Temple of The Roguelike Forums
Announcements => Other Announcements => Topic started by: ekolis on July 24, 2013, 09:55:04 PM
-
So I haven't played many roguelikes lately, and I think I finally realized why. It's actually two features of roguelikes that used to be really cool for me, but now they just turn me off. Those features are permadeath and procedural content generation. It used to be I thought those were cool features because you'd never see the same game twice - but now it seems more like every time I play, it's the same old repetitive maze of twisty passages, all alike. Sure, it's technically "different", but it all just blends together and feels the same anyway. And permadeath makes it even worse - unless you win, there's no real sense of accomplishment, and the levels you explored are gone forever.
I know there are a lot of great games out there, though... maybe someone could recommend a game to get me interested again?
-
Maybe say which you've played most and which you're bored of?
I agree some can get samey. A solution may be to try lots of small games, so you get lots of new experiences. They suffer from permadeath less as they're not as long. Here's a list of a few to try:
http://www.reddit.com/r/roguelikes/comments/1hntbj/roguelikes_that_are_out_of_the_box/cawbqdq
-
The funny thing is, I can be bored of game despite having experienced only 10% or so of the game's content. It's just that I'm not very good at these games, so I play the shallow levels over and over again, and hear of the rest of the game only via tales on forums. It's happened with Angband, Crawl, and Nethack, at the very least. (Artifacts? Runes? Quest levels? What are these mythical things?)
I'll have a look at the games you suggested, thanks :)
Wow, you use your real name on Reddit? I at least use my first initial and last name :)
-
You might also try Incursion. Despite it being incomplete and a little buggy it's got a crazy number of options and interesting features.
http://www.incursion-roguelike.net/ (http://www.incursion-roguelike.net/)
-
Wow, you use your real name on Reddit? I at least use my first initial and last name :)
My real name is easier to remember ;)
If it's death you're struggling with then I suggest ToME4. It has a good variety of starting dungeons (based on race and class) and the multiple lives system makes it a little more forgiving sometimes. I prefer to play it in single-life mode, mind ;)
-
Desktop Dungeons is also nice - definitely more of a puzzle game, but everything is easy to understand, it has some nice stuff that you can unlock and you feel like you are progressing as you win with more races in more places and unlock new stuff.
I've also never reached any of those epic mythical things, but I do still enjoy a bout of Crawl every now and then :)
-
Check out PrincessRL. When you run out of health, the game keeps going, but the consequence for "death" is still meaningful enough that you'll want to play carefully. The character building system is solid and it has multiple endings. Getting a good ending is reasonably easy, and there's a good chance you'll get one on your first try. The best endings are harder.
Mage Guild is also a good choice. The difficulty level is a bit more gentle than most RLs and its excellent character building system means that every time you play you can run a unique character.
-
they just turn me off. Those features are permadeath and procedural content generation.
There are games that are like roguelikes but don't have those two features. Technical term for such game is a "role-playing game" (RPG).
-
they just turn me off. Those features are permadeath and procedural content generation.
There are games that are like roguelikes but don't have those two features. Technical term for such game is a "role-playing game" (RPG).
Yeah.
Sounds to me like you'd enjoy something like Baldur's Gate (play through the whole series: BG + Tales of the Sword Coast + BG2 + Throne of Bhaal... you will be occupied for months/a year ;D)
Another great RPG is Planescape Torment. It's heavily focused on dialog though, feels more like a book than a game. The combat is terrible but the story and dialog is amazing.
-
Yo ekolis, what is it that draws you to roguelikes in the first place? We could give much better recommendations if we knew what parts of the genre appealed to you as well as which ones turn you off.
There are games that are like roguelikes but don't have those two features. Technical term for such game is a "role-playing game" (RPG).
Yeah, but most RPGs focus on their crappy stories rather than their mechanics.
-
Maybe say which you've played most and which you're bored of?
I agree some can get samey. A solution may be to try lots of small games, so you get lots of new experiences. They suffer from permadeath less as they're not as long. Here's a list of a few to try:
http://www.reddit.com/r/roguelikes/comments/1hntbj/roguelikes_that_are_out_of_the_box/cawbqdq
Darren beat me to it. I'm a small game guy myself. Short and hard, hope for lots of variety in each run but if not that's okay. There are more games out there.
The only issue with this is the learning curve and wonky interface issues, each new game you pick requires 15 minutes of frustration. But if you've played a bunch of them you can figure them out pretty quick.
So yea, a single game can get a little samey, but the genre as a whole does not. Especially compared to any other game genre.
