To all those moaning about the lack of a save game

[Eridan Ampora]

So I bought this game within minutes of it being released (I have fond memories of refreshing the page over and over waiting for more news), and I had a lot of fun playing this game over the months it has been out. I completed the campaigns, played around in the mission editor a lot, and the only crashes I experienced was when I attempted to run the game on an ancient XP machine.

Now, I never felt the game was compromised by the lack of a save game feature. In fact, I feel this is a good thing for the game, as it adds a much more challenging element. I imagine Beatty was wishing he could load an earlier save when he saw his battlecruisers blowing up. I'm sure the US high command wished they could quit and reload when they saw Pearl Harbour being bombed.

The challenge that the lack of a save feature provides is, to me, a GOOD thing. I have seen people trying to stop people from buying the game for this reason, and I do not understand why. What I have always wanted from a game is the addition of the fact that if you die, you die. If your ship drives straight into a hail of missiles, then that ship is lost. If some Backfires sneak up on you and launch a barrage of missiles, then one's immediate reaction should be to panic and try and limit the damage- not to just reload a save and intercept them with foreknowledge of their attack.

So basically, I am glad this game does not have have a save feature. It makes a refreshing change from most games these days, which are mostly just ridiculously easy.


And like I said, I have experienced very few bugs with this game. Chances are if it does not run well on your computer, then your computer just isn't good enough to run it. Don't let the dated graphics confuse you, this game does require a quite powerful computer to run. Do not blame the devs for "abandoning the game" in a "buggy state" if your computer is not good enough. If I was to post about a windows 95 laptop not being able to run a modern day First person shooter, I would be ridiculed.

In short, maybe people should look at what they want from a video game before they start talking trash about it and it's devs (who, from my experience, have done a wonderful job with this game).

[Mighty Heart]

Hehe I still do not dare to attempt the last NATO mission......always failing before.

Hehehe but yeah no save game feature means each single player game is a challenge. But those who wanted it probably wanted it so that they could continue at some other point, ie they didn't have the time commitment to play for 2 hours straight.

[Stuckenschmidt]

I wonder how much the OP got paid.

[Paraht]

I am curious what factual argument against a savegame option exists, if I cannot play most of time for more then 1 or 2 hours. Perhaps not to by the game? Or to play only the shorter missions? Nice try. muahahaha...
Its not comprehensible why such a post that gathers only one argument (savegame is for sissies) and completly ignoring other arguments because it would make clear, how pointless his/her post is. Peculiar.

[FOARP]

I am curious what factual argument against a savegame option exists, if I cannot play most of time for more then 1 or 2 hours. Perhaps not to by the game? Or to play only the shorter missions? Nice try. muahahaha...
Its not comprehensible why such a post that gathers only one argument (savegame is for sissies) and completly ignoring other arguments because it would make clear, how pointless his/her post is. Peculiar.

Exactly. The idea of a strategy game - ANY STRATEGY GAME - which doesn't have a save-game wouldn't have occurred to anyone before this game was released. No-one even thought to ask whether it had a save-game feature or not before they bought it because these are simply standard in these games - even the first Harpoon had a save-game feature and that was released in 1989.

Go and look at the EUIV forum - do you see anyone asking Johan and the gang whether EUIV will allow you to save your game? No? Could that be because it is stupid to think that a game which takes hours to complete and may crash can be played easily without one?

There simply is no reason why a strategy game which lacks a save-game should be regarded as anything but deeply flawed. This is even more so given that this game suffers from random crashing which the devs haven't bothered to fix, meaning that when it crashes you cannot go back to an earlier time and re-load.

THIS. GAME. IS. BROKEN. FIX. IT. PLEASE.

Edit: Oh, and it blows my mind that people are making excuses for the devs here when they've basically just taken their customer's money and then ditched this project.

[AdAstra]

So I bought this game within minutes of it being released (I have fond memories of refreshing the page over and over waiting for more news), and I had a lot of fun playing this game over the months it has been out. I completed the campaigns, played around in the mission editor a lot, and the only crashes I experienced was when I attempted to run the game on an ancient XP machine.

