Save game system...

For all Bard's Tale IV discussion that does not fit elsewhere, suggestions, feedback, etc. No spoilers allowed.

Moderator: Bard Hall Bouncers

Post Reply
User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3738
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: It's not the 80's anymore

Post by Gizmo » October 5th, 2018, 7:57 pm

kanisatha wrote:
October 5th, 2018, 4:24 pm
Gizmo wrote:
October 5th, 2018, 6:09 am
It matters because it affects the way things are designed, and that affects everyone's experience, because everyone gets the same game.
Ok, so ...? I still don't see a point here.
Let's put it like this: An RPG is being developed, and the developers note that a large number of gamers seem to want a bottomless inventory—and so they change it to be bottomless. That affects the players that appreciate having to prioritize and choose between the equipment their PC carries; now there is no limit to what they can carry. This is bad.

There are some who would derisively spout out, 'Well if you don't like it, then just control yourself, and only carry what you think they should carry!", but it can be deeper than that; the game is now built with the assumption of a bottomless inventory. The puzzles and quests might now require it; places to store goods, or replenish resources might not exist within range or at all. The game might assume the player will loot farm every enemy, and haul all of the unlimited weight of their looted stuff back to town—and they might do something about that for balance sake.

If they determined that puzzles were frustrating a large portion of their players, they might simplify them, or relegate them to being optional... That screws over the game for players who want a challenging puzzle—players who might have bought with the expectation of hard challenges. This is the downside of everyone getting the same game, and where one person's fun or preference can be a detriment to another's.

User avatar
CaptainPatch
Grandmaster
Posts: 2806
Joined: March 31st, 2012, 12:38 am
Location: San Rafael, CA
Contact:

Re: Save game system...

Post by CaptainPatch » October 6th, 2018, 12:08 am

Geez. Games don't have to be entirely _this_ way or _that_ way. That's what the Options setting are for. Programming-wise, all that is required to set multiple limits settings. Limited inventory? Check this box and the game gets filtered through that setting. Overburden at 50% capacity? Check this other box. Overburden at 100+% = half-speed movement? Check this other box. Overburden - no movement at all? Check this other box. Saving methods can be just as simple, and it isn't all that difficult to set it up.

But in the end, it is the developers that decide just how many Options will be made available to the players. And what is NOT made available indicates just how much they cared about those players that may have wanted the features that were _deliberately_ left out.

"Hold the pickle, hold the lettuce, special orders don't upset us!" Not exactly a sentiment that I would expect to find in the inXile offices. More like, "Our way or no way; take it or leave it." So what if they lose several hundred customers? They will make more than enough from the tens of thousands of others that aren't so picky.
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

Dork Mage
Scholar
Posts: 214
Joined: May 13th, 2013, 5:58 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by Dork Mage » October 6th, 2018, 5:41 am

CaptainPatch wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 12:08 am
Geez. Games don't have to be entirely _this_ way or _that_ way. That's what the Options setting are for.
In theory this works. In practice (as Gizmo is expressing) there is a game balance issue.

Each of those options changes game balance so you now have players complaining about how the game is too easy or too hard. Nor would balancing the game for the selected options be practical.

kanisatha
Initiate
Posts: 21
Joined: June 28th, 2015, 7:51 am

Re: Save game system...

Post by kanisatha » October 6th, 2018, 7:53 am

No, the whole 'game balance' claim is a complete canard. All games are balanced for a certain default set of option settings, but players get presented with alternative settings with a clear understanding that toggling those alternative settings will make the game easier or harder. This is standard. This is routine. So this is not in any way a 'game balance' issue. As CaptainPatch notes, this is entirely about whether the devs feel this is an option (among all the other options they've included in the game) that they want to spend the time and effort to include in the game. That's all there is to it.

User avatar
CaptainPatch
Grandmaster
Posts: 2806
Joined: March 31st, 2012, 12:38 am
Location: San Rafael, CA
Contact:

Re: Save game system...

