Share this project


Share this project

From the creators of Wasteland 2 and Torment comes the long awaited sequel to the Bard's Tale trilogy. Thank you for making this game a reality. The bard is back!
From the creators of Wasteland 2 and Torment comes the long awaited sequel to the Bard's Tale trilogy. Thank you for making this game a reality. The bard is back!
33,741 backers pledged $1,519,680 to help bring this project to life.

Brian Speaks on Saves and More, PayPal Pledging Open, Social Media Achievements

Posted by inXile entertainment (Creator)

So in case you missed the big news: we fully funded over the weekend, and we couldn’t be happier! You guys have been awesome, helping spread the word and giving us great feedback on both the campaign and the game every step of the way. And on that note, we know you've had some additional questions on The Bard's Tale IV's design. As before, Brian is here to answer! This time, he tackles the hot topics of save games, grid-based vs. free movement, and more!

Keep the questions and feedback coming! We always keep an eye on the forums and comments to see what you guys want to know most.

PayPal Pledging Open

Now that we’re fully funded on Kickstarter, we’ve opened a page where you can pledge using PayPal. Simply select your desired reward tier from the dropdown menu, select your shipping region if applicable, and then click the reward tier image that appears. You can check our reward matrix on Tumblr for a full overview of all the reward tiers.

Social Media Achievements

Ever since we introduced them last week, you guys have been knocking it out of the park on our social media achievements. As of right now 11 achievements have already been unlocked, with number 12 tantalizingly close! And remember that you can check out the full Enclave of the Fairy Host dungeon story right here!

Room 4 [UNLOCKED]: We will add a physical code wheel to *all* physical tiers, including $65. Digital tiers will receive a digital representation of this code wheel.

Room 8 [UNLOCKED]: We will add old-school premium graph paper to physical box tiers at $95 or above. Digital tiers will receive a digital version of the graph paper!

Room 12: We will add actual, REAL Red Boots DLC to The Bard's Tale IV... FREE to all backers $20 or above! Yes, it was a joke back in Wasteland 2, but this time, with your help, the boots really will be red... and free.

We’ve been especially loving your creative submissions in photographic, musical and artistic form! You can find these on our Facebook galleries for fan art and kilt photos.

A collage of our fan submissions. There's many more where these came from!
A collage of our fan submissions. There's many more where these came from!

We've also had a flagon full of bard song submissions from you guys and we've been impressed with your musical prowess! Check them out below:

David Craft – "Old Skara Brae" –

Daniel Heffron – "Ode to the Bard" –

Grant Probst – "Brian Fargo (A Bard's Tale Song)" –

Leonid Devyatkin – "The Minstrel's Fable" –

Oliver Karasch – "The Electric Bard" –

Keep spreading the bard's song! Each like, view, or follow truly does help, and as the achievements fall there’ll be many more rewards to follow!

Thank you!
Chris Keenan
Project Lead – The Bard’s Tale IV


Russ Carleton, Elene Campbell, and 113 more people like this update.


Only backers can post comments. Log In
    1. Tet Yoon Lee on

      Sir Chaox: You've given no reason why designers should force people to play a game, particularly not a single player game, in a certain manner when there is no reason for them to do so. They can encourage their players to do so and they can design their game so it plays well if you do so, that's fine.

      But players should be free to play however they want on a single player game. Implementing saving any time does take a bit of work and testing, but for a game with a budget and design like this, it shouldn't really be that much and well worth it for the advantage gained for players who prefer it that way.

      However implementing it doesn't mean you have to design your game to be played with it. It just means it has to work properly 99.99% of the time. Developers are still free to design their game such that it can be played in an enjoyable fashion without saving all the time. They can also recommend people play like that. They can even make saving all the time a toggeable option or give achievements for not saving all the time if they really want. (It shouldn't be forced in hard mode though, unless hard mode has no other changes. People may want to play in hard mode, but still have the option of saving all the time.)

      Ultimately developers should be making games that people will enjoy. This means while that they should give widely desired options when those options limit what they can do with the game or cause them too many difficulties. (The amount of time should to some extent correlate with how widely the option is desired.) Encouraging people to play in a certain way and designing the game around that is fine and generally works well if you know what you're doing. Forcing everyone to play in that way when there is no good reason rarely does.

