Temple of The Roguelike Forums
Announcements => Other Announcements => Topic started by: punkbohemian on April 04, 2012, 01:37:16 AM
-
Basically, I'm looking for a RL where success is largely based on some kind of ability and not dumb luck. Read on for details (and probably a rant).
I (relatively) recently discovered RL and have been playing a few different RL games lately. I'm not really into fantasy, so I've been focusing on other settings (DoomRL, Decker, a couple others). I read the guides, learned the systems, and this is the conclusion to which I've come. That is, it takes very little skill/strategy to play RL games. Or, more accurately, skills and strategy are of minor use in RL games. The bottom line is that the odds are so stacked against you, success is most definitely going to rely more on dumb luck than any ability. For example, with DoomRL, I'm usually dead within an hour. As much as I have mastered cornershooting, giftdroppng, and even dodging (for what it's worth), it's only a matter of time before I find myself in an I'm-pretty-much-screwed situation. I don't feel like I'm being challenged with RL, I'm just biding my time until the game randomly spawns my guaranteed death.
Also, I'm gonna say it, Vi is dumb. No really. Tell me, what makes more sense for simulating the cardinal directions on a keyboard. hjklyubn, or how about qweadzxc? Take a look and think about it. I do quite a bit since I'm playing on a laptop.
On the bright side, from these experiences, I've invented a RL LARP. Here are the rules:
1) Flip a coin, and let it land on the floor.
2) If it's heads, you lose.
3) If it's tails, you lose.
4) If it lands on it's side, cures cancer in a 100 mile radius, and completely repairs the ozone layer, you win.
There are two difficulty levels, easy and hard. For easy, use a nickel. For hard, use a dime.
So, uh, yeah...any RLs not contingent upon dumb luck?
-
Roguelikes is a genre where pretty much, you either "get it", or you don't.
There actually is a great amount of skill that goes into playing most roguelikes despite the amount of randomness that is involved. The skill mostly comes from making the proper choices given your current situation. Which direction you move, what you decide to eat, what armor or weapon to wield, which enemy you choose to attack first, are all very important decisions to make even if it doesn't seem so on the surface.
Playing roguelikes is not about winning. It's about playing.
Unfortunately, given your description and perception of roguelikes, there really isn't any game I can recommend to you. Other than maybe spelunky although it is not a traditional roguelike. Possibly Cardinal Quest.
But if you are mostly concerned about NOT dying within an hour of gameplay and winning frequently, then roguelike may simply just not be the game genre for suited for you.
-
So, uh, yeah...any RLs not contingent upon dumb luck?
In my opinion, this is a pretty legitimate complaint about roguelikes. At the same time, however, it's one of the hardest obstacles to overcome for a developer of roguelikes. Consider:
- One of the fundamental bases of a roguelike-styled game is its ability to render perceptually-random environments through procedural content generation (PCG). This ensures a certain degree of replayability, since you aren't playing the exact same map, or finding the same weapons, or fighting the same enemies at the same times, and does require one to become as flexible as possible when dealing with a constantly-unknown game.
- Games with definitively random elements are, by their very nature, going to require a certain degree of fortune in order to have a successful venture. While PCG isn't necessarily random at all, it is certainly easier to develop one that leans towards randomness rather than tightly bounding the restraints so that only combinations that teeter on the edge of easy death and scrapable victory exist.
- Trying to build a PCG "engine" with such restraints while still feeling random is probably very very VERY hard to do. Tack on the fact that this is still a game that should be fun and enjoyable, and you've got quite the large boulder to push up that hill.
Let's face it, a lot of roguelikes take a relaxed approach when it comes to providing what would be considered "fair challenge". There are going to be a lot of situations where the player is screwed, totally and utterly, and there are going to be just as many times where the player breezes through a ton of the game without so much as a long battle. To be fair, this is basically the norm of the genre, and most players who engage in roguelikes learn to accept it. But it could be better. (Perhaps a lot like saying national governments could be better, given the challenges awaiting a developer.)
With this in mind, I'd say Brogue really strives to give the player a challenge while preventing as many luck-influenced deaths as possible. Don't get me wrong, it's a freaking hard game: I believe that the developers designed their difficulty such that even the best players will find it hard to achieve success reliably. Still, it's probably closer to what you're looking for than most other roguelikes. Other people can surely provide more examples, if not better ones.
For example, with DoomRL, I'm usually dead within an hour.
I find this funny because players I would consider good at the game can pretty handily win a game in well under an hour. Or, at least on the easier difficulties. The harder difficulties are a lot more "play until you get something nice", although it's still quite possible to get yourself through without superb gear.
-
You're right. I don't "get it", but it doesn't mean I can't. I want to get it. I really do. I'm so bored with mainstream games. And, the travesty that was called Fallout: New Vegas finally broke me and drove me to take my interest in gaming in a new direction.
So, I'll say stuff now. Feel free to rebut. I hope you (or somebody) does, because I really do want to understand this.
Playing roguelikes is not about winning. It's about playing.
...if you are mostly concerned about NOT dying within an hour of gameplay and winning frequently
Let's forget "winning" for a moment. So, you pick up a new RL. You're learning the game, and you're dying a lot as part of the learning process, starting over, utilizing what you learned. Now, with a better understanding of the game, you're adjusting your strategy, but you're still dying a lot and having to start from scratch. What have you accomplished? With DoomRL, all I've accomplished is dying just as much, but at a more consistent point of the game. I can build a character for one of the challenges, and unless I get a certain random drop by a certain point, I know exactly where I am going to die (literally within 5 squares), regardless of strategy for that particular situation.
I don't mind dying at all. In fact, one of my favorite games ever put an interesting twist on dying in video games (Planescape: Torment). But, when you die in RL, it usually because you've been boned by fate, and you get nothing for your efforts. It really is a gamble, like going to the casino, except with worse odds. Imagine playing poker and never having the option to fold. You have to play every hand through, even when you know you're screwed. What's the payoff?
And another thing, why are more RLs (even newer versions) fantasy? In fantasy, the basic idea is that you win the magic sword, slay the BBEG, be the hero, get the girl, blah, blah, blah. It doesn't seem to jive with a game that emphasizes chronic death. What about PA RLs? There's, like, none of them. You could turn The Road into a RL and call it Roadlike. Considering how bad that movie ended, I would look forward to dying in a tributary video game. My point is, considering the spirit of RL, why not a game where death is its own bittersweet consolation prize for lack of victory?
Anyway, that's where my head is at, though I do want to try and get something out of RLs.
In my opinion, this is a pretty legitimate complaint about roguelikes. At the same time, however, it's one of the hardest obstacles to overcome for a developer of roguelikes. Consider...
I totally agree with everything you said here. From the player perspective, games look pretty "simple", but from a designer perspective, they are so much more complicated. I had taught myself python a while back for my own game design purposes, which was eventually derailed due to a philosophical dilemma somewhat similar to this conversation. It's something I still ponder to this day.
With this in mind, I'd say Brogue really strives to give the player a challenge while preventing as many luck-influenced deaths as possible. Don't get me wrong, it's a freaking hard game: I believe that the developers designed their difficulty such that even the best players will find it hard to achieve success reliably. Still, it's probably closer to what you're looking for than most other roguelikes.
How is this different than any other RL? If you're the best player, but still getting boned enough to prevent reliable wins, clearly its "fate", not your own skill.
I find this funny because players I would consider good at the game can pretty handily win a game in well under an hour.
I totally agree, and I've seen the YAVP threads to prove it. I think you've actually replied to one of my posts over there (the dual vs. single pistol thread). Above, when I was talking about being able to predict where I die within 5 squares, it's my AoMr character. Whether I go for DW, MSs, MGK, MCe, I always die in HNTR in exactly the same place within 5 squares without fail. I would say that level of consistent failure is a testament to skill. It's just not very fun.
-
You might try playing UnNethack or Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup (even though you are not fond of fantasy settings) and playing through the tutorials. They are pretty good at giving you hints and helping you grasp the major concepts of most roguelikes.
As for why most are in fantasy settings, try having a listen to the Roguelike Radio podcast episode on themes and settings. We discussed that very subject. There are definitely other themes for roguelikes out there ranging from sci-fi, horror, steam punk, giant mech, space marine, zombies, serial killer, and my little pony. Just gotta poke around.
"Getting it" will most likely only come from playing more and more. To me, it's very much about exploration, discovery, survival, experimentation all coming together to create a sense of adventure and wonderment.
I rarely feel like I die in a roguelike from simply bad luck. Most the time, I feel I die from making a mistake or playing poorly. I even enjoy dying in Nethack because there are so many ways to die.
You may want to check out sewer jacks since a lot of the skill comes from choosing the correct offensive and defensive moves. Try as many different rl's as you can. You should eventually come across one that just meshes with you.
There's also Shoot First which is real time.
DoomRL is not easy for the average player starting out. Most the guys who are that good, have logged quite a few hours into the game and know most the spoilers. DoomRL is the kind of game, in my opinion, that you get really good at by mostly being spoiled. Similar to Nethack. It's still a great game though.
DoomRL also has the set special levels that would definitely be considered as needing skill to complete since they are more or less exactly the same every time you play and you know what items can be found in those levels. (except for beating The Wall on Angel of Berserk. That requires just dumb luck. (unless some sort of brick breaking gauntlets or melee weapon are added to the game))
Most likely there is going to be a lot of "getting screwed" no matter which game you play. I would just take it like a pro-bono porn star. Do it for the enjoyment of getting screwed and take it on the chin with a smile.
-
Maybe I've been lucky with my choice of RLs, but I almost never come across a situation where I feel like I got beaten by dumb luck. When I die in a RL, my immediate reaction is 'Darn, I should have done A instead of B a couple turns ago!' which is definitely a matter of skill/experience. Take Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup. I have probably played that more than any other roguelike. The more I play, the deeper I get more often. If the game was really about luck, then it would be totally random how deep I get each time. As other people have mentioned above, there are various cases of people that can win repeatedly, so saying it is totally chance is a little silly imo. In the recent crawl tournament I believe the winner won 12 games in a row.
Now crawl is actually a very good game to consider in this argument, because its former lead designer, David Ploog, actually believed that even the 'perfect' player should lose about 10% of games or so. Of course no one is perfect, and you will never be the master of a roguelike, so I think this lower bound on failure is just a theoretical thing that shouldn't affect you. I think roguelikes are supposed to pose a situation where the odds are stacked against you in a sense. It takes skill and player experience to know how to overcome those odds, and only practice can improve your chances. Is there luck involved? Yes, because it's random and that is almost inevitable (if it isn't, I think you start moving into the puzzle game genre). But your skill will determine just how good your chances are.
I haven't played DoomRL, so I can't comment on that specifically. But perhaps the problem is just that you aren't playing the right roguelikes for you. Again, I strongly recommend DCSS if you haven't tried it.
-
Yeah. It surely depends on the game. For example, I have noticed that 7DRLs tend to have low winning rates as a balance for their relative lack of content (Fuel, Drakefire Chasm from this year). These two games are still extremely fun, but you have to be used to it.
The best Crawl players win more than 10 times in a row. I am not as good, but when I die, I often see that it was my own fault. It would probably take a year to win it for the first time, for a relatively good player. So it is certainly skill, not luck. (Also depends on your race/class selection of course, some are more reliable, and some are less.) I expect the same about ADOM. I have no stats about DoomRL.
You can also try my Hydra Slayer, it is fantasy, but it has a completely different fighting system, and it has almost no instadeath. Losing comes from using a bad strategy of picking your equipment, or from making many small errors, rather than one big error. You can get a partial win or a full win, and I obtain a partial win virtually any time, and I would probably obtain the full win too, but it seems more difficult for newbies (I have seen only one victory post for the full win, and only for one race).