Now, I never felt the game was compromised by the lack of a save game feature. In fact, I feel this is a good thing for the game, as it adds a much more challenging element. I imagine Beatty was wishing he could load an earlier save when he saw his battlecruisers blowing up. I'm sure the US high command wished they could quit and reload when they saw Pearl Harbour being bombed.

The challenge that the lack of a save feature provides is, to me, a GOOD thing. I have seen people trying to stop people from buying the game for this reason, and I do not understand why. What I have always wanted from a game is the addition of the fact that if you die, you die. If your ship drives straight into a hail of missiles, then that ship is lost. If some Backfires sneak up on you and launch a barrage of missiles, then one's immediate reaction should be to panic and try and limit the damage- not to just reload a save and intercept them with foreknowledge of their attack.

So basically, I am glad this game does not have have a save feature. It makes a refreshing change from most games these days, which are mostly just ridiculously easy.


And like I said, I have experienced very few bugs with this game. Chances are if it does not run well on your computer, then your computer just isn't good enough to run it. Don't let the dated graphics confuse you, this game does require a quite powerful computer to run. Do not blame the devs for "abandoning the game" in a "buggy state" if your computer is not good enough. If I was to post about a windows 95 laptop not being able to run a modern day First person shooter, I would be ridiculed.

In short, maybe people should look at what they want from a video game before they start talking trash about it and it's devs (who, from my experience, have done a wonderful job with this game).

You know, when I want a challenge I play for example: EU3 Granada/Epirus or HOI3 Poland or AI War that depends on mood.
I do not uderstand the challenge part in "No save game option = challenge". You know that this is build in option in 99% of the games for a reason, reason is that not everyone wants your "challenges". Some wants to save progress and continue later, or autosave in a possibility of crashes. Or you play multiplayer and friends want to quite and continue later. There are lots of examples you figure out the rest.

You can go defend developers and their ideas as much as you want. That however do not make us people who want some kind of quality in their games purchause this product or if owned already continue playing it.

Would like to add here that nobody is moaning. People are writing here their concerns about lackign the features they want to see. I do now own the game myself, but I have played it and I totally agree with people getting aggrovated because lack of content, vanished support (making DLC is not support, it is beating the dead horse in this case.) and lack of critical features that shoudl exist in this game.

[Badkarma1001]

You know, when I want a challenge I play for example: EU3 Granada/Epirus or HOI3 Poland or AI War that depends on mood.
I do not uderstand the challenge part in "No save game option = challenge". You know that this is build in option in 99% of the games for a reason, reason is that not everyone wants your "challenges". Some wants to save progress and continue later, or autosave in a possibility of crashes. Or you play multiplayer and friends want to quite and continue later. There are lots of examples you figure out the rest.

You can go defend developers and their ideas as much as you want. That however do not make us people who want some kind of quality in their games purchause this product or if owned already continue playing it.

Would like to add here that nobody is moaning. People are writing here their concerns about lackign the features they want to see. I do now own the game myself, but I have played it and I totally agree with people getting aggrovated because lack of content, vanished support (making DLC is not support, it is beating the dead horse in this case.) and lack of critical features that shoudl exist in this game.

Agree 100%

If the OP has the time to play to play a few hours in the row that´s great for him but i am a married man with an active social life, wife, 3 kids and a dog! So go figure!

[niripas]

I don't mind challenges, but having no save option is not a challenge, it's a bug. Especially when the game is not properly debugged. I finished campaign only because I had to leave computer running when I had no time to play, computer was just blocked by the game (cause alt-tabbing for longer time means crash) and I still had few crashes right at the end of scenario (Ragnarok Armada - crashed after three days real time, when one group was already in position, and another had like hour to go). I will not go that far to call lack of save possibility stupid, but definitely it's an omission.

