>quick-saves the game before doing something trivial like unlocking a chest or killing an npc
>fails to unlock the chest/has to live with consequences of killing the npc
>reloads until chest is unlocked/npc is alive and continues "normal" playthrough
why would you do this?
what's the point in having any difficulty in video games then? just remove the saving system and make user succeed at everything with no punishment whatsoever.
Other urls found in this thread:
The point is that when you fail you try again. That's how games work to an extent or another.
no, you're just abusing the saving system.
I'm trying again after failing.
>yfw you will never smash beetle juice with a guitar
>60% chance to unlock chest
>if it fails the lock breaks and the chest is locked forever
>only way to reliably opening the chest is quick-saves
>yfw you will never do ANYTHING with beetlejuice
This, if it's pure RNG no matter how high your skill level gets then fuck you and your RNG.
this
I can't help it if some games literally lock you out of 100% completion if you fail some RNG mechanic
Why are you trying to police how people play their games? If you want to hard commit to your choices go for it, but not everyone does.
beet
but you've failed though. you're not supposed to reload because that's the whole reason there's a _chance_ involved. you just carry on with your failure and adapt to difficulties it creates down the line.
i just check the wiki to see which choice leads where
i dont have time to play games twice
>Single player game
>Some item I want drops randomly from some chest at the end of a dungeon
>My options are to run it 100 times or to just save and keep loading until I get it after the first run
Guess which one I'm doing? You won't get me to waste my time grinding in a single player game motherfucker.
>get to hard part
>quicksave
>fail the hard part and try the hard part again
>le hardcore gamers get mad at me because I didn't go through all the easy parts again to get there
You'd do it if it was 10% though
People do this because they are casuals.
Just because you're supposed to do something by the game's design doesn't mean that the game's design isn't shit.
>WAHHHH IF YOU WANT TO PLAY YOUR VIDEO GAME FOR FUN YOU NEED TO LIVE WITH IT!!!!!!!!!! GAMES ARE SUPR SRS!!!!!!!!!!
name 100 games that do this.
Most western single player RPGs.
and then you realise the chest reward is seeded as soon as you enter the dungeon
Been there done that. Fuck that.
>difficulty
Is this b8.
Unlocking a chest only for it to break and be locked forever isnt fucking fair.
If there is no system to get around in-game i will savescum.
Also the npc part is bullshit if they dont have any threat perception and walk into a minefield.
Maybe pickpocketing an npc shouldn't be a 1% chance to work on even the most worthless items
>Playing MGSV
>Game saves
>Kill prisoner I was supposed to rescue for lulz
>"Checkpoint"
FUCK. Who designed this horseshit?
I miss Thief-style pickpocketing where you'd just loot people's wallets from their belt just like any other item instead of going into a menu.
Not many games let me continue after I've failed/been killed, especially ones that have quicksaves.
I usually quick save before a difficult fight so I won't have run through X and do Y before reaching them again.
Nothing wrong with taking a game seriously, sperglord.
>isnt fucking fair.
how is it not fair? you were given a chance to unlock the chest. you failed.
are you saying saying gambling is unfair?
>walk into a minefield.
that's the way npc was designed. devs expect you to live with that.
ITS NOT FAIR IT'S NOT FAIR HOW COULD THEY DO THIS TO MEEEEEE
actually people who quicksave and reload to take the game seriously. they are literally seething about failing that quicktime event that they missed.
take it easy and have fun.
Series about sentient NPCs going about their day while being aware that they're part of a game like that one Black Mirror episode but not shit when
Then what is the point of even having a fail state to begin with?
If you are only going to (((retry))) after failure, anything outside of success is a waste of time.
You are literally abusing the mechanic. Might as well play in Godmode or cheat.
Most rpgs and stealth games are built with the understanding that players will savescum.
If they weren't, then they would give fair success rates for lockpicking, pickpocketing, silent kills etc.
>Beetlejuice will never redpill you
youtube.com
RPGs should have save points. They shouldn't force you to place arbitrary restrictions on yourself to make the game challenging. How do you know how often you're supposed to save?
