quicksave in no way removes all challenge from a game.

No, I never meant that it did, either.

It removes various aspects of the challenge. But, again, it really does depend on the game how that is implimented.

In Half Life, for example, there were plenty of sudden-death sections; pipes would fall on you, floors would open underneath you and collapse, enemies that would jump out from hidden corridors, etc. This was how it introduced most of the challenging aspects. Had the game simply used Save Rooms (a la Metroid, for example) there is no way Valve would have allowed such random death sections into the game, and we'd have ended up with something with a better difficulty balance as opposed to the slightly sloppy result we currently have (though that said, I still like Half Life a hell of a lot!).

Some would say it adds challenge. Say in an FPS you have a 10 min section split into 3 parts. Each part is full of action and inbetween each part is a quiet bit.

Which is more challenging, getting through the 3 parts and saving after that 10 min section with half your life left, or doing one part perfectly, then saving, then doing the next part perfectly, then saving, etc.

Obviously it'd be more challenging to get through it in one go. But if you're using quicksave as your only means of saving the game, why would you subject yourself to that? You'd have no idea what's coming, so not saving the game would just be stupid, wouldn't it?

You could make it more difficult for yourself, yes. You could also play it with one hand too, if you wanted to.

Quicksave gives freedom, feedom reduces challenge if you take advantage of it.

Fine, if you don't (and won't) take advantage of it, it's not a problem, but tell me something -

When quicksaving is the only method of saving in a game, how (and where) do you draw the line between 'use' and 'abuse'?

[Sng]

So now you're saying games can be made harder with quicksave (You could make it more difficult for yourself, yes.) as well as games could be made easier with quicksave (Quicksave gives freedom, feedom reduces challenge if you take advantage of it.)

So with quicksave, you have a game that can be made harder, or easier, depending on how you like to play games?

Yet quicksave is still a bad thing?

I'm not talking about a game that has nothing but quicksave, no game that I've played has ever had that. Half Life had autosave and quicksave as an option. Never played TR2 but I assume it had something similar.

When quicksaving is the only method of saving in a game, how (and where) do you draw the line between 'use' and 'abuse'?

Entirely up to the player. They should use it when and where they see fit, to make sure the game never frustrates them.

[Sprite Machine]

I'm not talking about a game that has nothing but quicksave, no game that I've played has ever had that. Half Life had autosave and quicksave as an option. Never played TR2 but I assume it had something similar.

Que?

Half-life had a auto-save??!

Granted, it's been a long while since I played it, but I thought it was entirely user-saved.

How frequently does it auto-save then?

And no, Tomb Raider 2 doesn't have a checkpoint system. You save the game yourself at any time you want. There are no guidelines telling you when to save, nothing to back you up - if you die you go back to where you last saved it. And because it was so easy to go back to any point, it was purposely made unfair by having stupid death-trap things that just killed you instantly. Very lazy and annoying, basically.

The first game didn't suffer from this and had a well-spaced checkpoint system (floating save crystals, I recall). The way it degraded over those two games is painfully clear.

Perhaps you've just not experienced such annoyances. Seems you steered clear of those games that feature it.

When quicksaving is the only method of saving in a game, how (and where) do you draw the line between 'use' and 'abuse'?

Entirely up to the player. They should use it when and where they see fit, to make sure the game never frustrates them.

But if it never frustrates them, then it's 'abuse' of the system, isn't it. How do you know when it isn't abuse? You see the problem there?

[Sng]

Granted, it's been a long while since I played it, but I thought it was entirely user-saved.

How frequently does it auto-save then?

Not sure how often it was. Suitable places though.

But if it never frustrates them, then it's 'abuse' of the system, isn't it.

Why is it? Most people use quicksave to rid the game of frustration. Abusing the system in my eyes is just quicksaving every 2mins but if people want to do that then they're clearly happy doing that, which is fine with me.

[Sprite Machine]

Abusing the system in my eyes is just quicksaving every 2mins...