Post by CaptainPatch » October 6th, 2018, 9:15 am

kanisatha wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 7:53 am
No, the whole 'game balance' claim is a complete canard. All games are balanced for a certain default set of option settings, but players get presented with alternative settings with a clear understanding that toggling those alternative settings will make the game easier or harder. This is standard. This is routine. So this is not in any way a 'game balance' issue. As CaptainPatch notes, this is entirely about whether the devs feel this is an option (among all the other options they've included in the game) that they want to spend the time and effort to include in the game. That's all there is to it.
Precisely.

With Option settings, the player gets what HE wants in the way of Difficulty, game balance, and convenience. But if the Option settings are NOT there, the player is stuck with what the DEVELOPERS want, and if any players want something else, tough.
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3738
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Save game system...

Post by Gizmo » October 6th, 2018, 9:49 am

CaptainPatch wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 12:08 am
Geez. Games don't have to be entirely _this_ way or _that_ way. That's what the Options setting are for.
Sometimes there shouldn't be an option; and options like these are a terrible idea.

_noblesse_oblige_
Master
Posts: 1193
Joined: July 13th, 2015, 7:18 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by _noblesse_oblige_ » October 6th, 2018, 10:03 am

CaptainPatch wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 9:15 am
With Option settings, the player gets what HE wants in the way of Difficulty, game balance, and convenience. But if the Option settings are NOT there, the player is stuck with what the DEVELOPERS want, and if any players want something else, tough.
With regards to game saves, I'm perfectly fine with "well that's tough, too bad" by not providing the option for unlimited save slots. It's okay for a game to have a reputation for being unforgiving of player mistakes; it adds to the appeal and prestige of the game for some (such as myself). Such games may not be for everyone and that's fine too. I'm not concerned about the mass market appeal of game when I select it; what I care about is whether I am going to enjoy the challenges it poses, and that includes the challenge of avoiding permadeath or other intractable scenarios. If a developer actually wants to cater to people, like myself, then they're more likely to get me to buy their product, regardless of what others may think.

Providing unlimited save slots is not the "one true way", regardless of how many developers choose to implement it in their products and regardless of how many people insist that it does no harm to include.
cmibl<enter>

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3738
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Save game system...

Post by Gizmo » October 6th, 2018, 10:05 am

Dork Mage wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 5:41 am
In theory this works. In practice (as Gizmo is expressing) there is a game balance issue.

Each of those options changes game balance so you now have players complaining about how the game is too easy or too hard. Nor would balancing the game for the selected options be practical.
Exactly; on both points. But it's even more than that, because this can change the nature of a game. [To twist a phrase from Torment]. Imagine if there was an option in BT4 that imposed that Bards had to return to a tavern to replenish their spells; and another option that removed the save totems, and saving was then only possible in the adventurer's Guild...or a second option that enabled 'save anywhere'. Another option that disabled the turn based mechanics in favor of a more RTS-like continual turn. An option to remove all references to alcohol; an option make slotting and unslotting skills only be possible at the guild; an option to make all skills available regardless of what's equipped... and so on. —an option to auto-solve puzzles. :shock:

At some point every few players are playing a different game, and any player can alter the rules of the game for convenience sake; some would see this as a positive change, but it is a change that makes the game utterly edentulous. The premise of all games, is to achieve a goal by means that are within the imposed rules, and this trend is eroding the option to have any rules. I see this as very bad—even in offline single player games.

User avatar
CaptainPatch
Grandmaster
Posts: 2806
Joined: March 31st, 2012, 12:38 am
Location: San Rafael, CA
Contact:

Re: Save game system...

Post by CaptainPatch » October 6th, 2018, 1:54 pm

Gizmo wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 9:49 am
CaptainPatch wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 12:08 am
Geez. Games don't have to be entirely _this_ way or _that_ way. That's what the Options setting are for.
Sometimes there shouldn't be an option; and options like these are a terrible idea.
Terrible for whom? Certainly not for those players that want that option.

There's a very simple solution for players that feel an option choice is "a terrible idea": Don't choose that option.

