Saving & Reloading - your thoughts and opinions
Saving and reloading was a central part of the original game. You could save and reload at any point. This gave a tremendous amount of power to players, and had a tremendous impact on the play experience.
Have thoughts or opinions on saving & reloading (hereafter abbreviated SAR)? Post them here.
My 2 cents
Some players went hardcore, and rarely used SAR. This made the original game tremendously difficult, even on easy. One bum mission, and you've lost all your soldiers AND a skyranger. Good luck recovering from that. Others saved before or after each mission, providing some sense of difficulty and occasionally encouraging them to accept a loss for means of convenience (not restarting the entire mission). Others saved after every turn, sought perfection, and would usually always achieve it.
The problem with the flexibility of the original setup was that it led to a slipperey slope. Most players I talk to eventually are led to make frequent use of SAR. Why? Because not using SAR meant more frustratiob and less optimal results. However, it cheapens the glory of their achievements. It feels almost like cheating. But then, what is fair? How often can one SAR for it to feel legitimate? The game itself provided no commentary, except for the realization players who don't use SAR as often pay for it with frustration and dead heroes.
I know the game has an ironman mode. What I hope is that this mode isn't something for the elite power gamer insane (like hardcore mode in diablo 3). I hope it is the intended norm, rather than the exceptional challenge. Players who play ironman on normal difficulty should find the challenge level similar to other games on normal. That means that a few mistakes, a few list soldiers, and even a few list missions need not condemn them failure.
Ultimately, I hope the SAR process has been given true thought in the new game. I pray it does not have the slipperey slope feel of the original.
They way I have understood it, Difficulty level and Ironman mode are complementary. Making Ironman mode possible on all difficulties to suit all level of players.
But I could be wrong.
What about a SAR budget. Example, players get 1 SAR per in-game week; max 10. Players can use them however a d whenever they want, but have to use them wisely. Maybe having a high ranking officer in battle gives one free battle save per mission.
Encourages players to save only at pivotal moments, not after every turn. Makes using SARs part of the strategy.
There's a good article at gamespy about this: http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/122/1223192p1.html
^ article even mentions XCOM:EU.
IMO, it shouldn't really matter to one how another plays a single player game. Cheating at games is just cheating yourself.
I don't tend to save/reload, I suffer my own stupidity if it happens. I won't claim to be the greatest strategy gamer ever. Sometimes my mistakes are bad enough that I end up abandoning a game because I know it's either over or no longer fun. But reloading to get a perfect game would quickly become boring.
In the comments for the article above I say that I'll sometimes reload for misclicks types of things. I don't think this is so bad if you do it in the spirit of civ co-op games at civfanatics, where you only reload for that type of thing, and you try to recreate the turn so that you're not altering your decisions for that turn. Losing out on hours of good gameplay because of a misclick or UI screwup is a bit different to me than reloading because your favorite unit died or reloading until you get a decisive victory.
Making SAR into a game mechanic is a bad bad idea, among other things it would break the immersion in the game.
You don't limit the players freedom on how they want to play the game unless it conflicts with other players enjoyment of the game (cheating and so on). The game should be playable in any way you like, the all-perfect-actions-utopia, the-casual-catastrophe-reload or the hardcore-iron man-live-with-each-decision.
This "SAR limit" you mention, does not exist. It's fully individual how the player wants to play the game.
I've tended to not SAR because I personally feel it takes a lot of the challenge out. I think the most SAR that I'm guilty of is saving prior to a mission and reloading if it went REALLY bad but I always forced myself to play the whole mission over again. This play style actually makes me insanely cautious but actually nets some pretty good results. It's way easier on your stress level to breach a UFO when you use motion trackers to make sure there aren't a bunch of aliens sitting by the door just waiting for you to send some poor mook in to get plasma'd to death.
Excellent article; said pretty much everything I was thinking with more eliquence. Thanks a ton for the link.
