[Newthought]

I'll try Pbeming....

The whole "cheating" things do not apply if I pay them money. If I am a consumer, and I request a sensible feature I should be granted it, otherwise I'll won't buy D4.

Even then, as a Long Gamer, I can understand then practically guarenteed circusmstances of winning (taking unlimited chances to secure a victory is inevitable), and if you think it's cheating, fine. But that does not matter. If I want to cheat and hack my way to victory once it's in "My Dominion" (Pardon the Pun), then whose to stop me.

Sure I could play Oblivion without saves just like Reality and when I die after screwing up the Third Quest I can reroll. But I don't want to. I want saves. I want to be able to put myself far enough back so I can CONTINUE with my enjoinment. Why should the game restrict me!

The Developer vision is essential, but when this vision trips over the consumer, the relationship of the partnership is ruined with the egg on the face lands on the Developer and the Consumer decides to do something else.

I am not encouraging to Developer's to "betray" their vision so they can EA there way to a Short-term Lifespan, what I am asking is that they make sure to implement the simple features that people want as well as the ability to variate their wishes in it.

Why should I ever have to choose whether or not I want to have to save my game!

The Perfect Example: AC for instance, had a save game feature, but it also had a Iron Man feature that made it impossible to save, hence, it wasn't "cheating".

Honestly, if AC said "Nope, only Iron Man mode for you" that would be exactly like saying, "Nope, only 200 turn games for you". 'But I don't want 200 turn games'. "Games past 200 turns are not challenging because you don't have to deal with any time constraints, you cannot variate from my vision, so you have to play how I define the game, even when you paid for it"

Would AC really be a Classic in this circumstance?

More Importantly, do I really have to argue for Save Games?