-
Aside from Shoot First!, I'd reckon you might get something out of Triangle Wizard, as unlike the outstanding majority of RL's---realtime physical dexterity can have a tremendous effect on successful play as opposed to just ponderous decisions and dice rolls. Even beyond that, the game generally heavily favors improvisation, as well as many different character styles, if not a variety of abilities to outright "make much of your own luck". Also, you get invincibility for awhile when descending stairs, so the classic, damnable "stair trap" really takes quite a perfect storm of confluences to happen.
-
I have to agree with some of the points about there being too much random chance in roguelikes. Dice rolls really have little place in a game with permadeath, in my opinion. One shouldn't end up dying just because the RNG made you miss 4 times in a row. In a turn-based game good planning should ensure success, not good dice rolls. I love random content, but I dislike random mechanics.
I don't mind dying at all. In fact, one of my favorite games ever put an interesting twist on dying in video games (Planescape: Torment). But, when you die in RL, it usually because you've been boned by fate, and you get nothing for your efforts.
Get nothing? This is something I have to disagree on. The game is fun to play, and though it ends at some point (winning or dying) it's not the end that matters. You should be having fun playing. You don't moan when you lose at Tetris, do you?
One game you might like (in spite of its fantasy setting) is ToME4, since it gives achievements and unlocks throughout the game, so even if you die halfway through you have the feeling of "well at least I got x and y". It also has an option for a more relaxed death treatment - you can play with a set number of lives rather than a single life, allowing easier recovery from dumb mistakes. Also it has a much bigger variety of gameplay across its classes than DoomRL, with many more tactical choices available, so replayability is a lot better in my opinion.
And another thing, why are more RLs (even newer versions) fantasy? In fantasy, the basic idea is that you win the magic sword, slay the BBEG, be the hero, get the girl, blah, blah, blah. It doesn't seem to jive with a game that emphasizes chronic death.
Because fantasy is easy, and you don't have to go explaiing a whole world to the player. Most roguelikes are pretty light on story. Also, tradition I guess.
What about PA RLs? There's, like, none of them.
And here I must refute you, since I have made a bleak post-apocalyptic roguelike about an alcoholic trapped down a mineshaft - it's called Broken Bottle (http://www.gruesomegames.com/#broken_bottle). The other well-known PA RL is Caves of Qud.
You might like some of my other games since they emphasise tactical choices rather than blind luck. However many of them are generally considered quite hard, punishing you severely for the slightest error.
-
I strongly recommend DCSS.
I've seen a lot of recs for DCSS. I even played through part of the tutorial. The gameplay wasn't bad, but all the talk about elves, swords, magic, etc. kinda turned me off. Maybe I should give it another chance...
"Maybe I've been lucky with my choice of RLs, but I almost never come across a situation where I feel like I got beaten by dumb luck. When I die in a RL, my immediate reaction is 'Darn, I should have done A instead of B a couple turns ago!'
I have been in the same situation. However, at the point where I had to decide between A and B, it was an educated guess (not knowing the future of the rest of the game), and B was the better choice.
Get nothing? This is something I have to disagree on. The game is fun to play, and though it ends at some point (winning or dying) it's not the end that matters. You should be having fun playing.
Playing is fun, but the (death) endings are so anti-climactic that I feel I just wasted my time. Living is fun, why not make dying fun as well?
David Ploog, actually believed that even the 'perfect' player should lose about 10% of games or so.
That's just kinda mean, if you think about it. If success isn't guaranteed even with "perfect" playing, and there's no reward for failure, it's really an exercise in masochism.
Is there luck involved? Yes, because it's random and that is almost inevitable (if it isn't, I think you start moving into the puzzle game genre). But your skill will determine just how good your chances are.
This makes me think of blackjack. Blackjack is actually more chance than skill. It just so happens that the chances are relatively close to even (compared to other games). However, work the (right) tables properly, play the odds, and count cards, the odds swing slightly in your favor. Now, even in these situations, you're going to lose a lot of games. But, in the long run, you'll come out ahead. If RL games are generally meant to be "lost", I would think there should be a "long run" towards which you can work.
And here I must refute you, since I have made a bleak post-apocalyptic roguelike about an alcoholic trapped down a mineshaft - it's called Broken Bottle.
I played it a couple times. Actually, since you mentioned it I'm playing it a bit again.
-
You're right. I don't "get it", but it doesn't mean I can't. I want to get it. I really do. I'm so bored with mainstream games.
I think your situation right now is exactly how I felt when I first started rogue-likes. I was so tired with Call of Duty and Battlefield and "Shoot. Turn right. Walk down hall. Die. Do over." Unfortunately, I started on NetHack, which kind of put me off the rogue-like genre for a year or so.
Imagine playing poker and never having the option to fold. You have to play every hand through, even when you know you're screwed. What's the payoff?
I think in poker, the payoff would be a bank account with negative numbers in it. In rogue-likes, however, when you die, you don't 'lose' anything. Sure, you lost an hour of your life, but you gained information, skill, and you also had fun (hopefully)
Let's forget "winning" for a moment. So, you pick up a new RL. You're learning the game, and you're dying a lot as part of the learning process, starting over, utilizing what you learned. Now, with a better understanding of the game, you're adjusting your strategy, but you're still dying a lot and having to start from scratch. What have you accomplished?
This is how I felt when I first played Brogue (which I wholly recommend). I got to level 4, or 5, then I would die. I died about 5-10 times, right around the same spot, and then I made some adjustments and got to level 10. I died at level 10 for about 100 games, made some adjustments, and got to level 17. I died there too. Another 100~150 games, and I learned more about the game. I made adjustments again. I saved items for when I knew they would come in handy later. I found out more about the creatures that lived deep down. On another run, I got all the way to level 21. Then I found out about Dragons, and died. I imagine with another 200 games I'll finally win, and then another 200 games later I'll go down further and get those extra point stones I hear about. I guess my point is that while with every individual death, you haven't accomplished much, per se, but add all those deaths together and you've learned so much about how to win.
And another thing, why are more RLs (even newer versions) fantasy? In fantasy, the basic idea is that you win the magic sword, slay the BBEG, be the hero, get the girl, blah, blah, blah. It doesn't seem to jive with a game that emphasizes chronic death.
I'm pretty sure (not 100%) that the original Rogue was based on D&D, so I think it's just tradition. However, I also agree with you that the 'High Fantasy' kind of stuff, with elves and dwarves and dragons and "The mystical land of Illyraniablahblah" is kind of a turn-off.
If RL games are generally meant to be "lost", I would think there should be a "long run" towards which you can work.
The "long run," as you put it, is the moment when you finally win! I haven't won anything yet, but just imagine how great it would feel to finally win, after hundreds (if not thousands) of deaths.
Anyway, that's where my head is at, though I do want to try and get something out of RLs.
Really, keep trying. Rogue-likes are incredibly fun.
-
If you know where you are going to die within five squares, stop going to those five squares. It sounds like I am being sarcastic, but, unless I misunderstand, it seems to be a valid solution. It appears to me that this would be a symptom of the unreasoned assumption that one must clear every level before proceeding, but avoiding challenges until your character has a good chance of overcoming them is important to finishing a roguelike. The skill in a roguelike is the management of risk.
Further, I wonder if you are really experiencing the best roguelikes have to offer. Coffeebreak roguelikes (like DoomRL) can be amusing, but the meat and potatoes of the genre are, unfortunately for those with no appetite for fantasy, the venerable fanstasy roguelikes like DCSS, Nethack and ADoM.
I personally do not mind Vi keys, but I do happen to be a bit of an odd one, and Vim is my text-editor and development environment, so that probably means nothing.
-
I just want to add a couple post-apocalyptic games if you want to try some more. Darren mentioned broken bottle and caves of qud, but there is also cataclysm and rogue survivor that I know of.
-
I think in poker, the payoff would be a bank account with negative numbers in it.
Exactly. If I play poker and lose everything, I'm not going to be happy about it in the end. With RL, if there was some kind of metagame element where your losses all built towards something game-wise, I think it would make dying more worthwhile.
The "long run," as you put it, is the moment when you finally win! I haven't won anything yet, but just imagine how great it would feel to finally win, after hundreds (if not thousands) of deaths.
I honestly don't think it would feel that great by that point. I mean, it would take a completely mind-blowing earth-shattering ending to make it worth the countless failures it took to get there. I've only seen endings like this a handful of times in my life (between books, video games, and movies/TV) I doubt that's possible in a game with minimal plot. I bet the ending is usually just some text that reads "Congrats, you won. Now visit your mom, she's wondering where you've been the last four years. And, maybe you should take a bath, first."
Really, keep trying. Rogue-likes are incredibly fun.
I will. Maybe I'll take a crack at Brogue.
If you know where you are going to die within five squares, stop going to those five squares.
I would if I could, but the five squares happen to be at one of the few non-randomly generated points in the game where I absolutely have to go through a bottle neck that springs an ambush surrounding me with the one enemy that is highly resistant to the weapons I have to carry for this character.
-
There are people that have mastered major roguelike games to the point that they can beat them consistently over and over and over. I am not one of them, unfortunately. So I can be of no help on that score.
What I can tell you is that it is not about winning. I play for the beauty of design. I grew weary of the repetitive grinding design of other games. The unchallenging gameplay buttressed by small nuggets of pseudo-win masquerading as 'achievements' and what ever else.
Rogue-likes are about playing a hard as shit game. No babying. No excuses. Sometimes not even fair play. They are winnable, surely, but not on the cheap. Not by a long shot. You gotta commit!
Welcome to gamer hell. If you've found your way here and stayed awhile you'll likely not be satisfied by other genres of games. You are ruined. You value replay, clever design and difficulty. You care little for production pizzaz, online fragfests, overwrought story and flashy animation.
May god have pity on your soul.
-Jo
PS: Give PRIME a try...harder than any of the games mentioned and Sci Fi. Embrace death.
-
First, what's prime? I checked the basin, the temple DB, and googled it but came up with nothing.
What I can tell you is that it is not about winning. I play for the beauty of design. I grew weary of the repetitive grinding design of other games.
How is RL not a grind? Repetitive levels of dungeon crawling until you get ganked and have to start over. Not to mention, there's little or no plot development (which I like in a game, when it's written well). That seems pretty grindy to me.
And, I'm not looking to win each time I play. But, when I lose, I'd like to feel like I accomplished something, even if I just chipped away the tiniest amount towards a greater goal. I'm not feeling that here.
-
I haven't played prime myself, but a quick search on here led me to this:
http://roguetemple.com/forums/index.php?topic=2063.0
Generally I would say that what you gain from losing is the knowledge of how you lost, hopefully. An important thing to learn in every roguelike game is when you need to be careful (for instance, to avoid getting ambushed) and when you can just run around aimlessly. Crawl, for instance, is such a long game that people often lose because they become complacent and stop being careful towards the middle of the game (at least that's often how I die).
As per the grind, I completely agree with you. I mean some roguelikes are exactly a grind, not even just in the global sense where each game adds up to a grind. Some of them involve repeatedly diving into the dungeon and returning to town, which is pretty much the definition of grind. But perhaps his comment was about the "grinding design", not that there was no grind. I also don't think of dying as causing you to start over. Again, I think it's important to pull away something from each experience. If you really are just randomly getting ganked, I guess that's hard to do, but maybe there are some mechanics you are missing that would help explain why?
-
First, what's prime? I checked the basin, the temple DB, and googled it but came up with nothing.
Try searching the basin all-caps: PRIME. That might do it. PRIME "attempts to deepen and add variety to Zap'M." (From the basin)
How is RL not a grind? Repetitive levels of dungeon crawling until you get ganked and have to start over. Not to mention, there's little or no plot development (which I like in a game, when it's written well). That seems pretty grindy to me.
The non-grind-iness part of the game is that every level is different and you'll probably never see that level again. I will agree though that the basic play of the game can become a grind. And while I am a big fan of plot (take Uncharted, for example), plot and rogue-likes are a little bit like oil and water. The plot just kind of sits on top, getting in the way of actually playing the game.
And, I'm not looking to win each time I play. But, when I lose, I'd like to feel like I accomplished something, even if I just chipped away the tiniest amount towards a greater goal. I'm not feeling that here.
