Dead Rising Comments by Tom Bramwell

Christ! That was one rambling, disjointed article! Still sounds good though, can't wait.

Couldn't you run a couple of xbox360 profiles with a save each to get around the system?

I like the idea of a single save. If you feckup you dont get to wriggle out of it you just gotta do better next time

After the demo this went straight on pre-order. It's fun in ways that other games just aren't. And unbelievably, it actually nails that campy dawn of the dead tone right down to the way the zombies are sort of non-threatening. You can run past them without killing any if you want to.

Of course that's no fun though.

I don't see why everyone's getting so mardy about the save system. If you fuck it up, start again! You've just paid £40-£50 for the thing, why the mad rush to finish it? I bet you all wolf your Mars bars down too you freaks!

I think one of the main problems with Dead Rising is that people want it to be what they want it to be, not what it actually is.

I was studiously ignoring this when I first heard about it, assuming it was another in the long line of survival horror slog-fests that I grew bored of that back with Res Evil 2. When I found out about the short game format it piqued my interest though - something kinda new for once. Then I played the demo and it became a must-buy.

So it sounds like the system ain't perfect - at least it's doing something different and fresh, and I for one can put up with a few problems if it means I get to play something that isn't another 20 odd-hours in a straight line from Act 1 to the credits rolling.

"I pay £50 for something, I expect it to be my bitch! I think people are starting to forget that this is supposed to be entertainment, not some ridiculous "proving ground" where we all test our nerdcock measurements against each other!"

anyone who spends £50 on a 360 game needs a slap. get it from play or amazon and save a tenner!

Get all mine online. honest.

At least with the 360 it's possible that Capcom might release a patch to correct some of these problems if people complaign long enough and loud enough.:

Have you heard of Steel Battalion: Line Of Contact? It's a completely broken online mech game. Capcom's official word is (okay, I'm paraphrasing): "THANKS FOR THE MONEY, SUCKERS."

manic - ideally, in the future when we have flying cars and computer chips in our heads, every game should be an open environment where the user can choose how they want to interact with it and the level of challenge they want to set themselves (to what extent that could actually be called a game is moot?). I take your point about wanting a more relaxing experience sometimes, but surely in this pre-flying-car-age we do that by choosing which game to play, something hard or easy, slow or fast. Should every game offer both? I mean ideally it would be nice if it did, clearly. But you don't choose to play BF2, and then complain that you wanted to negotiate an agreement enforceable through trade sanctions but the game forced you to run around with an AK popping caps in people...you choose to play... well, I can't think of a sanction-negotiating game, but you get my drift?

"Still, it's a classic to every 20-40 year old male who grew up watching Dawn Of The Dead."

Sod that, plenty of us womenfolk grew up with it too. It's in my top 5 favourite movies, one more reason I'm looking forward to this game so much.

And damn you Eurogamer for making me want it even more. It's not going to be for everyone, but what is, and some people won't be able to get over the whole save-system thing. But personally, I'm giddy in my pants with anticipation for this game.

I have to say I am one hundred percent with ManicMinerUK and the others on this one. The save game system should not be a gameplay mechanic but something to help me play and enjoy the game when I want.

I don't have that much time to spend on games anymore, I have to take my gaming fix in short rounds where I can it, and suffice to say I don't want to have to repeat myself over and over again for failing. If I want to play the game quick saving every 15 seconds, then surely that is my own decision. An argument to this says I am ruining the game, well if that is so, I am doing it to myself. If I enjoy playing the game that way, surely one of the core purpose of any game (to entertain) has been achieved.

For me, it can be summarised down to this. Do you punish the gamer for failure or reward for success. If the aim is to enjoy the game, surely the rewarding option is far better. If the gamer does well, they are usually rewarded with new things to do and to mess around with. This is fairly standard. So why do we punish the gamer by making them replay large sections of the game if they do badly? Surely it is fine to say they just don't get the reward? Making challenge by frustration only serves to make me frustrated.

This might of course be an oversimplistic view, and it is certainly my longest Eurogamer rant, so I'm off to get tea!

