Take out the MQ in survival mode, remove all dialog about Shaun. Only have side quests and the ability to create a faction in the commonwealth against or allied with the others. Then only save on exit and on death force a character re-roll.

Then you can talk about the risks and being greatly rewarded (In a single player game, really?) otherwise the risk isn't anything other than an hour of trudging through the same dungeon killing the same guys because you missed a tripwire at the end. how is that a risk for a seventeen year old on a caffeine high at 3 in the morning? It isn't. How is it a risk for a father of three at eight at night during his 45 minutes of game time he can squeeze in every couple of days. It isn't a risk to him either really, it's just a pain in the ass.

UH can some one explain this to me, as it doesn't seem related to the topic.

It's a reply to a poster making saving in beds into a risk vs. reward in a single player game issue, claiming that taking chances without saving will yield great rewards, but carry great risk and all that hogwash.

bed saving is a good risk reward thing. Even if beds are everywhere, seeing one when they are your only option to save is a god send.

Limiting saves is a really nice feature for survival games.

A note: I love the fact they have said bed saving will be a thing for survival, makes the game feel like more of an actually role playing game. That and the tension that comes from a more limited saving system is really freaking epic. Look at horror and pure survival games that do it, limited saving areas increase tension discourage risk and makes people think a lot more.

I would prefer it to be optional. I once got stuck on the table at RR HQ ...So I`d have to replay a few hours just because of it. And there were a lot of times when I had to replay quests, battles etc, because of something like this.

The only thing that helps to minimize replaying time is saving the game enough often. I would just make enemies damage on survival much higher, without making them "fat". And it would be fun if there were different diseases + need to eat drink regulary.

And one more thing, I would make stimpacks and all chems weight more on survival, so you can`t carry with you 500 stimpacks. It makes you almost immortal.

For me it's more the throwback to the 'Checkpoint' saves of an earlier era of games. I guess many would argue that having to master a complete sequence before you could save was an artificial way to extend game duration but at the same time allowing saves any time you want trivializes much of the content.
A big part of that was playing the game, you felt triumphant when you mastered a section and could move on to the next section.
I've seen no mention that it disables the existing auto-saves, just that you don't have the freedom to quicksave.

Fingers crossed
With the number of options for Survival mode being mentioned it would seem strange to release it in a one size fits all.

The again maybe it really needs to separate those elements that make the game more challenging (limited saves, ironman, no fast travel) from those that try to recreate a more realistic setting (exhaustion, disease).

Hopefully its just the auto saves he is referring to. That would be kinda dumb if you can't save in the main menu when you pause. With the sometimes random glitches and crashes we encounter in these games, not being able to save in the main menu will be a huge annoyance.

Very true, gotta love economics/game theory. Though you bring up a point I'm hearing a lot here. The idea that Survival mode is supposed to be some sort of SUPER HARD mode. But to quote Todd

" It’s a different experience. We’re not trying to make it a ton harder. It’s harder because you’re doing more things. We want the combat to feel different, as opposed to just being a bullet sponge. "

So it might not be intended as any sort of hardcoe mode, but just a very different experience.

I do have to disagree with you about basing any decisions on a Poll. How else will they get an idea of what players want? They could read every thread, or try to get the jist of each. Polls simplify it. I find it REALLY interesting that at this point, the 2 options are very close. 42% yes to 57# no. While that seems to say that more people prefer the "no" option, it also shows that there's a decent sized group that wants the "yes" option.

Because it doesn't really work for any reason you'd want to frequently save. Lets say saving gets locked to sleeping but they keep fast travel. Then anytime you want to sleep you might as well just fast travel back to Sanctuary Hills, and sleep/save.

Lets say I'm in the middle of the Institute's Assault on the Brotherhood. I'd need to save at some point before leaving the Institute but that'd be it. I'd be forced to make my way through that entire battle with no saving. And that was a pretty brutal battle. It also wasn't the most strategic battle, few of the ones in Fallout 4 are. The Brotherhood just sends wave after wave of their men at you. That's it. There's no complex dodging, or learning enemies attack patterns.

I don't think that would make the battle any more challenging. Most of the big fights in Fallout 4 can be beaten by simply having enough ammo, and spamming the use of stimpacks.

One other thing I didn't think about before. There's also the issue of any enemy using a Fat Man. I've died quite a few times because I ran into an enemy armed with a Fat Man and didn't know it until I got nuked. So in that scenario, I'd just be randomly screwed without any sort of saves or autosaves to fall back on. How much would it piss you off if you were playing for 2 hours only to open a door and find a Gunner armed with a Fat Man indoors?

This is the one thing I've heard that I don't really like about it. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea in principle, as it is in many respects more immersive. However, Bethesda games aren't exactly known for being totally stable. Throughout my 600 hours with the game I've had about a dozen or so CTDs. I've had a few quests bug out, which forced me to reload a save and restart the quest. There are times that I go out exploring and I'm not near a bed for hours. I'd hate to lose three hours of game play because of a CTD or a bugged quest.