Upon reflection, I see a similarity to practiced segregation: "We don't want their kind in OUR neighborhood!"
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Drool
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9810
Joined: March 17th, 2012, 9:58 pm
Location: Under Tenebrosia, doing shots with Sceadu.

Re: Save game system...

Post by Drool » October 6th, 2018, 2:56 pm

CaptainPatch wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 12:08 am
Saving methods can be just as simple, and it isn't all that difficult to set it up.
In isolation? No. In aggregate? Quite likely.

As always, Oil Barons immediately leaps to mind with it's 100+ options.
Alwa nasci korliri das.

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5864
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by Woolfe » October 6th, 2018, 6:21 pm

2 options required.... Save anywhere and Ironman mode.

Then Everyone is happy.
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

_noblesse_oblige_
Master
Posts: 1193
Joined: July 13th, 2015, 7:18 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by _noblesse_oblige_ » October 6th, 2018, 7:20 pm

Except for the people who don't want it to be optional for others to play a game in "easy mode" because it detracts from the reputation of the game and those who are successful at it.

If you could choose whether to be graded on any your work in school or whether to be scored on any sporting competition in which you played, I think you would find that a lot of people had less incentive to do well or to compete. There are bragging rights to be had for succeeding at a challenge which applies equally to all competitors without exception.

Not saying that no game should have an "easy mode", but I definitely don't think that all games should have one. As for this Barrows Deep game, I would've certainly preferred if they had simply made save-and-quit and had not also implemented this luck stone stuff as well. Save-and-quit would've help preserved the tension of the original BT game while giving the convenience of quitting at any time. But, since it is not really a BT game, I actually don't care too much at this point. It's on the rubbish heap of history, as far as I'm concerned.
cmibl<enter>

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3738
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Save game system...

Post by Gizmo » October 6th, 2018, 7:59 pm

CaptainPatch wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 1:54 pm
There's a very simple solution for players that feel an option choice is "a terrible idea": Don't choose that option.
Read the post above your own, I mentioned you in it. ;)
Upon reflection, I see a similarity to practiced segregation: "We don't want their kind in OUR neighborhood!"
This strays into politics, and should be avoided here; and unless you have lived that example, then you are only parroting theory. There are valid reasons for both sides of it. It also doesn't apply the way you seem to equate, rather it should be almost the reverse: "We don't want your kind of neighborhood to exist!"... and even then there are valid reasons to both sides.

This doesn't apply to the games though. You see someone say that a design should not include a detrimental feature, and then debate 'Whose idea of detrimental?!', instead of evaluating the features' effect on the game, and if or how it changes the intended experience. Some of these changes can affect the way a game is designed, by the developers taking these features into account when they build the content.*

*This is the point about the Grid-Step feature—but in reverse. It appears to have not been taken into account, and just tacked on afterward as what might merely be simple grid-snapping; useless; not the reason people would ask for a grid-step game.

User avatar
CaptainPatch
Grandmaster
Posts: 2806
Joined: March 31st, 2012, 12:38 am
Location: San Rafael, CA
Contact:

Re: Save game system...

Post by CaptainPatch » October 6th, 2018, 8:52 pm

Gizmo wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 7:59 pm
CaptainPatch wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 1:54 pm
There's a very simple solution for players that feel an option choice is "a terrible idea": Don't choose that option.
Read the post above your own, I mentioned you in it. ;)
Upon reflection, I see a similarity to practiced segregation: "We don't want their kind in OUR neighborhood!"
This strays into politics, and should be avoided here; and unless you have lived that example, then you are only parroting theory. There are valid reasons for both sides of it. It also doesn't apply the way you seem to equate, rather it should be almost the reverse: "We don't want your kind of neighborhood to exist!"... and even then there are valid reasons to both sides.