Having played this quite long. I can definitely say that the save feature isn't that bad. You can just ignore it and go Psycho hunting or rescue crazy (suprising how many you can cram into a closet).

Love the sandbox and there are plenty of hidden secrets to find if you look hard enough.

I'm kind of with manic on this one. But let me expand a little on what I mean.

First off, the save system (as far as I'm concerned) is there to record progress. Its not there to act as a gameplay mechanic (or "provide tension" as so many seem keen on saying). Take the example of checkpoints. They should be placed to make my life as a gamer easier, i.e. I don't have to remember to save the game myself because the checkpoints are placed in the same spots where I am likely to want to save. Badly placed checkpoints are just that, they don't increase tension or fun because REPETITION IS NOT FUN (I said I would end up ranting).

Secondly, everything in a agme is about fun. Its at the top of the pyramid (the mad design pyramid that lives in my head). Everything else is below it. If a game gets harder it should be because increased challenge = fun. If increased challenge != fun then something is broken, becauyse without an increase (or at least the maintenance thereof) of fun challenge has no value of its own. The player pays to have fun, they don't pay to be challenged (unless that = fun).


In this particular case, having not played the game myself (so sort ofguessing a bit), it sounds like the save mechanic MAY have been build the way it has to try and pish the player experience in a certain direction. When it comes to steering players using save mechanics, I can't remember the last time I actually saw this work. I can list many instances where it has totally failed (making me wonder whether any testing was involved). In this instance, damage sounds reasonably minimal (its no Splinter Cell 1 or Hitman 1 by the sounds of it) but that doesn't make it a good idea.

Blah blah. Ran out of stuff to say, risk of repeating myself (which != fun). So I'll stop.

@Vex

"For me, it can be summarised down to this. Do you punish the gamer for failure or reward for success. If the aim is to enjoy the game, surely the rewarding option is far better."

Spot on! I wince everytime I read the words "if X then we should punish the player by Y" in a doc. The player is the customer, they are not the enemy.

Which brings me neatly to a URL, one that some will have already seen. Its pretty long winded, but maybe someone out there will find it interesting enough to read through.

http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody...

This game looks great but why on earth do they have bonuses for cleavage shots? Thank you Capcom for trying your bestest to mature the video games scene. Geezz.
Or in fact thank you capcom for making the game as realistic in this regard as possible.

Boobs sell newspapers + being a newpaper photo journalist = photos of boobs

Maybe I'm missing something about the way game saves work in dead rising but it all seems perfectly normal to me.

The way I understand it is that you go to the save spot, save game, continue playing. If you die or fail to complete/miss a vital story mission you go back to reload your savegame or continue playing but with no story. Now, in the past the continue playing option was never really there. If you failed a mission the game FORCED you to restart or reload. The only difference I see here is that the world just keeps going if you fail the vital story mission rather than fading to black or sending you back to your hideout/last save point.

jiveguy:

You may have missed in some of the other comments that it is possible to save the game at a point from which you cannot recover and will never be able to reach a critical story element. You are then left with a dead game.

You say its a dead game but if you continue for the remaining time you supposedly get a game ending.

reality_cheque:
What? Realism? Heh. Surely if something like this would happen (4real) most of the photojournos would NOT be interested in shooting boobs (of corpses), but getting some really good shots you could sell to Reuters (or just Photoshop them).

I bet in your reality photojournalists shoot boobs in Afghanistan and try score up skirt shots when WTC crumbles down. Cheerio!

At the very least they should give you points for shooting men's crotches or buttocks. I demand equal rights to men and women! And men who like men.

"I bet in your reality photojournalists shoot boobs in Afghanistan and try score up skirt shots when WTC crumbles down. Cheerio! "

I would :D

I think we really have to wait and see how bad this save system is. I hear you keep your experiance points on each restart which implies you are meant to restart it but then again if you have to repeat the same story missions you already completed first time through then that is going to get dull.

