Poll: Strategy Games and Reloading

[Undead Dragon King]

http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/122/1223192p1.html

This article I read today is short, succinct and made me question the way that I play strategy games. It's well-written, and strategy gamers of all stripes should give it a read.

For those who can't be bothered: The article basically says that a culture of reloading failures in strategy games has actually not only hurt the potential enjoyment that could be gotten from a game, but is also impacting the entire genre in a bad way, with unfair amounts of difficulty.

For discussion: Do you reload your strategy games when things go bad? And for those who do, is it a guilty pleasure or do you view it as part of the game?

I used to be a reloader, but now I'm willing to try it without reloading.

 

[Pearwood]

I don't, I usually just try to do damage control. It's amazing how many games you think are completely lost that actually you can salvage by just buying yourself a bit of time.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Depends on the game.

In X-Com, losing a squad of marines was not the end of the world, and was even expected. So if I got a squad chewed up, I'd just launch another squad and the game would continue apace.

In Jagged Alliance 2, losing a squad of high end mercenaries absolutely is the end of the world, because there are NO MORE HIGH END MERCENARIES. They're all dead now. The end! That's an automatic reload. And the game's difficulty tuning eventually becomes so draconian that you're essentially forced to reload on occasion anyway if you ever expect to finish it.

I love both games, and consider them both to be essential classics.

In Civilization, I will frequently reload if things don't go according to plan. This is partially because of why I play...to groom a perfect civilization, as opposed to any real challenge...and also partially because the AI cheats like a ************.

In Crusader Kings 2, I won't ever reload if things blow up. Things blowing up is basically the appeal of the game. You might as well reload when your Dwarf Fortress goes sour.

I love both games, and consider them both to be essential classics.

Reloading doesn't necessarily ruin anything, but it's game/person dependent. Ultimately, people are free to play in whatever fashion they find most rewarding.

Anyway...I understand what the article is saying and I guess I more or less agree, but I'm not about to play, say, Elven Legacy with no saves just to get my balls crushed, and I'm not about to discard perfectly fun games because their brutal difficulty requires quick-loading. It's a good rule of thumb to use for games that don't require frequent saves for potential victory, or that have amazing AI that doesn't cheat its ass off (X-Com, Warlords), but those games are few and far between.

 

[DoPo]

Depends on the game.

Yes, this. Say, playing Heroes and if the enemy steamrolls over my main hero, then there it goes. Fair play. Well, maybe I would reload if I really enjoyed the map so far and have invested a huge deal of time playing it (A year on an XL map against 6-7 enemies, for example) but otherwise, I'll just start again.

However, playing the campaign, it's almost crucial to save and reload (which the article talks about). If you die in the campaign, you...start over again and it may take a really long time. Not to mention that one battle gone wrong (you take more casualties than you need to) could potentially screw you in the long run as there would simply be no way to take on the final battle (without reloading again...). Campaigns are a no-win scenario. Or actually an always-win scenario, as you're not supposed to really lose that much.

But in general, I tend to go with how I do in Heroes - I reload if I really enjoyed the map and even then, I don't save that often, so it's more of a shorter way to start a new game.

 

[Lugbzurg]

In Fire Emblem? Yes. I'm far too attached to the characters to watch them die. The even address me by name! After all the battles and everything else we get put through, they almost feel like close friends!

 

[Souplex]

Only in Fire Emblem where death is permanent, I consider having a character die losing.
In any other game, I continue fighting through a bad situation.

 

[Tanis]

It depends on the game and if I'm doing a replay or first time.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

I only reload when the mechanics break down on me, like the pathfinding sometimes does in Total war games.

other than that, I like plotting my vengeance and nurture an army fit for the job.

 

[Dryk]

I do it all the time in Heroes if I'm near the end of a campaign level and someone walks up, rolls three extra turns in a row and crushes my huge army. Also I restart missions A LOT in Fire Emblem... because well it's Fire Emblem

 

[Gunner 51]

Oh hell yes, every time I mess up on C&C - I just hit the reload button. I refuse to be wiped out by the feckin' GDI.

