Roguelike Gameflow - Alternatives

[Gr3yling]

I have more to say, but for right now I'll just touch on these two topics.

I wouldn't use technology from the 90s.  I'd use modern technology to make graphics that are beneath the standards of my competitors but still well ahead of what we were able to achieve last generation, at a lower cost than what last generation's graphics cost.  I'd direct the company's focus towards medium budget titles with realistic sales expectations.

I hear that the recent Deus Ex and Tomb Raider titles were considered disappointments despite selling millions of copies each.  That business model is suicide.  Square Enix is not going to sell as much as Call of Duty and shouldn't expect to.

Honestly, that does sound like a good idea.  I can't argue much with what you are saying.

No.  If your random dungeon generator creates only superficially distinct environments, you have failed.  Putting the player in unique situations in every playthrough is absolutely vital for making the roguelike formula work.  I can go into why that is if you want, but this post is already long enough.

Vanguard, I feel like you set really, really high standards for games.  Even in a game as great as ADOM, most random dungeons are pretty hard to tell apart. If you randomly teleported my PC to a procedurally generated dungeon without telling me which one it was, I would almost always have a really hard time identifying the location. 

I’m not sure I even understand exactly what you are wanting here.  Do you want there to be significant differences between the incarnations of a particular dungeon between playthroughs, or are you more worried about distinguishing different dungeons in the same playthrough?  What kind of differences are you looking for, and how would you implement them?

[Gr3yling]

Video games are defined by their interactivity, but modern games are less interactive than they were ten to twenty years ago.  They're more linear and have less depth. 

Both you and Akeley seem to believe that games have gotten lousier with time, and I can tell you feel very strongly about what you are saying.  I’m not really even arguing that what you say isn’t true, instead, my argument is that it is hard to know one way or another.  It’s just so difficult to quantify things like “linearity” and “interactivity.” 

Yes, there are a lot of contemporary games that are linear and not very interactive.  But there always have been.  I strongly suspect that some people were making these same arguments 10 or 15 years ago…And maybe they were right.  Maybe you are right, now.  But how can we sift through the enormous number of games in existence and somehow quantify whether they are more creative and open ended 20 years ago than now? 

And what’s the fun in doing that anyway?  You could be enjoying them rather than looking for their flaws.  Don’t get me wrong, I think deconstructing any medium is a worthwhile pursuit.  But it seems like you guys are too preoccupied with the bad in recent games to see (and therefore learn from) the good in them.

I just want gamers to apply critical thinking to the media they consume, and ask for something better when they realize how insipid games have become.

It seems almost like you think you know what’s best for other people.  If other people enjoy what they are playing, who cares how “insipid” it is?  I still don’t feel like you have answered my previous question: As long as great games that you enjoy are still being made, why do you care what games other people are playing?

It’s okay if people sometimes (or even almost always) play games just for mindless fun, or to escape from reality for a short time.  Sometimes games are just, well, games.  They don’t always have to be some sort of higher art form. 

Playing Mario doesn’t exactly require “critical thinking” for instance.  In fact, it’s pure mindless, escapist, insipid fun.  But it’s great anyway.

This isn't nostalgia talking.  A lot of my favorite games are older titles that I've only discovered recently.  I played X-Com for the first time about two years ago.  I briefly played Doom as a kid, but I've only gained an appreciation for it in the past year.  The first time I DoDonPachi was 9 months ago.  I consider all of these to be among the best games ever made.

And maybe they are some of the best games ever made.  But maybe some contemporary games are too.  People, rightfully, disagree about that.  Again, I don’t think this is something that anyone can objectively prove.  And I think that’s actually perfectly OK.
 

This is just one example, there are countless others.

Akelely, there are also countless examples of great games that did get made.  I’m not sure that really proves anything.

Sorry mate, this is where I have to be a bit brutal and say that this - and subsequent "businesses exist to make money" - kinda quotes are exactly what terrifies me regarding modern gamers` perception of the whole situation. This is when PR people pop the champagne corks and rack another one on the mirror - they don`t even need to do their stuff anymore, gamers do it for them.

Maybe you are right, about this and the rest of what you said afterwards.  And maybe the type of business model that Vanguard suggested would be successful.  I just worry that it’s a lot more complicated than that. 

Honestly I don’t empathize much with the “business suits”, but I do empathize with the programmer who’s been working over-overtime for god knows how long to put out the next COD game, and then has to listen to every individual on the internet say that it is trash.

Even making objectively terrible games is incredibly difficult, so it’s hard for me to understand all the hate that contemporary games get.  I mean people *made* them.  I just can’t look at something someone made and say “Well, this is linear, uncreative, and boring.  You just stuck pretty graphics on a lousy game.”

The funny thing is that even those pretty graphics took an enormous amount of effort to produce.  Some illustrator had to work really hard to draw something that satisfied vague criteria.  His most creative and artistic ideas were rejected, but he finally produced a something that satisfied his supervisors.  Then some animator had to work extremely hard to make detailed character models, smoothly animate them, make sure they interacted correctly with other objects in the game world, and so on.  And then whoever was in charge probably decided to cut that part of the game and they had to start all over.