This doesn't apply to the games though. You see someone say that a design should not include a detrimental feature, and then debate 'Whose idea of detrimental?!', instead of evaluating the features' effect on the game, and if or how it changes the intended experience. Some of these changes can affect the way a game is designed, by the developers taking these features into account when they build the content.*

*This is the point about the Grid-Step feature—but in reverse. It appears to have not been taken into account, and just tacked on afterward as what might merely be simple grid-snapping; useless; not the reason people would ask for a grid-step game.
I like that toothless reference. That's my "something new for the day". :D

No matter how many Options the devs decide to put into a game design, invariably the game ships with a Default configuration. In this case, given Options being made available, the Default is precisely what you already have... so why deny others variations that they might want? Obviously, NO design can be all things to all people. A line MUST be drawn somewhere as to just how many and which Options would be added to the game.
Nonetheless, the devs had the option to make several of the more popular requests -- as brought out during betatesting -- available... but they chose not to.

Standardization of Difficulty and game balance would be a major concern if the game kept score, and player performance was tracked for placement in some kind of Hall of Fame. But BT4 isn't that kind of game. It is strictly the solo player versus the game's main quest line. Either the player succeeds and completes the game, or he gives up for whatever reason and walks away before GAME OVER and the credits roll.

The argument to marginalize the Options approach by suggesting a multitude of Options to be set could just as easily be presented from the other end and look just as ridiculous: The design could have been to have ONLY the Ironman approach to game play. No baby Save babysteps between challenges allowed. The player has but ONE life to live. Die and start over would be the ONLY choice. How would you like that design approach? (It wouldn't surprise me to hear from several players that they actually prefer playing that way suggesting such a design would be ideal... to them.) The thing of it though is that for players that like and actually want Ironman, they at least can get what they want. All they have to do is have the self-discipline to start a New Game every time they die. But those players that want a less demanding playthrough, for them, it's "Tough." You can't use an Option that isn't offered.
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3738
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Save game system...

Post by Gizmo » October 6th, 2018, 10:13 pm

CaptainPatch wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 8:52 pm
I like that toothless reference. That's my "something new for the day". :D
Image
No matter how many Options the devs decide to put into a game design, invariably the game ships with a Default configuration. In this case, given Options being made available, the Default is precisely what you already have... so why deny others variations that they might want?

Obviously, NO design can be all things to all people....
And I would say that they shouldn't try; because that's the way you get strawberry-chocolate-vanilla-orange-peppermint ice cream.

These —wants— for game features can be mutually exclusive; to give some sort of example... consider FO3, and how it handles roleplaying. Fallout is one of the best RPGs ever made, and you see its influences in later RPGs. Fallout intends to allow the player to do whatever they want... but they have to live with the consequences of their actions. With FO3 (argued by some to be an RPG), the game resets those consequences every three game days (except for a few mile-stone events). This means that the PC can shoot a BOS paladin in the face, and then return to ask that same paladin for a friendly admittance into the Citadel. How can this be called a roleplaying game? They enter the Citadel with full memory of having shot the guy in the face.

The PC in FO3 can be a pycho-killer who murders every living thing in sight... but can then buy back their good name by donating irradiated water to vagrants. You try any of this in Fallout—and it will let you do it... but the PC becomes reviled by those they've wronged, and attacked on sight—because of their actions. Bethesda doesn't care about the RPG aspect of accountability, their concern is only a continuance of the simulation/sandbox; and so nothing will permanently ban the player from anywhere, or from talking to anyone. There are players (many of them—and Bethesda knows this) whose only priority is instant gratification of whim, and holding them to their past actions gets in the way of their fun.
This just one example where designing to the preference of one group prevents the preferences of another; the others then cannot play a game that holds them accountable for the PCs actions... because the game doesn't care.

