Temple of The Roguelike Forums
Development => Programming => Topic started by: qbradq on December 04, 2012, 07:52:00 PM
-
There's something that really bugs me about most Roguelikes, and I'd like to take a moment to air the complaint: Auto-Explore.
Why do we provide an auto-explore feature? Because exploring the dungeon is tedious, repetitive and uninteresting. Auto-explore is a means to get the player to the interesting bits of the game quickly and efficiently. But isn't that missing the point? Rather than giving players a way to skip past the uninteresting portions of the game, shouldn't we strive to make every portion of the game interesting?
This phenomenon isn't constrained to exploration. This is just the most common case. In Angband combat is also quite uninteresting in most cases, leading to "hold left to continue" syndrome. In Frozen Depths most items are quite uninteresting.
When I think back on the games I have played, the only one in which I can honestly say I enjoyed the exploration was DoomRL. I think it's because there is a small map size (like Rogue / NetHack), but with very complex layouts (like Crawl) and widely varied level generators.
On a side note, I think the more confined spaces of DoomRL also help the pacing of the game and the combat.
-
Darren Grey's post about this (http://www.gamesofgrey.com/blog/?p=201)
Now I will read my comment there and see if my thoughts have changed since then ;)
-
Thanks for the link! I think I've got Darren's RSS feed link messed up. I haven't seem most of these blog posts :D
-
Heh, was gonna chime in with a link to my post, but I see Zeno has beat me to it. As you can see I agree with your post, and I go further in saying that it has become too much of a crutch for players. It's really saddening when I see people say they can't enjoy a new roguelike because it has auto-explore.
In Rogue Rage I've tried to make monster density high enough that auto-explore is never needed. Plus one of the levels is a narrow left-to-right level, so exploration is not part of the gameplay there. Also there's no experience, so searching out every nook and cranny is irrelevant.
For a lot of games just having much smaller levels would fix the auto-explore problem.
-
I used it while playing crawl and it made the game for more enjoyable, but then it becomes just a series of encounters. It was one of the motivations behind the main mechanic in Cardlike (roguelike cardgame). There is no map, just a series of encounters, similar to playing with Autoexplore.
-
I talked about this in the comments in Darren's post, but let me do this again.
Everyone who plays your game is going to be at a different level of understanding. There is no way to keep every level of your game interesting to even the most veteran of players (this is just an unfortunate fact of turn-based games (games that have no skill element)), so allowing them to autoexplore to the interesting bits helps them enjoy the game more. In Epilogue, I use autoexplore a lot on the first 3 levels, because I am pretty confident that I can survive any unfortunate situation it throws me into, but I never ever autoexplore on the levels after that because the game is just too difficult to allow automatic movement to be strategically viable.
Then there are people who just can't make it past the first 3 levels, even taking everything seriously.
Of course, if your game is just plain bad, autoexplore indeed just covers up the problems of boring dungeons and lack of content.
So basically, what I'm saying is that there is a subjective element here. Autoexplore does reduce the tedium for players that need that reduction. I don't see any downside to that. It doesn't mean that the underlying game is tedious for everyone (unless we're talking about Angband ;)), just for someone at some level, which is unavoidable.
What you are coming to realize, like I realized a long time ago, is just that most roguelikes are made by very poor designers xD
-
There's some truth there....
-
I think there's a underlying issue that's not been addressed.
The keyboard is the worst input method for exploration. It doesn't have enough 'dynamic range' compared to a mouse, touch screen or even a thumb stick. Auto-explore is an attempt to try and solve this issue as well as overly large levels.
For combat and other close quarters activities in roguelikes the keyboard is superior to other input methods. Less chance of miss-clicks you'd get with a mouse or touch screen and much better control over diagonals compared to a d-pad. A counter example would be long range weapon targeting, keyboards aren't great there but systems like auto-target and remembering your previous target help to paper over the cracks.
Before crawl-style auto-explore you had the 'shift and direction key' linear auto-explore (did Angband do it first?) but that only helps with really long corridors. It works for going between rooms if the corridor entrances line up on a cardinal or diagonal direction but level generators are never constrained to make that work well.