Also you don't have JUST play Roguelikes. I don't. I like arcade action, the occasional RPG grinder, FPS with the buddies and I probably like grand strategy games just as much as RL's. I like to design RL's though, so...
-
Yo ekolis, what is it that draws you to roguelikes in the first place? We could give much better recommendations if we knew what parts of the genre appealed to you as well as which ones turn you off.
Well, honestly, what initially drew me to roguelikes was those very same features I said I didn't like. It's just that now I've kind of grown tired of them... :(
-
Well then, go play a few AAA games and we'll see you back her in a month. :-)
-
Well then, go play a few AAA games
Nooo don't play friggin Mass Effect and Skyrim! Play good RPGs!
Try Fallout 2.
-
I have been playing a lot of FTL lately. Which some people seem to consider a roguelike for some odd reason... ::)
-
Well then, go play a few AAA games
Nooo don't play friggin Mass Effect and Skyrim! Play good RPGs!
Try Fallout 2.
I can't imagine the game consisting mostly of pop-culture references (quite outdated after 15 years) and bugs aging well.
-
I have been playing a lot of FTL lately. Which some people seem to consider a roguelike for some odd reason... ::)
Well, it certainly has randomized content and permadeath! :P
It's kind of funny, because these are really the two things that are most fundamental to why I got into roguelikes and why I still love some of them, and at least why think most of them are far more interesting than 99 % of the AAA titles.
There were many discussions about permadeath, but in fact it actually just means that you can lose the game. And by extension that roguelikes really are games, because if you can't lose you're actually not even playing, you're either just experiencing something (like in all these AAA "press X to win" games) or solving a puzzle.
And input randomness is the other crucial quality of games. In a system without (effectively) random (i.e. uncertain) content you're not making decisions, you're just memorizing things. So, in a single-player game (which pretty much all roguelikes are) you have to have randomization to bring uncertainty into the system. (Many roguelikes also use output randomness to achieve that uncertainty, e.g. dice-rolling for attacks, which I'm definitely not a fan of...)
So these two things are really what I love about roguelikes. In fact, roguelikes are like this bastion of actual games in today's digital entertainment world. Granted, I've consequentially moved on to playing lots of board games now, but I still enjoy a good roguelike from time to time. Good to me means less stuff (e.g. loot, stats, bla) and more gameplay (e.g. positioning, skill usage, tactics in general). Sadly lots of "big" roguelikes are really heavy on the "stuff side" and overdo their randomization in ways unhealthy to the system itself. Therefore my favorites have become 86856527, Shiren The Wanderer, Brogue, 100 Rogues, Zaga-33 and if you stretch the genre definitions a little also Desktop Dungeons.
-
I have been playing a lot of FTL lately. Which some people seem to consider a roguelike for some odd reason... ::)
Well, it certainly has randomized content and permadeath! :P
Funny, those are the two things I said I was getting tired of in roguelikes! I guess I can't kick the habit completely ;)
There were many discussions about permadeath, but in fact it actually just means that you can lose the game. And by extension that roguelikes really are games, because if you can't lose you're actually not even playing, you're either just experiencing something (like in all these AAA "press X to win" games) or solving a puzzle.
Heh, yeah. I actually have come to prefer the modern style of "can't lose" games, because it always feels like I'm making progress, and I'm never thrown unceremoniously back to the beginning of the game. I don't mind "permadeath" though in FTL and most roguelikes (except Angband), because those games are short enough (except that stupid 100 level dungeon dive, what were the Angband devs thinking?) that it doesn't feel like a huge setback. That said, I do appreciate when games throw in some sort of token penalty for losing (such as Dragon Quest's losing half your gold, or Space Pirates and Zombies' - another "roguelike"? - requirement to grind for resources to rebuild your fleet), just so it doesn't feel like you're this unstoppable time traveling killing machine! :D
And input randomness is the other crucial quality of games. In a system without (effectively) random (i.e. uncertain) content you're not making decisions, you're just memorizing things. So, in a single-player game (which pretty much all roguelikes are) you have to have randomization to bring uncertainty into the system. (Many roguelikes also use output randomness to achieve that uncertainty, e.g. dice-rolling for attacks, which I'm definitely not a fan of...)
What do you mean by "input" randomness? Like, you press the attack key, but oh noes, it doesn't count because the RNG hates you or you pressed it when the clock's millisecond hand was on the wrong number or something? That seems frustrating... surely that's not what you had in mind...