Originally Posted by Voqar
I plan to play ironman normal. My hope is that the game is challenging, but fun. I don't want a lesson in pain, or to lose my soldiers so quickly I can't develop a liking for them. I hope this game mode plays well, and not too rigid.
Guilty as charged. I save every other turn on missions.
For a single player there is no real point in limiting saves.
Some will choose to save often, some less, some play ironman - whether that's an actual game mode or not.
All paid the same for the game so why should only some get to play the game the way they like?
I agree, to a point. I do think that players should have freedom to choose their preferred play parameters, but I also think these parameters should be both intelligently balanced and locked in once chosen.
Originally Posted by Gazz
Consider The extreme. why not just give players full control of everything? Why not allow them to buy items for free, level soldiers at will, customize their stats, and gain access to technologies by clicking a checkbox? Why not just give them access to everything if they want it, at no cost, and let them use what they like at their own discresion?
That isn't a challenge, it's a sandbox. A challenge has rules and limitations. A challenge is when someone says "you can't do this" and you prove them wrong.
That's what's missing when there are too many sandbox elements, you lose a sense that this is the challenge that the developers intended. Setting your own goals, then beating them, isn't nearly as satisfying (for most people) as beating goals set by others.
What I want is a clear challenge, a clear goal that the game XCom says "I dare you to beat". If I have complete control over the difficulty of the challenge every step of the way, then I lose the sense that the challenge was given to me, but instead that I set it myself. To me, personally, this isn't satisfying.
This is my beef with uncontrolled SAR. You lose all notion of what challenge level the programmers intended. You don't feel like your beating the game, you feel like your just beating a goal you set for yourself.
I don't think I've ever once reloaded a save that wasn't due to quitting out quickly when my parents would check to make sure I was asleep at night (very young when I started playing xcom). To me reloading saves just completely ruins the point of the entire game... there are many games out there where if you run into trouble it holds you by the hand and lets you retry and rewrite history. The reason I loved Xcom was BECAUSE of the fact that if you failed the game would continue.
It honestly never occurred to me that I could replay missions, my mind was already planning training of my new troops for the base assault and making sure I had new research ready by the time I went back for it. I do the same with most games, even RPG's like the TES series, I watch people with their playthroughs where they have HUNDREDS of saves and reload everytime they fail to pickpocket someone... it completely undermines the reason there is a pickpocket skill in the first place, let alone a crime and punishment layer to the game, LET ALONE THE FACT ITS A ROLE PLAYING GAME.
You can do whatever you want to the save system as long as there are no forced retry's to missions, even story related. If I can't roll with the punches and actually fear failure then I'd be playing EVERY OTHER GAME ON THE MARKET.
I definitely want to play Ironman mode the whole time. If necessary, I will set the diff to easy for the first play through, and hopefully that still provides a serious challenge. Ironman, Normal will be the stretch target.
Then you save less often. =)
Originally Posted by Howellren
In a (more or less) sandbox game there are many things to do and I make up my own challenges as I go.
For instance I may insist on killing a particular alien by blowing it up with a gas station so I'll go to all kinds of trouble to coax it into the perfect spot.
It may be silly and terribly inefficient but when I set that goal, that's the goal. Winning the mission is irrelevant.
When you think of "challenge" as obstacles between you and winning the game, this concept doesn't always apply to everyone else's game. It only applies to a your game and it would be unnecessarily restricting to limit saving to suit that one mode.
Achievements are always a good method of rewarding good play styles.
If you include achievements for less than 10 reloads in a game or winning the game while having lost more than 30 soldiers gives players the feeling of being a "bad ass" while not having optimal runs.
i save on situations where i believe there is the highest probability of sh*t hitting the fan, and when indeed bodies start piling up, reload. i dont like losing any men and i want all the guys i start with to make it to the end.
I agree, achievements are a great means of rewarding different play styles. It also doesn't mean actually changing the rules of the larger game; allowing players to have more flexibility, but providing recognition for those who choose to self-regulate.