      (It's worth remembering that not saving all the time doesn't just annoy players, in some cases enough that they will never play the game, play it less or at least get far less enjoyment out of it. For some players it actually significantly limits replaybility and exploration. While some players enjoy replaying a game several times, others like me rarely do for RPGs even if there are many branching paths they could have taken. They may however explore the different paths as well as try various things if they can easily go back. If you make this too difficult, they aren't go to replay several times, or take the extra time. They're just not going to bother. I find this all the time, when a game lets me easily go back, I explore different things, learn more about the game, get better at it and ultimately enjoy it far more than games which don't. I have no problems with those who don't want to play in this manner, I'm glad they enjoy playing games the way they do. In fact, I share one of their concerns in that I strongly dislike games which basically expect you to be saving and loading all the time. I just want to play the game in the manner I prefer while they play games in the manner they prefer.)

      Also I should clarify while I tailored my argument for Bard's Tale, I haven't actually read that much about the specifics. I just heard of it very recently. But the anti save game stuff I've been hearing for over 15 years and so far, I've never seen a good argument for why a game shouldn't have saving at any time as an option barring timing or engine difficulties. (Traditionally disk space may have also been a factor.)

    2. Nobody on

      Yes i'm in a certain way an elitist, sometimes even in an aggressive manner. But i do not want to appear better. I want to be better than the rest, due to my deeds, investments and high moral, And i do not go the easy way, i choose always the hardest. A man of steel or the homo universalis are my ideals. What are yours?
      It shows a good thing about you, that you do not take offense in certain things. But back to your example:
      If you have to work hard for a goal, do you think that it is justice that people get it for free? In the case of the Hot Dog, sport bears it's own reward. But the accomplishment of running up the hill, reaching the goal before the bus driving peasants and getting the biggest hot dog is truly a reward of worth of my attitude. (Attention lot of sarcasm.)
      Participation ribbons are not a reward. Rewards are acknowledgment of accomplishments.
      So yes if you run a marathon and win it, then you will be rewarded by the organizer, and by other runners. If you run it and despite the obstacles and you make it to the end, then the reward lies within you and sometimes also by those who are close to you. And before you constitute another example: Good deeds also bear the rewards in them self. But forced good deeds have no reward, only negative consequences if you not fulfill them.

    3. Nobody on

      I do not propagate this statement "you are playing the wrong way if you do not play on the hardest settings". No this statement is quite a nonsense. But most of the tension and adrenaline come from "hard" settings in a game that is a true fact. If you cannot lose, then the risk rewarding system in your brain is not stimulated enough. You know the game addicts in casino play their games not only because the can win, but also because they can lose. Both systems (win and lose) are required for enforced learning and the stimulus of the body's own opiate ejection system.
      I'm for a "save anywhere-anytime" system, and i'm also for a restricted save system. And how you play it is up to you and i have no cards in your game, the only thing that i can do, is to wish honestly you much fun. ;)
      I will most probably play with restricted save system, but this is my decision and nobody else's.

    4. Sir Chaox on

      They have already stated that they are not planning to use checkpoints. Brian was using a simple example to give you a better idea of just how impactful this system will be. You may only lose 5-10 minutes of progress if you end up dying (which again, may be a rare case).

    5. Sir Chaox on

      Limited saving is not about producing challenge (which it does not actually do anyway) but to change the way you approach the game. You have to be more cautious and prepared or suffer consequences in your progress. Nobody likes to redo content; this does not necessarily have to be the case, if you play the game properly and not take unneeded risks or go out without proper supplies. It puts real tension on you, the player, outside of the game. Its not meant to be stressful, and I'm sure they will have various modes for those who want little to none of this aspect while others can go with a more "hardcore" option. This isn't at all about achievements either; it is only about game experience. This is the only logical reason inXile would not provide options for those who want save anywhere; they want the experience to inherently include this level and type of tension. There are other ways to produce tension, sure... but they are not the same. If they were the same, then we wouldn't be having a debate. And those who believe a player's preference should trump the creator's preference (that there should be options so that everyone can choose whatever experience they wish)... well, that comes down to opinion. Some games are meant to be played a certain way, and they are still deciding exactly how that will be (I don't think anything is set in stone yet, but they are clearly looking into limited saving very seriously).

      And this is coming from someone who wants to see a bookmark, save anywhere option, so that we can at least quit at any time (it would not be a permanent save if we are dealing with a limited saving system). But either way, I will deal with whatever they think is best for the game.