-
You might like Rogue Legacy. It has permadeath, but there is a build-up of money and facilities across games. So you actions still matter, but you never lose everything.
-
Or if you like your buildup a little slower and your movement not twitchy and still tactical in the roguelike tradition, there's always Dungeonmans (which is about to finish its Kickstarter (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/56637190/dungeonmans-the-heroic-adventure-roguelike) and just got fully funded!)
-
What do you mean by "input" randomness? Like, you press the attack key, but oh noes, it doesn't count because the RNG hates you or you pressed it when the clock's millisecond hand was on the wrong number or something? That seems frustrating... surely that's not what you had in mind...
I believe they mean randomness that "sets the stage" for your encounters rather than randomness that determines the outcome of actions. So randomness in enemy spawn locations, the shape of the map, which items are spawned, etc. rather than random damage and spell failure.
-
What do you mean by "input" randomness? Like, you press the attack key, but oh noes, it doesn't count because the RNG hates you or you pressed it when the clock's millisecond hand was on the wrong number or something? That seems frustrating... surely that's not what you had in mind...
I believe they mean randomness that "sets the stage" for your encounters rather than randomness that determines the outcome of actions. So randomness in enemy spawn locations, the shape of the map, which items are spawned, etc. rather than random damage and spell failure.
Exactly. The (usually bad) opposite is output randomness where your decisions themselves go through a "random noise filter" before being executed.
You might like Rogue Legacy. It has permadeath, but there is a build-up of money and facilities across games. So you actions still matter, but you never lose everything.
That is THE one thing I hate about this game.
I really like Isaac and I love Spelunky, because they understand what makes them exciting games. It's you as the player who gets better at them, who learns something new all the time. They give you the ability to excel in a system of decision-making (and lots of physical execution, too... but with Isaac and especially Spelunky I think decisions clearly trump execution in the long run).
In Rogue Legacy these qualities are also there somewhere, but far too watered-down through all the grinding. You collect permament character upgrades ALL the time. You grind for money to buy stuff etc. You get better as a player, too, but you're never sure how much it was your skill building up or your character building up when you get further.
That really, really bothers me about Rogue Legacy. I think it would have been a lot better without all the grindy crap.
That said, it's obviously still far more interesting than 99 % of the AAA stuff out there. ;)
-
I'm actually pretty sick of developing roguelikes because of the random content generation. I want to actually DESIGN content these days, not just write an algorithm to do it for me. Even if you have a generation algorithm that allows an enormous amount of design, it's still stuck together randomly. That random element inherently waters down the amount of design that you as a developer can do. Even with clever dungeon generators that use a huge amount of hand designed content, I'm still sick of not being able to really design games.
In short, I want to design levels, not level generation algorithms. I'm really tired of designing level generation algorithms instead of levels.
-
In defence of Rogue Legacy, some people HAVE beaten it with their very first character... so it is possible, but probably only insane people can actually do it.
-
In short, I want to design levels, not level generation algorithms. I'm really tired of designing level generation algorithms instead of levels.
Alright. That means you want to be a puzzle constructor and not a game designer. I see how the word "design" is used in very different contexts here, but I call "game design" the creation of a system of rules. What you described there is "level design", which is usually associated with puzzles not actually meant to be replayed (like Portal, Super Mario or Mass Effect; whereby the latter two have some game-like elements), and not with games.
In defence of Rogue Legacy, some people HAVE beaten it with their very first character... so it is possible, but probably only insane people can actually do it.
That's not really a defence, though. Even if that's possible, the game and its rules are desigend around the grinding part.
-
I'll concede the point, but I personally kind of enjoy this sort of meta-game. I like the idea that there's a little something that carries on from all my dead characters... and I don't mean my ghosts that are trying to kill me.
I like to enjoy the basic gameplay, and then between the games that use the basic gameplay, there's some bigger meta-game. I really like that feeling of involvement, progression and power to change the way things go :)
-
Alright. That means you want to be a puzzle constructor and not a game designer. I see how the word "design" is used in very different contexts here, but I call "game design" the creation of a system of rules. What you described there is "level design", which is usually associated with puzzles not actually meant to be replayed (like Portal, Super Mario or Mass Effect; whereby the latter two have some game-like elements), and not with games.
Not all static levels are puzzles.
-
In short, I want to design levels, not level generation algorithms. I'm really tired of designing level generation algorithms instead of levels.
I'm extremely confused, do a game based around static levels, or add static levels to an existing game you're working on, what's stopping you?