Originally Posted by Rokku
I guess my hope is that the game designers don't use the SAR feature as a cop-out for good game balancing. From what I've seen, i have no reason to think that they will; although I have seen other games which have.
SAR comes down to personal choice. Some hate losing troopers at all and are willing to replay the same levels over and over and over until they get a perfect victory. Is this cheating? well... not really, it's their choice, it's their time and it's what make it fun for them.
Personally, in the original I save at the beginning of each ground mission, "just in case", you know, you walk one guy out and blap; the whole skyranger goes up to a stun bomb or blaster bomb... or you just about win, but lose 13 out of 14. Yes I could continue after that, but missioning over and over and over to get a team back up to scratch is, in my opinion, boring. If i lose the odd trooper, well ok, we move on.
So yeah, the SAR in EU needs to accommodate all that personal choice. Those who want to be absolute ironmen and those who want a perfect completion, and all the people in between.
As to switching in the middle of a game, why not? you get half way through and you realise you bit off more than you can chew... tone it down a little and keep going (ie keep the fun going) or "no sorry, you have to start over and do it all again because you didn't know it was going to be this tough nahaha!" (ie no fun) ... of course there are going to be stubborn gits who will keep going regardless (like me) but not everyone is going to be like that.
It's about what is going to be fun, and that is a hugely personal opinion.
In the interview with Jake Solomon at the E3 he talks about that maybe the hardest things was the balancing between making the players like their soldiers and giving the soldiers special abilities on one side and don’t force the players to reload if on soldier dies on the other side. And he says that he thinks they got it right. ( http://de.twitch.tv/2k/b/320679767 around 3:36:00)
I’m doing allot of save and reload. But I also realize that it takes away from the game experience. If someone remembers Fallout Tactics, there was an Ironman-Mode, which allowed you not to save during a mission. I think I will play XCOM in the same way. Replay the whole mission ore live with the outcome. Call it “Bronzeman-Mode”. And after I got used to death and tragedy, maybe I will try the real Ironman-Mode.
Also saw Roladin's comments too, which I thought were great.
Originally Posted by LeftyRighty
I think one common misconception is that SAR is somehow separate from the rest of the game. its not, its as much a part of the game as everything else, from making tactical decisions on the battlefield as choosing your research techs. Just because its on the menu screen, rather than the tactical map, doesn't mean its not equally a part of the gameplay experience.
Consider games which have really taken that concept to heart. Prince of Persia, sands of time, took hold of the concept and made it one of the coolest parts of the game by having a 7-second rewind. Braid took the an awe-inspiring level. Even Terror from the Deep acknowledged its power, and disabled SAR for the final mission set.
Also, you're comment about a blaster bomb instantly leveling your whole squad. That goes in line with my comment about not RELYING on save states to fix game balance issues. The fact that you could take 1 step off your craft when the mission started, and have an alien in-place to blow up your whole team... that was a flaw! It was something the original game designers should have fixed, but didn't. We rely on save-states to get around it, but the point is, we shouldn't have to.
Mario brothers and other old side scrollers. If you died, you were auto-saved to restart the level. If you ran out of lives, you had to start all over. But the game was balanced to this. They had locked-in the SAR conditions, and based the game around them. They made the game so that its difficulty was built upon it.
For succesfull games, failure was generally the result of slow reactions or gameplay failure, not due to bum luck or poor level design. Consider those games where you had to jump at the very very VERY last pixel edge of a ledge, otherwise you fell to your doom. consider other games where theres a certan "roll the die" event that you need to randomly beat, otherwise you loose and start over. SUPER frustrating, and no real purpose for it. These are why some people get these old game on emulators with save states; because it saves frustration.