Maybe try play a game, remember what killed you, and say: "Next time I play, I'm going to figure out how to get past [obstacle]." That might help you feel like you're chipping away at the greater goal of winning.
-
The idea of winning as sort of the only acceptable outcome of gaming is really weird to me. Most of the old arcade classics like Joust and Defender inevitably ended with your death. It was about using your skill and experience to get the most points possible and do the coolest shit possible, to demonstrate your dominance over the game itself and your competitors. Geek freestyle.
Getting good at roguelikes is about building on your own understanding of the challenges within the game so that you can better overcome them. Progress in the game is proof-of-concept for your own competence and skill: that itself is the reward.
The fact that you die later on to new challenges reinforces the idea that the roguelike has depth, nuance, and ruthless difficulty, thus amplifying the ego rush you get from progressing. This stands in stark contrast to modern games (where you get a complete explanation of every challenge, thousands of save spots, and must only hit X during the quick time event to do a triple backflip and decapitate everone.)
Roguelikes are a Brontë novel in a world full of streaming cheerleader porn movies.
-
I recommend Mage Guild as heavily skill-based roguelike. There's little or no random damage variation, most of your attacks will have a 100% chance to hit, and there's no spell failure chance. The dungeons, enemy placement, and all of that are randomly decided, but the outcome of your choices isn't. I wish more roguelikes were like that. It's fantasy themed, but the story is barely ever mentioned.
Caves of Qud is another good choice. The game has to-hit chances and damage variation, but they're not too extreme. It doesn't randomly generate enemies who instagib you for a trillion damage like ToME or cause your abilities to randomly fail on you like Crawl. It also has a nice post-apocalyptic setting.
-
The idea of winning as sort of the only acceptable outcome of gaming is really weird to me. Most of the old arcade classics like Joust and Defender inevitably ended with your death. It was about using your skill and experience to get the most points possible and do the coolest shit possible, to demonstrate your dominance over the game itself and your competitors.
Yeah, but many arcade-style games are simply unbeatable. You just play until you die. Most, if not all, RL games have a definitive ending to the game, establishing a very specific goal.
Roguelikes are a Brontë novel in a world full of streaming cheerleader porn movies.
RLs might be a clever concept, but I don't know if I would make that analogy. That is to say, in some ways, RLs succumb to the same gimmickry mainstream developers use. One feature in particular that comes to mind is leveling. It's a very artificial and ultimately redundant feature. You gain levels and get more powerful, but so does everything else, effectively nullifying an real effect of leveling. However, it's a feature generally implemented because it gives the player an (illusory) sense of accomplishment. Granted, you can argue that levels in a RL are a milestone of how long the character has survived, but I would say this is still unnecessary and even breaks the suspension of disbelief. In other words, with leveling, players say, "My character died at level 12" instead of "My character died in the Swamps of Suck."
-
One feature in particular that comes to mind is leveling. It's a very artificial and ultimately redundant feature. You gain levels and get more powerful, but so does everything else, effectively nullifying an real effect of leveling. However, it's a feature generally implemented because it gives the player an (illusory) sense of accomplishment. Granted, you can argue that levels in a RL are a milestone of how long the character has survived, but I would say this is still unnecessary and even breaks the suspension of disbelief. In other words, with leveling, players say, "My character died at level 12" instead of "My character died in the Swamps of Suck."
I think that's a great point, but what if you changed the name from "Level" to "Skill?" Its functionally the same thing: as you gain more "Skill," your character becomes stronger. Conceptually, however, its much different. Instead of gaining "Levels" only to find that the creatures in the dungeon have been doing the same thing, you gain "Skill," and find yourself more equipped to take on the naturally tougher creatures.
-
One feature in particular that comes to mind is leveling. It's a very artificial and ultimately redundant feature. You gain levels and get more powerful, but so does everything else, effectively nullifying an real effect of leveling. However, it's a feature generally implemented because it gives the player an (illusory) sense of accomplishment. Granted, you can argue that levels in a RL are a milestone of how long the character has survived, but I would say this is still unnecessary and even breaks the suspension of disbelief. In other words, with leveling, players say, "My character died at level 12" instead of "My character died in the Swamps of Suck."
I'm gonna have to disagree here, in that what you said is a little bit of an over-generalization. It totally depends on the game. Yes, some games do just have levels for the sake of it and they are pretty meaningless. But what if the character sneaks past half of the game? Then just saying where they died is kind of meaningless. If you say they died at level 6 in the swamps of suck then someone might say "well, try to get to level 12 before going there". Or maybe they could do it at level 6 but they need more stealth. If there are hard limits on where you can go and when, then I would agree. But there should be some number representing total stat gains basically. I mean why do we have numbers representing attack power or defense or health then? If I can finish a game at level 20 or 25, I think the number does mean something. If there are no numbers, how do I know if I can beat a new enemy (or have a chance to)? How do I know when to move on to the next area?
I think the only way to get rid of it would be to completely remove skills and just have equipment. But I think it's more interesting if you can customize your skills and character as you level up. If you get to pick an ability or choose skill points every level, I'm just curious how you would implement that without levels and without just hiding the number (i.e. anyone can say "i've chosen 6 abilities and 14 skill points" but that is just another way of having a level).
I guess my point is that unless the end game player is the same player they were at the beginning of the game, there is going to be some measure of how different they are, and you can always map that to a numerical value.
Also, you call leveling an illusory sense of accomplishment. Surviving to a further level is only as much an illusion of progress as getting to a new area or beating the game itself. I'm confused how getting to level 25 is not an accomplishment compared to dying at level 15, if you consider getting to the 25th dungeon level an accomplishment compared to dying at the 15th, etc.
I think that's a great point, but what if you changed the name from "Level" to "Skill?" Its functionally the same thing: as you gain more "Skill," your character becomes stronger. Conceptually, however, its much different. Instead of gaining "Levels" only to find that the creatures in the dungeon have been doing the same thing, you gain "Skill," and find yourself more equipped to take on the naturally tougher creatures.
Idk, then you are more skilled but the enemies are also more skilled. How is that conceptually different?
-
The idea of winning as sort of the only acceptable outcome of gaming is really weird to me. Most of the old arcade classics like Joust and Defender inevitably ended with your death. It was about using your skill and experience to get the most points possible and do the coolest shit possible, to demonstrate your dominance over the game itself and your competitors.
Yeah, but many arcade-style games are simply unbeatable. You just play until you die. Most, if not all, RL games have a definitive ending to the game, establishing a very specific goal.
Only sorta. There is a win condition for RLs, but rarely is the win condition the be all and end all of victory, though it probably seems like that if you are struggling to get into RLs. Score counts for a lot, challenge games mean something. Maybe you would enjoy them more if you were less fixated on, I dunno, delineation. A relaxed, curious approach works best for me.
-
The idea of winning as sort of the only acceptable outcome of gaming is really weird to me. Most of the old arcade classics like Joust and Defender inevitably ended with your death. It was about using your skill and experience to get the most points possible and do the coolest shit possible, to demonstrate your dominance over the game itself and your competitors.
Yeah, but many arcade-style games are simply unbeatable. You just play until you die. Most, if not all, RL games have a definitive ending to the game, establishing a very specific goal.
Only sorta. There is a win condition for RLs, but rarely is the win condition the be all and end all of victory, though it probably seems like that if you are struggling to get into RLs. Score counts for a lot, challenge games mean something. Maybe you would enjoy them more if you were less fixated on, I dunno, delineation. A relaxed, curious approach works best for me.
Quite true. There are plenty of RLs that go even beyond this though, having the game continue indefinitely (making the arcade comparison even stronger). So you might think, "last time I got to the 25th floor and got out for the win, this time I want to get to the 27th floor and get out"
-
well, i think this is a great thread for anyone who is designing/writing a roguelike.
it makes a lot of valid points. i will definitely strive to make my roguelikes
'fair' while remaining challenging. i can happily spend days on my PCG routines,
and i already have a few ways (i think) to assure 'winnability'.
thanks! (too bad you don't like fantasy though...tons of those)
and on the 'skill vs. level' thing, i think that's great too.
already considering incorporating that.
-
I'm confused how getting to level 25 is not an accomplishment compared to dying at level 15, if you consider getting to the 25th dungeon level an accomplishment compared to dying at the 15th, etc.
i think the term leveling can be confusing when talking about RLs. There's character level and game level (or dungeon level). What I've been talking about is character level.
Idk, then you are more skilled but the enemies are also more skilled. How is that conceptually different?
I think/hope he is talking about a more qualitative advancement.
I guess my point is that unless the end game player is the same player they were at the beginning of the game, there is going to be some measure of how different they are, and you can always map that to a numerical value.
Not necessarily. What if you started a game, but the only options available to you were movement and a melee attack. Along the way, you pick up other skills, ranged attacking, stealth, etc. Your character is growing, but qualitatively instead of the typical your-strength-increases-by-one approach.
-
Not necessarily. What if you started a game, but the only options available to you were movement and a melee attack. Along the way, you pick up other skills, ranged attacking, stealth, etc. Your character is growing, but qualitatively instead of the typical your-strength-increases-by-one approach.
I totally agree that this is a more interesting type of advancement, but my point is that you could count up the number of things you have gained and still call that level. And I would say having that number visible to the player is a good thing. It's a solid number that represents overall gains. One lvl 17 player may be totally different than another lvl 17 player, but it tells you some kind of measure of how much they have done in the game.
-
Idk, then you are more skilled but the enemies are also more skilled. How is that conceptually different?
It's conceptually different because it's not an abstract number. What does "Level" mean in the game world? If you were a character in the game, you wouldn't say, "Wow, he's level 15!" Level is an abstract number that is only relevant to a player. Skill, on the other hand, is not abstract (nor is it a number. Although it could be represented as one.) Say you have a spear. This is your first time picking it up. All you can do is poke people, but then you practice and become more skilled. Now you can poke people and throw it. Then you become even more skilled. Now you can poke people, throw it, and hit two creatures with one strike (like going through one person and hitting the one behind him). That's different from level, where your "Strength" increases one point and your "Dexterity" increases 2 every time you level up.
This is not to say that skill can't be represented by a number, say at Skill 1 you can only poke and Skill 2 you can poke and throw. This is just to explain how it is different than "Level"
Idk, then you are more skilled but the enemies are also more skilled. How is that conceptually different?
I think/hope he is talking about a more qualitative advancement.
Your hope is well-founded, although a quantitative representation is usually helpful.
I totally agree that this is a more interesting type of advancement, but my point is that you could count up the number of things you have gained and still call that level. And I would say having that number visible to the player is a good thing. It's a solid number that represents overall gains. One lvl 17 player may be totally different than another lvl 17 player, but it tells you some kind of measure of how much they have done in the game.
I agree with you too, and it is true that having the number visible is a good thing, but, if you are growing qualitatively (or Skill-by-skill, which seems a little more layman's-terms-esque), it can be hard to represent where you are and what you can do with a single number.
Take for example two characters. Both are level 7. From that single number, you might think that they are exactly the same, give or take a few equipment choices or something along that line. But, if you look deeper, you might find out that Player 1 has grown in stealth, and speed, and thrown weapons, whereas Player 2 has mastered the art of magic and sorcery and summoning monsters. I think the best choice is to list the character's class (or equivalent) and the level.
-
I agree with you too, and it is true that having the number visible is a good thing, but, if you are growing qualitatively (or Skill-by-skill, which seems a little more layman's-terms-esque), it can be hard to represent where you are and what you can do with a single number.
Take for example two characters. Both are level 7. From that single number, you might think that they are exactly the same, give or take a few equipment choices or something along that line. But, if you look deeper, you might find out that Player 1 has grown in stealth, and speed, and thrown weapons, whereas Player 2 has mastered the art of magic and sorcery and summoning monsters. I think the best choice is to list the character's class (or equivalent) and the level.