Maybe if you keep your experiance pioints and don't have to repeat story missions you have already completed succesfully this will not be that big an issue. Have to wait for the full review to judge I would guess.

Re: "You are then left with a dead game."

No you're not. You're left with a sandbox world full of zombies, countless ways of killing them, side-quests, opportunities for character development (that carries over into successive games), achievements to unlock, and a silly number of other ways of amusing yourself until the 3 days are up (which is a few hours tops).

After that you play it again, and try to do it properly this time, or maybe try a different goal, or just put on a clown suit and see how many zombies you can kill with a spade.

It's been a long time since I've commented on this site, but... I think it's completely legitimate for the designers to implement this kind of save process. Games are designed for fun... but the themes and motifs of game mechanics are hardly something set in stone. Board games vary greatly in how technical they are... and some are downright frustrating. But the design, for better or worse, are created with some intent in mind.

If one feels that the save system is too frustrating, it's reasonable to avoid the game. To say that it is broken is probably an overstatement. It's an attempt to achieve an effect. You may disagree... and that's your right.

Personally, I like the fact that Capcom is doing something different, and trying to make the experience more cinematic ... you can't rewind a movie, it flows forward only. Like many of you, the time I get to spend in games is fast approaching zero... nevertheless, it still pleases me to see novel approaches to gameplay experience, even if I never get to plumb its depths.

JetSetWilly: I think the thing you probably need to take into account here is that Eurogamer haven't reviewed the game yet. Tom appears to be in the middle of playing it, is desperate to share what a good time he's having with someone, knows we all want to know about it, and has written a teaser article about his experience so far.

1up have reviewed it and didn't like this feature (that everyone is now laying into/supporting/discussing despite most of them having not played and experienced yet! weird...) whereas Tom wasn't as bothered while he was playing so far. Perhaps in his more balanced review he will consider its ramifications in the long term.

I would add, though, that this does not sound like a 'broken' save system. It sounds like one that adds a certain amount of tension to a game. Yes, it may well be frustrating, but then so was the inability to reload saves AFTER you'ld finished a level in Hitman Blood Money - but that was done so as to force you to be careful throughout the level as opposed to realising afterwards "Bugger, must have been that guy in the last room, I'll just go back to that bit...". I actually liked that system.

And what about the save system (or lack thereof) in Steel Battalion?

I'll wait for the EG review to assess the possible effect this save system might have on MY experience of the game (because I find that I relate quite closely to the attitude the EG guys have to how they like to play games, as opposed to those melodramatic dudes over at 1up, entertaining as they are), and I'll wait till I actually play the game before I go getting my knickers in a twist about it...

I like hard games, and look forward to wrestling with an unruly save system

From the very end of the article "Dead Rising is due out in Europe on September 8th. Look out for our full review in the next few days. Hopefully he'll bother to plan that one before typing."

LOL

Owen-B:

Yeah, I'm sure you're right and that's a fair point to make. As I said, I just thought the disparity between Tom's comments and 1up's was huge. Add to that Tom talking of the "buzz" he felt for the game and wanting to "hug Capcom", I thought maybe he wanted to like this game so much that a save system I would expect him to have panned on a 5/10 game gets an easier ride.

I look forward to the real review.

Sounds great. I like that it's trying something different, albeit controversial, with the design - vaguely reminiscent of Hideo Kojima's worrying ramblings about creating a game you could only play once.

I'm sure this will alienate and frustrate a large portion of gamers hungry for more typical fare, but I think the satisfaction of pwning the game will be all the sweeter within such restricted confines. The demo gameplay mechanics are immensely satisfying and if the mission structure can at least equal them we could have a cult classic on our hands.

edit: Polymath, I entirely agree.

look at the titis on her!!!!

When my non-game playing mates visit and they want to know what is so good about the 360, Dead Rising is what I plan to stick on to show them.