This is my point. I'm not against having unlimited SARS, I just don't think it should be necessary to circumvent bad game design. I hope they make the game progress-able and fun in Ironman. I hope that there aren't random unavoidable blaster bombs which make the mode a lesson in frustration. I hope they game designers make the core game based around a certain SAR standard, and that that game is balanced well and plays fun.
For myself, it kind of depends on my mood. Sometimes I'll be making a save every turn, and other times I'll just play with the hand I'm dealt.
I also feel that saves in a single-player game like this shouldn't need much in-game interference (ie, limiting saves per in-game month/week/day, etc.) I'm already selecting my difficulty level, which has the biggest impact on the challenge I'm looking for. I just find frequency of SAR to be a way to kind of "fine tune" the level of challenge I want, on a day-to-day basis.
I think that my first time through this game, I'll probably play on Normal difficulty, with Ironman mode turned on. That's a concept I can get behind, as a game mechanic toggle. I wouldn't even necessarily mind a completion on Ironman giving you some sort of "bonus" or even special ending as a reward. Nothing big, but just a nod to having stuck it out all the way through.
My philosophy has always been "Whatever makes you comfortable".
I'm a cautious type, so i tend to save and reload frequently. Sometimes i make a mistake with serious repercussions, sometimes things go pear shaped unexpectedly, and sometimes the game crashes and i lose all my progress. Not just with XCOM mind you, but all games...especially ones i quickly discover have a tendency to crash.
Some of course think you're playing it wrong if you're not playing on Hardcore or Ironman mode. I view these people the same way i would a person riding a motorcycle without a helmet, or a rollercoaster with the safety bar disengaged, or a high rise window washer that doesn't use a safety harness....insane. Safety features are available for a reason. If you don't wish to use them, so be it. Just don't insult me for exercising common sense.
Seriously man. Riding without a helmet? Two words: Gary Busey. <shudders>
That insanity is the only thing making the game a challenge though.
Originally Posted by IrishSamurai
Saving every turn removes any kind of fun i have with the game, because i know I can't lose. This is personal taste of course.
Also. I don't see the similarities at all to ANY of your examples. In the biking example not getting off training wheels is a more appropriate example. The sense of accomplishment rises. There is no difference in the difficulty of riding a bike with or without helmet. (well ok, maybe the rollercoaster example is ok, because there are rollercoasters designed without safety bars, to give a greater sense of danger, when there is none. But you can't opt in on safety bars though, you just don't get to ride.)
Ed: Also, it's not nice calling other people insane because they enjoy other things than you. I can't for example stand the tedium of playing a game i can't lose.
Hmm, you must not play many single player games.... caus you cant lose most single player games. If a game has a save function at all then at worst you have a set back. You could potentialy never finish a game, but Final Fantasy games, I guess you could leave it running and never save, then if you have a party wipe....well, thats how the game ended.
Originally Posted by AmazingMoose
Few games are made where you "can" save after a point where you can no longer succeed. The original Xcom was like that, if all your saves were after a point when an alian plan was put in motion that you couldnt come back from, then you lost.
Breath of Fire 5: Dragon Qaurter was a game you could lose, it had limited saves and a game mode with soft saves (saves that were deleted after they loaded) so you could die and effectivly lose the game.
I remember reading all sorts of chalenge guids to final fantasy games, one of them was beating FF7 at only 15th level or something. The thing is no one jumps out and give you a cookie if you do this, and no one jumps out and takes one away if you save every chance you get in XCOM.
Bottem line I cant imagine that anyone even worries how often other people save and reload in xcom. As long as people are haveing fun let them, and if you dont like something dont do it guys, but an indepth disscusion on any sort of how often people can save and reload befor they ruin the game for themselfs is bodering on elitist snob in my opinion.
Its a single player game and I think it should have an easy access god mode for those who want it, it wont be for me but if someone wants it (or needs it because their tactical abilities are uter fail) then let em, its not like how John in Canada is gunna ruin the game for Tim in India cause John saves and reloads a lot.