>If you're not going to uninstall the game after fucking up, what's the point of playing?
Nioh does it
> then they would give fair success rates
what is it about you and thinking that anything below 61% chance is unfair?
>Time to open this chest for the 56th time
>Still not the item I want
>Welp, here we go again
OPEN YOUR EYES!
You just play the game however you feel gives you the most enjoyability.
If you're so fucking retarded and stupid that you need someone to hold your hand so much that you need to be told when to save then that's on you for being a retard.
Say, do you reload after dying in a game? Or do you restart the whole thing?
> "Don't mind me, I am just using Console Commands to deternine the outcone of your elections..."
In b4
> "hurrrr, if the devs didn't intend for Console Commands they wouldn't have made them accessible by the player to begin with [Autistic cheating noises]"
I hate doing this in Max Payne 1 but that game has awful auto save points so I manually quicksave every few seconds.
but if you die the game ewstarts from the last checkpoint. you aren't forced to go to the main menu and click New Game.
we're talking trivial things here which don't get a checkpoint before attempting them.
When you play a game you do the best you can within your power to win that game
If you start having to use scouts honor self-policing bullshit to make the game challenging, the game designers have failed at their task
Oblivion's lockpicking was fucking 10/10. Fuck Fallout 3.
West world but went to shit
>having a choice is bad
Wrong, you are not trying and failing. You are guaranteeing success.
What if there are no checkpoints? Surely you aren't reloading a save. That would be cheating. Also the sensible thing to do is clearly getting a checkpoint, then attempt to lockpick and in case of failure to get myself killed.
If you need to win so badly over having fucking fun then just enable cheats and be done with it. That's entirely within your power as well.
>I'm just trying to 100% this quickevent
>hates jews
>hates indians
>hates blacks
>hates whites
seems like a sane individual to me
>brings up politics in the most convoluted way imaginable
>thinks developers include console commands in games by accident
I thought vidya is about doing things that you can't do irl
Savescumming is not cheating
Based beetlejuice
>pitcher throws baseball
>miss it
>shake everyone's hands and go home for the day
you forgot
>hates amish
>hates eskimos
>no checkpoints
just quicksave, attempt lockpick, fail, carry on.
why do you have to justify a reload after failure by killing MC?
prove it
what game does this trash?
>trapped chest that has a high chance of killing you
>neither you or your companion is able to disarm it
Fuck you NWN. It's the only time I had to do this kind of bullshit.
cheats are obviously outside the rules of the game. Winning within the bounds of the game rules is fun because it's challenging. If the game has quick saving yet you have to limit your use of it so the game remains challenging, it's a failure of game design, seeing you have to take up the role of game designer to determine how often you should save in order to make the game play best - something which isn't clear to you when you don't fully understand the game rules in the first place
>anything below 61% chance is unfair?
The consequences for failing the roll are usually game breaking and far outweigh the benefits of a successful roll if you can't guarantee a successful roll e.g.
>NPCs will instantly be alerted and recognize you even through a mask.
>You'll be forced into a fight with no chance of evasion.
>Maybe the entire outpost or dungeon is alerted and now you can't play your stealth character stealth.
>The game forces you to tailor your entire character and loadout to have a good chance at that particular type of roll and if it fails you're slogging through the consequences with the wrong everything.
>Valuable items are now gone forever.
>etc.
Lockbashing, stealth checks and pickpocketing are particularly bad examples of this sort of gameplay that's specifically designed for save scumming.
>caring about how other people choose to play their games
Because there are only 2 sub companions in the entire game and i want the hunger and thirst systems to stay intact. Furthermore not being a miax fag my build depends on companions meaning i wouldnt be able to progress any further and needed to restart my 40+ hours journey whoch i will do at some point anyway. Happy now?
Because using that retards logic it's apparently fine to reload a checkpoint after dying but not reloading a save for another attempt.
>those dreams where you can quicksave and quickload and tons of crazy shit
>tfw you wake up
>soylent cafe
>no original, just cacao
what a fucking joke of a human being.