I don't know, it just seems kind of mean.

[AgingMinotaur]

It seems almost like you think you know what’s best for other people.  If other people enjoy what they are playing, who cares how “insipid” it is?

Humm, that made me think of this: "Even in the false needs of a human being there lives a bit of freedom.  It is expressed in what economic theory once called the “use value” as opposed to the “exchange value.”  Hence there are those to whom legitimate architecture [or, as it were, good games] appears as an enemy; it withholds from them that which they, by their very nature, want and even need."



I think in gaming today, as in any given media at any given time, there's a lot of trash being produced, as well as some truly innovative work – in and out of the mainstream. I mean, for every 80s or 90s classic we remember as part of the computer game canon, there are countless forgettable/forgotten games. We probably shouldn't underplay the importance of that context of mediocrity. Great achievers may be standing on the shoulders of giants, but I think it's just as important that they're standing on the shoulders of dwarfs.

Similarly, the best games made today (in commercial and indie scenes) will be remembered as the bad games fade into obscurity.

Even making objectively terrible games is incredibly difficult, so it’s hard for me to understand all the hate that contemporary games get.  I mean people *made* them.  I just can’t look at something someone made and say “Well, this is linear, uncreative, and boring.  You just stuck pretty graphics on a lousy game.” [...] I don't know, it just seems kind of mean.

I agree with lots of your post, Greyling, but here you're being a bit soft on game creators, I think. Sure, they put a lot of effort, made compromises, worked their hineys off to make as good a game as they can. But if the result is just bad, it's the critic's job to say so, with little regard for courtesy. I'm not defending whining masses of players who have nothing to say except "s0xx", but reviewers et al who work to further the medium by discussing the actual flaws and merits of different games. If you can't bear to get negative reviews, you really shouldn't be in a creative job. Moreover, akeley was making a point how executives tend to evoke the image of the struggling artists/content creators when actually furthering their own interests, thus using the creators as a human shield of sorts. And that certainly is a valid point.

As always,
Minotauros

[Vanguard]

i could go on on other subjects - how alleged "indie revolution" also leaves me a bit cold (maybe when it matures in a few years, not at the moment, sorry) and ha nothing to do with the nostalgia - totally to the contrary.

Yeah, the indie movement is just as focused on style over substance as mainstream games.  It just expresses it in different ways.  There are some good indie games, but Spelunky is the only one I know of that can compete with the classics.

The nostalgia argument is really irritating.  It's such a lazy way of addressing a person's claims.

Vanguard, I feel like you set really, really high standards for games.  Even in a game as great as ADOM, most random dungeons are pretty hard to tell apart. If you randomly teleported my PC to a procedurally generated dungeon without telling me which one it was, I would almost always have a really hard time identifying the location. 

I’m not sure I even understand exactly what you are wanting here.  Do you want there to be significant differences between the incarnations of a particular dungeon between playthroughs, or are you more worried about distinguishing different dungeons in the same playthrough?  What kind of differences are you looking for, and how would you implement them?

Roguelikes are designed for replayability.  A player can be expected to go through the same dungeons hundreds of times before they win.  Since RLs don't require any technical skill, the only way they can stay interesting on the 100th playthrough is if they offer unique choices every time.

The decisions the player makes in a roguelike can be divided into two categories: short-term tactical decisions made to get through any given encounter, and long-term strategic decisions that guide the player over the course of the entire game.  Whether to fight or escape from a dangerous enemy, when to use your healing potions, and which spell to use are all tactical decisions.  Strategic choices include class, race, build, which quests to participate in, when to explore which area, how to overcome the player character's flaws, and what equipment to use.  There's some overlap, but this is good enough for our purposes.

Now, a bad dungeon generator allows the player to consistently rely on the same tactics.  A good dungeon generator will present the player with unique tactical situations.  An even better one will offer unique tactical and strategic choices.

The dungeon's features should not only change, but change in meaningful ways between playthroughs.  If a room's shape changes, it should change in ways that affect the player's tactical options.  Different enemy types should call for different tactics, and the dungeon generator should combine groups of enemy types to give the player unique situations.  If each area has a unique visual identity or a "personality" of some kind, that's good too, but it's less important.

ADOM's generator is really good.  Its enemies are both diverse and threatening.  A small change in context can alter the outcome of an encounter in meaningful ways.  ADOM is also less liberal with escape options than most RLs.  Teleportation isn't as easy to come by as it in Angband, so it's more important to pay attention to your surroundings.

On the strategic side, you've got herb gardens, altars, dungeon shops, artifacts, and plenty of other things that can potentially affect the rest of your playthrough.  If you find the right weapon to deal with steel golems, you might make an early trip to Darkforge, for example.  A good stomafilia patch might lead you to invest in herbalism rather than food preservation.  An amulet of life saving could lead to an ultra ending.  These kinds of things give ADOM variety even after hundreds of playthroughs.