I'll defy any of them to not enjoy being in a zombie movie :-)

Everyone on my friends list that has it gets frustrated by the save system but they cant keep away from the game

Its obviously been design to play through many times as you keep all the kills, level ups you have got

There are so many hidden features in this game though..

just take the juicer machine add some orange juice and pie and get an invincibility drink..there are many many combinations

pick up a book from the book store on DIY and any tools now last three times longer before they break etc etc theres a load of books that boost your ability in various areas..

after seeing some of the first 10 minutes videos on xboxyde.com the real time cut scenes look great aswell

Hey Kanga! You might like this:

Before I go on, I should say that I've not played this game, but I'm picking up the vibe from this thread.

As an experiment, I once played through Deus Ex without saving, and without loading - that is, I'd only save when i finished my session. Every choice I made was permanent. There was no chance to "experiment". If I died, that was it. Game Over - forever. I'd leave the game and never come back to it.

Deus Ex famously has 3 endings (4 if you count the Crazy Disco one). This was a 4th/5th ending: JC dies. Bob Hope goes on to rule the universe.

Now, this definately impacted how I played the game. I played it incredibly safe. I didn't tempt fate with any little crazy tactics. I treated JC's mortality with as much respect as my own. I ran from fights. I always tried to find the peaceful way around conflict. I actually played pretty boring in a lot of cases. However, the feelings I had for the game, and my own choices were much stronger than they would be if I just blew up a room full of people, turned around, and said "nah, I can do that much more efficiently" and re-loaded, packing heat only available from hindsight.

I see that Dead Rising (if I'm understanding it right... no quick saves? No going back on choices?) is trying to do that, too (although not having any contingency for mission critical people dying is fucking retarded). Unfortunately, they're missing a big point.

I CHOSE to role-play through Deus Ex as a non saver. I was not forced to. And I only chose to do it after having played through the game a few times - after being familiar with its mechanics. To a certain degree, that's made possible in DR by having a limited environment to explore, and a pretty limited play time - it's designed to be played over and over, sandbox style, where each 72 hour play through is a new, personalized story. They probably don't WANT you to feel like you have to play through once, and play through perfectly, but that seems to be how so many games have taught players to play in the past that that's the assumption most players work with.

I think the big problem is that it's NOT a choice (and that's the problem with any fucked save system). If I WANTED to never save, I would CHOOSE to. If I want to challenge myself to do a huge section in one go, then I'd CHOOSE to. I'm the player. Let me build my own experience. Don't force one on me.

Now I realize that I'm repeating ManiacMinerUK. But that's alright. He's cool.

But Kanga, as far as "fun" being the top of the pyramid... ehn. I think that games can have a wider range than "fun" (and also, the whole "fun is a pretty subjective thing" arguement that you've probably heard before). (I actually suspect you're simplifying your arguement, cos I've seen you around. You're a smart cat.)

As Ernest Adams (who I don't normally agree with) said recently:

"And before yet another idiot pipes up with Standard Asinine Comment #1 (“but FUN is the only thing that matters!”), let me just say: No, it's not. Shut up and grow up. Our overemphasis on fun—kiddie-style, wheeee-type fun—is part of the reason we’re in this mess in the first place. To merely be fun is to be unimportant, irrelevant, and therefore vulnerable."

But yeah, I think that's more of an attack on a particular kind of "lollercoaster fun". As well as that, we should also be aiming in other directions. We already do a bunch of creepy horror style "fun", but not much in the way of Schindler's List style "fun", if you'll pardon my phrasing - just the idea that there is more to life and art than hedonism and fear.

Essentially, if every game has its own kind of fun, then it ought to be an artistic mandate to explore the entire spectrum of fun.

The game demo is pure bubble wrap. POP zombie dead. Pop pop pop.....

Just like bubble wrap you think why do I like this, POP hey I just burst another zombie hahahaha.

Hey, Tom - great preview. Really enjoyed reading it, which is more than I can say for 99% of other videogames writing. Kudos.

It's supposed to be difficult to save. if you could quicksave before any boss battle or before trying to cross any zombie-infested area, the game would lose a lot of its tension. This way, you are forced to make a choice - will I try to go through this crowd of zombies with limited health and possibly die, or will I play it safe, go back to the security room, and save?
Can I make it to the nearest save point after completing this boss fight, with hardly any health left? Should I try for some health items first even though it's a longer journey?

The save system adds a great deal to the game in my opinion.

Those of you who think they can end up with a dead game, there are several points to bear in mind. Firstly, the game is designed for multiple playthroughs. If you cannot complete the main plot, you can either keep going and try to rescue as many people as you can or just mess around and explore the mall, or you can restart the game, keeping your current level, stats and skills.

@Bezzy

"a smart cat"? Hehe, not sure about that, maybe I disguise myself well.

You are quite right about me simplifying things, hence my reference to "the mad pyramid in my head". I simplify to help me make a point (which is a bit shifty I guess, guilty as chatged, same as most on here), especially when it comes to certain game aspects such as save systems.

I suppose my definition of "fun" changes from game to game, maybe a better way of describing it would be to remember that the game is there to serve the player. Be that as some light hearted kiddy fun, or be it to take their thought path in a direction they've not been before, or even just to impress them with some really well written cutscenes, who knows.

Using the exmaple of challenge again, I think it is a mistake to challenge the player on the basis of some kind of principal (as MMUK put it, "a proving ground"). Challenge is there purely to keep the player engaged when they start to get ebtter at the game. If challenged wasn't increased (in most cases, there are exceptions) the player would perhaps get bored as their skill increased.

In that context, the challenge is there to serve "fun" (as definied unspecifically by me at my disgression ;) ). In other words, if the game gets less fun when it starts to get harder, something is broken.

Anyway, I shall try not to post on here anymore, purely because I am soapboxing and going on a bit, and probably getting on people's tits by now :)

Thanks the lord for Official Capcom Guy before I was about to start ranting!!! :)

The WHOLE point of this game is multiple playthroughs where you level up each time you learn something new which in turn makes it more likely you will get a good ending.

Geez louise people, you are not meant to be able to do it all on your first attempt.

Are none of you interested in the fact that Tom's Mum is a Spartan? Frankly I find this fascinating..

@Official Capcom Guy

I hope you aren't actually an official CapCom person, 'cos I've got issues with some of the basic principles you have raised in your post (and after I said I would shut my trap too).

"if you could quicksave before any boss battle or before trying to cross any zombie-infested area, the game would lose a lot of its tension"

Gaaahhh!! If that is true, the tension of your game needs fixing. Let me wheel out a staple example. The first AvP game. Save where you want (after the patch), still terrifying when playing as a marine against Aliens. Repetition is not the same thing as tension!

"This way, you are forced to make a choice - will I try to go through this crowd of zombies with limited health and possibly die, or will I play it safe, go back to the security room, and save"

That sounds like a poor choice to me. Most players will choose to save first, because repetition is not fun. If they don't choose to save, its likely to be because they can't be arsed to walk to the security room and back, rather than some conscious effort to heighten their own fear. Having to walk a long way in order to save isn't fun, its just mileage.


For context, I love the demo to bits and will almost certainly buy the game. But lets see issues for what they are, admit if there are problems (and if people don't like what has been designed, thats a problem regardless of the designer's motives, end of story) and then examine their impact. Thats the way to improve ideas and make the sequels even more awesome.

God I’m bored of this argument already.
How about everyone waits until they have played the full version for themselves?

Except OCG who obviously has been playing it for a while.

"This game looks great but why on earth do they have bonuses for cleavage shots?"

Does kind of take the shine off the game a bit. :(

But...zombies! Carnage! Lawnmowers! It might be worth buying a 360 for!

On the saving issue...the 'Official Capcom Guy' says that the saving system is deliberate, because being able to save frequently would wreck the tension. I say that's BS. If a player *wants* to save every five minutes...why not let them? Instead of punishing players that don't enjoy repetition, long stretches without saving ("Sorry little Timmy, you'll get your dinner when I find the next save point...it might be a while"), how about instead rewarding those that save as little as possible, rewarding them with extra weapons/bonuses that you wouldn't get otherwise? Let them brag how they finished the game but only saved twice, so they got the Handwhisk of Death. That way you give the player the incentive to limit the number of saves they make, but without rendering the game utter toss if they want to save frequently for whatever reason.