Completely agree. Actually that brings up an interesting point. Have the game recognize what type of skills you are raising and then display a class from a list, rather than for instance choosing a class at the start. That would be cool if while playing a game it started out as peasant, then at some point it said warrior, then later on it switched to spearman for instance. Dwarf fortress does this to an extent, and I'm sure there are others.
To the extent that skills are independent of one another I suppose it would be hard to have an overall "level" if the level doesn't improve stats like health. I.E. dodging and spear-wielding might add together, but adding sword-wielding and spear-wielding into a single value for level wouldn't necessarily mean anything.
-
To the extent that skills are independent of one another I suppose it would be hard to have an overall "level" if the level doesn't improve stats like health. I.E. dodging and spear-wielding might add together, but adding sword-wielding and spear-wielding into a single value for level wouldn't necessarily mean anything.
Yeah, i guess independent skills are hard to combine into a "level." Maybe you only choose one weapon in the beginning and the other skills follow? That sounds a little restrictive though.
-
I totally agree that this is a more interesting type of advancement, but my point is that you could count up the number of things you have gained and still call that level.
Well, you could, technically. I mean, it's a computer game so at the end of the day everything boils down to 1s and 0s. However, to do what you are saying (under a qualitative-oriented system), the player would have to take an extra step to establish such a measure, which would be intrinsically irrelevant to the game.
if you are growing qualitatively (or Skill-by-skill, which seems a little more layman's-terms-esque), it can be hard to represent where you are and what you can do with a single number.
That's the point I'm making, and I see this as a good thing. A lack of a numerical representation makes a character's standing more ambiguous (which forces more "guessing"), but it also takes the player out of the metagame more (which I think is a more valuable result).
Have the game recognize what type of skills you are raising and then display a class from a list, rather than for instance choosing a class at the start.
For the most part, I'm not a fan of class systems, either, unless they (and the restrictions they impose) are truly meaningful and necessary according to the game's setting. I've rarely seen any game pull this off.
-
For the most part, I'm not a fan of class systems, either, unless they (and the restrictions they impose) are truly meaningful and necessary according to the game's setting. I've rarely seen any game pull this off.
I really like the way dungeons of dredmor does this. There are a bunch of "class" skill trees, and the only thing that decides what type of character you are is which skills you choose. You need to choose them in order (i.e. I need to pick skills 1-3 of pyromancy to get to skill 4) but you can pick out of whatever skill paths you want without any restrictions.
I think class restrictions in a sense represent a split in gamers. There are people who like to be called a mage because it helps them imagine what type of character they are and they prefer choices to be made for them, while there are other people who prefer to think of themselves in some non-standard way and do not like to be forced down a particular path. I don't think either style is necessarily better than another. I also think it's easier from a design perspective to have some restrictions, since balance is harder to achieve when the player can pick unexpected skill combinations. It's also hard to make everything viable. If I have specific classes the player can choose, then I can make sure their character always has a chance of success. If they can do whatever they want, I need to do some work making sure a mage-knight is on par with a pure knight or a pure mage, which I don't think is trivial. Of course it does depend on the type of game, and perhaps if you plan this into the design from the start it is a lot easier to accomplish.
I guess my point here is that when I play a new game I like class restrictions. It lets me get into the game quicker because I don't have to worry about details. Then once I have a good understanding of the game, I would like to be able to experiment without restrictions. Some games do this quite well actually. Dungeons & Dragons Online has a group of "paths" you can take that automatically choose things like feats and spells for you, because it is very complicated for someone who hasn't seen it before, but you also have the option of doing whatever you want.
-
For the most part, I'm not a fan of class systems, either, unless they (and the restrictions they impose) are truly meaningful and necessary according to the game's setting. I've rarely seen any game pull this off.
This is one of the things I like about Brogue: there are no classes. I really didn't like many RL's because they just put random classes and races in character creation that just didn't seem meaningful. What's the difference between a "High Elf Dark Mage" and a "Halfling Summoner?" Two dexterity points and one different spell. What's the point of having them?
I'm currently thinking about a equipment based system of "classes," where you pick your weapon/armor at the beginning of the game and that determines your fighting style.
I guess my point here is that when I play a new game I like class restrictions. It lets me get into the game quicker because I don't have to worry about details. Then once I have a good understanding of the game, I would like to be able to experiment without restrictions. Some games do this quite well actually.
I'm going to try to do this as well. For example, you can choose the predetermined weapon/armor combinations (which is like choosing the class path and it already choosing all your skills/etc), or you can choose the weapon/armor you want to experiment with. Of course this will be more difficult, since then you will have to prepare for a Bow/PlateArmor combo or some other weird combination.
-
I really like the way dungeons of dredmor does this. There are a bunch of "class" skill trees, and the only thing that decides what type of character you are is which skills you choose. You need to choose them in order (i.e. I need to pick skills 1-3 of pyromancy to get to skill 4) but you can pick out of whatever skill paths you want without any restrictions.
I think this is actually the smartest way to do things if one cares at all about verisimilitude in game design. Unless these class categories are meaningful within the setting, they are just artificial design shortcuts to me.
I guess my point here is that when I play a new game I like class restrictions. It lets me get into the game quicker because I don't have to worry about details. Then once I have a good understanding of the game, I would like to be able to experiment without restrictions. Some games do this quite well actually. Dungeons & Dragons Online...
That right there is the problem. Sure classes are great when you're getting to know a game, but once you know it they get in the way. I'd rather have a classless system with a slightly steeper learning curve, than a class-based one I'm stuck with once I have a feel for the game.
As for DDO, I don't know much about that, but D&D/D20 is the reason I dislike class systems so much, especially with 3e forward. It's pretty much a meaningless exercise in metagaming at this point. The flipside to this is the CODA system (which did the LoTR tabletop RPG). It was a class system, but the classes were culturally relevant in Tolkien-world (whatever it's called). However, very few systems are clever like this.
This actually gets me thinking. I've already previously expressed my distaste for high fantasy. All the fireballs, teleporting, zweinhanders, and other absurdities are too kitschy for me. However, it was also stated that it's hard to get away from fantasy in RLs. What about a low fantasy setting? That's one of the things I liked about the LoTR setting. For the most part, magic was low key. Magical items were rare and important. People (except for maybe Gandalf) were ordinary mortals without any inherent supernatural abilities. Are there any RLs that really tone down the flash?
-
This actually gets me thinking. I've already previously expressed my distaste for high fantasy. All the fireballs, teleporting, zweinhanders, and other absurdities are too kitschy for me. However, it was also stated that it's hard to get away from fantasy in RLs. What about a low fantasy setting? That's one of the things I liked about the LoTR setting. For the most part, magic was low key. Magical items were rare and important. People (except for maybe Gandalf) were ordinary mortals without any inherent supernatural abilities. Are there any RLs that really tone down the flash?
Hopefully my game will, though you probably won't be able to play it for a while. It's in a really early development stage.
-
This actually gets me thinking. I've already previously expressed my distaste for high fantasy. All the fireballs, teleporting, zweinhanders, and other absurdities are too kitschy for me. However, it was also stated that it's hard to get away from fantasy in RLs. What about a low fantasy setting? That's one of the things I liked about the LoTR setting. For the most part, magic was low key. Magical items were rare and important. People (except for maybe Gandalf) were ordinary mortals without any inherent supernatural abilities. Are there any RLs that really tone down the flash?
I recently acquired distaste for fantasy games for reasons similar to ones you state. My reaction was to explore sci-fi RLs and I was not disappointed. Maybe you would like to try Frozen Depths? I can't think of other non-7DRL creations that fit into low fantasy.
-
I don't know if I would consider Tolkein's lotr setting low fantasy. I always thought it was the opposite. But as for an rl with what I would consider a more low fantasy setting, I would try Frozen Depths. Infra Arcana is also a really good roguelike that is definitely not your typical fantasy setting.
I agree that a skill tree system can be much better than classes and races most of the time. I think Frozen Depths is pretty good at having a small roster of races and classes, but there is also a skill tree system within.
-
But Infra Arcana is IME too much dependant on luck, and not well balanced yet (did anyone win it?), so it is not what punkbohemian wants.
-
I tried frozen depths. It was ok, but it didn't grab me. I've been toying around a bit with Sil. I'm not a fan of the race mechanics, but otherwise it seems pretty catchy. Actually, I'm also not a fan of the control scheme, but that's pretty much par for the course for a RL.
I suppose the low/high fantasy thing is relative. I started with D&D long before I even knew about Tolkien. Even worse, my GM did a lot of Forgotten Realms which has always been a little munchkiny. With LoTR, you don't have any fireballs, wish spells, vorpal swords of instakill, etc. It's a lot more low-key in comparison. That's one of the things I like about Sil, their magic system is basically just some uselful but not overpowered songs with magical effects.
-
But Infra Arcana is IME too much dependant on luck, and not well balanced yet (did anyone win it?), so it is not what punkbohemian wants.
This is why I'm not picky when it comes to setting: ultimately, I care far more about the mechanics and gameplay than I do the aesthetics, whether sensory or thematic. I barely process enemies as what they look like (or should look like in the case of abstract ASCII) and, instead, parse them in terms of their stats. Granted, it's important that the aesthetics aren't offensive (and by that I mean "hard to look at" or "blow your ears out", not in the prejudicial sense). On the other hand, I can appreciate that a developer doesn't want to spend time designing a whole universe for their game: that's really a second job all on its own.
The direction of this thread seems to less "roguelikes that require skill" and more "roguelikes that fit into an increasingly-narrow set of constraints". I don't mind dicussing specific examples of roguelikes that require critical thinking and careful execution of strategy, but we should probably stay on topic.
I think Fenrir makes a good point here:
The skill in a roguelike is the management of risk.
If we take a look at the prototypical example, Rogue itself, it seems often like a hopeless task to win when you first pick it up, but as you learn the boundaries of the game you start to realize that there are actually a great deal of choices that, chosen poorly, lead you to death pretty reliably. Hunger prevents you from staying on a floor for too long, but you could leave some floors as soon as possible while lingering on others, depending on the particular floor difficulty and what items you've managed to obtain to fight enemies there. Each item is priceless in its own way and it's always a hard decision to use up something that would be just as valuable later on. There are going to be cases where you got screwed, sure, but you can continuously minimize the probability of such situations by optimizing your resources and taking early-game risks that will keep you alive later on.
I think the problem as stated isn't that roguelikes doesn't require skills in order to win, it's that roguelikes usually require both skill and luck to do particularly well. I suppose, for me, this is part of the appeal: luck can help you along when you're just starting out, and skill will push you a good deal farther when you're not so lucky. The mix of the two make it, for me, an enjoyable experience for a good long time. It's one of those "the journey is more important than the destination" analogies, I guess, and even if the destination was never reachable in the first place, it can often still be a journey worth taking.
-
This is why I'm not picky when it comes to setting: ultimately, I care far more about the mechanics and gameplay than I do the aesthetics, whether sensory or thematic.
I can understand and respect that perspective, but I care about both. IMO, one of the things that makes video games unique is that they engage both the left and right brain, so to speak. I mean, if I just wanted pure mechanics, I'd play chess. You can't go wrong there.
The direction of this thread seems to less "roguelikes that require skill" and more "roguelikes that fit into an increasingly-narrow set of constraints".
Yeah, we've definitely strayed a bit, but all in good, clean fun. :D As a noob to rogue, I think part of the process is finding one's niche, and this discussion has been helpful with that.
It's one of those "the journey is more important than the destination" analogies, I guess...
I'm not sure if I think that analogy applies here. I'm not really talking about how RLs end proper (especially since I've never seen one). I was talking about how my journey is constantly being interrupted by, well, dying and starting over from scratch, often due to circumstances beyond my ability to correct. In my last Sil death, I turned a corner and immediately saw a room with a half-dozen orcs, who saw me and could move as fast as me. There was no way for me to know what was there before I turned the corner. Running wasn't an option. Really, the only thing I could do is backpedal to the point where I could bottleneck. It was the best option in that situation, but I was still taken out by the last orc.
