You know what I’ve been doing lately? Playing a little Battle Brothers before I have to get ready for work. But if I’m about to get into a battle, and I know I don’t have 20mins (likely about the max amount of time a battle takes me)… I save and quit. Then later, I come back, when I have 20 mins, and fight the battle. If something comes up in the middle of the battle, that’s okay too, because the tactical combat is enjoyable enough to me, that having to fight the battle again isn’t so bad, after all, it’s only 20mins.
And why are we so quick to accuse a game indie developer of not respecting your time? That’s a little dramatic. I would hate to see how you behave in a line at Starbucks. It’s 20mins – you’re either exaggerating how little time you have (how long did take you to write your post? How many times did you save an come back?) or you are grossly overvaluing your time.
I don’t even care if there is a save option, but I certainly don’t think it is absolutely necessary or disrespectful if it isn’t included. That’s just silly.
If you think 20 min -or 10 min, or 5 min- of my time isn’t worth bothering about, then no, you DON’T have much respect for my time. Never mind the annoyance of playing through something I’ve already done. If you want to wait in line at Starbuck’s, that’s your choice. I wouldn’t do it. And I would never buy a game with limited saves, either, if I knew about it beforehand.
Seriously, what motivates the Save-Police? Would you like to lobby against pause buttons on DVD players so we have to suffer through a 3 hour movie without getting up for a pee, so we get the “intended artistic experience?” Maybe program by e-book reader so it only stops at the end of the chapter, meaning I have to set aside half an hour with guaranteed no interruptions, so I get the experience Tolstoy intended? There’s going to be an Ironman mode. Use it, and let the rest of us play exactly when we want to.