Roguelikes

[zespri]

Staying on topic:  if the whole issue is about not being able to know up-front what ring is that, why not to seed the random generator on loading a save? You won't be able to see what's there exactly in advance any longer, but you still will be able to reload to avoid killing these blobs from the start all over again.

[Cyborg]

Wait, whoa. Did doctorfrog just say that people can play the game any way they like but that if they're inclined to change such a fundamental aspect then these sorts of games may not be for them at all; only to be rebuked by Cyborg saying that people who savescum in roguelikes are like people with special needs?

Well that was a confusing turn!

Actually, I used the example of special needs gamers as a way to show that having fun is the point, not the way in which you tackle the game. Even more appropriate considering the fact that special-needs people are often the butt of many jokes and insults across every game, despite the fact many of them play those games and have a good time doing so.

The fact that you interpret special needs as an insult speaks to your mentality.

[zebramatt]

Now you're calling me mental!

Man, this guy just doesn't stop, does he?



And before this gets out of hand: I'm kidding. There really is no need to be so confrontational!

[Orelius]

Staying on topic:  if the whole issue is about not being able to know up-front what ring is that, why not to seed the random generator on loading a save? You won't be able to see what's there exactly in advance any longer, but you still will be able to reload to avoid killing these blobs from the start all over again.

There's still a problem:  Most of the stuff really isn't procedurally generated, allowing for save scumming to take advantage of that system.  You'll be able to know which scroll and which ring is which, which is perhaps the biggest problem here.

[Nalgas]

Man, this guy just doesn't stop, does he?

No, he doesn't.  Heh.

Cyborg tends to have...strong opinions, to put it mildly, and he also tends to defend them...vigorously.  Even when there's nothing unreasonable about them at all, it can be a bit much for some people who weren't really up for a debate/discussion of that level of intensity.  I recognize that kind of interaction and am very familiar with it because I'm actually a lot like that at times, or at least was when I was younger.

I've kind of mellowed out a bit as I've gotten older, don't have the energy to keep it up all the time, and have had it slowly beaten into me over the years why doing that really bothers some people (like my girlfriend, and my sister, and...).  I can still slip right back into it, though, because debating/arguing is fun sometimes.  It's like a game itself, except it turns out the other person/people don't always want to play.  Who knew?  Heh.

[zebramatt]

Oh, I can argue til everyone's ultraviolet in the face and the cows have been back home and gone out again, but this isn't my house, you know? Chris likes things friendly, so I'll do friendly. 

That's not to say I shan't enter into a heated debate when the situation demands but really, doctorfrog's comment up there couldn't have been worded more reasonably.

Truth is, roguelikes are indeed rogue-like, and that implies permadeath. There are other games for other tastes but playing a roguelike without permadeath isn't playing a roguelike at all. It's playing a procedurally generated dungeon-crawler RPG. Which is similar but there are other games which actually do it better than roguelikes, if that's what you're looking for. Nothing snooty about saying that!

[Nalgas]

That's not to say I shan't enter into a heated debate when the situation demands but really, doctorfrog's comment up there couldn't have been worded more reasonably.

Truth is, roguelikes are indeed rogue-like, and that implies permadeath. There are other games for other tastes but playing a roguelike without permadeath isn't playing a roguelike at all. It's playing a procedurally generated dungeon-crawler RPG. Which is similar but there are other games which actually do it better than roguelikes, if that's what you're looking for. Nothing snooty about saying that!

Yeah, I can't really disagree with that.  There are already other similar games that don't have that "problem" instead of having to work around it for those of us who don't like it.  On the other hand, if someone is really determined to play [insert roguelike here] and savescum to their heart's content, that's their business if that's what makes them happy, even if it might seem to make more sense to play something else that would appear to fit their tastes better.  People are just like that.

[zebramatt]

Sure. And if someone wants to play badminton with a tennis ball they can do that too. I might point out to them that tennis might suited them better, but I' not going to try to stop them or anything. Hell, it sounds fun for a lark!

[laughingman]

Doctorfrog is exactly right. A roguelike is not at all a game about building up a specific character or having a particularly powerful item. If you play it with that mindset you are going to be discouraged, disillusioned, and disappointed. Repeatedly. You are not going to enjoy it.

Roguelikes are games about building up your skill as a player, and using that skill to overcome difficult situations with clever use of what limited resources you have. A novice roguelike player can be given the best gear in the game and be slaughtered in the first few floors, while a veteran might be able to win without any armor or healing items.