It's also not just overly large levels that give an incentive to add auto-explore. Overly connected levels have the same issue as well, i.e. the more linear a level is the less likely back-tracking is needed and the more likely 'exploration' goes into the black.
-
Can someone explain what is autoexplore and why it sucks.
-
Can someone explain what is autoexplore and why it sucks.
The best way is to fire up crawl and see it in action.
Press a button and your avatar moves about to places unseen, 'exploring' the level for you.
It sucks because it takes you out of the driver's seat. The same reason cut scenes suck.
-
Press a button and your avatar moves about to places unseen, 'exploring' the level for you.
So it's using some kind of AI to explore? Maybe that's gone too far, but I think automatic moving in a non-AI style is not a bad thing. I have some ideas for that kind of moving in Teemu, for instance when you press a key the player walks to nearest visible item. It's a simple but clever way to take out some of stress of hitting movement keys all the time.
-
Yeah it's a sort of AI thing. You walk around to new places until you see something interesting, then it cuts out and you play. You can cancel it whenever you want.
Really it's just a hack required when levels are sparse and boring.
-
It's also not just overly large levels that give an incentive to add auto-explore. Overly connected levels have the same issue as well, i.e. the more linear a level is the less likely back-tracking is needed and the more likely 'exploration' goes into the black.
Then I think developers should realise this and make linear levels if they don't want exploration in their game. Too many roguelikes assume they have to have rooms and corridors in a 80x24 grid when that's not actually suitable to their gameplay.
-
It's also not just overly large levels that give an incentive to add auto-explore. Overly connected levels have the same issue as well, i.e. the more linear a level is the less likely back-tracking is needed and the more likely 'exploration' goes into the black.
Then I think developers should realise this and make linear levels if they don't want exploration in their game. Too many roguelikes assume they have to have rooms and corridors in a 80x24 grid when that's not actually suitable to their gameplay.
If we had more roguelike developers realize that making exact copies of things from the past isn't necessary or even desired we'd have a much more interesting genre in general :P
-
If we had more roguelike developers realize that making exact copies of things from the past isn't necessary or even desired we'd have a much more interesting genre in general :P
If we had more roguelike developers who don't copy anything at all and do everything their own way, we would probably have no new playable games. Some balance must be kept and I think that the proportion of "canonical" stuff vs. experimental stuff should be rather 10:1.than 1:1. Most players have certain expectations and if they are not fulfilled (at least to some degree), the players would just reject the game.
The "Auto-Explore" feature is usually optional for the player, so it does not hurt anyone. At least until the developer starts to think "I don't need more content for this level, because players can just auto-explore it as they get bored".
Thus, "Auto-Explore" itself does not suck. It's just that some developers tend to overuse it when thinking about level design.
-
It's also not just overly large levels that give an incentive to add auto-explore. Overly connected levels have the same issue as well, i.e. the more linear a level is the less likely back-tracking is needed and the more likely 'exploration' goes into the black.
Then I think developers should realise this and make linear levels if they don't want exploration in their game. Too many roguelikes assume they have to have rooms and corridors in a 80x24 grid when that's not actually suitable to their gameplay.
I totally agree but I think the current technology the community uses to make dungeons isn't currently refined enough to allow smarter level design to emerge. There's notable examples trying something new though like Brogue (which also has auto-explore) but it's still based on 'fill the box with spray and pray'. The constraint propagation work mentioned on Roguelike Radio #53 might be a good place to look, I've got a basic version working in Lua based on Ian Horswill's and Leif Foged's paper referenced in the episode.
There's probably room for UI improvements as well to make navigating already explored areas easier with a keyboard as well. I just think it's worth noting that it's an issue with keyboards as an input device as well as with level layout.
Also large levels can work really well in games from other genre's, e.g. Super Metroid and Dark Souls. But it puts a lots of responsibility on the designer to do a good job. I don't think roguelikes make such design impossible, just a lot harder due to the procedural gen.
-
I think a lot of roguelikes would benefit from switching to a Streets of Rage style level design. There would be no exploration, just sequential challenges as you follow a linear path. It doesn't literally have to be left-to-right, mind, just cut out branching entirely so the player is always going in one direction and must overcome or bypass all the challenges in front of him/her. This suits the designed gameplay of many roguelikes better than more open level design, whilst also allowing for some interesting ideas on how to populate such a plain layout. For instance one can control the difficulty and reward progression across a level more easily with this set-up.