See, here's the thing. Let's say you're playing a game, and for every single conflict, the odds are in your favor 99:1. Those are pretty good odds. For a single conflict, you can virtually count on a victory. In fact, over 10 conflicts, your odds are still 9:1. However, by 100 conflicts, it drops to a little more than 3:1. By 500, it's a miracle if you've yet to have that one encounter that puts you six feet under. Chances are, that one encounter isn't even going to be a respectable death, either. It's just going to be the logical result of the game wearing your PC down. To be honest, that orc death I mentioned before was the only cool death I've had. That's like a big screen movie death. The PC was fighting off the horde, and almost made it, until one lucky strike from the last combatant took him down. However, all my other deaths have been very unsatisfying.
What is the journey, anyway? That's been mentioned by a few posters, and maybe I'm just not sure what that means. That is, without a plot or character development (in a literary sense), the "journey" is just the game mechanics. Every RL I've played has been pretty clunky in that regard. If I were to make my own RL (and I'm considering doing it with Python once I become better acquainted with the genre), the two things I would change before anything else are the control scheme and the system.
-
What is the journey, anyway? That's been mentioned by a few posters, and maybe I'm just not sure what that means. That is, without a plot or character development (in a literary sense), the "journey" is just the game mechanics. Every RL I've played has been pretty clunky in that regard. If I were to make my own RL (and I'm considering doing it with Python once I become better acquainted with the genre), the two things I would change before anything else are the control scheme and the system.
I think you've already hit upon part of what the journey is. Add that orc battle to the journey. When you finally beat a roguelike (or not) you will undoubtedly have a bunch of cool experiences to look back on. That is the journey, the sum total of all your attempts to succeed. As has been mentioned a lot in this thread, it is totally going to depend on what roguelike you play. I think dwarf fortress has perhaps the best propensity for story-telling. The forums are simply full of the amazing tales of people living and dying by amazing circumstances. The main thing here is that you are the character and this is your journey. It really is what you make of it. I know some people play dwarf fortress and just have no imagination and get bored. Other people get totally wrapped into the world they create. Your player character might not develop much in a single game, but do to your influence each new player character will be different and better able to survive the next time around.
I think another important thing is to learn to enjoy ridiculous deaths. I know I do. Some people will say that putting on an amulet of choking (I don't remember the exact name) is a terrible way to go, but I find that quite hilarious. An example from my own roguelike: I was walking along when I saw a lone mage. I leapt at him, only to find that outside my previous view there had been quite a few more enemies (I shouldn't have leapt into the unknown xD). They proceeded to repeatedly kick me to the ground and one of them pegged me in the head with a rock, knocking me unconscious. Then they broke my legs and eventually I succumbed to death. Now I think that is an awesome story, but it totally depends on your attitude towards death. I also learned to be wary about leaping into uncharted territory ;) So you see I added an experience and learned something as part of my journey.
With respect to your specific instance in Sil, and perhaps to emphasize that experience is important, you can go into stealth mode in Sil (by pressing S), which may have let you avoid alerting all those orcs entirely. It actually says in the manual that it's possible to win the game entirely through the use of stealth and subterfuge (I would say a rare thing in roguelikes). Admittedly, I don't have a huge amount of experience with it and for all I know you were in stealth mode and they saw you anyway :P
-
See, here's the thing. Let's say you're playing a game, and for every single conflict, the odds are in your favor 99:1. Those are pretty good odds. For a single conflict, you can virtually count on a victory. In fact, over 10 conflicts, your odds are still 9:1. However, by 100 conflicts, it drops to a little more than 3:1. By 500, it's a miracle if you've yet to have that one encounter that puts you six feet under.
And that would suck...if that's what we were talking about. A lot of roguelikes give you backup plans and trump cards, which you can use to get yourself out of that one-in-a-hundred chance encounter. Whether or not you get these can be random, just as whether or not you fight an exceedingly hard enemy is random. For "veteran" players of a given roguelike, the odds of impossible scenarios during an important phase of the game are virtually nil (at least if the roguelike isn't stupid-hard, and few are). Sure, sometimes it pops up anyway, but this is about as unfortunate as accidentally pressing the wrong button or getting distracted when playing a game in real-time: it will happen and you just have to accept it.
What is the journey, anyway? That's been mentioned by a few posters, and maybe I'm just not sure what that means. That is, without a plot or character development (in a literary sense), the "journey" is just the game mechanics.
kraflab's example of Dwarf Fortress is a good way to put it, but you could name almost any game with nonlinearity and openendedness and see the same thing. Where's the journey in Minecraft, or Civilization, or Sim City? Where's the journey in League of Legends, or Counterstrike, or competitive Starcraft? Games without an explicit narrative often give way for the player to make one for themselves, and that's usually what roguelikes allow for. For me, if there IS an intended plot, it usually takes a really good one for me to care about it. I tend to be more impressed with games that give me all the tools necessary to make a compelling narrative than games that railroad me into something I may not necessarily find compelling.
That's why roguelikes incorporate randomness into their games: to provide the player with unexpected situations and on-the-fly strategies that build a very unique narrative each time. Permadeath, then, is the driving force that guides this narrative through the ultimate goal of "not dying", as opposed to winning. If you happen to win, that's great, but the successes made by not dying for as long as possible can often be just as interesting.
-
The direction of this thread seems to less "roguelikes that require skill" and more "roguelikes that fit into an increasingly-narrow set of constraints". I don't mind dicussing specific examples of roguelikes that require critical thinking and careful execution of strategy, but we should probably stay on topic.
I don't really mind when threads get off topic. That's when the conversations get interesting!
I think another important thing is to learn to enjoy ridiculous deaths.
I love ridiculous deaths. Put on a cursed ring of clairvoyance? Fun. What's behind door number 3?! A Tentacle Horror!
I don't know if I would consider Tolkein's lotr setting low fantasy. I always thought it was the opposite.
I suppose by definition (alternate reality, different races, etc) it is high fantasy, but relatively, it's pretty much mid- to low-fantasy
Permadeath, then, is the driving force that guides this narrative through the ultimate goal of "not dying", as opposed to winning.
I suppose you could also look at it like one of those kinds of books that talks about a thousand years of the big bad, with hundreds of heroes dying at his hands, until that one hero comes and beats him
-
And that would suck...if that's what we were talking about.
That is what I'm talking about. The orc situation I mentioned above was that 1 in 100 situation. I had no "trump" at my disposal, no recourse that could have saved my ass. I had many similar situations in DoomRL. Eventually, in all probability, a game is going to end that way. I've been surfing RL boards for a while now, and have seen a lot of experienced gamers say things like, "Not that I've ever beat such-and-such RL, or any RL for that matter..." or "I've hardly heard of anyone beating it." Are we saying that a majority of gamers, and not just any gamers, but pretty hardcore gamers who are playing on a higher level than your typical GTA-Madden-Mass Effect-Wii Sports-playing gamer, pretty much suck?
Games without an explicit narrative often give way for the player to make one for themselves, and that's usually what roguelikes allow for.
But there is an intended plot. Delve into the dungeon and retrieve the Amulet of Yendor, for example. The plot is pretty flat (with the climax and conclusion being almost identical), but a plot is there. And theme is there, too, even if someone flubs it up by doing something like putting kobolds in a Middle Earth game. These all contribute to a narrative.
Not taking responsibility for the more creative aspects of the game is a cop out. Look at Diablo, which is often categorized as a RL (I'm not 100% sure I agree, but whatever). It had plot, theme, an internally consistent setting. They really covered their bases and even built on it for the sequel. The short of it is I don't think a RL is helping itself by cutting creative corners.
Where's the journey in Minecraft, or Civilization, or Sim City? Where's the journey in League of Legends, or Counterstrike, or competitive Starcraft?
If we're looking at RLs in that regard, then I suppose I should look at it like a tabletop RPG and focus on the system (which I do with any tabletop RPG). To be frank, I've fiddled with a fair number of RLs, and have yet to see one with a system that dazzles me. Sil does some interesting things with its system, but other than that, I've only seen a bunch of unoriginal, clunky systems lacking in elegance. I mean, so many games are derivative of d20 (which is rubbish for so many reasons), or some incarnation of D&D. Most of them have pretty much the same gameplay, too. Use items to identify them, zap wands, drink potions, bump to melee, etc. It's all the same.
I suppose you could also look at it like one of those kinds of books that talks about a thousand years of the big bad, with hundreds of heroes dying at his hands, until that one hero comes and beats him.
There's a reason why people tell tales of the hero that survives, and not the hundreds of poor schmucks who died attempting the same thing. I think permadeath should and could be utilized better so that your characters' likely deaths would be more interesting.
-
I had no "trump" at my disposal, no recourse that could have saved my ass. I had many similar situations in DoomRL. Eventually, in all probability, a game is going to end that way.
I suppose the jerk-ish answer to that is you should anticipate that 1 in 100 chance and save a "Get Out of Jail Free Card" just for that occasion, but I understand where you're coming from. I've been in a situation were I got into two "1/100" situations in a row, and used my Jail Card the first time. And I guess the jerk-ish answer to that is always have a backup "GOoJFC" in case your original "GOoJFC" fails.
"Not that I've ever beat such-and-such RL, or any RL for that matter..."
That sounds like something I would say :P
But there is an intended plot. Delve into the dungeon and retrieve the Amulet of Yendor, for example. The plot is pretty flat (with the climax and conclusion being almost identical), but a plot is there. And theme is there, too, even if someone flubs it up by doing something like putting kobolds in a Middle Earth game. These all contribute to a narrative.
I think the major problem of "plot" is shared with many main-stream, plot-heavy games. Once you play through the "story," there is little replay value. Plus, its incredibly hard to make a coherent, completely random story.
Not taking responsibility for the more creative aspects of the game is a cop out.
I completely agree. Sometimes it's difficult to make a "creative" or "interesting" feature, but you should always try.
There's a reason why people tell tales of the hero that survives, and not the hundreds of poor schmucks who died attempting the same thing. I think permadeath should and could be utilized better so that your characters' likely deaths would be more interesting.
Well, I didn't say those were very good stories :P There's always the good ol' "bones file" from NetHack's day, though I don't think I've ever seen one in a non-NetHack game.
-
Not taking responsibility for the more creative aspects of the game is a cop out.
I completely agree. Sometimes it's difficult to make a "creative" or "interesting" feature, but you should always try.
I just want to add one thing to this, that most rl's are still in active development. At least in my case, I have a lot of interesting plot details to get into my game, but I just have been focusing on content rather than details. Of course there are plenty of developers who don't care about plot at all, but I can see how it might just get put on the bottom of the to-do list and forgotten. At the least, the climax and conclusion of my game are two separate events ;)
-
I think the major problem of "plot" is shared with many main-stream, plot-heavy games. Once you play through the "story," there is little replay value.
I both agree and disagree with that, mainly because of two games, Planescape:Torment and Fallout 2. I've only played PST once, beat it, and put it on a shelf. The characters, setting, and story was so great in that game I feel like I'd cheapen the experience by playing it again. Despite having no replay value for me, I do not regret in the least the money I spent on that game. In fact, I would have gladly spent more (I think I got it for $30). OTOH, I've played FO2 more times than I can count. Sure, I know the story in and out (and I also think it's great), but it's just one of those games where it's always fun to take another run. The bottom line is that you can have a game with a strong plot and great characters, and people may still want to replay it.
Plus, its incredibly hard to make a coherent, completely random story.
Well, the story doesn't have to be random for the rest of the game to be. Take Diablo, again.
I just want to add one thing to this, that most rl's are still in active development.
Yeah, I noticed this at the Basin. The full game list has around 1000 games on it, but if you filter to stable games, you have only about 100 or so. Many of them are 7DRLs, and some of the rest are stable but still not complete. Other than the major RLs, I've seen very few that can say that are actually "done".
At least in my case, I have a lot of interesting plot details to get into my game, but I just have been focusing on content rather than details.