As I said earlier, they are not games that everyone is going to enjoy, and that's not actually a problem. There are plenty of other games you can play that will satisfy you.

[Cyborg]

Man, this guy just doesn't stop, does he?

No, he doesn't.  Heh.

Cyborg tends to have...strong opinions, to put it mildly, and he also tends to defend them...vigorously.  Even when there's nothing unreasonable about them at all, it can be a bit much for some people who weren't really up for a debate/discussion of that level of intensity.  I recognize that kind of interaction and am very familiar with it because I'm actually a lot like that at times, or at least was when I was younger.

I think it's really interesting people keep bringing up that thread, when at the time I was the source of reason. I had presented a factual argument filled with statistics, real game numbers, and supporting documentation. The other side of the issue had zero statistics, zero real game numbers, and zero documentation; they just didn't "like it." Not only didn't they like it, they wanted everyone else to purposely play the game their way because a little checkbox might bother them. I still don't understand why it's a bad idea. I think it's mainly people have a problem that I figured it out and presented the argument more than the solution itself. I offered a solution that would allow both parties to play the game the way they want to play it, a solution that doesn't do anything except reduce brainless micromanagement. You can complain about my presentation, but I think that you should look in the mirror for obstructing a solution to one of the most annoying and boring parts about this game.

One thing you have to understand about me is that I am very egalitarian. If I could sum up my philosophy in one sentence, it would be the freedom to reach your full potential- whatever that may be- as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. When I see attitudes like Dr., Zebra, or Laughing, it's just like every other forum where people say "go play call of duty" or some equally ridiculous elitism. I offer solutions that benefit all parties, regardless of whether or not I "like" them. In contrast, some of the other persons on this forum react out of spite.

It boggles the mind that people would actually tell others who want to play the game the way that they want to play, that maybe it just isn't for them. I mean really, if someone is actively stating that they enjoy the game with a little tweak on permadeath, and you reply that they should go do something else… That is snooty, elitist, and I call it as it is. It's direct, it may be off-putting, but I think it's fair game on a off topic forum where you are discussing game types. If you don't want to engage in the discussion, then don't. It's not name-calling, it's not personal; it is direct.

What would happen if someone came here on the forum and said that they like to play AI war with cheats, and someone else replied that they should go play "gratuitous space battles" or "sins of a solar empire?" Would that be acceptable? I've actually seen people say similar nonsense when people complain about the graphics for AI war.

In short, while I may be too direct for some of the people, I believe my approach to be grounded in reasonable, no name-calling, no personal attacks, logical discussion rooted in statistics and documentation. I think it's also based in gaming that is for everybody- egalitarian. I brought up special needs because it describes my point exactly; some people enjoy games in a very different way than you do, and it's no less enjoyable for them. It's just different. So let's not be elitist. It just doesn't make sense from any standpoint.

[Nalgas]

I think it's really interesting people keep bringing up that thread

In this case, at least, it seemed like a humorously appropriate response to something he had said jokingly.  One of those "it's funny because it's actually true" kind of things.

they wanted everyone else to purposely play the game their way because a little checkbox might bother them. I still don't understand why it's a bad idea.

Not to rehash the entire thing again, but adding a checkbox for that would be the equivalent of removing energy management entirely, because basically no one aware of its existence would leave it unchecked.  And that interferes with finding a solution that's actually good and adds more depth to the game, partly because we wouldn't be playing with an energy management system in place to prompt ideas, plus effectively ripping out and adding back the energy system in a somewhat different form at a later date is a lot more disruptive to players.

I offer solutions that benefit all parties, regardless of whether or not I "like" them. In contrast, some of the other persons on this forum react out of spite.

Perhaps more accurately, that you think benefit all parties, which in some cases is true, but in others is not.  It depends on how well you can gauge what other people's needs/desires are, and none of us can do that perfectly every time (see above, in my opinion, at least).

Also, react out of what appears to you to be spite.  As you are not them, you don't necessarily know why they're doing what they're doing.  I can only officially speak for myself, as I'm not inside the heads of everyone else, but I'm not aware of myself doing anything out of spite.  I haven't really gotten the impression that other people have been, either, though, so I'm not sure what's making you feel that way.

In short, while I may be too direct for some of the people, I believe my approach to be grounded in reasonable, no name-calling, no personal attacks, logical discussion rooted in statistics and documentation.

And that was pretty much what I was getting at in the first place.  You tend to make good points about things like that, but the way you rather aggressively defend them can be a bit off-putting to some people, so what you're saying may get partly lost in how you say it, unfortunately.

