chakkman

Programmers have a habit of beating you round the head with terms only they can understand. You'll get used to it.

So, anyone played it yet? I just read this in the Steam recensions: "Loving the art style but im just so confused dunno what to do the whole time" Maybe it IS for me after all. So far, all the gameplay videos looked rather boring, like a nice graphics demo, but, maybe there is something to do. Edit: Well, I was terribly wrong about the game. It's really nice. Dunno what I saw in those gameplay videos.

Looks cool, wishlisted.

Not with Vista keys, only Windows 7 or 8/8.1.

I agree with your other points made, but, I can't agree with the first part of this one. Why would you want players not to save in the first place? How do you even think you know how players use the save system? (Goes to mappers who think about such systems, of course.) Do mappers not want the freedom for players to approach the game how they want? Why make alternative ways to the mission objectives then? Why give the player different tools to his disposal? This makes no sense. Everyone who wants to restrict him-/herself from saving can do so. Everyone who wants to save every 5 seconds can do so. The system is already great. Why make it bad? It's not the mappers task to care about how people use fundamental features of the MOD, not the mission. They're responsible for their mission, not how people play the game. Well, going around in circles, but, obviously, some just don't understand this. I think the main thing I don't get is how mappers limit their "clientele" even more. This is a niche mod, for niche people, and then mappers implement stuff which only really applies to a niche of the niche people. Incomprehensible.

You don't seem to understand that a change to the save system is a much deeper intervention into gameplay than differing loot objectives, or no kill objectives (and also a fundamental change to how a gameplay system of the mod works in general). Talking about "exhausting". It's a shit idea, regardless of how long we discuss it here.

I just imagined a saveroom in The Painter's Wife. That would take some work if you mess up...

Exactly! For me, it's the bigger loot goal, most of the time. And, if we take a look at what the original Thief's did with the different diffictulties, it's exactly that: More objectives, higher loot goals, more AI. Maybe no kill objectives. Maybe I'm a traditionalist, but, I like the mod for being close to the original games, thus wouldn't want it to stray too far from those. Save rooms would be more for games which resemble Resident Evil for me. Apart from not liking such save systems in general, because, I don't want to do the same stuff over and over again. By the way, to name some numbers: I quicksave about 150 times per mission, probably more in longer missions. You can imagine how it feels if someone takes that away from you, just because he knows better how YOU want to play this game. Because, that's something you need to realize, that you design the game or the missions for players out there, not just yourself, or people who like to play the way you do. I totally appreciate the amount of work mappers put in this game, and I'm grateful for every mission, but, should this become the standard for saving in TDM, or even the standard for expert difficulty, then I simply will stop playing this game, because, that's just not something I want in a game like this. Especially as, again, everyone is free to save as much or as little as he/she wants already.

I don't think that's the point. Rather the single mission where a mapper decided that it's a good idea to do something completely new, which never has been done before, even in the original Thief's which this mod tries to rebuild. So, it's not a matter of someone having to play on the highest difficulty, which musn't be too hard. It's bringing an element to the highest difficulty which never has been there in the first place. Doesn't mean you can't do it, of course. But, you really shouldn't be surprised about discussions and criticism of such a system then. I think we will agree that there should be a certain consistency, in lore, but also in difficulty. Otherwise you'll end up with missions which are ridiculously easy, and missions which are ridiculously hard. Not that that wouldn't be the case already. I can only repeat myself: I will also always criticize mappers who decide that it's a good idea to prevent knockouts on higher difficulty levels. You really shouldn't do that. It's a no go for me. For the same reason as such restricting save systems: You will dictate the way players should play your missions. I love the freedom to play the way I do. And, I'm sure I'm not alone with that. No kills make sense, if a client doesn't want a bloodbath on his hands. No KO's make no sense at all, as no noble man or the city watch will give a damn about some knocked out guards. The only scenario I could imagine would justify no knockouts as well is a mission where you have to snoop a place out before making a hit. But that's about the only reason I could imagine, apart from a simple gameplay "be as professional as possible" scenario, which shouldn't be in the hand of mappers. Lastly, it's totally fine if we can't come to an agreement about this. Just bear in mind that some people won't like it, if you decide to implement such a save system. I see a few in this thread already, there'll be more out there, which don't post here.

I don't think that's the point of such save systems at all. Rather that you shouldn't quickload, and everything is on full alert, or already attacking you... TDM solved that cleverly: By always keeping the last 2 quicksaves. So, even if you quicksaved falling off a building (if that's even possible...), you still have a "proper" save left.

I don't remember which discussion it was (I have a bad memory), but, I think Obsttorte mentioned to me a few months ago that stuff like that is all up to the mapper. It would be strange if there was a general raise in awareness between difficulty levels anyway, if you think about it. There's already a setting for general awareness, which is player defined, and, if the difficulty settings really affected awareness, then the player wouldn't be aware of it. I don't think it does. But, would be great if someone with more insight could confirm that.