 

[Smooth Operator]

I always let it play out and see how it goes to shit, every mistake is a learning experience so if you just jump out at first sign of trouble you are destined to repeat it again.

 

[Deadyawn]

Yes, I save scum like a ***** in most strategy games. It's almost compulsive. I just can't stand getting horribly sub-par results.
Although, if it's a stand alone battle or something then thats ok. If we're talking X-COM or Fire Emblem I will attempt to keep as many people alive as possible. If it's like say Advance Wars I'll keep going.

 

[babinro]

RTS games I'll reload upon loss of major buildings if I've been falling behind gradually leading up to that point.

Games like Civ 5 or Advanced Wars I'll play through regardless.

 

[zehydra]

No, that would kind of defeat the point no? I don't save and reload when I start doing terrible in any other game (except RPGs, since you're only expected to have one or two games)

 

[Old Father Eternity]

Generally no, as some said, kinda defeats the purpose. Though saves in campaigns after a mission critical success or when there is a possibility of losing a mission critical asset that can not be recovered by regular means are acceptable in my book as I would like to spare myself from redoing most of the sodding mission, especially if I am on a time limit. In skirmish however, if I loose then I loose.

 

[ChaosBorne]

some games i use the quicksave/load option, but that's mostly with games that require a long early game, i don't like having to spend another hour or 2 to build up to the point where a game becomes fun (the midgame) other games don't have a long start up time so i don't bother saving because the build-up period is short enough that it doesn't detract from the fun part.

so yeah some games do require me to save/load so i get to jump right into the action when i want.

 

[hawkeye52]

Playing Europa universialis 3 right now and I have a sort of forced reload problem. Got to the point where I have taken Cyprus to control all of turkey right down around the coast to Egypt and a little inland, Greece, South Italy and South india as well as some parts of south africa and madagascar etc. Now every time I save and load the game all alliances and diplomacy are reset. Thats is the epitomy of frustration for me because the 4th largest country is under a personal union with me meaning I might just inherit it at some point and now every time the game save/reloads it just wipes it clean meaning I will have to take the country by force.

Argh.

Still if I enter the game with a different mindset it might be interesting still

 

[AngleWyrm]

The article basically says that a culture of reloading failures in strategy games has actually not only hurt the potential enjoyment that could be gotten from a game, but is also impacting the entire genre in a bad way, with unfair amounts of difficulty.

It's an opinion, but it's one that I don't share.

One of the most bizarre things that we have in our minds is the idea that "I could have done it differently." Which is of course false. But games can offer us this ability to go back and try again, with new knowledge and a slightly different perspective. In a way, it's a strange trickery, a fantasy fulfillment.

My opinion is there is no such thing as perma-death. For instance, Nethack is famously one of the first perma-death games. But it's not really any different than having the ability to save, because instead of loading from the start of a level, you are merely loading from the start of a new game.

 

[Undead Dragon King]

The main thing that I can empathize with is that since strategy cames are open-ended, people can understand WHY something happened the way it did and reload to apply the new lesson they learned. It's an instantaneous learning process. It could be said that the lesson isn't learned quite as well as when you fail. But it could also be said that the lesson is learned well enough when you reload anyway.

But that also plays into the problems about developers jacking up the game to simply unfair levels on higher difficulties, as the article says. They're expecting you to learn from your often-fatal mistakes in order to progress at all. Dark Souls was tough as hell, but it was mostly fair. Total War on Very Hard difficulty is simply unfair. Yes, the feeling of winning on that difficulty can be euphoric, but the amount of hair-pulling frustration it took to get there makes me question whether it's worth it.

 

[GundamSentinel]

I generally don't if I lose a battle fair and square. Sometimes I go back to a save, for instance if I completely forgot something I had planned to do during my turn, or when the situation for the campaign has become completely unrecoverable.