    6. Missing avatar

      NRZ on

      @Kris: If you like real life examples, here's one: if you decide to run up the hill, you won't get the hot-dog cheaper (or get a bigger one for the same money) at the top than the other guy who decide to take the bus. It was your decision to run up the hill, you knew that it would take more time, more effort. Your reward is the effort that you put in there, that you challenged yourself and succeeded. You probably think that people taking part in a voluntary marathon run without rewards are communists, right? I won't take offense from your persistent 'communist' and 'low IQ' comments though, it just shows that you're an elitist, want to appear better than the rest of us peasants, and rewarded a such. I have no problem with that, we're different. In that light, your reasoning actually makes perfect sense.

    7. Missing avatar

      Paul Ryan

      @Kris: Many of the arguments I've seen against Save Anywhere seem to be that it will make the game too easy. Having a gameplay bonus for _not_ using a Save Anywhere option would be going against the very reason many people don't want the option to begin with.

      As a side note, this isn't a game with some sort of fixed limited resource that has to be shared between all the players. It's a single player game and anyone who owns a copy has the same access to ingame resources regardless of how many copies exist. There isn't a logical reason to disincentivise people from playing Save Anywhere on a _single player_ game if that's their preference. That's basically saying "You're playing the game WRONG, so you can't have as much shiny loot."

    8. Missing avatar

      Kyle on

      The video didn't completely deal with concerns on the saving system. Sounds like 5-10 minute save checkpoints for the eventual console versions. I'll hold on a little longer before dropping out to see if we get any more clarity. I'm a save anywhere game player, and there's nothing wrong with that.

    9. Nobody on

      Your laughing indicates a narrow mind and especially with the connection towards the communist and authoritarian axis, which you clearly do not understand. Communism is about distribution of resources within a system, especially about production and reward resources, with the statement of every one should get the same reward despite different input of ressources. The ownership of production resources aspect of communism i will skip or put under the carpet in this context. And authoritarian is about enforcement of a system or laws or behavior on others.
      So while we are both anti authoritarian, we are quite different in our opinion about the output of ressources for different input of ressources (time). You want to make everyone equal despite different input, and i want to reward risk and effort or better said: higher input should equal higher output.

    10. Nobody on

      And i do not comprehend, why do you think that "risk and effort" should be not rewarded. Sorry i'm not a communist and neither a SJW. But i will tell you something about chances and game understanding:
      Nearly all gamers play only the "iron man" mods in games that they totally understand and know what and how things work. In a game that is quite challenging and with the first playthrough it is very unlikely that a player can manage to play through in an "iron man" mode. And dying in a game like The Bard's Tale should be a very possible cause of actions, else it offers no challenge. So in my example below i have told that someone who can load and save very often will beat an enemy be the shared learning from the previous fights with this enemy and someone who does not have this free save option simply cannot do this, or not at least with major time investment.
      To equalize a little bit the game experience and time spend in the game some probabilities has to be tweaked, so that the necessary time investment of the "iron man" gamer will be lowered. Or better said: the necessary "Try and Error" amount has to be lower in compared to the free save and load player, and that is the reward that i'm talking about.
      Giving both type of player the same chances or as you in your ignorance said "the same reward for less hard work" is nonsense especially in a game where the game is long and dying very possible. And one of best way to tweak this chances is to give slightly better equipment (with a little bit higher bonus) or give a slight XP reward so that players in iron man mode have a just slightly higher level if they reach a boss fight. Else: You are forcing the iron man players to grind for a higher level and better equipment before they go into a fight where there is a high chance of failure, which is a possible solution, but not a good one.
      So in my example nobody gets a penalty, because it is about equalisation of the playtime and only people with lower IQ or people who think that they are entitled to a better treatment see this as an penalty. But i guess, that if you do not understand the real live example, then you will not understand also this.

    11. Missing avatar

      Dave Sherohman on

      Minor correction: The final sentence of my last comment should conclude "...I believe that a save model switch - which controls an aspect of how you interact with the game, not anything within the game itself - should not alter the behavior of things within the game."

    12. Missing avatar

      Dave Sherohman on

      @Kris: "Which evidence do i have besides my own experience in their forums?"

      OK, cool. So they are actually discussing and responding to it there? Great! As I said in my earlier comment, I'm only seeing what happens here, on Kickstarter. (I back a lot of projects, so I don't have the time or energy to follow the forums for every one of them.)