[nasd55]

Seriously, someone is defending a no savegame bug/option, so if you have work, wife and friends you basicaly can't play this because for you to have a chalenge you can't have the option of just not saving or you can't stop abusing it ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

So the only things we learned is that you cant't stop cheating/saving if given the option, and that you really have too much spare time on your hands...LOL

Just one more thin, if people didn't moan, the wheel would still be square, daaahhhh

[Destraex]

So I bought this game within minutes of it being released (I have fond memories of refreshing the page over and over waiting for more news), and I had a lot of fun playing this game over the months it has been out. I completed the campaigns, played around in the mission editor a lot, and the only crashes I experienced was when I attempted to run the game on an ancient XP machine.

Now, I never felt the game was compromised by the lack of a save game feature. In fact, I feel this is a good thing for the game, as it adds a much more challenging element. I imagine Beatty was wishing he could load an earlier save when he saw his battlecruisers blowing up. I'm sure the US high command wished they could quit and reload when they saw Pearl Harbour being bombed.

The challenge that the lack of a save feature provides is, to me, a GOOD thing. I have seen people trying to stop people from buying the game for this reason, and I do not understand why. What I have always wanted from a game is the addition of the fact that if you die, you die. If your ship drives straight into a hail of missiles, then that ship is lost. If some Backfires sneak up on you and launch a barrage of missiles, then one's immediate reaction should be to panic and try and limit the damage- not to just reload a save and intercept them with foreknowledge of their attack.

So basically, I am glad this game does not have have a save feature. It makes a refreshing change from most games these days, which are mostly just ridiculously easy.


And like I said, I have experienced very few bugs with this game. Chances are if it does not run well on your computer, then your computer just isn't good enough to run it. Don't let the dated graphics confuse you, this game does require a quite powerful computer to run. Do not blame the devs for "abandoning the game" in a "buggy state" if your computer is not good enough. If I was to post about a windows 95 laptop not being able to run a modern day First person shooter, I would be ridiculed.

In short, maybe people should look at what they want from a video game before they start talking trash about it and it's devs (who, from my experience, have done a wonderful job with this game).

I have to ask. Are you single with no job or real life responsibility's by any chance?

[will1488]

I dont post often at all ,but i just got to say this is the most illogical post i have ever read .

[Herman Hum]

This game probably has no save function, either.

Player dies after 40 hours of Diablo 3

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/gamer-di...rathon-6387472

[mariandavid]

Agree with all those who object to the opener. This is the ONLY recent game I have bought from Paradox which now sits unplayed - perhaps because I have a cell-phone, friends and a family who do demand time regardless of the 'challenge' I face in a NW-Arctic Circle scenario.

Why, oh why is it so difficult for those who matter to realise that the lack of save is a killer for the vast majority of players.

[Rancher]

Not having so much time I feel the need to have a save game so I can actually get through a game. I must admit after looking forward to the game it has disappointed me. It doesnt seem to have a personality in some way. Played it for a couple of weeks and havent touched it since.

[steve58]

The publisher for Command (formerly Red Pill) was announced today. I hear it actually has a Save game feature.

[sensei]

Ugh. Matrix Games. Where you too can buy a re-release of a game put out in 1996 for the low, low price of $60!!!

[Nats]

Not having so much time I feel the need to have a save game so I can actually get through a game. I must admit after looking forward to the game it has disappointed me. It doesnt seem to have a personality in some way. Played it for a couple of weeks and havent touched it since.

Same here I havent touched this game for months and have uninstalled it from my computer so save some space. It was fun for a while but lack of a savegame feature, no modding, and slowdowns for anything but small conflicts (due to a lack of efficient coding I presume), has meant that really large missions are impossible and that has resulted in me getting fed up. Cant say I will be looking at anything else the developers put out after this waste.

[FOARP]

Same here I havent touched this game for months and have uninstalled it from my computer so save some space. It was fun for a while but lack of a savegame feature, no modding, and slowdowns for anything but small conflicts (due to a lack of efficient coding I presume), has meant that really large missions are impossible and that has resulted in me getting fed up. Cant say I will be looking at anything else the developers put out after this waste.

Yep. As a consequence this discussion-board is going to become part of the Paradox's graveyard of seldom/never-updated forums.