This used to be solved by genre and series, but now both terms are all but meaningless, as so many people (including the recent developers) have no reservations against putting whatever the hell they want into an established genre or series... and so everyone gets the same games now, and has to tolerate design goals that may oppose their own preferences—even in game series that were originally a perfect fit for them. Bard's Tale is become a poster child for that IMO; but not so bad as FO3 & 4.
Standardization of Difficulty and game balance would be a major concern if the game kept score, and player performance was tracked for placement in some kind of Hall of Fame. But BT4 isn't that kind of game. It is strictly the solo player versus the game's main quest line.
As I said before, I consider this bad even for solo games, with no online component. We still all get the same game, and suffer the design considerations that don't apply to us—and even become the reasons we quit in disgust. When you try to please a crowd it becomes a game of crap tolerance. Meaning, how much of the other guy's favored crap can you tolerate. Bethesda are masters at this, their games are just at the line of tolerable for most everyone with an interest... but you can NEVER masterfully hit the bulls-eye on three targets—only tolerably score with a mediocre shot.
Image
Nobody gets what they want, they just get tolerably close—if they are lucky.
The thing of it though is that for players that like and actually want Ironman, they at least can get what they want. All they have to do is have the self-discipline to start a New Game every time they die.
No, and you would know this if you had been in the situation. This is a very common argument, and I can understand how it would seem that way, but the incentive and thrill comes of not having control over it.

Jalis
Acolyte
Posts: 77
Joined: March 21st, 2018, 3:25 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by Jalis » October 6th, 2018, 11:04 pm

I never quite understood the elitism of gamers who all but demand a game not have different difficulty settings; who cares if you brag that you beat it at "REDONKULOUSLY UNFAIR!!!" level, vs someone else who beat it at "Normal" or "Your First RPG" level? I'm super competitive in the real world, but on a single player game? Doesn't make sense. So what? Let each play and enjoy it the way they chose when spending the same amount of money as you and I.

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3738
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Save game system...

Post by Gizmo » October 6th, 2018, 11:17 pm

I won't comment (per se) on the opinion described... but I can guess that the reason for it is akin to having read a book like LotR (or Silmarillion), and talking LotR with others who have only read the cliff-notes version—or only seen the movies. They can be perceived as not knowing the real experience of it.... and there is [can be] even a kinship (of a sort) with others who have (in this case who have read those books).

User avatar
CaptainPatch
Grandmaster
Posts: 2806
Joined: March 31st, 2012, 12:38 am
Location: San Rafael, CA
Contact:

Re: Save game system...

Post by CaptainPatch » October 7th, 2018, 12:27 am

Gizmo wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 11:17 pm
I won't comment (per se) on the opinion described... but I can guess that the reason for it is akin to having read a book like LotR (or Silmarillion), and talking LotR with others who have only read the cliff-notes version—or only seen the movies. They can be perceived as not knowing the real experience of it.... and there is [can be] even a kinship (of a sort) with others who have (in this case who have read those books).
Do you get that consumers buy games to play for fun? Your ironclad stance boils down to, "This is the game _I_ want, and it's already all that I want. (Or at least what I can comfortably accept.) If you want something different, go play something different!"

Why do you want others to NOT have the kind of fun that they want? Why is it that you don't want devs to not even consider tweaking some mechanics that would please players that are not-you?

Your argument about too many options -- which seems to be ANY Options -- degrades the quality of the overall game is bs. If inXile had tossed in 5-10 alternate Options for various game mechanics, but the Default setting gave you EXACTLY what the game is now, how would that degrade the quality of the game. By making some unworthy players more satisfied by permitting them to play a "substandard" game?

Yeah. Now that I reflect on the whole discussion, I have to agree that your argument sounds rather elitist.
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3738
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Save game system...

Post by Gizmo » October 7th, 2018, 2:16 am

CaptainPatch wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 12:27 am
Do you get that consumers buy games to play for fun?
One person's fun...eh? :D

Your ironclad stance boils down to, "This is the game _I_ want, and it's already all that I want. (Or at least what I can comfortably accept.) If you want something different, go play something different!"
Were you not the one just previously advocating self discipline for those that don't like the features that you'd have be imposed upon them? ;)

I believe that you are making an assumption about what I want, and ignoring the fact that the series already was the game I (and others) wanted to play—and keep playing, as the sequels came out for it. The ironic thing that always happens in this kind of gaming discussion, is that the other person (the one advocating the trendy change) uses the point "if you want something different... go play something else." Whilst they ignore that their suggestion is usually the tampering element, and it is that they that should logically look elsewhere. :?

