Roguelikes

[Orelius]

Adding in any "optional" "feature" that takes away an amount strategical depth in exchange for ease of operation will undoubtedly coerce the player to use it. They figure: Hey, less micromanagement, more goodies!  It then effectively becomes the norm as there's not any disadvantage for using it.  It secretly and silently forces itself to be mandatory.

For example: Permadeath.  If there's an easy way to turn it off, you're going to do that.  No exceptions.  If there isn't?  You learn to work with it.

@chemical_art
Roguelikes aren't hard because of poor luck; there are often ways to save yourself in the most dire situations even if not prepared.  It's not guesswork because if you know what you are doing, it's not unlikely that you'll succeed every time.  I remember one person who was able to ascend in nethack 27 times in a row without dying in any one of those games.  It just takes patience and an acute attention to detail.
Most of the difficulty from roguelikes comes from the fact that most people aren't perfect, make mistakes, don't notice key details, are too hasty, etc.  It has nothing to do with guesswork, it has more to do with knowing what would be the best thing to do in each situation.

[chemical_art]

Roguelikes aren't hard because of poor luck; there are often ways to save yourself in the most dire situations even if not prepared.  It's not guesswork because if you know what you are doing, it's not unlikely that you'll succeed every time.  I remember one person who was able to ascend in nethack 27 times in a row without dying in any one of those games.  It just takes patience and an acute attention to detail.
Most of the difficulty from roguelikes comes from the fact that most people aren't perfect, make mistakes, don't notice key details, are too hasty, etc.  It has nothing to do with guesswork, it has more to do with knowing what would be the best thing to do in each situation.

I must disagree. The difficulty from roguelikes is that unless you cheat and look up the info, you cannot easily understand the problem on your own. In fact, if you want then to follow the spirit of the game to the maximum, you would look up nothing, ever. After all, you should learn it yourself, right? Does it matter if the situation is situational**, or you could not reasonably understand it beforehand? That can still result in defeat.

**opps. I mean if the situation was from a missed clue, you wouldn't know what you missed.

It sounds like a bad mechanic. Similar to losing all of your equipment if you were to play a fantasy game from deat. A time sink. Defeat should hurt, but not  losing everything. Perhaps I have just been too spoiled to always be able to learn from my mistakes quickly on my own.

I'm not referring to any games in particular. Just that the concept itself seems steep.

[Orelius]

In most roguelikes, the information that is most important to you (What item X does, how good is class Y) is already given information inside the game.  Also, looking stuff up on external sources most certainly isn't "cheating".  Would you consider reading up strategy on the AI War wiki to be "cheating"?  I didn't think so.  It's essentially the same thing.

I understand that you dislike the concept of having to start from scratch repeatedly, but these types of game are built around that.  It's unfair to compare these type of games to more "standard" types of rpgs because those games are based upon having save points and slowly building up power, but roguelikes are more based upon reacting well to different situations. They're effectively entirely different genres with different attitudes, so comparing them is similar to comparing apples to orangutans.

[Nalgas]

comparing them is similar to comparing apples to orangutans.

Apples may be sweet and juicy, but orangutans are high in protein.  Both come in attractive shades of red, though.

[doctorfrog]

I must disagree. The difficulty from roguelikes is that unless you cheat and look up the info, you cannot easily understand the problem on your own. In fact, if you want then to follow the spirit of the game to the maximum, you would look up nothing, ever. After all, you should learn it yourself, right? Does it matter if the situation is situational**, or you could not reasonably understand it beforehand? That can still result in defeat.

That's actually a common complaint about the RL genre, even among players. Newer roguelikes are turning away from the need for secret knowledge to progress (as with the lovable but infuriating Nethack), and instead focusing on developing the player's ability to face both the unknown and known situations.

The requirements for DCSS, for example (and this is part of why I love it), specifically state that no 'special' playing knowledge need be gained in order to play the game competently, and even beat it.

For example, in Nethack, the way you find out that a cockatrice turns you to stone is by accidentally touching it. And then unavoidably turning into stone. There is a way to counter this: have a lizard corpse at the ready, and eat it ASAP. There are no indications within the game itself that this should be done. None.

If such a situation were to crop up in DCSS, you wouldn't have this issue, because the overall way to deal with a given creature would be within its description.

And you die anyway, but it's because of a genuine mistake you made, and not because of something there was no way for you to know about. Some people like this challenge, some don't. Some people even prefer the spoiler-required gameplay of Nethack.

The entire game can eventually be completed without spoilers, but a good deal of players sort of play a metagame by swapping play advice and bemoaning stupid deaths.

A very good RL recently came out, it might be more attractive to newer players, because, frankly, it's easy to learn and has good graphics. Five bucks. It's very good. Permanent deaths. But still very good!
Dungeons of Dredmor: http://store.steampowered.com/app/98800/

[Cyborg]

A very good RL recently came out, it might be more attractive to newer players, because, frankly, it's easy to learn and has good graphics. Five bucks. It's very good. Permanent deaths. But still very good!
Dungeons of Dredmor: http://store.steampowered.com/app/98800/

That's actually what started this discussion. 

the original thread:
http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,8735.0.html

A tool that I wrote to get around permanent death and game crashes:
http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,8829.0.html

And so we come full circle. Just a little bit closer to understanding this game genre. Or something.