      "Your thoughts come from a communistic way of thinking"

      Excuse me for a moment, but... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! That's a good one! "Communistic"... Give me a minute to stop laughing...

      I guess you must have missed my last sentence, where I said I'm opposed to the paternalism of mandatory save restrictions. If we must bring political references into this, my view on single-player games is essentially libertarian: How I play the game doesn't affect you in any way, so let me play however I damn well please. You may think that it "should" have restricted saves to enhance some nebulous "tension", so, by all means, go ahead and play that way. No skin off my nose. Just don't try to make me play that way if I don't want to.

      As far as the reward/penalty thing goes, it's really just a matter of which mode you consider the default - either "free saves" is default and you get increased XP/loot for playing in "restricted saves" mode, or "restricted saves" is the default and you get reduced XP/loot for using "free saves". It's the same thing expressed two different ways. I'm not saying that this is a zero-sum game and the only way one person can get more is for someone else to have less, only that I do not believe that a save model switch - which controls an aspect of how you interact with the game, not anything within the game itself - should not alter the behavior of things within the game.

    13. Missing avatar

      NRZ on

      @Kris: I honestly don't understand your reasoning. Why do you want the 'extra effort and risk' to be rewarded? I thought the very reason for playing in 'iron man' mode is to have a greater challenge. The reward is the achievement itself, that you can do it this way, that you don't need the help of saving, that you have extra 'tension'. What do you care about the rewards of the ones that play in 'mere mortal' mode? Does that bother you that they get the same reward for 'less hard' work? If it does, then why don't you play in that mode? I thought the whole point is everybody getting the gaming experience they want.

    14. Nobody on

      Which evidence do i have besides my own experience in their forums? Other people's experience. Go to their forum and ask people like paultakeda, Drool, Woolfe and Zombra, how often inXile have asked for an opinion or taken the advice from people who post there. Do they think about certain topics behind the scenes? Till now they have addressed this two times already which indicates that they are taking this issue into their account and certainly they will address this at least one more time.
      Sorry but now i have to hit you slightly on your head for that:
      "I'm for free saving anytime and anywhere and against mandatory save restrictions. If a restricted-save option is present, I have no issue with that (and might even choose to use it),
      but it should not be the default and it should not provide any in-game benefits. The point of ironman modes, etc. is basically heightened challenge and bragging rights;
      turning it into easy mode (or even slightly-easier-mode) by giving out bonus XP, better loot, etc. as a reward for save restrictions would undermine that. More importantly, players who (regardless of the reason) choose to use free saving should not be penalized for that choice."

      If a starting probability of a "unrestricted saves" modus to win a major "Boss" fight is 33% and constantly rising due to "try and error", then how it it's a penalty for those people, if someone who plays a "iron man save" modus has a chance of 50%, due to better equipment (slightly higher states) and or higher level?
      Your thoughts come from a communistic way of thinking and are utterly disgusting in my opinion: One man's rewards is another man's penalty.
      In the real world people are paid more for dangerous and unwanted jobs and this is not a penalty for people who have save and comfy jobs, it is a equalizer. Extra effort and risk should be rewarded and those who do not put this extra effort and risk have no right to complain about this.

    15. Missing avatar

      Dave Sherohman on

      "The people at inXile are not development system autistic nazis, one can talk with them and they make games for us gamers. And if we think that a certain mechanism is hurting the game they will change it. I think that they are currently talking behind the scenes about this topic and are thinking about solutions and how to satisfy their audience."

      It's nice that you think that. What evidence do you have to support that theory? Since the debate started here, the only response I've seen from the devs is a "we are not using checkpoints" statement. That takes the absolute-least-popular possibility off the table, but it doesn't address any of the other unpopular possibilities, it doesn't indicate that they will (or won't) reconsider their plans based on our opinions, and it doesn't say anything about the relative values they place on "satisfying their audience" vs. "maintaining the integrity of their artistic vision" (aka "I'm going to do it my way and I don't care what anyone else thinks"). I'm not saying you're wrong - and I certainly hope you're right! - but the devs have not actually engaged the backers in dialogue on this point (at least not here; maybe they have elsewhere), nor have they said that they're listening to us and taking our views into consideration.