Absolutely. The worst thing which could happen is that people won't play the mission. Which I will, if there's a general need to use save rooms. I also don't play missions which disallow KO's in normal or expert difficulty, because I find that kind of restriction ridiculous. I just find it a bit sad to even limit yourself further by disallowing things which will limit people from playing the way they are used to. If that makes sense to you. I think we will agree that this game is already niche. Why make it even more niche by implementing such pointless restrictions?

But why? Asking the question makes no sense if you don't want to restrict the quicksaves. And, be the way, the discussions were about a Resident Evil type save systems which was baked into a single mission, on the highest difficulty setting, not about disallowing quicksaves generally. I highly doubt that there are serious ambitions to change TDM's save system, and, if there were, and the system really would be changed, I'd uninstall the game, and never play it again, because I hate when games don't allow quicksaves. The people arguing for such a change are stupid anyway. Again, everyone who wants to limit himself from saving so often can already do it. The game doesn't have to dictate it as a gameplay option itself. It's radically changing the game, and, especially with a game which has so many custom missions, this would be a total catastrophy for existing missions.

Let me quote the topic title then: You either forgot a question mark (which still implicates that you want to restrict quicksaves though), or you simply asked the wrong question.

Yes they do. You can use the current save system any way you want. The problem is in the head. Actually, by implementing a restrictive save system, you'd take freedom, not give it.

Whenever I read "save-scumming", I have to wonder what kind of nazi vocabulary people are using to make their point bigger than it is.

This. And, the game must also not define how it is played in terms of saving. There should be room for every kind of approach. You want to restrict yourself in the way you save? Then do it. You have the freedom to do it. As much as the people who want to save have the freedom to do it. Win-win.

To be honest, the gameplay seemed utterly boring to me in the videos (just like with so many games these days).

Zombie Flesh Eaters is actually one of my favorite zombie movies. Not sure about the art style of the game though... what's with the rectangular faces and bodies? The animations are atrocious as well. I'm really not a gourmet in that regard, but, I'm sure even a very low budget production can do better than that.

Looks like the open beta is still months away though.

No, it isn't. That's just utter nonsense. The human brain is neither fully understood, nor is there any degree of complexity which could map the whole brain in software. Whoever claims that is either a complete brainfart, or deliberately lying. I know, people are in science fiction these days, but, that's what it is really. Science fiction. Again, tell a machine to invent a computer (or something similar). Or to come up with Einstein's theory of relativity. I'm not sure why people think that would be possible from a computer. A computer can do things which you command him to do, and even do some kind of "learning" based on the parameters you put into it. But, expecting any kind of human behavior is just ridiculous, because a machine doesn't think like a human being, or any other living being. A computer can forget things? Yes, maybe when you program it to forget things, based on a predefined pattern. And that's the thing. The pattern is predefined. It's not random. Not analog. It's digital. A computer can neither just forget things, nor can it have a sudden flash of insight. It just can act in pre defined routines, put into it by its programmer. Even if it allegedly acts human, like im machine "learning", which is nothing other than, again, pre defined behavior.

No way. Machines work completely different to humans. Machines and computers can do stuff which they are more suited to do, and more capable, like stupidly calculating hundreds of things at the same time. Machine stuff. They're not capable of, say, inventing a computer. Even with the most elaborate AI routine, they are only capable to do stuff which they are supposed to do, nothing more. And, they will never be. An algorithm or a program can't be complex enough, and "human like" enough to do what the human brain can. Especially art is also about emotions, about memories, and subjective impressions. How would a machine be capable of that? It can only do what it's programmed to do, a fixed routine. Even machine learning is a fixed routine. There's nothing spontaneous, creative, or anything in that regard. It's simply doing what it's been programmed to do. A human being doesn't do what it's programmed to do. It inherited certain traits, but, a lot is based on experience and individuality. The brain is much, MUCH more than a computer or a machine.

Really looking forward to it.

I can't imagine this getting very popular in professional game development. Maybe for very low budget projects. For everyone else, it will surely not be custom enough. Sounds very generic. I know, generic world creation is a thing, but, not so much when it comes to artwork.

Don't worry, I'm sure loads of people will complain about it when it's released. Which is pathetic. Every time I read stuff like that "Wow, it looks so great!" on a review of a new AAA game, I can only shake my head. Games are so ridiculously shitty in terms of gameplay these days that I wonder if 99% of the developers worked on the shiny graphics. This game, on the other hand, looks like something I want to play for a change. Unfortunately, you have to go Indie for such games these days. But then, where's the problem? Shiny graphics are so 2022.