Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Unless the game only gives you one chance and if you die, it deletes itself from your account forever, it's not realistic.
That wouldn't be fun, however, so the game has already conceded on the "let's be realistic" front in favor of gameplay mechanics.
A game should always have an inactive pause - for instance you temporarily stop the game by going to the options menu and continue playing when you have finished whatever you had to do.
An active pause is something else. That’s part of the design and if the designer feels that his/her creation is better served without active pause that’s a valid choice. The argument he made is perfectly valid, from a design perspective - there is a difference between permadeath and being able to stop time in a real time game.
Now the designer could chosen pulses, he could have chosen we go, but he chose real time.
Buyers vote with their pocket, but the developer was open about why he made the decision. Active pausing is not part of this game. No need to put down a demand like no pause no buy.
Buy or don‘t buy.
...I haven’t bought Firefight because I have too many games anyway, still on the list though - one of these days I will pick it up as a real time wargame.
But the player is in control of everything, and this sounds like a clickfest. No thanks.