      I'm for free saving anytime and anywhere and against mandatory save restrictions. If a restricted-save option is present, I have no issue with that (and might even choose to use it), but it should not be the default and it should not provide any in-game benefits. The point of ironman modes, etc. is basically heightened challenge and bragging rights; turning it into easy mode (or even slightly-easier-mode) by giving out bonus XP, better loot, etc. as a reward for save restrictions would undermine that. More importantly, players who (regardless of the reason) choose to use free saving should not be penalized for that choice.

      If the devs indicate that restricted saves will be mandatory, then I will seriously consider pulling my backing because such a decision would indicate a strong possibility that they are making a game which I will not enjoy. Not so much because of the save restrictions themselves (which, as I said above, I might choose to use anyhow if they're optional), but rather because they embody a paternalistic "we know how you should play the game and you *WILL* play it our way, whether you like it or not, even though it doesn't affect anyone else" attitude.

    16. MikeHumphreys on

      "If someone is against save restrictions then he should just write: I'm for free saving anytime and anywhere and against save restrictions."

      Count me as a save anywhere and against save restrictions vote.

      If they want to offer a restricted save, then make it a menu option when you start a new game.

    17. MikeHumphreys on

      @Blackghost From what I've read other backers have said, TBT 2 and 3 allowed you to save anywhere.

    18. Missing avatar

      Paul Ryan

      @Blackghost: I played all three, and completed II & III back on the C64. I found all my old maps a couple of years ago while moving stuff into storage. I just don't have the time now for game mechanics which are restricted by whim rather than necessity.

      By all means, there should be an option to replicate the original save behaviour for those who want it. But not everyone has the same time and leisure constraints now as they did 30+ years ago. Restricting a new game to strictly mimic behaviour which was mandated by hardware at the time is an unneeded irritation for many people nowadays. Others think it's great nostalgia. Since it's entirely a matter of personal opinion, neither group is actually wrong.

      There is a simple solution to the 'old form saves' vs 'save anywhere' debate that should satisfy both camps on this issue. Have both save methods as alternate options when starting a new game. That way both groups can play the game how they want.

    19. Blackghost on

      @Kriss Not all of us are for a free choice of the saving mechanism , in fact a lot of people who backed this game, played the TBT 1, 2 , and 3. And the save system was way more restrictive.
      And we also want the same system. But, of course you can't please everyone. But the game is not for everyone either.
      Also, Brian wants to make a game for us, true, but with his vision of the game. And to create that * tension* a F5 save is far to be required.

      Only a few of us are using the this section to speak.. On 28k maybe 100 are writing messages. So , no.. not all of us , agreed with you guys.

    20. Nobody on

      I don't know what they are up to or what they think they can do, and o can also only speculate from the little informations that i have and that is the aspect of time. How do the 5 - 10 minutes translate into a save mechanism? I don't know, because there are too many solutions for this.
      Are there discovery points that you collect for a save? Or is this really a timer behind the scenes? All of this are currently speculations and Fargo should have made a clear statement about this, but he didn't. And that resulted in the current problem.
      And i'm also against restrictions in the save mechanism and i think that a player should decide for himself if and when he wants to save a game. But i think also that if a player wants to save less he should be rewarded for the risk he takes. And if the rewards are more XPs or better values in certain found items, that is up to inXile.
      The people at inXile are not development system autistic nazis, one can talk with them and they make games for us gamers. And if we think that a certain mechanism is hurting the game they will change it. I think that they are currently talking behind the scenes about this topic and are thinking about solutions and how to satisfy their audience. But the talk about nonexistent checkpoints and dropping of the pledge is hurting the financing of this game and discourages people to raise or hold their pledge. If someone is against save restrictions then he should just write: I'm for free saving anytime and anywhere and against save restrictions. And if enough people do this then it will be heard by Fargo and the devs at inXile. Also there are many poeple in their forums and other by them visited forums that speak also about this topic, and most of the players are for free choice of the saving mechanism by the player.

    21. David Brennan on

      @Kris fair point, maybe they won't have checkpoints and instead it is only manual saves where they won't let the player save for a period of time after they already saved.

      But in that case why? What are they achieving beyond annoying the player unnecessarily? It wouldn't stop people save/reloading. And while it would be rare that I want to save move often than twice every 10 minutes, if it so happens that I have just saved, then something amazing happens and I want to save again straight away, am I really expected to stand around for the next 9 minutes doing nothing? That is straight out wasting my time in the worst possible way!

