[Gandalf Parker]

Wyehl said:
Well, some people might think they are good but you can't presume that as fact. I think most of the reasons against it are purely for the sake of argument in the absence of actually having a good reason. In fact, to me, it appears that -some- of the arguments are so thin, that I am not even sure the people saying them actually believe them. Don't get me wrong, some of them are debatable but, imo, some of them are really 'stretching it'.

Thank you very much for using phrases such as "some people" "cant presume that as fact" "I think" "to me it appears" and "imo". More of that would be a good thing for all threads here and keep them off of the moderators watch-lists.

They also mentioned Civ4, which is an excellent game by most accounts. If I had to list some of my favorite old games, I think they all had it. Masters Of Magic, Masters Of Orion, X-Com, Alpha Centauri, Civ1, Civ4.

Best thing about those games, for me ? Replayability. Somehow they were all great games (with great replayability) despite the scourge of having a save game feature.

Of those, I dont remember if all of them had cheat-saves or not. I remember it with Master of Magic. You could save just before a fight or checking treasures, then restore if you didnt like the result. On the other hand, some games roll the randoms far in advance so that by the time you find something, its result is already decided so that saving didnt do you any good OR restoring from a save specifically made the result worse. Its a common topic in programmer forums on how to make saves available without ruining the game (in the developers view of the game of course).