Few would argue against there being some level of option in regards to saves. If some people want ironman, let them. If others want to save every turn, let them. But, whatever the possible options, there should be a clear central ruleset the game is designed around. If there isn't, the game will feel muddy. It should be clear what standard was intended, even if players choose other options.
Originally Posted by Evil_Weasel
Example: today people can mod games. You can change the rules of the game at will. For old she's games you can use saved states. Some games have "cheat codes". All of these things are cool, and it's fun to have options like these: however there is a clear understanding that these were not "intended" elements to the game.
Imagine if you were playing a fantasy role play. Level 1 daggers do 5 dps, swords do 50, maces 500, and spears 5000. They all cost the same at 10 gold a piece from the store, but some are exponentially more powerful. The game is completely impossible with a dagger, but you can nuke the last boss easy with a spear. Maybe you decide to start the game with a sword, but it gets too tough so you switch to a mace. You have the option to adjust your power at any time, without having to "earn" that power, and your never sure you beat the game the way it was intended. What you do know is that using the spear allows you to roll through everything so easy it's no fun, and using the dagger is impossible.
The point is, while you have full flexibility in this example, it's impossible to tell what kind of challenge level was intended. See the difference?
I for one am not arguing to eliminate player options. Let them exist. However, make it somehow clear what their intended usage for proper game balance and difficulty. Don't make me feel like I'm using a dagger when on ironman mode, but using a spear when saving every turn. That's like giving me a piece of blank paper, and telling me I have unlimited freedom to draw my own maze then beat it.
I'm not calling people insane. It's how i view them when they choose to ignore safety options. There's a difference in the wording.
Originally Posted by AmazingMoose
Also, as i said at the beginning of my post...whatever makes you comfortable. I could really care less how anyone plays the game as long as they enjoy it and they don't tell me i'm playing it wrong by "making it less challenging", blah blah blah.
Anyways, i spoke my mind. You spoke yours. I'm done.
Well, thats a well though out point. If I were going to try to make your example with equipment, I would have choosen armor over weapons. See, the constant save and reload option doesnt make the game easier, but it protects you from mistakes. If leather armor protected 10% and chain armor protected 50% and plate armor protected 90% and the game was too hard with leather and to easy with plate well thats how saveing and loading should be compared.
Originally Posted by Howellren
What your trying to say is there should be an armor (save load equivilent) that is considered "standard" level. Thing is, the original didnt have that and people still loved it. If XCOM: EU gives us the freedom to save as much as we like as the original did then you wouldnt like it as much because "you dont know what the intended dificulty curve is suposed to be?"
Freedom is a funny thing, when people have it they dont know what to do with it, when they dont have it its all they can think about.
What if someone needs to be able to save every turn because they dont know how to be tactical. I understand the motivation to not use the highest power build in an MMO, I get not seeking out the most powerful character in an RPG, I get choosing a weapon you like in a shooter vs what people on the forums say is the best, and I get not wanting to cheese your way through this game when it comes out.
But go find someone on the street and tell them you played through X game and didnt use the 99 lives code, tell them you never once saved durring battle in XCOM, tell them you never modded an Elder Scrolls game, you didnt do the infinit item trick in any game that had it.... No one cares, I think unlimitid saves shoudl be there so everyone who will stink at the game can struggle through.
Perhaps I think the game should tell you how many saves you made, and maybe people will try to make less the next time around.
I dont know if il save durring the missions, maybe if I suffer a sqaud wipe and its like the first one where if you lost the whole sqaud you lost the skyranger too. Then I may save very often to get the last guy out... I dont know.
You pretty much nailed it. Sadly I do not play many single player games. The ones i do play usually involve a very real chance of not winning. In longer games I use the same savegame slot for every save and accept defeats when i get them. I still haven't played a through full game of Crusader Kings II on highest difficulty.