I checked out your page when you mentioned that. The multi-window approach was also used in Sil, but your layout is much cleaner (and more readable). I also like the tileset you're using. While I'm fine with ASCII, I certainly don't mind a nice tileset.
Since we're on the subject, I noticed that you're a grad student at Rensselaer. I also did the grad school thing (just finished a couple years ago), though my field was Sociology and Statistics. I also tinkered a bit with Monte Carlo simulations, but I'm sure how we use it in stats is different than in physics. My specialty had nothing to do with video games, but what I learned along the way totally changed the way I look at them (and games in general). I'm curious, has anything similar happened with you in your academic career? And, if so, how?
-
Plot is not a prerequisite for a fun game. Chess is one of the oldest games in existence, and its plot is as detailed as Rogue’s plot. Rogue says “Get the Amulet of Yendor!” Chess says “Capture the enemy king!” The difference is that Rogue’s players must frequently defend that simplicity of purpose from detractors.
This is not the part where I tell you that you are simply unimaginative and unsophisticated and Roguelikes are just too intellectual for you to understand, because they are not, but when we say that we do not mind the lack of plot—when we say that we imagine plots and grow attached to our little ‘@’ character anyway, we are not lying to you. It is not a “cop out”. We mean it.
All your examples come from DoomRL, a game termed a coffeebreak Roguelike, and Sil, one other relatively new game. As you stated that you are avoiding fantasy, and all of the Roguelikes that are staples of the genre (http://roguebasin.roguelikedevelopment.org/index.php/Major_roguelikes) are fantasy, I can only suppose that you have not played them. Some of them even have plot (http://roguebasin.roguelikedevelopment.org/index.php/Omega) elements (http://roguebasin.roguelikedevelopment.org/index.php/ADOM) like characters and multiple endings.
You are addressing important points. Game balance is probably the most important part of a Roguelike, because it is as random and unpredictable as it is, and it is something game developers work to get right. Plot is definitely something that should not be ignored too. The 7DRL competition was made to explore new possibilities like that.
No one of us will think you deficient if you decide that you do not like Roguelikes, and, yes, the genre is not perfect. We do need to be thinking about improvements, and we should not turn a blind eye to problems, but please remember that this a community of hobbyists, and do not compare their work with big-budget games—or compare their hobby with flipping a coin and ‘dumb luck’. I know you can understand that, with all the care that has been put into developing them and all the enjoyment that we have had playing them, telling us that we may as well be flipping nickels is rather cutting.
-
My specialty had nothing to do with video games, but what I learned along the way totally changed the way I look at them (and games in general). I'm curious, has anything similar happened with you in your academic career? And, if so, how?
In terms of direct influence between the domains of academia and game design, I tend to take the algorithms that I have needed to use in one and apply them to the other. Seeing the differences and yet also the similarities is quite enlightening. But to be honest my viewpoint hasn't really changed much, because from the beginning I viewed games in the same way I would view any other science. The problems and the audience are different in game design, certainly, but the way you go about trying to solve them is very similar. Of course, some people do game design completely unaware of this, but that's another story.
-
Plot is not a prerequisite for a fun game. Chess is one of the oldest games in existence, and its plot is as detailed as Rogue’s plot. Rogue says “Get the Amulet of Yendor!” Chess says “Capture the enemy king!” The difference is that Rogue’s players must frequently defend that simplicity of purpose from detractors.
While that's true, the difference is that Chess is a strategic board game, whereas Rogue (borrowing on your example) is a Hack-And-Slash, Dungeon-Crawl, RPG with Random Content Generation and strategy elements. No Chess players expect a plot, let alone complain when there isn't one, whereas anyone who's played an RPG is probably used to a linear, plot-driven game. I'm not saying we should all start demanding plot, but I think your comparison isn't an exact match.
when we say that we do not mind the lack of plot—when we say that we imagine plots and grow attached to our little ‘@’ character anyway, we are not lying to you. It is not a “cop out”. We mean it.
I don't believe he thinks us to be "lying" to him, I think he's just stating his opinion on the matter.
-
We do need to be thinking about improvements, and we should not turn a blind eye to problems, but please remember that this a community of hobbyists, and do not compare their work with big-budget games—or compare their hobby with flipping a coin and ‘dumb luck’.
First, I'm certainly not making a comparison to big budget games. If so, A/V would have been a cornerstone of this conversation. I don't really even care that much about a plot, it's more of a tangential topic. For a video game, Diablo did it well enough for me, and it was a pretty simple plot. I think it would be easily possible to implement it, and would kick things up a notch, but it's not the be-all-end-all of RL.
If I were to pick one thing to criticize, it would be system, and you don't need an AAA production studio to kick out a top-notch game in that department. There are plenty of indie PnP designers who put out clever work and they're essentially hobbyists. When I did tabletop, I'd occasionally whip up my own homebrews that went over well with the players. That's all system is, resolving action with as much mathematical grace as you can muster. Having a novice background in Python, I have a fair idea as to how much work it takes to code a game, and anything to simplify things (without loosing efficacy) is welcome. It boggles my mind that people choose to code clunky, convoluted, elaborate systems, when a much simpler and more effective system would do the trick.
As for dumb luck, let's face it, it plays a role. If you do everything right, and still fail, you've just been screwed by chance. What isn't free will is fate. In that sense, you can compare it to a coin toss (though the coin toss has better odds :P ). I think it might be difficult to see how chance is the ultimate governor in something like RL, as the games are so long and there are many factors that influence the numbers, but it's there.
While that's true, the difference is that Chess is a strategic board game, whereas Rogue (borrowing on your example) is a Hack-And-Slash, Dungeon-Crawl, RPG with Random Content Generation and strategy elements. No Chess players expect a plot, let alone complain when there isn't one, whereas anyone who's played an RPG is probably used to a linear, plot-driven game. I'm not saying we should all start demanding plot, but I think your comparison isn't an exact match.
I agree, but I think the plot topic is besides the point. I don't remember how we got on it, but I'm sure it was just some tangent that happened to pop up.
-
It boggles my mind that people choose to code clunky, convoluted, elaborate systems, when a much simpler and more effective system would do the trick.
I experience this sensation quite a lot. One thing you need to realize is that a lot of people make a roguelike while they are learning to code, or as their first game. One thing I've learned through making games is that each time you start a new project it is almost unfathomable how much better your code becomes due to experience. Another thing is that often simple systems are not as easy to think up as just brute-forcing something elaborate. Of course you also get to the situation where people just copy the poorly designed systems from earlier roguelikes and assume that is what's best.
There are also some developers who purposefully want their games to be hard to play and get into, but I think that's a whole different story :P
-
I've been keeping up with this thread but haven't really had time to chime in.
I opened a thread in development over here-> http://roguetemple.com/forums/index.php?topic=2220.0 that tries to quantify a similar complaint into a problem that can be explicitly addressed. I haven't had a chance to reply to that thread either, but I think there is some decent thoughts tossed around on the matter.
I know of a few instances in academia where developers create an AI that handles randomly generated levels. The AI first generates the level according to a certain criteria of expected difficulty and then quickly playtests the level several times at varying degrees of 'skill.' In this way, the AI can determine exactly where the level is most difficult and make fine adjustments. Needless to say, indie developers don't really have time to take this sort of approach unless the rules of their game are fundamentally simple (say, to the point that they could be reduced to a CSP- idea? Yes!). We want greedy or simple algorithms that can give us reasonable expectations of difficulty. Which is why so many Roguelikes use depth-based difficulty.
If the difficulty is determined by depth, then our ability to descend depends upon what equipment/bonuses/enablers that are randomly generated for us. The more we play the game, the more we realize what items are important for when we approach certain depths. Your utilization of the equipment and the terrain may increase your chances, but you might simply never received enough goodies to succeed. Even if no aspect of combat is random, you're success still depends upon the tools that the RNG makes available. The game becomes less a matter of skill and more a matter of knowledge- kind of like Chess.
If a PGC considers the character's current strength when generating challenges and equipment, then difficulty can be regulated in a more reasonable way. Doing that, however, doesn't necessarily make the game more interesting or skillful-- but it will both prevent inescapable failures and expose how terrible or boring a 'system' actually is.
What set of criteria satisfies the skill-minded player?
-
I have recently read up on this thread and it just screams for some trolling.
You guys appear to suck badly at roguelikes and thus make excuses for lowering the difficulty instead of increasing your skill. The problem is amplified because sometimes it takes skill which you don't have to tell what you did wrong the last time. This is why it pays to post a YASD and discuss it.
Of course, there are unavoidable deaths and always will be. A developer of Crawl stated that even best players should die 10% of the time. I agree completely. If this is not the case it means most likely one of two worse major design mistakes are being made.
A developer must even out fairness, randomness and challenge. The first and the last are not the same thing. In practice he can choose to have two out of three at best.
NetHack is weak on randomnes. If you take a character past early game it is fully winnable. This is because resources are plentiful and you can take your time to prepare for challenges. However, it is not random enough and leans too much into puzzle realm making it boring for more experienced players who take up conducts to make it interesting again.
Crawl is on the random and challenging side. You need to adapt very much which is where things get fun. In mid game people still consider changing their planned skill set a bit to adapt for newly found randart or magic spellbook. The downside is you get unfair deaths. Not because the game did not drop you enough enablers (all really needed enablers are guaranteed) but sometimes concentration or layout of monsters creates really big obstacle.
Angband is meager in challenge department. In theory all games of Angband are fully winnable. Borg proves that by being successful despite using really ineffective tactics. It also has plenty of random encounters with almost no constraint on what creatures may band together except depth. The problem is scumming is not prevented leading to low challenges until you play *bands "the one true way" -- dive.
Since no one is able to balance a game perfectly one will end up leaning on one of these three sides eventually. Why not consciously pick random+challenging? It makes for best games.
If a PGC considers the character's current strength when generating challenges and equipment, then difficulty can be regulated in a more reasonable way.
Sounds pointless. This would take all the fun and satisfaction of solving an out of depth challenge. Current ways of regulating difficulty are superior to this because they offer good enough margin for creating deadly threats while maintaining reasonable difficulty. When faced with too strong opposition player should skip it and come later or not at all. One does not need to kill everything despite it is rewarded with experience.
Furthermore each player values equipment difficulty because of his skill employing an item differs. For example it may sound weird but I hardly use the plasma rifle in DoomRL but can put a good use to chainsaw.
There are also games like DoomRL. Its nightmare difficulty is purposely unbalanced to be winnable only with RNG's blessing. On the other hand UV and lower are pretty much reasonable. This comes from Arch-Vile General (0.9.9.2), mind you.
-
I experience this sensation quite a lot...
I agree with everything you said here. It seems that a lot of RLs are like the bastard children of devs. They push them out to build up their chops, but then abandon them when they are capable of flashier projects. As for system, being a better programmer doesn't necessarily make one a better system designer. Frankly, I think the best system designers (for obvious reasons) are (some) PnP designers, though they can't program, so their systems would never make it to a RL.
I know of a few instances in academia where developers create an AI that handles randomly generated levels.
That's rather elaborate, clever, and probably unnecessary. Anyone smart enough to design that kind of an AI should be smart enough to govern their own RNG-based elements.
I have recently read up on this thread and it just screams for some trolling.
I assume you're the troll, in which case, should we be ignoring you?
You guys appear to suck badly at roguelikes and thus make excuses for lowering the difficulty instead of increasing your skill.
A developer of Crawl stated that even best players should die 10% of the time.
Just in case you were wondering, this is where you contradict yourself. You're basically saying that a player who cannot achieve the impossible (depending on the RNGs mood) is not a good player.
You're also missing the point. Because so much of the game is the product of the RNG, your strategy is pretty limited. Your strategy generally cannot hinge upon specific enablers or any environmental variables, as they are all randomly generated and therefore you cannot count on them. All you can do is gen a PC, shoot for a survivable build and go through the motions hoping you don't get boned. I don't feel terribly engaged (mentally) when I'm playing a RL. I run through a limited set of "what ifs" in my head, maybe do some simple calculations (DPS, enemy strength vs. my own), but for the most part, the RNG dictates my actions.