Or at least do this for the early levels when you expect the gameplay to be more easy, and introduce branching levels and exploration when there is more depth to the play and exploration becomes tactically interesting.
You don't need fancy technology to make 8 space wide corridors with features randomly placed on.
-
Just to be clear I like Auto-Explore (at least in Crawl and Brogue), I just think it's missing the point (in Crawl at least).
Brogue is a great example of a game that does things right. To the veteran player the first few levels are just a slot machine to see what goodies you get. Auto-explore allows them to clear those levels quickly and efficiently and get to things that are more challenging for their skill level.
At the same time those first few levels are a real challenge to the beginner, and provide a lot of fun.
The key point with Brogue is that by the time you get into the meat of the game (level 5+), Auto-Explore is no longer a viable option due to the density of decisions you need to make to be successful.
One thing I do like about Crawl's Auto-Explore is that you can use it as a "do what I mean" button. If I'm standing three tiles away from a scroll and hit "o", I know I'll go over and pick it up.
Really I guess my whole point with this post is that many Roguelikes have very sparse and uninteresting levels. If we could make more games with the density of interesting things like Brogue and DoomRL have, it'd be a good thing.
-
If we had more roguelike developers realize that making exact copies of things from the past isn't necessary or even desired we'd have a much more interesting genre in general :P
On the other hand, I think that it is not that good that strong voices in the roguelike community nowadays are so against traditional features. Although the setting is innovative, Brogue is actually very close to Rogue and PRIME is a rather traditional hacklike, and they are IMO among the best roguelikes I have played recently, while ToME, DoD, or simple games did not capture my heart.
-
I'm not against traditional features, I'm just against their assumption. The blind copying of features is not good in games. Clever copying is all well and fine. Brogue does that. Even FTL does that in their food-clock mechanic - I normally hate food clocks but theirs was implemented sensibly. There can be value in tradition, but not blind tradition.
-
Having played a little bit more with autoexplore, I find it enhances my experience. I was kind of against it I guess, but now I'm not so sure. Theoretically it seems like a lame hack, but in practice it's just fine.
-
I'm in favor of it - just not as a crutch to good level design.
In games without autoexplore, I've died dozens of times because I rapid-fire clicked a direction and bumped into a powerful monster. Stupid way to go, even for a roguelike.
-
To me, auto-explore seems more like a flow management mechanism to prevent inane human mistakes. Holding down a button on a keyboard in a game with discrete movement is error-prone.
I don't think auto-explore turns a map into an encounter-based game. The map should be a tool that the player must navigate/utilize/understand to solve the puzzle presented by the enemies/map and progress to the next stage. Auto-explore doesn't detract from that, so long as it is present to begin with.
If a game has unessential maps, then it is encounter-centric whether you have auto-explore or not.
-
Darren Grey's post about this (http://www.gamesofgrey.com/blog/?p=201)
Now I will read my comment there and see if my thoughts have changed since then ;)
BORING GAMEPLAY SHOULD NOT BE REPLACED WITH AUTOMATION! I’m not sure if that can be emphasised enough. Tedious gameplay needs addressed at the root. Otherwise why have a game at all? Why not just play a slot machine like Diablo? If there’s an element of the game that the players don’t enjoy then find ways to prune it or change it to make it more interesting.
Some fixes for the auto-explore problem:
– Smaller levels, so there’s less backtracking
– Looping levels with many connections between nodes
– Densely packed monsters
– More varied rooms, dungeon features, vaults
– Linear levels, such as a 80×10 map requiring you to move from the very left to the very right; you still have a procedural environment, but it essentially removes the exploration component instead of automating it
– More variety between levels so dungeons don’t feel samey or predictable
– Higher rate of monster regeneration so you always feel pressured
– Effective food clock or similar “push” to make every turn matter
– Interesting rooms, full of traps or themed monsters or special floor tile effects, so every time you open a door there’s a wealth of possibilities lurking behind
– No maze levels. Seriously, who the hell likes maze levels?!