[laughingman]

Cyborg, I'm having a hard time finding any elitism or spite in what I wrote. I enjoy roguelikes because of permadeath. I am puzzled by why someone would want to play a game where the core mechanic frustrates them so much. That's all. I don't consider myself better than you because of that, nor do I look down on you because you have a difference of opinion with me. I was just trying to explain why someone might feel like I do.

[Cyborg]

Not to rehash the entire thing again, but adding a checkbox for that would be the equivalent of removing energy management entirely, because basically no one aware of its existence would leave it unchecked.  And that interferes with finding a solution that's actually good and adds more depth to the game, partly because we wouldn't be playing with an energy management system in place to prompt ideas, plus effectively ripping out and adding back the energy system in a somewhat different form at a later date is a lot more disruptive to players.

So leaving it in causes people to stop thinking about it? I don't understand leaving something broken just for the sake of brainstorming. If that's true, let's just go around breaking all kinds of mechanics… That logic doesn't hold up. Overall, it just doesn't hold up because we already have cheats for a variety of features. Adding a checkbox is no worse. As far as being disruptive to players, do you remember the last expansion? There was a lot that changed. If we are going to have sacred cows now, let's just say so, but I don't think that's what happened here.

It's really an incidental topic for what we are discussing. I stated it benefited all parties because it was optional. Games would not be changed for anyone that didn't want it. Really, the only difference between what I wanted and what we received was now it takes me a couple keystrokes, which is better than a lot of mouse clicks, but not better than a single checkbox or fixing the entire mechanic once and for all. It didn't break the game, and I doubt a checkbox would have, either.

I'm aware how I put things doesn't go well. I have seen various techniques that look a lot like manipulation to me, where people will pick and choose little things in order to try to create solidarity and voting blocs. It just feels disingenuous, and I can't bring myself to do it. "In real life," I participate in politics. I go to local and state meetings, I testify, and actually do research on issues and present numbers. I don't participate in voting blocs. I don't ally. I have defended a variety of individuals ranging from the homeless, to school system disputes, all the way to stupid traffic issues. The only way that feels genuine to me is to be a straight talker, to communicate in a way that cannot be mistaken; sometimes it's out of place but is honest, and always well-meaning.

[doctorfrog]

Roguelikes are fun. I like them cuz they're fun!

Thread re-railed!

sweet jiminy christmas

[chemical_art]

II feel like perma-anything in regards to lost time to simply be an artificial way to extend game time. I know some games due to so the games can never end due to this and multiplayer. An insidious trap, in my opinion for precious time.

So for roguelikes, I ask "why must be there be perma-death?" The replies I get boil down to it makes the game easy. I then counter that the game then doesn't reward strategy, because if the game requires guesswork and requires a timesink so as to prevent it with being finished then what kind of strategy is that? If with all the data if it leads to victory means there isn't a strategy, at least not in the sense of most games.

Cyborg, it sounds like you long for a way to change game mechanics. I know that desire. I want to tinker with AI War myself. I probably would disable energy completely.

But from what I gathered, arcen does things its own way. Some of the polices like the very open developer talk I absolutely love. But as a whole they don't seem interested in allow fundamental mechanics to be modded, or to allow these checkboxes. Not against it, just not interested. This "anti-checkbox" policy is taken to its extreme in A Valley With out a Wind in a discussion about building options, with the devs deciding rather then allowing two distinct building styles keeping the pragmatic one with a hint of the other option. Do keep in mind AVWW intentionally does this from the start, so its not like a case of selective choosing some options but not all of them.

AI War of course is quite liberal in some ways with the wonderful minor options, ai plots, resource handicaps. But energy I notice has no options. No "1/2 energy cost" or "2x energy cost". This reveals just how central it is to the game. Any solution whatsoever must be messy. The modder in me says "can't I just break it for a little while? Might be fun. No energy just caps...?" But it has been explained that the game simply doesn't allow that right now.

Anyway, what I mean about this tangent is that arcen does some great things, but it can't do everything. Fundamental changes to games is just not their thing, at least not when they are focused on another game. But I think it is always beneficial to point out not so good ideas.

Cyborg, you are outspoken and I do love that. Never stop presenting ideas back up with data. I love them (ideas with data).


I bring this whole bit up in a roguelike game because I feel the problems are not the same. AI War has energy because there is not a better solution to a game mechanic not considered fun by most (energy). Roguelikes build a game around a not fun game mechanic (permadeath). One is the lesser of two evils while the other embraces the evil. At least in my eyes.