I'm not saying that you should look elsewhere, but I am pointing out that this is akin to telling the locals to go home.
Why do you want others to NOT have the kind of fun that they want?
Doesn't it occur to you that you could validly be asked the same question?
Why is it that you don't want devs to not even consider tweaking some mechanics that would please players that are not-you?
What makes you think it's about me? I would say the same of any game that had this done to it—even ones that I loathe and would never play. This is an industry-wide negative trend that affects everything yet to come.

Your argument about too many options -- which seems to be ANY Options -- degrades the quality of the overall game is bs.
I am not surprised; that's because that is what you interpret it to be. It is not. The number of options don't matter, it is the effect of those options. If the effect is not deleterious, then it doesn't matter how many options there are. Take Icewind Dale for instance (and the BG1&2 games); those games have a lot of options, but none (or at least very few) of them damage the core rules or radically alter the gameplay away from D&D. There isn't a check box that says, "disable combat turns"—but there is one that disables the animation effect that HIDES the combat turns...but the game still evaluates the turns; (which is also the default). Every combatant in the game has a turn schedule, and only acts when it is time... but by default, they continuously act out of turn—even though these visible actions don't actually count, or have any effect. It's a harmless option; it's cosmetic.

If inXile had tossed in 5-10 alternate Options for various game mechanics, but the Default setting gave you EXACTLY what the game is now, how would that degrade the quality of the game. By making some unworthy players more satisfied by permitting them to play a "substandard" game?
Well... as I mention above, they are alternate mechanics; they change the core rules—I am assuming; beyond that it depends... you would have to elaborate on what those mechanics were. :?
Yeah. Now that I reflect on the whole discussion, I have to agree that your argument sounds rather elitist.
Any argument sounds elitist if it opposes one's own preference by recommending 'No'. Image
As opposed to your own arguments, that are contrary to my preference, by recommending an unfiltered 'Yes'.

But I am not advocating 'no', I am advocating the filter.

Dork Mage
Scholar
Posts: 214
Joined: May 13th, 2013, 5:58 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by Dork Mage » October 7th, 2018, 6:53 am

CaptainPatch wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 9:15 am
kanisatha wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 7:53 am
No, the whole 'game balance' claim is a complete canard. All games are balanced for a certain default set of option settings, but players get presented with alternative settings with a clear understanding that toggling those alternative settings will make the game easier or harder. This is standard. This is routine. So this is not in any way a 'game balance' issue. As CaptainPatch notes, this is entirely about whether the devs feel this is an option (among all the other options they've included in the game) that they want to spend the time and effort to include in the game. That's all there is to it.
Precisely.

With Option settings, the player gets what HE wants in the way of Difficulty, game balance, and convenience. But if the Option settings are NOT there, the player is stuck with what the DEVELOPERS want, and if any players want something else, tough.
Not what the Developers "want" but what they designed for. Which is the issue @Gizmo (and myself) is discussing.

Case in point: Far Cry (great game) and Far Cry 2 (ok game).

Far Cry has save-anywhere. There is a choke point in the game where the PC will die. The PC will die multiple times to figure out where the rocket is coming from and to get the timing right.

This is the developer's design decision. It's OK because there is save-anywhere. Annoying as a FPS becomes a platformer game but OK.

----

Far Cry 2 is check-point save. This works just fine. No complaints... except the developers put the above save-anywhere design decision in a check-point game.

There is a choke point where the PC will die by rocket fire. It happens midway between check-points. This isn't annoying, it's bad design. The developers probably just made the design choice as a copy of Far Cry (1) thinking this scenario is in "1" so we will put it in "2".

----

The point isn't the save option (check-point Far Cry 2 was OK until the platformer segment) but how/whether the game is designed for the save system choice.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests