I've thrice now run into a map where I just don't find the gold temple at all. I circled all around where the compass pointed, had pretty much the whole map explored, and saw no question marks... But no pyramid.

And my ship disappeared so I can't abort trip?

Wat? [Edit:] Ah, okay. I wanted to explain my point of view as an example of a person who is against perma-death. My question is, why not?

You said "So it's just like the random map mode of 7 cities without savegame abuse then.", which I took as you trying to make an argument in favor of this game here. My point was that I don't see it as an argument in favor of the game and if you think it is that has to mean something: someone has to rely on an enforced savegame deletion in order not to abuse the save function and you think that not evading consequences is better. If better does not equal "enjoyable" in this context then you are probably not talking about entertainment software. There are a lot of games out there where one doesn't have an inbuilt savegame function, so if a person can't delete their save files in those games themselves, they are missing out on some of the enjoyment of a game.
I see two possibilities: Either the person doesn't want to delete their savefiles, so don't force them, or the person wants to delete their savefiles, then implement that option for them.
I don't think there are people who reload their save games even though they wanted to delete them. I think such a person would have issues. And I think that the existence of such a person is the requirement for your argument to be in favor of the game. If such a person exists, though, they could achieve the same result that a forced perma-death mode does in some games in every game by going into therapy.
I don't know what's your problem.

Because otherwise those people would not play the game that you like. What I write is still mainly about your first post and I don't get why you are constantly drawing the attention to things you said in your other posts.
No, I am not new to PC games, which is why I am used to having options, mods and cheats and I am used to companies who support these aspects well, which is why I am annoyed that some devs don't give you options. This is just a step in the wrong direction, other companies have gone bigger steps in another wrong direction but what's so harmful is that apparently some people think less options are a good thing, which is imo the implication of arguing "game xy is better because it makes savegame abuse harder". If you don't like it, don't do it, however, I do not understand how that is not an argument against a game. If the devs have that mindset, giving them money makes it more likely that there will likely be more steps taken in that direction.
You called it savegame abuse, a cheat, and made it sound like it is bad to have the option. There are more possibilities than being completely in favor of something and being completely against something. It sounded like you are taking playing a game by its rules too seriously, which some people do. Maybe I read it in a different tone that was intended but that happens after reading Youtube comments.
Maybe I took the possibility that you can back up saves after "save and quit"-ting a game as given and focused too much on other parts of your posts.
What I mean is that I would be possibly more forgiving if the devs did not implement a feature that may not be necessary. In an hour long game a save function is not as necessary as in a 20 hour game.
However, in this game there is a save function but they implemented yet another feature that I don't like.
It's a possibility but it's unlikely that I would be very forgiving because implementing a save function is something that I expect nowadays.
Probably all circumstances but I didn't test it thoroughly. I started the game and played an old save game but my computer crashed and I found that the save file in the game folder that I hadn't backed up must have been deleted directly after loading the game so as to prevent people from exiting the game without saving their current progress. That's so pointless IMO, I don't get how it is necessary to delete a save file before it is overwritten. Some people may like the kick that they might lose something but why can't they enforce this rule themselves?

That's what I was talking about, even if I worded it a bit harshly. If you don't manage to break that habit, even though you want to, you are going to enjoy most games less than you could and expecting the games to solve that problem is ridiculous, imo, because that would lead to other people having less fun.
If someone wants to stop people from reloading even though they want to, I don't agree with the views of that person.

I don't have a problem with cheating. I watched a video on youtube and there was a complete nutjob (or troll) in the comment section with very extreme views, I probably should stop reading the comments, having read too many posts by people against non-hardcore game modes, options and mods, I seem to be too fast to jump to conclusions.
Though, if you don't think the lack of a save feature that is in the player's control is an improvement, I don't know how to interpret your first sentence in response Maxvorstadt.

It depends on the game for me: If the game only lasts a couple of hours (for example Curious Expedition, Ziggurat or Risk of Rain), i won't seek for a workaround. It feels like cheating to me & generally I like to learn from my mistakes and get better with time. (i'm used to this from simracing/flight-sims, where you don't have an easy way of progressing -- you have to improve your skills the hard way and this usually requires a lot of dedication).

On the other hand, if the game is big, i may consider doing it. In fact, i've done this many years ago when i was playing Diablo II. I used to backup my character so in case i'd die, i wouldn't lose money & exp. That way, i managed to finish the game on Normal as well as in Nightmare without dying -- well, sort of. ;)

I'll save my game even on shorter things like Curious Expeditions. I like t roll back to the point before the mistake and try again. I'll always do this, it is how I like to play :)

Huh...that wasn't even making any judgement about save functions, it was about the random maps part.

Oh so all this because you misunderstood a simple sentence. I did not say it was better, I said it was "just like" Seven Cities, meaning similar, the same, equal.

You said I am doing the opposite of convincing people to try these games. My question is why. That is my problem. Really simple, not sure where your confusion is here.

Yeah duh, that is my intention. I am suggesting a workaround to their problem with the game. I want them to not miss great fun because of an easily solvable problem.

