Hidden One
Member
This happened to me 4 times in the 6th palace lol. I learned from my mistakes and started back tracking to save just to be safe.
Persona 5's only time-disrespecting is death, I feel. The game lets you skip to selecting the best skill, skips the all-out animation if you want, etc.
Honestly, while I love the Persona games and understand the various ways to prevent the MC from dying from stuff like insta-kill moves... really wish they'd just get rid of the "MC dying = Game Over" deal. It's more of a nuisance than anything.
The only time I ever died was to the bullshit despair mechanic because my whole team got despaired.
Everyone secretly hates the MC and wants his position in these games.It really is. Specially with team members alive who can heal, story wise it makes no sense. "not gonna revive our leader fuck this guy"
Games like Pokemon and Persona necessitate having specific control over saves.
There's the obvious example of saving before catching a legendary Pokemon. If the game autosaved, well, if you failed to catch what you wanted you're screwed.
And Persona, with multiple save slots as opposed to Pokemon, has plenty of times where you would want a specific save for a specific day, such as before you reach a certain social link, or a certain event happens, or right before going sending a calling card.
It has a specific reason to exist.
Why not both? Breath of the Wild (the most recent example I can think of) has both an autosave slot and regular saves. Just have one slot that saves at the start/end of every day or at every safe room on top of the 15 manual slots the game has now. To make your potential scenarios even less likely put warnings every so often, have Morgana say "you haven't written in your journal for a while!" or something.
Was way worse in Persona 3 and 4. The amount of saves in 5 feels like its been tripled from the last couple of games.
The whole game feels a bit easier...
The save rooms are soooo many in. Heck you have one before the one on the beginning, one midway the first time you rode the elevator, one before the darkness room, one before the arena room....Niijima's palace
Really. now. Should the game autosave before every encounter and reloads it immediately if you happen to be defeated?
I don't mean to pick on the OP but I have heard this complaint against P5 before and it just doesn't make sense to me. Isn't there a difficulty level that lets you restart the battle if you die or something? I mean this is the "challenge" part of a RPG, you can die. P4 and P5 still gave an option to make the game part easy so you were basically playing a movie. People might be embarrassed to choose those options but if stuff like this irks you that much just suck your pride up and choose it.
Some players like the fact that there is something at stake when losing a battle. It means that one can't play haphazardly and have to actually take care not to put themselves into dangerous situations.The problem isn't that battles are challenging, but that a challenging battle can set your progress back an hour if you didn't save. The challenge should be from the battles and not the redundancy in game play that results from losing a battle. You can still make a tactically demanding and challenging game without losing hours of progress if the player doesn't save.
Some players like the fact that there is something at stake when losing a battle. It means that one can't play haphazardly and have to actually take care not to put themselves into dangerous situations.
I didn't say anything about the challenge of the game? It doesn't add to the challenge, but it does create tension, which is something that's valuable to a lot of people. Knowing that winning or losing can be a setback for you means that your failures actually mean something.Yeah and I'm saying it's an inane system that doesn't add to the tactical challenge of the game. It's dilatory and only tests patience. The actual challenge of the game should arise from battles not repetition of hours in progress.
The problem isn't that battles are challenging, but that a challenging battle can set your progress back an hour if you didn't save. The challenge should be from the battles and not the redundancy in game play that results from losing a battle. You can still make a tactically demanding and challenging game without losing hours of progress if the player doesn't save.
if you need it for random mobs you need to git gudThis is why I'm playing the game on Normal and make sure to spend money on the best equipment for the MC first and foremost.
I already basically put the game down bc I just lost interest after 90hrs but I always knew if I had gotten a gameover as described, it would've been the straw that broke the camel's back. I really wish jrpgs with that gameover mechanic would pick up on some optional QoL improvements and make it less punishing. Why can't you start every battle over like they allow for boss battles?
Why can't you start every battle over like they allow for boss battles?
The problem isn't that battles are challenging, but that a challenging battle can set your progress back an hour if you didn't save. The challenge should be from the battles and not the redundancy in game play that results from losing a battle. You can still make a tactically demanding and challenging game without losing hours of progress if the player doesn't save.
I'll always prefer to have a real penalty for losing over "quality of life" design choices that just remove tension and challenge from thr game. In the end all you can do is use that frustration as motivation to better learn the game's systems and be more careful so that even when the enemy gets lucky, it still isn't enough to destroy you in a single point.
It's been interesting in a way to see threads like this now that Persona is getting more popular with 5... I wonder if Atlus will change anything in P6 and SMT V based on newcomers' reactions.
I didn't say anything about the challenge of the game? It doesn't add to the challenge, but it does create tension, which is something that's valuable to a lot of people. Knowing that winning or losing can be a setback for you means that your failures actually mean something.
There are probably alternative ways to accomplish this, like taking money or other resources from the player (as Pokemon and Dragon Quest do). But I suspect you'd still get a lot of complaints from the same types of players even if you implemented a system like that instead.
The one thing I like about this game though is when you lose a major boss battle the game literally lets you go back to the fight instead of loading up a previous save before you even start the boss
if you need it for random mobs you need to git gud
I think that's a good compromise. I'm all for more means of customizable difficulty in games.I think a good way to handle it would be to have something like the recent Fire Emblem games, where you can pick permadeath or not while still picking different difficulties (at least, that's my understanding- I haven't actually played them yet). Right now the problem is that retrying battles is tied to the easiest difficulty, so anyone who wants challenging battles but without the harsh punishment is out of luck.
I have my doubts that Atlus is reading an English forum that represents a vocal minority of people that think a game made to be easy SMT/school life simulator is too hard because you can die and lose progress if you didn't save.
Dying to random enemies is one thing; dying because of an ambush is another, especially when the shitty stealth mechanics sometimes force you out into the open in front of enemies.
Lost close to an hour yesterday on Palace 7 because I was carelessly ambushed. Sucks but you live and learn.
What's that?
The problem isn't that battles are challenging, but that a challenging battle can set your progress back an hour if you didn't save. The challenge should be from the battles and not the redundancy in game play that results from losing a battle. You can still make a tactically demanding and challenging game without losing hours of progress if the player doesn't save.
I'll always prefer to have a real penalty for losing over "quality of life" design choices that just remove tension and challenge from thr game. In the end all you can do is use that frustration as motivation to better learn the game's systems and be more careful so that even when the enemy gets lucky, it still isn't enough to destroy you in a single point.
It's been interesting in a way to see threads like this now that Persona is getting more popular with 5... I wonder if Atlus will change anything in P6 and SMT V based on newcomers' reactions-
This is the one thing I hope they never implement (outside of easy modes I guess). I mean, unless they heavily design the game around such a thing, they might as well just remove dungeons altogether and make it so you only fights a few mobs back to back with checkpoints in between and then a boss, because the only challenge in traversing them outside of a few simple puzzles is being able to survive up until the next safe room.
It's like the game expects you to play well and make fewer mistakes because you know you will lose progress if you die. Them's the breaks in JRPGs. Easy mode exists for a reason and you should probably just swallow your pride and choose it if time is a concern for you personally.
When you lost a battle in Persona 5 (and any Megaten game, really) is to tell you "you need to prepare better" It's mostly defensive, but sometimes from a lost you can gain at least the weakness from the enemies. After that lost, I can tell you you will catch the game faster and better than before.
So the problem is this disregards the fact that I'm up for challenging battles, just not losing hours of time due to an inane system. Bumping the difficulty doesn't change the save system, it changes the challenge of the fighting, something that I'm not questioning the validity of.