>it's a failure of game design
why are you putting the blame on somebody else? you're the one who's playing the game. it's completely your fault you failed something, because otherwise you'd have succeeded.
designers didn't design the game to to let you 100% everything at the first run.
how are you supposed to drink all that before it expires
By your logic RPGs of any kinda shouldn't even exist because who knows what weapons you're supposed to use. By your retarded logic no game should have any kind of choice at all because then you're taking up the role of designing the game.
Get the fuck outta here.
I don't care. I want to 100% everything on the first run because I don't replay games. And the developers were nice enough to design a quick save and a quick load so I can do it.
>too intelligent for solid food
forcing the player to take up the role of game designer and limit their use of quicksaves when they don't even know the rules of the game in the first place is a failure of game design. I don't know what your point has to do with anything, ironically the worst use of quicksaves is in games with random checks where your success or failure is completely out of your hands and you can just reload when you fail, making the check pointless
He also wasted fuckloads of money on a meme product instead of just making his own protein shakes.
i hope this image was posted ironically
>game doesnt have limited saves/quicksaves on harder difficulties
>end up just quick saving every 5 seconds out of habit
Is this loss?
protein shakes don't cover all your micronutrition
the real crime is that he didn't just buy bulk of the pouches. those premixed ones are expensive as shit.
You fail to understand my logic. When the player has to make a decision about what features of the game they'll use because the game is too easy if you play it normally they've stepped into the role of game designer. Which is kind of ok in some circumstances, but completely stupid for quicksaving cause you don't know how much you're 'expected' to save in the first place
see the thing is each of those points actually make the game fun and interesting to play. otherwise just don't play the game at all and watch a let's play of it because you know you'll 100% everything anyways.
yes, that's the whole concept of the word attempt. you try and you either succeed or fail.
At least there's proof whenever someone uses console commands
>not quicksaving so you can go on a rampage whenever you feel like it, but still continue a normal playthrough
Maybe devs should stop being trend following retards and make more interesting mechanics instead of having dicerolls determine success in a game that does nothing to curb savescumming.
>quick-saves the game before doing something trivial like unlocking a chest
>fails to unlock the chest
>reloads until chest is unlocked
That's why I mod lockpicking out of Skyrim/Fallout.
>you try and you either succeed or fail.
So what's the difference between retrying when failing to kill an enemy thus dying and retrying when failing to pick a lock?
Dragon's Dogma
commit sudoku multiple times in front of Dark Arisen's final chests to get corrupted weapons and armor
Yeah you don't know how often you're supposed to save, just like you don't know when you're supposed to leave the staring area or you don't know when to stop grinding and you don't know when you should switch out equipment and everything else that you don't know in the game.
You're the only retard in the entire fucking world to not have enough common sense to know
>less saving is harder
>more saving is easier
There is no fucking "supposed" to save, you save as often as you want.
you're playing an elder scrolls (or similar) game for the hundredth time. there is a door/chest/computer/whatever that is locked and requires an easy but inconvenient minigame. do you unlock it normally, or .unlock it with a command?
nobody is forcing you to do anything. just play the game.
all that garb about player taking up game designer role is just your mental gymnastics in action.
There are only two variants for this matter: Save scumming and hardcore.
What kind of fucking autist do you need to be to feel forced to make up arbitrary rules for an in-between? This is actually insane.
>quicksave before a though fight
>die
>fuck up and quick save instead of loading
Yes you should be putting in a quarter each time you die, like in good ol' times right?
God damnit
Yeah but you normally just cover micros with a multi if you're worried about them. Take a multi in the morning and have your shakes through the day.
Daily multivitamin = $0.03
1 scoop of soy = 28g protein, 121 kcal and $0.24
1 glass of skim milk = 83 kcal, 8g protein and $0.18
Already got more protein than soylent, albeit less calories. However you can always add calories super cheaply.
soylent has a shelf life of 2 years and one of those bottles is 20% of your daily nutrition on a 2000 calorie basis, with 12 per box. Assuming he's going full replacement, you're looking at 2 months supply.