[chemical_art]

In most roguelikes, the information that is most important to you (What item X does, how good is class Y) is already given information inside the game.  Also, looking stuff up on external sources most certainly isn't "cheating".  Would you consider reading up strategy on the AI War wiki to be "cheating"?  I didn't think so.  It's essentially the same thing.

In most roguelikes, the permadeath is needed because otherwise the game would be shallow. if this wasn't the case, the games wouldn't be broken if you could see everything or change your reactions via reload.
I'm not using shallow has a negative term but rather neutral because as you said it's a part of the game. Rip out any essential mechanic and very many games would seem shallow. But that doesn't change it being built around what is a timesink.

Comparing knowledge in roguleikes and AI WAR is  like comparing apples to oranges. In AI War, you can reload any point you want. So iif you want to go 1, 5, 10 minutes back from your death you can. This allows you to study what went wrong, what may dig you out, and ultimately have you learn what works and doesn't quickly. In contrast, with permadeath, you have no chance to examine what went wrong. Just as importantly, you can't learn quickly what is right. So if you want to learn these things without the intended gameplay mechanic of dieing and restarting, you cheat and look it up.

I keep hearing that the deaths are avoidable. I then counter you would learn to avoid it much faster if you could reload 15 minutes ago rather then a restart. I admit I view this as a numbers game. If a situation would require 3 attempts and it takes 3 hours to take that attempt, the situational feels like it would take 9 hours when it would take 4 if I could reload 15 minutes ago from the 3 hours mark.

I can agree that these games can be played without dieing. But I still keep asking why is it required? It lengthens the learning curve. It does not nothing to make the game harder itself, it just punishes mistakes harder.

I'll admit there is only one game that managed to make me play perma death. That was Diablo II. The only reason I touched it then was because I beat the game once already. Since I already knew what worked and what didn't mind the harder penalty. Actually I lied, it drove me crazy. But I tried it at least, because I already knew the game mechanics through hundreds of deaths. But if the game was perma from the start...I would never got through act III 

[zespri]

If two people agreed to play chess without knights on both sides? Or to start by rearranging pieces behind the pawn line? Would you say that the game of chess is not for them? (I'm asking those, who say if you want to alter The Rules the game is not for you). What about board games and house rules? Should all people that introduce house rules in the game be scorned? There is no almighty game programmer to make them obey in a board game....

[Nalgas]

If two people agreed to play chess without knights on both sides? Or to start by rearranging pieces behind the pawn line? Would you say that the game of chess is not for them?

I would say one of the two is probably Bobby Fischer...

[doctorfrog]

I think one thing we can all agree upon is that it's good that there are a large variety of games out there, and that it's ok to play them however you want.

[Nalgas]

Heh.  Someone on the IRC channel I've been on since the mid-90s just found and revived their old quote bot, and it spat out something funny I don't even remember saying in the first place:

Code: [Select]

<Nalgas> I really wanted to like games like that, and I really can't help
          hating the actual experience of playing them.
<Nalgas> If I wanted something that consistently frustrating, I'd just set
          an alarm on a random timer from 5-60 minutes and whack myself in
          the nuts with a mallet every time it went off.
<Nalgas> That would probably be more fun than nethack.

[zespri]

I would say one of the two is probably Bobby Fischer...

That's why I came up with this particular example =)

[zebramatt]

If two people agreed to play chess without knights on both sides? Or to start by rearranging pieces behind the pawn line? Would you say that the game of chess is not for them? (I'm asking those, who say if you want to alter The Rules the game is not for you). What about board games and house rules? Should all people that introduce house rules in the game be scorned? There is no almighty game programmer to make them obey in a board game....

It depends. If they said they never really got on with the game of chess and were asking of ways to change the rules such that, for example, losing a piece did not have to be a permanent affair; and there had been many such games devised already which invoked precisely the requested mechanic - such that now the game of 'chess' per se was distinct from such variants primarily because of its permanent loss of pieces... Then yes! 

But I digress. Suggesting someone might get on better with other randomly-generated dungeon crawler RPGs than with roguelikes is a sentiment borne of trying to help someone find games they might enjoy more, and without the need to tinker with the mechanics. If the individual in question enjoys the tinkering, or is using it as a way to access a game they might later play tinker-free, or for that matter simply chooses to embark on this route for no other reason than they are free to do so, no-one here has any qualms with that. I understand that in this world of the internet, there are many who get their kicks from making others feel small and themselves feel mighty - but I do not believe this forum to be such a place.


The wider discussion of what constitutes 'cheating' in a game, whether there are any negative aspects of cheating in single player, how those negatives (if any) might manifest in any given context, whether they are outweighed by the positives of such action, and if it can ever be the place of someone to judge someone else's potential enjoyment, is an interesting if controversial one - in part due to the negative connotations which surround the semantics of 'cheating'. It's something, I think, which needs to be approached as objectively as possible. And certainly not in the context of any actual individual taking any actual action to play a game in a non-standard way.

[zespri]

So reading Dungeon of Dredmor developers blog one may assume that the game is quite popular. And I think that the recipe for this popularity is quite simple. There is no other roguelike, tiles or not that looks remotely as attractive as DoD. So pick up a niche genre, retain mechanic that draw people to the genre make the game more... hm... accessible... and make it an eye candy. Here. You've got a winner. And by this I mean that now much wider audience can enjoy the game.

[Cyborg]

Dwarf Tycoon.

You heard it here first.