What I'd like to see is a bedroll item that you can use while exploring. You wouldn't be able to use it when enemies were nearby, and you wouldn't be able to use it in the middle of quests or dungeons. But you'd be able to use it when outside of combat.

I'm not picking the easier option. I'm picking the option that's least likely to result in losing three hours of game play because of a CTD or a bugged quest. I'm already playing on Survival and I essentially never die anyway. It has nothing to do with making things easier on my part.

I don't think this should be a thing.

Fallout 4 has game freezing bugs and save game corruption issues. Unless those things get 100% squashed and resolved, save limiting is a very bad idea.

It's not dumb even if you can't save in the main menu as well.

It's a risk you need to think about if you don't sleep you die and suffer the consequences.

http://www.gamesas.com/user/472178-nu-clear-day/? , yup I forgot about that , and the 1st 5 1/2 I got came with MechWarrior . the orginal 1st 1 ... ..

1st game I played was on a commador 64 and I bought the kids a Atari 800 16k -- bytes LOL computer yea commador as 64k LOL .. and u had to enter the games into dos to play .. is where I played my 1st stand in middle and turn in circles and shoot the spacecraft , before they run into you and kill u LOL .. was even before space invaders and pac-man

the very 1st computer I seen had a keypunch and was a huge room with a 16k computer ( the size of a BIG couch).. yea it was top of the line in its day ..

ahh heck man , if got to do a sleep thing I may die a lot but what the heck , full steam ahead and kill it if it moves , and always shoot a bush if it moves ..

and of course , if they buying lunch we let them live alittle longer , then be nap time

have good day

hahaha, that option would certainly be really hardcoe. I can endure Bethesda games at any difficulty mainly because you can save and try the same exact moment a million of times. If they want it for raising the difficulty then they would have to remove autosaves too when you are on survival. I think it is a good idea, I am sure several people claiming the game to be easy will stop doing so when each death becomes so punishing and makes you lose several hours of progress.

Reloading a game save every minute is absolute garbage. Knowing that you will have to reload from your last save while sleeping is excellent and a much better representation of a hardcoe mode, it leaves you on the edge of your seat. Take care, choose your talents wisely, survive. Exactly how it should be. Don't play it if you want to quick save every 30 seconds, play the mode that isn't called survival.

Fallout Tactics had a similar option, called "Tough Guy". You couldn't save during missions, but you got XP bonus as compensation.

There is absolutely no reason NOT to include this. This would make the game play a lot different and I know some of you don't like change, but that's no reason for them not to put it in as a select-able feature. Don't like it, don't play with it on. Don't try to have them take it out just because you don't like it. As easy as the game is now, on Survival, these new features are needed to give it more depth and it's a welcome change.

Saying the game is too glitchy to have a feature like this...almost every game that has a similar mode has glitches that can kill a character. Go play D2/D3 in hardcoe...with a little lag, your character is dead, but it is still fun for many people, regardless.

Don't limit our options because a few won't like it. Just make it optional.

Just change it to being able to save at any location we can wait. If beds aren't plentiful enough, beds and chairs sure as hell are.

Fallout 4 crashes often for me, so I hope I can remove it with a mod, so I don't lose my entire day of progress.

there are so many games that don't allow you to save whenever you want.

especially back in the day.

infact i think you even had games that limited saving as a whole with ingame items like typewriter ink i belivee in resident evil, no? they treat saving as a resource just like ammo or food.

i assume you can still sleep 1 hour a couple of times for the sake of having multiple save files incase one crashes and goes corrupt. also the fact that it's survival and the gamemode WANTS you to sleep or it will punish you with debuffs will make knick in your brain so you actually might get the reflex to take a nap everytime it gets dark. or if you have the nightperson perk, when it gets day.

srsly now.. this mode is made for people who want a lil extra & realism at that. stop crying so much, believe in Todd, that is all i am gonna say.

No from me purely on game stability issues.

A problem occurred with the settlers ai in Sanctuary which could only be fixed by reloading a previous save and fast travelling to the place.

If I had of slept in Sanctuary first, (one save is overwriting the others I presume) I would have most likely have had to restart.

hardcoe/ survival mode great i love it but only sacing while you going to sleep that is just silly , i can think of a doe dozen reasons why this is a absolute silly/ stupid idea

I don't think it should ONLY be restricted to sleeping. We should still get the 10/15 minute autosave in our Pipboy to handle those CTDs but a manual save should require sleep. I remember playing NV survival mode and it seemed just as easy as regular mode.


I'm really hoping Bethesda steps up the game with this survival.

no way, not at all. not with the random crashes i have with the game. losing progress because i did something stupid is one thing, losing it due to a janky engine is another.

if you don't want to use the save option then don't use it, same with fast travel.

I have a feeling the save on sleep may alter to maybe limiting # of saves per day, the stability issue will only be a problem for mod users though

Yes, but only if the game stops crashing every 2 hours on me. If they can't fix the crashes then there is no need for implementing a checkpoint system.