I wouldn't want scenario's where I have to save the game go in the fight and try what happens if I kill him or not.
Or sparing everyone's life just for the possible benefit they could give you.
(That would take out the moral issue and would make you base your decision on greed)
Hmm... on the one hand, you talk about moral issues in the game... and on the other hand, you talk about saving a game before a fight and about saving everyone's lives just for the benefit.
The problem with that is, in my opinion at least: You can't have moral issues in a game when the player just saves before fights or before important dialogues so that they can try it again if they don't like the outcome. I happen to think that only if the players - so, all of us - change their way of playing and thinking, the games can get more interesting. Cause no matter how striking the moral issues are... how unique dialogues are... how important decisions are... as soon as you save just because you don't want to miss something or because you want to get the maximum points, it doesn't work at all.
In a P&P game, you can't save either... and that's actually the fun with it. You really have to think about what you are going to do before doing it... and if you make a bad decision you face the consequences. Such a way of playing is not really common in computer games...
On the original topic:
Of course I support the idea of not having to kill an opponent... that's not realistic! There are tons of ways how a fight can end. Other people come and intervene... you flee... your opponent flees... you lose and your opponent doesn't kill you... etc. pp.
Sure, that's more work for the game designer but so what? If a game designer could manage to implement such a degree of freedom in the game, I would buy it no matter what. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