I am doing that because you keep making false assumptions about me to justify your nonsensical first posts. In this case it was you saying I dislike savingnreloading. That is why I had to clarify that I do not.


Sure it is an argument against the game if this option is dear to you. But the if the game is still much much better than most other games out there, I still wanna give them money.
Anyway, it is not a step in a new direction, these games have existed for a long time. The only difference is that now they are very popular and successful, which is your real problem: People like it.

yeah you did take it the wrong way, that should be clear to you by now. I guess I should phrase it more carefully next time, everyone's always offended these days.

What feature, what possibility? I have no idea what you are talking about here or how it relates to my questions.

I agree that the savefile should not be ruined by gamecrashes. That is bad programming. If the game had ever crashed on me, I'd be severely pissed that my progress is gone. You can still backup the savefile before loading it, though so I'm pretty sure they did not do this to prevent savenreload.

It is not ridiculous,it is practical as it does solve the problem for the undecided folks. The question is whether more people had less or more fun with FTL because of this. Since it was a huge hit and received mostly praise I'd say most people needed that extra kick in the panties and the others just worked around it.

You should interpret it as random maps not necessarily being a bad thing for strategy games.

Like the look of this one, as well as the chance to play as HPL and others. Definitely wishlisted, pending the reviews.

If your post was about the random maps part, why did you include that part about "savegame abuse" (in response to the "Permadeath" part? By now, I'm seriously considering the possibility that I read your posts more thoroughly than you've thought about them (or mine) -maybe that's the problem.

About the rest of your last post: I think our thinking processes are fundamentally incompatible. Explaining my reasoning is futile because we are not going to be able to agree upon the validity of each other's statements.

Curious.

Nope, I had to include that part because it is not in 7 cities which would have made my "just like 7 cities" statement vulnerable. If I had left that part out, someone like you would have come along to inform me that it is not like 7 cities at all because of the savenreload.

I disagree, you just realised that you messed up. You should have quit after your initial troll attempts, instead you decided to dig a deeper hole. I even gave you a chance by replying in jest the first few times.

Awesome! I remember reading a thread about this game a couple of years ago and found it very interesting. I would have bought it right now, but I have too many games right now that I want to play first. I'd probably buy it if it goes for half price, or if I suddenly find myself in the mood for some 19th century exploration.

+++ for not allowing any options for save-scumming.

I think the point that you are completely missing is that certain games are designed to be played in a certain way. When someone makes options for a game, like different factions or the ability to save and load at any time they usually try to balance the game mechanics so that the game is still fun to play in the way they thought the game would be played, with either of those options enabled.

If someone other than the game designers add more options to the game later with a patch or a mod, the game may yet be fun to play for most, but it may also get unbalanced in such a way that it will not play out the way it was meant to by the designers. The game may still be fun to play for some, yet it will not really be the same game anymore.

Rogue-likes are usually designed to be played with perma-death. If the game designer for some reason (like popular pressure) nonetheless decides to add the option to turn off perma-death, even though the game was designed for it, it will likely have the effect that many of those that are new to the genre will turn this option off, thus they will not experience the game as it was meant to be played and they will likely have a worse experience.

Why would those new to the genre turn it off? Because we are usually conditioned in games to see death as a bad thing, something to be avoided. So if you can avoid it, why not? If it is a part off the normal game options people will think that they get the normal game experience either way something that they will not. Most of the people who already play and enjoy rogue-likes will already know why perma-death is a good thing so it is not for them that the option should not exist, it is for the new players.

A similar issue exist when old console games from the 8 and 16 bit generations are emulated on newer hardware. Being able to save at any time is very useful and should almost be mandatory, however being able to load at any time may make people think that constant saving and loading is how you are meant to play these games. Especially when blogs and magazines like Nintendo Life promotes the view that save-scumming is a legitimate way to get through the hard parts of these games, many people will spoil their fun since they do not know the right way to play these games. And don't let me get started on when arcade ports are supplied with infinite continues!

I'm sure you are very found of both save-scumming and infinite continues since that seems to be a part of your "philosophy", but let me instead find some more alien examples that are analogous to having the option of loading your game in a rogue-like:

Do you agree that all or most first person shooters should have god-mode as an option?
Do you agree that all or most adventure games should have an option for you to have the game tell you the solution to all the games puzzles?
Do you agree that all or most RPG games should give you the option to respec all of your character development options on all your characters at any point in the game?

I can't even properly express how much I dislike it that Japanese console and hand-held games don't offer comparable saving mechanisms on the console to those that are available on emulators.
Actually, I can't follow your logic that people would get the impression that the game was designed that way because it was always obvious to me that any non-in-game saving option was not present in the old console.
I'm very fond of the possibility to play a game the way I want to play it at the moment.
Yes, I do. That doesn't work well for all multi-player games, though.

What's the hold-up on the sequel making its way onto GoG?
Been out for over a year now and already has received its first expansion back in November - about time, wouldn't you say?