-
Alright. That means you want to be a puzzle constructor and not a game designer. I see how the word "design" is used in very different contexts here, but I call "game design" the creation of a system of rules. What you described there is "level design", which is usually associated with puzzles not actually meant to be replayed (like Portal, Super Mario or Mass Effect; whereby the latter two have some game-like elements), and not with games.
Not all static levels are puzzles.
Ah, yeah... right. So then Elig meant static levels with random enemy placement or something else randomized? Or multiplayer in fixed arenas? Because it didn't sound like that actually. Sounded more like the "everything handcrafted single-player experience" approach, which tends to be very puzzle-ish. ;)
-
In short, I want to design levels, not level generation algorithms. I'm really tired of designing level generation algorithms instead of levels.
It's all possible. I think half of level themes in my RL Teemu are more or less designed, they only have minor differences between gameplays. I'm going into that direction with Kaduria also.
-
Ah, yeah... right. So then Elig meant static levels with random enemy placement or something else randomized? Or multiplayer in fixed arenas? Because it didn't sound like that actually. Sounded more like the "everything handcrafted single-player experience" approach, which tends to be very puzzle-ish. ;)
Random enemy placement, randomized AI behavior, random items, and random combat results among other possibilities could allow a roguelike to use static levels without becoming a puzzle that can be solved on the first turn.
Even games with no randomized elements aren't necessarily puzzles. Super Mario Bros. is an action game. The variation between playthroughs comes from different player inputs, even unintentionally different inputs. And it is designed to be replayed.
-
Random enemy placement, randomized AI behavior, random items, and random combat results among other possibilities could allow a roguelike to use static levels without becoming a puzzle that can be solved on the first turn.
Even games with no randomized elements aren't necessarily puzzles. Super Mario Bros. is an action game. The variation between playthroughs comes from different player inputs, even unintentionally different inputs. And it is designed to be replayed.
Your first point: Absolutely. That's just what I said.
Second point: Each time you replay the "thing", though, it becomes more and more a matter of memorization and quickly degrades into an execution puzzle. The fact that you probably cannot execute the (physical!) commands perfectly does not make it a game (it actually becomes more of a pure contest if you make it ABOUT the execution... see speedrunning). It's definitely not about making decisions anymore. So, maybe it is a game-like system on the first playthrough(s). But a game would be designed to STAY a game, ideally forever...
-
Accidental double post, sorry.
-
Each time you replay the "thing", though, it becomes more and more a matter of memorization and quickly degrades into an execution puzzle.
You're using strange definitions for "puzzle" and "game."
-
Oh look, definition arguments, yay :)
-
Oh look, definition arguments, yay :)
You're right, Darren. These things are for another topic (or PM if you're interested, Vanguard).
To get this thread back on track, what I actually just wanted to say was, that the two things the OP said he dislikes (randomization, permadeath) are to me the major draws of roguelikes. And I am incredibly thankful that the genre kind of introduced me to the importance and intricacies of these concepts, and thereby opened the door to a whole new world of gaming (mainly board games) that has become a far more important part of my life than just a pastime.
So, BTT. :)
-
Yeah, and as I said earlier, those are actually what drew me to roguelikes in the first place, too. I guess I just got tired of those mechanics and want to take a break for a while... and then I wound up playing FTL anyway :P
Maybe there's actually something else about roguelikes I'm getting tired of? Perhaps the typical generic fantasy setting? Except I don't even think I could be convinced to try a sci-fi or whatever roguelike; it would feel the same as all the other ones, just with a different coat of paint slapped on...
-
Maybe there's actually something else about roguelikes I'm getting tired of? Perhaps the typical generic fantasy setting? Except I don't even think I could be convinced to try a sci-fi or whatever roguelike; it would feel the same as all the other ones, just with a different coat of paint slapped on...
Maybe the lack of music and/or sound fx.
I've been trying out a lot of roguelikes on my android and realize how much I miss sounds now that I'm used to them! Even nice graphical games seem so hollow now without them.
-
I also have started to think that even (un)Nethack is boring. The reason can be that after many years of playing they also start to become too static in a way that there is nothing new or surprising. I have some ideas about new gameplay mechanics in my own games and I think that kind of stuff is important and not just remaking a classic roguelike again. In a way such a complex game than Nethack is too concentrated only to fighting monsters.
-
I think it may be a bit unrealistic to enjoy a game at a high level indefinitely.
-
Maybe, but it's kind of surprising how I see Nethack now. I don't know, maybe it's just the fact that the last real update is from 1995 or something.