A poll on whether or not users should be given the option to play the upcoming improved Survival Mode with "Require sleeping to save the game" mode turned either on or off.

I'm making this thread based on another recent thread that is a "Part 2" of a previous thread that reached the 200 post limit:

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1593342-should-survival-mode-only-allow-saving-when-you-sleep-part2/

Which is to say: it seems to be an important topic at least to the participants on this forum.

I can think of plenty of other "Survival Mode" functionalities that could deserve a similar poll about an "On/Off Switch" but lets keep it simple and hope it comes out as something like a clear consensus for the developers to consider . . .

I am absolutely FOR the sleep-to-save mechanic. I've had like one CTD over my 250+ hours in game. Fallout 4 is incredibly stable on my system, so I'm looking forward to that particular feature.

Buuuuut I'm well aware that I am one of the lucky few. A toggle is definitely the best way to go - either that or the restricted loads rather than restricted saves that others have suggested. It can't be hard to implement, as basically all my mods on Skyrim had feature on/off switches. Customisation is king.

I like the Survival mode having sleep to save. but there should be a portable campsite at least, otherwise start marking every bed on the map!

a hardcoe mode with all of the Survival features that can be toggled would be next choice in list of modes.

Toggle or not,

I will be happy to follow the sleep save, but I will never sleep save if it`s only optional.

Yes. Every separate feature of "survival mode" should be an optional toggle. None of it should be part of an "all or nothing" package. Edit: If people never use a given toggle, then it can't be that great a feature, can it?

I agree. Some of my favorite games have very large and complex panes with lots of different "switches" for turning various options on/off. It is perhaps my bias that "good design" will tend towards "too much" of this kind of functionality, though I do recognize there is a limit to what is reasonable from a development cost standpoint or salutary for user experience.

http://www.matchstickeyes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Distant-Worlds-Game-2-Start-Screen-3.jpg

the hardcoe mode should be implemented like this :

- each new change should be toggled ON / OFF ( fast travel , sleep to save ... etc )

i like the new hardcoe mode but i won't play because of the "no-fast travel" , it's good that they added it

If each change of Survival mode can be turned off/on at will, I won`t treat this mode seriously and might not even play lol.


Just personal opinion.

I request you change your poll to include YES to death penalty but change restricted saves to restricted reloads so that I can quicksave to deal with life/bugs but not to cheat death in Survival mode by toggling death penalty off.

Otherwise you are creating another limited poll that does not show what all the options are that is not representative of forum opinion.

That's your choice, and choice is what it's all about

I say no toggle for sleep to save on and off.

I'm for sleep to save.

Yeah if this survival mode is just 20 different option on/off mode,

I can pass it.

It`s a joke. No real survival mode.



They should also add unlimited cap/ammo on/off option.

Survival mode with no toggle and a Steam badge for using it.

hardcoe and others can have the toggles.

I understand your position, and it is a good point. But I look at it like this: if there is _one_ feature of Survival Mode that users cannot turn off and consequently less users even make use of Survival Mode that is a worse outcome than if some user's turn off some features and play a "Survival Mode Lite."

Let's say there are 9 new game play features that comprise "Survival Mode" I can turn them all on/off. With all 9 on it is "Full Survival Mode" with all off it is "Survival Mode Lite 0/9."

If I get use out of it at 0/9, then I may soon come back and try it at 1/9, then 2/9 and on and on.

More options IMO will generally lead to "more" not less replay value as you seem to imply.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

Anyway, poll has already been voted on so probably a bad idea to change it now

If they add achievement for full toggle on only, I think that could be good way to go even with toggles.

and

I see what you guys are saying, and yeah, that seems fair. I can understand why the achievements and badges are a part of the fun for some users, though to me I never even notice them.

I don`t care for trophy either, but at least it`s a reason for some players to try the hardest mode as intended.

Nope. If you don't like it, play on very hard.

That argument is terrible. Very hard doesn't have the new stuff like diseases, ammo weight, and something to counter bullet sponges.

hey, a lot of us chased Benevolent Leader badge pretty hard! 100% happiness was tough to earn back in Nov and Dec. Then we shared our stories and found a way around it.

Using Survival and earning that badge for completing any faction would be the bomb to brag about!

I was going to assume that maybe you were being facetious, then your second post validated my initial thought.

It's less about the actual fun the mode provides, and more an ego trip for you; an [censored] measuring contest.

I'm all about what fun the options would bring to the table. Take your ego trip with you please.

Having said that, I wouldn't exactly like a million options to choose from, but I would be ok with it.

My main concern is only one feature of the mode keeping from all the rest with a game I've had my fair share of bugs and glitches with.

Actually you are very wrong.

I don`t go after trophy or post my game stuffs anywhere.


So there is no way for me to go all [censored] with FO4 or other games.

my opinion is unpopular.

But the devs are making a true survival mode, and having limitation on save make senses.

My gut wants me to say "no this abomination shouldn't exist at all in a BGS game and letting it in is a big mistake" but out of consideration of others I voted for a toggle and feel that's the fairest choice. We both get what we want.

I'd prefer to play on Survival with the ability to save the game whenever I want

Meaning, exactly the point H4-I3 made above "All the neat new features of survival without having to sleep to save."

I could also imagine wanting to turn off "Disable Fast Travel" from time to time, but given I generally like to play without it I'd be keen to try it with that enabled too. For that one, I'd be keen to try it both ways.

The rest of the "survival features" . . . based on what I'm hearing, I'd always want those, and wish they were in the game now. My last FO3 install was heavily modded with the mods that added these types of "realism" features, also my Skyrim install.

Now that I think about it though, I wouldn't have a problem with a "require sleep to save" features in survival IF portable bed rolls were a thing . . . its just the silly idea that: "I must get back to a bed so that I can save this game and turn it off, even though I've only got 5 minutes till I need to leave for my hot date/important appointment . . ." etc. that I don't like.

. . . end of the day . . . we users are legion and we have probably near infinite numbers of personal preferences. As such, game options panels that provide users with more "plug-n-play" and user friendly customizability (meaning 'get the effects of mods but with the simplicity of a toggle switch) seems to me to be a good general design strategy.

If there really is a large enough portion of the user base who want to be required to sleep in order to save, and get special trophies for playing that way and such, then I'd suggest an additional "difficulty tier" above "Survival" called "Masochist!"