- "Mission critical" people getting whacked and the game going on is acceptable in a sandbox game that lasts a couple of hours tops (given that you can still progress your character in other ways). It wouldn't be OK in Deux Ex, of course, but this seems to be different.

Sure. I'll go with that. I was under the impression that the game sorta "fades to black", or you can't "finish" properly (via the helicopter?). But since, if I'm hearing you right, the game goes on regardless, then I totally take back the "fucking retarded" remark :D

So, am I getting this right: certain story arcs just don't continue when certain characters die?

I think that if you go-along with the save-approach (i.e. do what I did with Deus Ex, and CHOOSE to act like there's no fall back) then you'll probably get more out of the experience. However, I still believe that the choice to save anywhere ought to be up to the player (and I've nothing against adding auto saves to that).

Also, let's not kid ourselves, "choice" is not always a good thing for us puny, weak humans.

True. Too much choice all at once can be intimidating.

That's why few games have a big red "GOD MODE" or "IWIN" button onscreen at all times. (That would be choice alright - but it would be bad choice...)

Well, that's kinda hyperbole, but I'll give it to you anyhow. See, I don't even feel like things like "God Mode" or "I win" SHOULDN'T be a choice. I mean , fair enough, don't build them into the core game, and make each conflict or puzzle side-steppable, or create one degenerate strategy. But in terms of catering to a vast range of player ability, you OWE it to the player to give them ways to both make their game easier AND harder.

I mean, that's the thing. If people want the tension created by only having a save point 5 miles away from the next boss, THEN THEY'LL DO THAT BY THEMSELVES. A lot of other people will just get pissed off! In using a cheat to "beat" some difficulty spike", you're not saying "Har har, I AM TEH WIN!". You're saying "look, I accept that I can't get past this bit with my skill alone, but I would like to actually PROGRESS in this game that I paid money form. So sue me, I suck, but I want to see the rest of the game/story". I mean, really. There's not just one kind of player out there.

SeriousSam had "Tourist" modes. And when iddqd becomes ubiquitous in the minds of players, what's the difference between a cheat code and a menu option? It's a basic requirement of useability, more than anything.

Historically, there have also been really silly, unintentional reasons for crazy saving: it used to be memory restrictions. Then it was (in the case of FarCry) an attempt to increase the play-through time to meet a contractual requirement. That's why there was only auto saving, even though save-anywhere functionality was in place. They didn't choose limited saves to increase tension. It was there to ELONGATE YOUR PLAYING TIME. Ever wonder why that last level of FarCry looks like Doom2 on Nightmare, what with the cyberdemons running riot around some giant arena? Same reason. They pumped up the mobs to make sure that the game wasn't forgiving, just to meet their quota.

As kangarootoo says, if your only way of creating tension is via the frustration of repetition, then something is horribly wrong. I'll take his AvP example and raise him a System Shock 2. I only played that thing in co-op, where you'd re-spawn from the closest gene-tube if you died. Still shat meself, even though I was effectively immortal.

"If a player *wants* to save every five minutes...why not let them? Instead of punishing players that don't enjoy repetition, long stretches without saving ("Sorry little Timmy, you'll get your dinner when I find the next save point...it might be a while"), how about instead rewarding those that save as little as possible, rewarding them with extra weapons/bonuses that you wouldn't get otherwise? Let them brag how they finished the game but only saved twice, so they got the Handwhisk of Death. That way you give the player the incentive to limit the number of saves they make, but without rendering the game utter toss if they want to save frequently for whatever reason."

Dude, you know there's a pause button, right?

"Dude, you know there's a pause button, right?"

Yes - but who wants to leave their console on all night? Particularly given the alleged noise/overheating problems of the 360 - my original Xbox sounds pretty asthmatic, and would drive me nuts if I left it on at night. Plus pause still doesn't solve the problem of the gamer who beats little Timmy into a bloody pulp when they have to back track a couple of hours because of an unfortunate death combined with a lack of save points.