    22. Missing avatar

      Paul Ryan

      IMO restricted saves are a bad thing. If someone doesn't want to save every time they take an action, that's their choice, and other players should have no say in it. If someone DOES want to save with every action they take, why not let them?

      Some of the players advocating saving restrictions are coming across _to me_ as if they want to break into other customer's houses and stand over them to make sure they 'play the game right', even though how someone else chooses to play a single player game has no effect on how they themselves play in their own home.

      Let people play what they purchase how they want to. Restricting them arbitrarily will just lose customers in the long run. I'm not planning to melodramatically pull out of this kickstarter if it is revealed that there will be some sort of restrictions, but I wouldn't back another one if there were either, because that would be a demonstration that the developers aren't interested in supporting my sort of playstyle.

    23. Missing avatar

      AstralTraveller on

      Wow, some strong feelings on the save topic here. Let me join in - the checkpoint-only save scheme practically killed the FPS genre for me, and no matter how much I love the Bard's Tale series, I won't play a game which restricts my ability to save my progress.
      I appreciate that inXile is taking this topic seriously - please let us know the result before the backing period ends!

    24. William M Wilson on

      If save-at-will isn't an option, I will probably de-pledge. I have two little kids and a busy life.

      By all means, include an iron man mode for those who want it. But I can't abide save restrictions these days.

    25. Nobody on

      This is not a good procedure in such a blobber, because of the level / dungeon build, which result that you cannot guarantee that a player will certainly cross this point.

    26. Nobody on

      No David you are talking utter nonsense, to have necessary 5 minutes game time before saving is not a checkpoint in an non linear and non corridor game. Checkpoints have been made in shooter and corridor games to save an achievement of the player. And it has been made a certain way that a player is always going through this point and he can save there. This is not a good procedure in such a blobber, because of the level / dungeon build, which result that you cannot garant that a player will certainly cross this point.
      Time passes as the player plays the game he can do any kind of action that he wants, like going forth and back. But time passes anyway, and after 5 minutes he can save if he wants or he can proceed further few minutes and then save. The limitation is only in the first minutes and therefore it is not even a time save point game.
      It would be a automatic time checkpoint game, if the game would automatically save your game after 5 - 10 minutes without any influence from the players side. And even then it is no great loss to lose 5 minutes of game time, it happens nearly every time you reload any game.
      But currently we have no definite statement how it will be in the end, and this are only Fargo's and the Dev. team current thoughts. It may end up being save everywhere and anytime game, with an incentive for not saving and taking the risk with a reward.
      It will be certainly not a save only at adventure guild game, and this is guaranteed by Fargo.
      As to Kevin Saunders. he works in key dev. position at inXile entertainment, his statement should be good enough. I would trust his statement alone, but an official Fargo statement can be for some people more reinsuring.

    27. Missing avatar

      elfkerben on

      @Matthias & Stephen
      My words. There is nothing wrong to think about a "new" save system, but first i would clear that a "normal" save everywhere system is included and the other things are optional. Big mistake and not so good for a running kickstarter.

      Look to Shadowrun Returns, the negative press was really heavy and in the end nobody won. They released the add-on standalone, yes its normal these days, but i know nobody how bought the original game, only the add-on.

    28. Missing avatar

      MJ on

      I completely agree with you. After all it is still a game which I buy to have fun and not to have some kind of frustration because I have to redo the last 10 minutes.

      So, please give us the freedom to play the game like we want. I'm currently playing Pillars of Eternity (in my little free time) and I'm very happy to be able to save when I want.

    29. Sir Chaox on

      > "Why other people care how I play my singleplayer game"
      Not other people. The developers. This is clearly what inXile wants to do. A key member of the development team, Kevin Saunders, has said that checkpoints were not the system they were thinking of implementing. Plans may change, but this is as good as coming straight from Brian's mouth.

      Some additional info from Brian's twitter account suggests there will be different save options available for the game as well... This may or may not include a Save Anywhere option, however.

      As long as some kind of bookmarking feature is employed, I personally see no issues with whatever save system they want to go with.

    30. Stephen "Stoibs" D

      One only has to look at the extremely negative response by both reviewers and us fellow backers alike on something such as Shadowrun Return's initial launch with its crappy non-save system to realise that following suit again with such a step backward and an archaic antiquated lack of manual save system is a huge mistake and is frowned upon in this climate and for *this* type of audience that we generally make up here.