So, I suppose my original point in this thread is that I was looking for RLs that engage me more (mentally). In other words, something with more active thinking. Though at this point, the thread has gone off in a few different directions (about RL design, and design in general), and I'm cool with that, as it's an interesting conversation.
-
You guys appear to suck badly at roguelikes and thus make excuses for lowering the difficulty instead of increasing your skill.
I'm wondering where the hostility is coming from. It appears to me that we are having a discussion on rogue-like design and skill, whereas you are just being mean.
Since no one is able to balance a game perfectly one will end up leaning on one of these three sides eventually. Why not consciously pick random+challenging? It makes for best games.
Why not shoot for the perfectly-balanced inverted pyramid of fairness, challenge, and randomness?
Frankly, I think the best system designers (for obvious reasons) are (some) PnP designers, though they can't program, so their systems would never make it to a RL.
What does PnP stand for?
-
What does PnP stand for?
Pen and paper perhaps?
Since no one is able to balance a game perfectly one will end up leaning on one of these three sides eventually. Why not consciously pick random+challenging? It makes for best games.
Are you suggesting we completely abandon an attempt at fairness? I think that is a terrible idea. Also, challenging and fairness are intimately interrelated. You can't call something that is truly unfair "challenging". Although based on your preface of trolling I assume you were being facetious.
-
@Ancient,
The complaint that the people have here has more to do with learning curve than it does with 'skill.'
In a fighting game for example- before you can even think about strategy you need to understand the mechanics and principles governing gameplay. Once you've learned enough of the game, you can start employing strategy that favors your specific skillset. At that point, the game becomes an application of skill rather than (or in addition to) an accumulation of it. Once you reach the application phase, the game becomes cognitively interesting.
Punkbohemian is complaining about balance when he's still fumbling with the metaphorical controls.
I personally feel that this is a legitimate complaint, but he's completely wrong in calling it 'skill.' His complaint is on the game's accessibility.
-
I'm familiar with PnP meaning "Print and Play" games. Games that are often free but you require you to print the files and construct them yourself. These are board games and card games obviously.
-
You guys appear to suck badly at roguelikes and thus make excuses for lowering the difficulty instead of increasing your skill.
I'm wondering where the hostility is coming from. It appears to me that we are having a discussion on rogue-like design and skill, whereas you are just being mean.
I think hostility is caused by punkbohemian's words that roguelikes do not require skill, just dumb luck. This is very insulting for roguelike players who actually do have the skill, and win DoomRL and Crawl most of the times, and can win a new roguelike in just a few plays (assuming that it is balanced for this).
I think the same critique could be given against any classic board/card game (e.g. Chess, Go, Bridge, Poker). Someone could play 50 games of Chess and lose all of them, and conclude that the game was unwinnable and you could win it only with dumb luck (although there is no random element in Chess and Go, the opponent's decisions are not predictable). And then go to a Chess forum and claim that there was no skill involved.
There are not many calculations involved in these games, it is rather about seeing the consequences of our simple moves, both immediate and in the big picture. Roguelikes are different that the game is not symmetric (adventurer against dungeon, not army against army), so it is harder to see that they are intended to be fair, but the idea is the same. In Poker/Bridge, sometimes you get bad cards and you cannot win whatever you do, but this does not stop very good players from being able to earn big money by playing against others; that would be an analogy to Crawl's 10% intended loss rate (all these games derive they charm from randomness, or rather about using skill to combat it, and the loss rate is a small price to pay for this).
-
I have recently read up on this thread and it just screams for some trolling.
I assume you're the troll, in which case, should we be ignoring you?
This question is for you to answer. My belief is your whole complaint about roguelikes involving little of skill is completely invalid thus this provoking preamble. I was surprised ... wait, shocked that no one challenged it head on.
You guys appear to suck badly at roguelikes and thus make excuses for lowering the difficulty instead of increasing your skill.
A developer of Crawl stated that even best players should die 10% of the time.
Just in case you were wondering, this is where you contradict yourself. You're basically saying that a player who cannot achieve the impossible (depending on the RNGs mood) is not a good player.
I am most interested how exactly you got to that conclusion. Both my statement can coexist peacefully with one another. That 10% death rate is not because skill is not enough to win or due to unreasonably elevated difficulty. It is caused by difficulty of balancing everything together while still maintaining interesting and challenging gameplay.
You're also missing the point. Because so much of the game is the product of the RNG, your strategy is pretty limited.
Agreed! I do not rely on some specific strategy at all except for very long games like Crawl and Adom where the abundance of random drops and law of large numbers virtually guarantees me some property I would like to receive from items. Tactics, by which I mean resolving particular encounters here and now without overarching plan for whole game is more what I revel in.
Your strategy generally cannot hinge upon specific enablers or any environmental variables, as they are all randomly generated and therefore you cannot count on them. All you can do is gen a PC, shoot for a survivable build and go through the motions hoping you don't get boned. I don't feel terribly engaged (mentally) when I'm playing a RL. I run through a limited set of "what ifs" in my head, maybe do some simple calculations (DPS, enemy strength vs. my own), but for the most part, the RNG dictates my actions.
Here we differ. RNG only expands or limits my available actions. For each obstacle I encounter it is me who chooses to engage it or not and how. This is also the source of my success at most RLs. I love the turn based nature of roguelike games. After meeting tough bunch of monsters I am free to leave it for 30 minutes and think about possible ways of defeating or evading them. No harm in saving the game and posting a YACD asking for help of other players. Visiting crawl IRC channel does not hurt either. Nethack USENET newsgoup to this day has a tendency to spawn long threads how to potentially resolve interesting situations put forth by the game. I have not found any other genre that can keep me interested for long periods of time and still require a lot of thinking. Puzzle games come close though.
You guys appear to suck badly at roguelikes and thus make excuses for lowering the difficulty instead of increasing your skill.
I'm wondering where the hostility is coming from. It appears to me that we are having a discussion on rogue-like design and skill, whereas you are just being mean.
Tell me then how polite is the statement "RLs require dumb luck"? I find it deeply offensive as a roguelike game developer. It implies I consciously design games to kill the player. Taken further this may imply I enjoy losing characters for the sake of dying alone because I play all games I develop. The fact that I won many RLs (two majors) just pours more salt on wound.
Since no one is able to balance a game perfectly one will end up leaning on one of these three sides eventually. Why not consciously pick random+challenging? It makes for best games.
Why not shoot for the perfectly-balanced inverted pyramid of fairness, challenge, and randomness?
When you aim for the perfect spot the shot may end up closer to the target but you have no idea on which region close to center it falls. It means in some parts of game it will lean a bit to not challenging or not random enough. I prefer a game that constantly leans to not fair enough. Not challenging and not random enough bore me leading to switching to another game. Not fair enough sometimes can be escaped from by clever play and use of a lot of resources giving considerable satisfaction.
You do have a point though. Attitude I stand behind results in somewhat less balanced game than shooting for all three.
@requerent: Man, thank you a bunch for cool headed approach! It is now apparent to me I was led a bit astray and drew some incorrect conclusions.
-
You guys appear to suck badly at roguelikes and thus make excuses for lowering the difficulty instead of increasing your skill.
A developer of Crawl stated that even best players should die 10% of the time.
Just in case you were wondering, this is where you contradict yourself. You're basically saying that a player who cannot achieve the impossible (depending on the RNGs mood) is not a good player.
I am most interested how exactly you got to that conclusion. Both my statement can coexist peacefully with one another. That 10% death rate is not because skill is not enough to win or due to unreasonably elevated difficulty. It is caused by difficulty of balancing everything together while still maintaining interesting and challenging gameplay.
I think he got to his conclusion because if the "best" player only wins 10% of the time, then that implies that no matter what, the game will generate an "unwinnable" scenario once every ten games. So, even if you're the best, you'll get an "unlucky" roll and lose, so if you "cannot achieve the impossible" (in his words) you're not good enough. Reasons for that aside, it's still not very fair if even the best can't win every time. What does that say for the noob, who can barely get half-way?
You guys appear to suck badly at roguelikes and thus make excuses for lowering the difficulty instead of increasing your skill.
I'm wondering where the hostility is coming from. It appears to me that we are having a discussion on rogue-like design and skill, whereas you are just being mean.
Tell me then how polite is the statement "RLs require dumb luck"? I find it deeply offensive as a roguelike game developer. It implies I consciously design games to kill the player. Taken further this may imply I enjoy losing characters for the sake of dying alone because I play all games I develop. The fact that I won many RLs (two majors) just pours more salt on wound.
I'm not saying he wasn't being hostile, but many things are said when you're in "rant-mode" that you probably wouldn't say otherwise, and I'm guessing reading his rant put you in "rant-mode," however, I'm pretty sure he's only said that once, and he does have a point. If you're unlucky and don't get that potion of healing when you need it, you're pretty much dead.
-
I'm pretty sure he's only said that once...
It is in the OP; it is the whole point of the thread. Much of what he has posted is in support of that assertion. It’s in the damn thread title.
It seems like a double standard to criticize Ancient for a lack of diplomacy when the OP is basically asking a community of Roguelike developers and players if there are any Roguelikes that don’t suck.
-
It is in the OP; it is the whole point of the thread. Much of what he has posted is in support of that assertion. It’s in the damn thread title.
It seems like a double standard to criticize Ancient for a lack of diplomacy when the OP is basically asking a community of Roguelike developers and players if there are any Roguelikes that don’t suck.
Tell me you've never made a rant post. Ancient's post was pretty ranty too. Besides, OP has a legitimate point. If you're playing a new (to you) game and you don't know all the spoilers, luck plays a main part in the game. Ancient himself said that randomness was a pivotal point in the rogue-like genre.
And maybe I wasn't clear, I'm pretty sure he's only said "RL's require dumb luck" insultingly only once. The rest of the thread has been pretty level. Just because he has a different opinion doesn't mean he's actively insulting you.
-
It is in the OP; it is the whole point of the thread. Much of what he has posted is in support of that assertion. It’s in the damn thread title.
It seems like a double standard to criticize Ancient for a lack of diplomacy when the OP is basically asking a community of Roguelike developers and players if there are any Roguelikes that don’t suck.
Tell me you've never made a rant post. Ancient's post was pretty ranty too. Besides, OP has a legitimate point. If you're playing a new (to you) game and you don't know all the spoilers, luck plays a main part in the game. Ancient himself said that randomness was a pivotal point in the rogue-like genre.
And maybe I wasn't clear, I'm pretty sure he's only said "RL's require dumb luck" insultingly only once. The rest of the thread has been pretty level. Just because he has a different opinion doesn't mean he's actively insulting you.
Come on, PB has been whining this whole time. He says dumb things and then reiterates them in a slightly more esoteric manner and continues to do so until people concede to what he's saying. It's both bad and unproductive reasoning (I know because I like using it ::)).
I think the discussion is useful, because there exists opportunities for developers to consider some things they may not have before, but he's not even close to being on target.
Roguelikes are hard.
Roguelikes don't provide much in terms of positive feedback.
That pretty much sums up what PB is saying. His use of words 'luck' and 'skill' are just ways for his ego to conceal these amateur complaints that exist for any new player in a new genre of gaming.
His entire argument is admissable ONLY because there are some developers who would like to hook a larger population of gamers. And its only valid as a study of how a new player reacts. We should be thankful he's expressing his opinion in the way that he is- it provides important psychological data on how roguelikes can be designed to be more addictive. Anything he is actually saying, however, is pretty pointless.
-
Tell me you've never made a rant post.
Irrelevant—my post was not an indictment of ranting. In fact, you are looking at one of my rant posts; it is a breed of prose that I promised myself I would never write again. This is not the first time I have lied to myself.
Ancient's post was pretty ranty too.
Yes, it was. Never intended to imply otherwise.
Besides, OP has a legitimate point.
So does Ancient.
If you're playing a new (to you) game and you don't know all the spoilers, luck plays a main part in the game.