Originally Posted by Evil_Weasel
My general impression of games now-a-days is that they are made for accesability and not for the challenge. While I do enjoy entertainment games as much as the next guy at times, they are just that. Entertainment. About as challenging as reading a book, yet it will keep you distracted from reality. (meant in a positive way)
I love playing games for the challenge of beating them, but that market is becomming thinner and thinner. End result is competitive multiplayer or bust. This saddens me a bit.
My last great hope was Limbo, but the "riddles" in that game was so horrendously easy that it got boring real fast, and I never even bothered with a second playthrough.
Ed: Also, i don't really care how other people play the game as long as it does not have any impact on me. I'm just saying I'm missing the retro-style of gaming and gamers more and more.
Last edited by AmazingMoose; 06-11-2012 at 06:03 PM.
Some threads go bump in the night.
The first time I played X-COM it was so difficult for me I rampantly abused save and reload in almost every firefight until I got lucky. This was in X-COM: Terror from the Deep, which was the first game I played in the series.
These days I only use save and reload tactics if I'm getting bored searching for the last aliens and don't want to spend 20 minutes carefully searching the last bits of the map. I save, send X-COM agents out in all directions at full move until one of them gets shot, letting me know where the aliens are. Then I load and approach that area with standard tactics.
For this game I prefer standard save/load anywhere and the Ironman option for any difficulty. I'm personally looking forward to Ironman.
I think that using SAR in this new game should be the same as in the old. Ironman mode is in the game for those who like to use it. Everybody like to play differently and value different parts of the experience.
Bottom line is, people should be allowed to play XCom the way they want to play XCom.
This hits the nail right on the head right here, for me. Saving and reloading is there if you want to use it. You can save whenever you want, whether it's to save your progress, or to reload because you screwed up. Some games do away with this, like Demon's Souls, because that's part of the challenge of the game. However, that isn't the way of it for X-Com. However, for people who like that sort of thing, they can just turn on Ironman mode so they have to live with the consequences.
Originally Posted by fURIX
In the end, gaming is about one thing (more or less): fun. If the player wants to keep everyone alive, saving and reloading lets them do that. They have fun doing that, so they should be allowed to. Not to take it to extremes, of course; actual cheats like free items and whatnot should be reserved for unofficial mods I feel, but saving and reloading should be kept as it is: an option that isn't limited.
That was a good article, thanks.
Originally Posted by Voqar
I think players should have their freedom to enjoy the game the way they play it with a difficulty setting. Why make a game that people might stop playing out of frustration? The old-school, hard-core gamer should have the willpower not to reload stupid mistakes.
I, on the other hand DON'T have this willpower, and so will use the Ironman mode AND will constantly act hard-assed on this forum and tell people how I'm not going to save like they are....to shame myself into doing the right thing.
How would this "take away from the game experience" if not saving and reloading causes you frustration or disappointment?
Originally Posted by Roladin
This is up to the individual on how they prefer to "experience" the game. Everyone is different. And I hope you can save whenever and whereever you wish in the new game.
Personally, I've been replaying the original and I save at the start and end of every turn incase something catastrophic happens. I've only reloaded a few times. The last mission I ran I lost a couple of seasoned sergeants and I just kept on playing. It sucks losing them, but I didn't reload. But I am glad that I had the option if I chose to do so. I guess I'm more of a save and keep playing kind of guy instead of save and reload.
Both quick save games and Ironman mode will be included. We know this. For everyone who is championing freedom to choose; everyone agrees with you, including those (like myself) who will prefer to play ironman. I dont think anyone wishes the SAR options removed entierly, do lets not make it the heart of the discussion.
The discussion is therefore more on game balancing. Players who want to use SAR can and should be allowed to. However, players who choose ironman should not be met with clunky, random, or insanely difficult gameplay experiences.
The SAR feature is extremely powerful. For players who use it continually, it has as much or more effect on the game as cheats, hacks, or mods. It also equally disregards the intended challenge of the game.