      5-10 minute interval rumour? Yeah that’s checkpoints..
      Until I see official word from Brain himself saying 'You will be able to press escape and click on the save option and/or press F5 and Quicksave + multiple slots whenever you want" then this is still a point of contention and something to certainly be concerned about.

      Why other people care how I play my singleplayer game that in no way shape or form affects anyone else at all is beyond me. If I want to save/reload every 2 seconds then so what? In what capacity does this affect anyone other than myself..?

      At the end of the day, from the Blowup comments and reactions here the dev team would indeed be treading on thin ice and be out of their minds to go ahead and implement unwanted restrictions anyway.

    31. David Brennan on

      @Kris, TrentJasper and others claiming that InXile are not intending check points.... Saving every 5-10 minutes IS checkpoints. Even if it is on a timer rather than location/transition based (which would be first) it is still checkpoints.

      Unless they are planning a very different implementation of checkpoints from the norm that means the player will not be able to reload old saves (eg from several hours play ago) to try other options, it won't be possible to reload after death without having to replay 5-10 minutes progress, save game corruption can lose your entire game and all the other problems which come with checkpoints.

      Others have said checkpoints are the spawn of the devil. A bit of an exaggeration perhaps but I do feel they are totally unnecessary in most PC games, including RPGs (you can call it a dungeon crawler if you want but it is just a sub-class of RPG).

    32. Jeremie Lariviere

      Thanks for the update, I'm looking forward to seeing what's done.

      Personally I love the save anywhere, but I know a lot of people like making things hard... This is going to be a cool game regardless!

    33. dungeoncrawl on

      I want Avellone on the team permanently.

    34. Bryy Miller on

      Save Scumming is neither good nor bad. Who the hell cares how other people use the pre-existing mechanics of their game?

    35. Sir Chaox on

      Thanks, Kevin! Good to see a confirmation about that.

    36. Nobody on

      Thank you for your confirmation, but i think that this will be not enough, sadly we will need an more "official" statement from Fargo to silence certain voices.
      When will we have an Avellone joins the inXile team stretch goal? ;)

    37. WaltC on

      I am completely content with Brian's comments on save games! Thanks for the clarifications, Brian! I would like to briefly recount the kind of "tension" I recall (and enjoyed) from the original BT games (liked them all, but BTII was my favorite--maybe)...It was so much fun not knowing what I might encounter in the next dungeon "square"...! So, I'd save, take a deep breath, again, deep breath, and move again...that sort of thing...! It was especially tense if party members were injured/dead, etc....! Recall that in the BT originals, you might be able to see ahead a few steps but what appeared to be empty space often was not, but you wouldn't know that until you got there and unknown entities attacked!...It was always a surprise! That kind of tension stems from the content of the game itself, and no amount of contrived tension can substitute, imo. Drat...I'm getting stoked again just talking about it! Time to fire up BTIII, I think, in my Windows Amiga emulator!

    38. Kevin Saunders on

      We're not planning to have a "checkpoint" system. =) (Though I can understand how Brian's words could be interpreted as implying that we are.)

    39. dungeoncrawl on

      @TJ - Sad that you're punishing inXile for giving "too many details" about the game. You just incented Brian, and ALL the other Kickstarter game devs out there, to be vague and not talk too much in detail for fear of pissing somebody off with a minor detail. Think about it, rather than rewarding them for talking more than they had to, you punished them.

    40. Missing avatar

      BladeRnr on

      @TrentJaspar Thanks for linking to the definition.

      Taking for granted that Brian Fargo and his team at inXile aren't a bunch of idiots, which seems likely otherwise none of us would be here, they are PC gamers and certainly know that checkpoints are the spawn of the devil. Nothing in his videos would let someone suspect that there will be checkpoints in the Bard's Tale and concluding otherwise is just running around screaming "the sky is falling!"

      The reason most people give when they say they want a Save Anywhere/Anytime system is "wife, kids and life in general". A Save & Quit system would also work to solve that problem, but since most of them don't want that either, it seems obvious that their real objection lie elsewhere.

      Look, I'm as anti-checkpoints and pro-Save Anywhere/Anytime as they come (and certainly savescummed plenty of times myself, this isn't an insult people!), but it's good to remember that Save Anywhere/Anytime isn't a mandate from the high heavens and I, for one, think it's cool that Brian Fargo and his team at inXile are giving some thoughts to the consequences of the Cult of F5/F9 on the way we play our games.