Poor little Timmy. :(

I think games should have an options choice where you can turn 'Save Anywhere' on or off, with extra achievements etc for those who choose off. After all, you can usually choose 'easy' mode if you like, so why not this?

Ok, this is how I see it.

Firstly, as my previous post stated, this game is designed for multiple playthroughs, you are not meant to be able to unlock everything at once and get the "best" ending first time. Each time you play through you level up, learn new moves, learn your way around the mall etc. This development allows you to do missions quicker, faster and more efficiently. I don't see a big difference between this and many other games eg. Prey - you can only complete Cherokee difficulty setting after completing it on Normal first. i.e. a replay is required to get the most from the game.

The save game mechanic means that if you fail a critical path mission then you either reload your one and only save and try again OR you carry on and maybe get a different ending. IF your last save doesn't allow you to complete the critical path mission then two choices: 1) restart game at beginning (you get to keep your stats) or 2) carry on regardless and likely encounter a different ending.

I expect Capcom have designed the game this way to force players into choices - do I save him or her? Shall I do this mission or just I just mow down Zombies with a lawn mower? By not being able to complete it all first time you can make different choices on your next playthrough and enjoy a different game with different missions. Why is this all so bad? I think it's a little bit different and quite exciting.

"For context, I love the demo to bits and will almost certainly buy the game. But lets see issues for what they are, admit if there are problems (and if people don't like what has been designed, thats a problem regardless of the designer's motives, end of story) and then examine their impact. Thats the way to improve ideas and make the sequels even more awesome. "

It's a choice in how the designers want you to experience a game... They are not beholden to you in that aesthetic choice. The consumer gets to rate that choice with whether or not you purchase the game. I personally like the mechanic. The game isn't long, and, as one gets better, a well played game looks quite slick. There are many classic games that have limited saves. You can't instant save in Chess against a human, for instance.

But in fairness, giving a God mode where you got no achievements for... it's not an unreasonable request. Not one that I think needs to be included in every game... however, but not a crazy thought by any means...

@Skooch

Yes, I'm back again, just can't keep my gob shut.

"I expect Capcom have designed the game this way to force players into choices - do I save him or her? Shall I do this mission or just I just mow down Zombies with a lawn mower? By not being able to complete it all first time you can make different choices on your next playthrough and enjoy a different game with different missions. Why is this all so bad? I think it's a little bit different and quite exciting."

But I'm not sure how all this is connected with the save system. Seems to me that all of the above could be accomplished with a more open system. In fact, finding yourself in a position where your current save will not allow you to complete the main quest is surely reducing the choices that the player has each time they play through (which we both agree are a valuable thing)?

@Polymath

"It's a choice in how the designers want you to experience a game... They are not beholden to you in that aesthetic choice"

Its not a black and white situation. Its veering slightly toward being a semantic discussion, but in some ways the designer IS beholden to the player. The player doesn't design the game, but their opinion of it is crucial. The player is the customer and any designer that disregards their opinion is being unprofessional (I'm not saying that happened here at all, before things get blown out of all proportion).

I've got all tetchy in the past on this site in response to devs saying "I just made the game I wanted to make, I don't care if anyone else likes it". If I had to respond to accusations that my work was poor and I gave a line like that in response I would expect to be on the path toward being fired.

As I said, I think this is a great title. We hyper analyse one aspect of it and the end result seems absurdly negative.

The principle of simply being concerned any time a player says "I don't like this", and importantly not responding with "you are wrong to think that" is a sound one I think.

That principle is really what I was referring to. And I'm wary of discussing it in the context of this specific title as I feel pretty confident it has been adhered to in this case. I enjoy discussions about all this sort of thing, but they are attached to a thread about one specific game things can very much out of joint.

Apologies to anyone who worked on this who thinks I am bagging on their work. It just happened that it triggered a wider discussion. I shall yet again try to shut my gob on the subject :)