That's the core of the discussion, what is the "intended challenge". If you play on normal, how hard and fun is the game if you choose to follow different SAR principles? How well balanced or random is it? Are the penalties and setbacks you face in the game the logical reprocussions of your actions, or can a random blaster bomb reaction shot kill your entire squad the moment you take your first step off the ship?
I champion the freedom of choice, like everyone else. However, what I also champion is gameplay for which the intended difficulty of the game is not tethered to that choice. This means making a fun, balanced, and challenging but not insanely difficult game which can be played on ironman.
I hope I get what you mean as I respond with:
Originally Posted by Howellren
I think the "ironman" mode, shouldn't be a "difficulty setting", but rather a "pre-game customisation" - something you can choose ONCE you have selected your difficulty. (i.e: Easy but with "Ironman" on, or: Supremely insanely difficult but with complete SAR freedom.)
Otherwise Ironman as a mode will have to be assigned it's own difficulty which makes it difficult to balance. I don't want to have to play and insanely difficult game just to have that "I can't save!" fear. I'd love to play the game as normal, but have the SAR ability removed from me to add that element of trepidation.
Unfortuanatly i had to save my X-Com: Enemy Unknown games before each mission or each geoscape month.
The game didnt run stable on winxp and it suffered from random crashes during geoscape or mission.
But Win7 made my precious game unplayable and had to search the internet for a Copy of it incombination with DosBox.
But yea i prefer the ironman style, would love to see an ironman option on each diff.
Seeing im new on the Forum, ill say hi here
Old time X-Com player, played the game since Amiga 500 (also 500+ and 1200) and bought the game (+TFTD) on CD-Rom when i got my first PC. The CD-Rom version played well all up to winxp but it suffered from some crashed, it broke my hearth
Exactly! Yah. My biggest fear is that ironman mode will be like "hardcore" mode in diablo; that is, a game mode that was not intended nor balanced for, and therefore merely a form of sadism.
Originally Posted by Cuzin_1t
I only do it when I feel cheated. Grossly so. Hey I built libraries and I'm now trying to take back four cities. Tough cookie, that's the game. I gambled and I lost. Now a spearman taking out my uber promoted, full health cavalry unit with guns? No, no, no.
XCOM example. Being shot on the first turn out of the skyranger? ACCEPTABLE!
Being shot on the first turn trying to get out of the sardine can? UNACCEPTABLE!
How can you blame Saveload, the deity of second chance who ought to eliminate doubt and regret from the world, when some fail to use his blessing properly, therefore making them self suffer?
For those who seek perfection, Saveload protects them from misfortune so that they can maximize the outcome of their effort.
For those who are in doubt, Saveload guarantees second chances, granting them the courage to move on.
For those who are careless, Saveload prevent them from accidentally their entire team so they don't have to mourn in regret.
For those who disdain him, considering him to be a false god that only the weak-minded would worship, Saveload still bless them just in case the Apocalypse suddenly comes.
How can you be against that?
If someone just isn't clever enough to come up with spectacular tactics that can complete missions after missions without losing a single man, but is patient enough to try the same mission over and over, so that the randomness can finally smile upon him. Why is that mean he's "cheating"?
And if the intended challenge of the difficulty one currently playing on is insanely hard to beat without SAR, yet he refuse to use it, just switch to an easier difficulty then.
I consider both of your above examples acceptable, Inkidu. My biggest irritation is mousing over a soldier, about to click him to activate, but I nudge the mouse and it moves off that soldier onto an open square, prompting the active soldier to move to this location. That drives me crazy and results in a reload if I get shot. An unacceptable oversight is the inability to open doors without going through them.
BTW, in my current Xcom playthrough, it really was like D-day. Fortunately my tank was first off, but he took 6-8 shots at one time from 3 different floaters as soon as it rolled down the ramp. It was insane! Thankfully this burned up their reaction fire and the rest of my squad smoked them like a cheap cuban cigar.