      I know two things for certain:
      1- I'm looking forward to what system they come up with and
      2- there will be a check box somewhere in the settings menu to allow Save Anywhere/Anytime, otherwise they'll never hear the end of it.

      And can every one remember that we're discussing a save system in a video game here? Don't take it so dramatically!

    41. Bill Gates on

      I never finished the original Bard's Tale. My party was in, I think, Mangar's Tower (it had been nearly 30 years), had made a lot of progress, but I hadn't been back to the Adventurer's Guild to save the game since entering the tower (admittedly, I was a bit overconfident because the party was of such high level that it seemed nothing could even scratch them). Then the party got taken out by a spell that caused them to turn on each other. I was so frustrated at having to replay that progress, I stopped playing and never went back.
      I have a lot of games, and limited time. I don't want to have to spend some of that time replaying long stretches of the game.

    42. Missing avatar

      BladeRnr on

      @Blackghost Nice! ;)

    43. T.J. Brumfield on

      @Kris - I've never in my life seen a timer for a save. Brian did not say there would be a timer. He said you'd have the opportunity to save so often, which clearly implies checkpoints.

      I'm not sure why you are adamant there are no save points when the video pretty much said there will be save points.

      Either way, I have kids and little time for gaming. Any game that I can't save or walk away from in a given moment is a game i refuse to pay.

      Given that save anywhere/anytime does not appear to be an option, I'm withdrawing my pledge.

      I wish inXile the best. I still look forward to Torment, but this is apparently not a game for me.

    44. Nobody on

      @T.J. Brumfield
      No it is not, because you can stay in one spot for 10 minutes or you can go in circles for an indefinite amount of time. This leads to the the statement: either in 5-10 minutes or never save. There are exterme many solutions for the save problem and never did Fargo mentioned save points or check points. Any speculation about this, is just nonsense and is reading something into it, which is definitely not said.
      For example they may use a time counter for the time when the last save has been made and when the player can save again. Or they can count the time from the last save and multiply the xp with a factor that is dependent on the counters time.
      Save Points are mostly a console thing and inXile is making RPGs mainly for the PC and its audience. But you are right about one thing: Fargo has not been clear enough. He should have said with a clear statement "NO SAVE POINTS".

    45. T.J. Brumfield on

      @Kris - If you can only save in certain spots you come across every 5-10 minutes, that is a checkpoint system.

      Several people have been quite clear that they won't back or play a game like that. And as much as Brian was clear in this video that nothing is set in stone, he did make it seem like save anywhere/anytime wasn't really an option they were considering.

    46. Blackghost on

      Awesome! I've raised my pledge from $20 to $105. ;-) heheh

      Good job guys!!

    47. Sir Chaox on

      If he said "at any time" rather than "for 20 or 30min sessions", then it would be more clear...

      Not a bad system, but I don't think that will satisfy the Save Anywhere crowd. Instead of saving at times that are strategically chosen, they may end up holding onto their save credits for when they really need to quit.

    48. Sleeperwaking on

      Brian Fargo just tweeted the following:

      ‏@BrianFargo Brian Fargo retweeted Logun
      That won't be a issue at all.
      Logun @Logun0
      @FluentsWorld @BrianFargo I want to strategically challenge my party and still be able to pop in and out for 20 or 30min sessions

      Which implies save and quit to me. Or maybe I'm reading things with my rose-tinted glasses again.

    49. Missing avatar

      Chris Calvert on

      The way I'd like to see saves work is a forked approach.

      Unlimited saves at Save Spots/Guild.

      Limited saves anywhere: Somewhat similar to Pillars of Eternity's resting. Make a limited-carry resource (camping supplies). You can carry two or three which are required and consumed to save. Maybe if you feel you need more, you can get skills or something which allow you to carry more, or a +chance to find them. Save *anywhere*, just not unlimited times.

    50. Sir Chaox on

      +1, spot on. Give these guys some credit. You may learn to love this new system. And we really need to stop jumping to conclusions on what it actually is or may be... They are clearly putting a lot of time and thought into how they want to approach it. It's one of the biggest concerns (and for good reason) of this project. Let's give them room to experiment. All I hope for is that I'm able to quit and save at any time (bookmark type save that will self-delete on reload is fine). Even if that's not in, I'll still try the game and keep an open mind... but it's tough managing your schedule around a game rather than the other way around ;)