Why 2 minutes?

Why not draw the line at 3 minutes? Or 1 and a half? Or after every firefight?

Why is every 2 minutes 'abuse' (in your eyes)?

[Sng]

Stop being picky

Just replace the generic "2 mins" comment to "as often as they can".

In my eyes that's abuse cos I don't think games should be played like that. It would take out element of risk. But again, if they're happy then good for them. Just shows the versatility of gameplay quicksave allows.

[Sprite Machine]

It would take out element of risk.

Bingo!

Right then, I'm off.

[Sng]

If abused, yeah... so just don't abuse it?

What is your point? You've already said that quicksaves can either make the game harder or easier for the player, so... ?

You've also said a game isn't a game if there is no challenge but then gone onto say GTA is fun with invincibility even though "there was no challenge".

So your various contradictions have just hidden your point away somewhere.

[Sprite Machine]

If abused, yeah... so just don't abuse it?

Yeah, but what is 'abuse' of the system, and what is 'normal use'?

Oh wait, 2 minutes, right?

You've also said a game isn't a game if there is no challenge but then gone onto say GTA is fun with invincibility even though "there was no challenge".

I already said that was an exageration on my part, for which I apologise.

GTA-with-cheats is less challenging and has inferior gameplay, despite me enjoying it more for a while.

So your various contradictions have just hidden your point away somewhere.

I've not contradicted anything, I think you're seeing multiple points where I have only one.

Namely; quicksave takes out some element of challenge.

That is all.

[Sng]

Yeah, but what is 'abuse' of the system, and what is 'normal use'?

Oh wait, 2 minutes, right?

What are you on about? PERSONALLY, I think that would be abusing it, yes. Anything wrong with me thinking that? If the player thinks doing that isn't abusing quicksave, then that's fine for them!

I've not contradicted anything, I think you're seeing multiple points where I have only one.

Namely; quicksave takes out some element of challenge.

That is all.

But...

You could make it more difficult for yourself, yes.

[Sprite Machine]

What are you on about? PERSONALLY, I think that would be abusing it, yes.

So why not 3 minutes? Why not 1 and a half? Why not after every encounter?

Two minutes isn't always abuse, just like sometimes 30 seconds can be far too long, depending on what's going on at the time.

If you're given total freedom to do as you wish, you have less restriction and less challenge as a direct result of quicksave. Not saving the game is not a direct result of quicksaving, but rather a result of player decision-making. So there is no contradiction there.

[Sng]

Again, why are you still talking about what counts as "abusing" the system? That's a personal thing... Why not 3mins? I can't be exact to the minute can I? I just mean "very often" with my "2 min" comment. Yes, some might not see that as abuse, fair play to them.

If you're given total freedom to do as you wish, you have less restriction and less challenge as a direct result of quicksave.

Unless you wanna make it harder by not using quicksave, or just using it twice a level, or whatever...

Then the lack of checkpoint saves will make it more challenging, no?

Not saving the game is not a direct result of quicksaving, but rather a result of player decision-making.

When and where to use and not to use quicksave is ALL player decision-making.

Tailoring the game to suit their needs. What more could you want from a game?

[Sprite Machine]

Again, why are you still talking about what counts as "abusing" the system? That's a personal thing... Why not 3mins? I can't be exact to the minute can I?

Precisely.

Unless you wanna make it harder by not using quicksave, or just using it twice a level, or whatever...

Yes, unless YOU (the player) wants to make it harder.

Guess what? You could make it even harder by closing your eyes, or playing with oven mitts on, but it's still not a result of quicksaving is it?

Quicksave inherently reduces risk. TRUFAX.

[Sprite Machine]

Tailoring the game to suit their needs. What more could you want from a game?

A bit of a challenge wouldn't go amiss.

[Sng]

And you said yourself, you can make a game harder by not using quicksave as much.

So you can have a challenging game with quicksave, right?