Great article.
-
Two cents;
Auto-explore depends on the game it's in. Off the top of my head I know three games with auto-explore;
Forays into Norrendrin, Crawl and Brogue.
-For Crawl it works like a charm; levels are BIG, encounters happen at a medium (gut feeling estimate) pace, and the density of traps is LOW. In general traps are incredibly non-lethal, so if you auto-explore your face into one it's just about as big of a non-issue as is possible.
-Forays using auto-explore is fine too. After a bunch of plays you get the hang of the level generator; levels are usually quite samey, not necessarily a bad thing because it's the tactical encounters that are the meat and bones of the game. Levels are compact and encounters take your full attention. Auto-explore is used purely as a means to shorten time between encounters and to me that's absolutely fine.
Traps are generally medium-density outside of trap-vaults, and bumbling into one is a pretty serious problem.
-Brogue has its click-to-travel mechanic and usually comes with several places in a level that grant you panoramic view of the level; removing auto-explore is pointless since it serves the same function as click-to-travel with less hassle.
In a game like Angband, auto-explore would be a godsend. The levels are HUGE and boring as fuck, and any food clock problems can be solved with a trip back to the surface.
If you want to remove auto-explore from a game you need to remove the NEED for auto-explore.
The quote on Darren Grey brings up some strong points;
– Smaller levels, so there’s less backtracking
YES. I'm a big big fan of making roguelikes compact. Smaller levels, less floors to dive. Tightening the world-space like this forces you to make gameplay more interesting!
– More varied rooms, dungeon features, vaults
– More variety between levels so dungeons don’t feel samey or predictable
– Interesting rooms, full of traps or themed monsters or special floor tile effects, so every time you open a door there’s a wealth of possibilities lurking behind
Halls of Mist tries to do this, effectively moving away from its Angband origins. In general it's succesful.
I think it was NPPAngband which had markings on the walls that you could read for hints about the level you're currently on, that was very interesting as well.
Incursion did it masterfully;
Whether it was the cultivated mushroom farms where you could hide between the plants for a game of hide-and-stab with the enemy, the transparent ice mazes (see-through walls AND a chance to slip unless wearing boots of winter), the slime rooms (corrosion for everyone), the library (magical books so you can learn new spells, the place itself can be camped in to identify curses and try to lift them AND the alleys are trapped usually!), the kobold warrens (cramped, so you move slower. Also peppered with traps.), lake with island+treasure chest in the middle (easy for shapeshifting druids, everyone else better take off your armor and hope you don't fail your Swim skill check), graveyards (woe to those who knock over a tombstone) ETC ETC ETC.
Terrain in Incursion is just SO diverse and fun, each room type forces you to keep in mind your strengths and weaknesses.
And of course there's Brogue, with the pressure plates, key puzzles etc.
If you make your rooms non-boring because of the intrinsic features of the room there's no need for auto-explore.
– Effective food clock or similar “push” to make every turn matter
In general it's hard to strike a balance between "interesting food clock" and "I'm going to starve because this fucking game won't drop any food".
Auto-explore provides a psychological service first and foremost I think.
There's a gain in avoiding the annoying tap-tap-tap traveling where nothing happens. We're all simpletons. We want to be amused, and if you have to press your movement keys 400 times to traverse a level that's empty, it is a shame.
If there's a food clock involved, there should be a reason for the player to backtrack (and a reason completely unrelated to anything Angbandy, that game has a terrible grindcentric design).
And I don't believe upping monster spawns will help, since that would turn the game into a monster-meatgrinder, and that's a whole nother type of boring.
In conclusion, I agree that auto-explore is usually a symptom of bland level design, but it can also be a sign that the level design is not the primary focus of the game in question.
I feel for games that have a bigger level size than Nethack (or Forays or Brogue) that auto-explore can be a useful feature to have.
-
I think many of you are missing the point of auto-explore. While exploring a dungeon might not be that interesting and can be done semi-automatically, the layout of a dungeon becomes *very* interesting when you have to flee from a monster or multiple monsters.
Cramped roguelikes with population density problems ruins this tactical aspect entirely.