Yes, having no skill puts one at the mercy of the RNG, but that is not what the OP is saying, is it? He is failing, so something is wrong, not with his playing style, but with the genre.
And maybe I wasn't clear, I'm pretty sure he's only said "RL's require dumb luck" insultingly only once. The rest of the thread has been pretty level.
Well, I was obviously not clear. The insult is the very foundation of this thread. Besides the detours, he has been spending the rest of the thread supporting the validity of his assertion that Roguelikes are based on luck and require no skill.
Just because he has a different opinion doesn't mean he's actively insulting you.
Not something I said or implied. EDIT (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic): Further, “Roguelikes require no skill. Success depends upon dumb luck,” is not an opinion; it is a contestable statement of fact.
-
It's both bad and unproductive reasoning (I know because I like using it ::)).
Yes. Yes you do :P
I think the discussion is useful, because there exists opportunities for developers to consider some things they may not have before, but he's not even close to being on target.
Roguelikes are hard.
Roguelikes don't provide much in terms of positive feedback.
That pretty much sums up what PB is saying. His use of words 'luck' and 'skill' are just ways for his ego to conceal these amateur complaints that exist for any new player in a new genre of gaming.
Well, yeah. That's right.
His entire argument is admissable ONLY because there are some developers who would like to hook a larger population of gamers. And its only valid as a study of how a new player reacts. We should be thankful he's expressing his opinion in the way that he is- it provides important psychological data on how roguelikes can be designed to be more addictive. Anything he is actually saying, however, is pretty pointless.
That's right too. So yeah, I would say I'm in the wrong right now. I suppose I get on the protective side when it seems like people are being disproportionately trollish/hateful/etc. (Not to say anyone was being malicious).
Sorry Fenrir, you don't get a quote, I'd rather not get into another debate.
-
I think he got to his conclusion because if the "best" player only wins 10% of the time, then that implies that no matter what, the game will generate an "unwinnable" scenario once every ten games. So, even if you're the best, you'll get an "unlucky" roll and lose, so if you "cannot achieve the impossible" (in his words) you're not good enough. Reasons for that aside, it's still not very fair if even the best can't win every time. What does that say for the noob, who can barely get half-way?
[...]
I'm pretty sure he's only said that once, and he does have a point. If you're unlucky and don't get that potion of healing when you need it, you're pretty much dead.
I have acknowledged punkbohemian's point in my first ranty post with a subtle difference. 10% of the time you are dead because you face too tough opposition. Its not the potion of healing to cure poison that you need. You could very well got yourself poison resistance beforehand and win that situation. Or a potion of resistance. Or a disintegration wand to aim at that cobra. Relying on a single type of enabler gets you dead much more often in roguelikes. Be versatile.
In average RL you need luck to make streaks, not just win. Even unfair death usually teaches something.
Rants and mud flinging aside I have learned important thing in this thread. Dying can be sweetened a bit. In PRIME there are two ways of killing something after you died. First, have acidic blood and have it splash the aggressor dissolving him. Second, install Glory Device (dev version only) implant which causes explosion after your death incinerating everything around you. The creatures wasted both ways get to your kill list. I plan to take this further and check whether you slain your killer after you death. If so you get additional line to your morgue:
Ancient the Help Desk Jockey was ripped to shreds by a zergling on Space Base 9. He took the bastard with him.
I actually want to give bonus score for doing this. This would be first step to giving some more positive feedback. Other ways could be achievement system like DoomRL (but without any kind of unlocking), showing detailed score calculation so you can pat yourself on the back by trying to overshoot your score or tracking bad things that happened to this character but were survived. Community can also be a source of positive feedback. Post a YASD!
More ideas anyone?
Another thing learned is I seem to have a peculiar berserk button...
-
I plan to take this further and check whether you slain your killer after you death. If so you get additional line to your morgue:
Ancient the Help Desk Jockey was ripped to shreds by a zergling on Space Base 9. He took the bastard with him.
I actually want to give bonus score for doing this. This would be first step to giving some more positive feedback.
Sounds like an idea I'll be using! :)
Oh, and sorry for pushing your berserk button.
-
More ideas anyone?
In epilogue, there is a list of all the enemies in the game, and the effective 'knowledge' you have gained about them. This is passed on to each adventurer, so it builds over time. If you kill enough of each enemy, you can get up to a 10% damage bonus/resistance against them. It isn't a lot, but it does give some positive feedback. Of course the rare/difficult enemies don't show up very often, so getting a knowledge bonus on them is quite difficult, so I think it doesn't affect the game balance too bad. I want to do more with this, such as unlocking bits of lore (although I know most players probably would completely ignore that). Another interesting thing would be keeping track of all the ways to die and having that list available to the player (with unfound deaths hidden of course). The only thing with that is that you don't want someone *wanting* do get killed in certain ways just to fill out the list. Although if that is fun for someone, why not? I have steered clear of achievements so far, because I know a lot of people really don't like them, but they'll probably be in in some form (i would stay away from unlockables though, unless the things unlocked are truly the type of thing that would be hard for a player to use unless they know the game really well).
-
In epilogue, there is a list of all the enemies in the game, and the effective 'knowledge' you have gained about them. This is passed on to each adventurer, so it builds over time.
That sounds awesome, too. Another bullet added to my list.
-
I think Desktop Dungeons should be mentioned here (I think it has not yet been in this thread). Just a roguelike-like, but the dungeons are small, separate blocks there, and you can either lose (which does not advance you in any way, but it also costs almost nothing) or win (which grants you some benefits if you have won in a new way). It also has more calculations, so it should be what punkbohemian likes.
However, I don't like the direction kraflab's ideas and this is going. It is a great feeling to finally win, say, Dungeon Crawl. You look at all your old characters and see how much better player you are now... very satisfying. With dead characters actively helping you, you would just feel that the game has finally let you win instead.
We should also mention two traditional roguelike features which allow you to get something from your old, dead characters. One is the high score list, 100 characters long in most classic roguelikes, so every notable character gets recorded there. Maybe not worth very much, but it does the job, to some extent. The other one is the ghost level: you can find a ghost of a previous character, which is often a good thing (lots of experience for defeating it, sometimes you can find all its equipment).
-
However, I don't like the direction kraflab's ideas and this is going. It is a great feeling to finally win, say, Dungeon Crawl. You look at all your old characters and see how much better player you are now... very satisfying. With dead characters actively helping you, you would just feel that the game has finally let you win instead.
the bonus your previous characters give is miniscule and also builds very slowly. It might help you go a little faster in the early levels, but it in no way would taint a victory. Of course, this depends on how each person might implement it. I am only speaking about my own game.
-
Shiren has stashes that persist after character deaths, which works quite well there, I think. You need to actively put away an item in the overworld, which will be there when another character reaches that point. If it's in your inventory when you die, it's lost with you.
However, I don't like the direction kraflab's ideas and this is going. It is a great feeling to finally win, say, Dungeon Crawl. You look at all your old characters and see how much better player you are now... very satisfying. With dead characters actively helping you, you would just feel that the game has finally let you win instead.
Maybe the game could reset itself say, every ten playthroughs.
So for example: You have a game with a village and a dungeon, and each character leaves a legacy. Some could retire to become eg. shopkeepers, others can leave artifacts or give more abstract bonuses, such as resistances/achievements. But you only have ten characters to develop your village with. After the tenth death/retirement, you start with a freshly generated "level 0" village. You could probably combine this with random monster species etc. that are regenerated every cycle. You might get a fun metagame around retiring (or spectacularily killing off) characters in particular ways, setting up a victory with an upcoming hero.
This maybe doesn't solve the problem of "positive feedback" (whatever that is, I'm not quite sure?), just scales the genre up a little bit.
As always,
Minotauros
-
Maybe the game could reset itself say, every ten playthroughs.
So for example: You have a game with a village and a dungeon, and each character leaves a legacy. Some could retire to become eg. shopkeepers, others can leave artifacts or give more abstract bonuses, such as resistances/achievements. But you only have ten characters to develop your village with. After the tenth death/retirement, you start with a freshly generated "level 0" village. You could probably combine this with random monster species etc. that are regenerated every cycle. You might get a fun metagame around retiring (or spectacularily killing off) characters in particular ways, setting up a victory with an upcoming hero.
This maybe doesn't solve the problem of "positive feedback" (whatever that is, I'm not quite sure?), just scales the genre up a little bit.
As always,
Minotauros
I think this could be really fun if you plan a game around it. Essentially what you are describing is a gameplay where you have 10 characters in a "playthru" instead of one. I don't know if this could be pulled off particularly well in a roguelike. What if you spectacularly set up the first 9 characters for the player but then, by some poor luck perhaps, your 10th character fails miserably?
Alternatively you could have a "rolling" village that always has an impact from your previous 9 characters. When a character ends his play, the 9th previous one has their impact removed and replaced by the recent one. As you more consistently do a better job, the benefit to your current player would really increase. The important thing is to balance the game around this. You have to make it so that you expect the player to need a really good village in order to win, otherwise the game might become to easy.
It might be more fun down this road if you get to choose whether or not to add a character to the list of legacies that define your game. Perhaps you have a really good shopkeeper you don't want to lose.
I think either way can end up fun, but they all present different game development challenges in their own way.
As far as positive feedback is concerned, this is a tangible "good job" for the player basically. Getting a level up is positive feedback. Getting an achievement is positive feedback. It is a design system made to get players to want to keep playing (see mmos for a genre designed around this principle). The official definition is something like: A causes B, which leads to more A. In this case, A is gameplay, with B being some kind of reward, which leads to more gameplay.
-
You're also missing the point. Because so much of the game is the product of the RNG, your strategy is pretty limited. Your strategy generally cannot hinge upon specific enablers or any environmental variables, as they are all randomly generated and therefore you cannot count on them. All you can do is gen a PC, shoot for a survivable build and go through the motions hoping you don't get boned. I don't feel terribly engaged (mentally) when I'm playing a RL. I run through a limited set of "what ifs" in my head, maybe do some simple calculations (DPS, enemy strength vs. my own), but for the most part, the RNG dictates my actions.
We can't make you suddenly start thinking about your moves.
I find it preposterous that you're pegging your lack of success on the RNG when there are 20+ win-streaks in all the major roguelikes to prove that skill really matters (no really, trust me, it does).
To me it just sounds like you hit some kind of a brick wall where you aren't getting any better because you aren't taking your time or you refuse to look up spoilers or other self-imposed hardships. Obviously any game that can be won 20 times in a row gives the player the ability to prevail over the RNG.
The easiest way to tell that someone is a newbie is if they say "X roguelike just depends too much on luck." (Assuming the roguelike in question is well-worn and balanced, of course.) The veterans will laugh at you pretty hard.
-
The easiest way to tell that someone is a newbie is if they say "X roguelike just depends too much on luck." (Assuming the roguelike in question is well-worn and balanced, of course.) The veterans will laugh at you pretty hard.
Actually, me and I'm sure other developers agree that roguelikes in general depend too much on luck. Every identification system takes away strategy for the sake of luck and tedium. Think about it: you don't have the capacity to strategize with consumables until you even know which ones you have. "Too much" is obviously a subjective measure though. The real sentiment here is that a veteran play can *overcome* the luck and play with what they are given. At the same time, a bad player has the chance to succeed by the fortune of lucky drops or spawns. Thus, a new player will come to think that things are heavily luck based. It isn't as bad as they think, but in general it is a problem in the roguelike genre.
Think about how easy the early levels of dcss and brogue are once you know what you are doing. Wouldn't they be much better games if you started a few levels into the game with the random set of consumables and items and all the consumable identified? It would mean that you start in a strategic rather than a tedious game. Just food for thought, and for the record I think dcss and brogue are two of the best roguelikes around.
-
It's not that difficult to play DCSS without consumables; certainly not hard to do so until the majority of them are identified. Doubly so for NetHack. Besides — smart identification should be part of your strategy. Brogue is a different kettle of fish altogether.