[Gr3yling]

Roguelikes are designed for replayability.  A player can be expected to go through the same dungeons hundreds of times before they win.  Since RLs don't require any technical skill, the only way they can stay interesting on the 100th playthrough is if they offer unique choices every time.

Vanguard, how did I even start arguing with you about randomly generated towns/dungeons?  I remember now that wasn't even what I was talking about.  I was talking about having a pool of static locations, a fraction of which would be selected and placed when the game world was being generated at the beginning of a play through.  The locations themselves would not be randomly generated at all.

I assume that you do not like that idea either, though.

[Gr3yling]

Humm, that made me think of this: "Even in the false needs of a human being there lives a bit of freedom.  It is expressed in what economic theory once called the “use value” as opposed to the “exchange value.”  Hence there are those to whom legitimate architecture [or, as it were, good games] appears as an enemy; it withholds from them that which they, by their very nature, want and even need."

Minotauros, I'm sorry, but I'm not smart enough to understand that quote (or the language in that link).  Any chance you could explain what it means?

I agree with lots of your post, Greyling, but here you're being a bit soft on game creators, I think. Sure, they put a lot of effort, made compromises, worked their hineys off to make as good a game as they can. But if the result is just bad, it's the critic's job to say so, with little regard for courtesy. I'm not defending whining masses of players who have nothing to say except "s0xx", but reviewers et al who work to further the medium by discussing the actual flaws and merits of different games. If you can't bear to get negative reviews, you really shouldn't be in a creative job. Moreover, akeley was making a point how executives tend to evoke the image of the struggling artists/content creators when actually furthering their own interests, thus using the creators as a human shield of sorts. And that certainly is a valid point.

As always,
Minotauros

As someone who would like to one day make a game, negativity towards people who make games really scares me.  I feel like Vanguard is just waiting to tell me that whatever I produce is terrible, because it doesn't meet her/his extremely high standards.  It's very intimidating.  And I know there are a zillion other people who feel the same way as her/him.

I do think it's important for reviewers to discuss the merits of games.  And I do definitely want candid feedback from everyone regarding the ideas I put them forth on this forum.  And I want it from everyone, Including Vanguard.  In fact, I highly value her/his opinion, because I know her/his views are so different from mine.

But, Vanguard, because you seem to have such a tendency to dislike games, it’s hard to know how to take what you say.  I honestly don’t know if I can put forth any ideas that you would embrace which weren’t the same as the ideas you already have.  I mean, at a certain point, I don’t know if you are critical of my ideas because they need improvement, or because they’re not *your* ideas.

Also, why did the idea that you were “nostaligic” about some of the games you mentioned upset you?  I’m nostalgic about a lot of games.  I don’t think that’s something to be ashamed of.  Maybe it’s not the reason that you like any of the games you like, and I’m sorry I ever used that word, but I just don’t see how it can be construed to have a pejorative meaning.

I think that “good” games engrain themselves into our brains during our developmental stages in a way that shapes how we see the medium.  And I think that’s really cool.  I would be honored to make a games that people were “nostalgic” about, whether they were critically acclaimed at the time of release or not (like earthbound). 

Is the point that you want to be so coldly objective about assessing games that you are immune from “nostaligia”?  Why?  That sure doesn’t sound like much fun.

Also, it really scares me how easy it is for us, as human beings, to clump people we dislike into easy to hate groups, like “business suits”.  I really, really, really think life is more complicated than that. 

I urge you guys to remember that everyone is just a person trying to survive in this world.  It’s so easy to judge other people, either by their career, or by the quality of the games they make, but ultimately, I just don’t think that’s the point of human interaction.

[AgingMinotaur]

Humm, that made me think of this: "Even in the false needs of a human being there lives a bit of freedom.  It is expressed in what economic theory once called the “use value” as opposed to the “exchange value.”  Hence there are those to whom legitimate architecture [or, as it were, good games] appears as an enemy; it withholds from them that which they, by their very nature, want and even need."

Minotauros, I'm sorry, but I'm not smart enough to understand that quote (or the language in that link).  Any chance you could explain what it means?

The article is about functionalism in architecture and does rely a lot on its academic context. For instance, it bears noting that the author was extremely critical to capitalism and consumerist culture. The quote could be paraphrased to mean something like this: Even though we can objectively judge a cultural artifact as kitsch or trash, that doesn't mean it has no intrinsic value. If we were to imagine a perfect world, there would be no place in it for human imperfection. So even if bad art/entertainment/lifestyles can rightfully be considered harmful to the media, and in some cases even an affront to all that makes humanity noble, we still in some way need that cultural trash to remain human in the first place. If "the world demands deception", as the saying goes, we should probably stop and consider why it is deception is in so high demand.

That's a not very elegant paraphrase of what I believe to be a pretty deep thought. I hope I helped to elucidate it a bit without turning it into kitsch in its own right

Regarding the rest of your post, I do see where you're coming from, and I definitely agree that life's too short to spend energy crapping on other people's efforts or to wallow in one's own prejudices (much nicer put by you, I might add).

Incidentally, I think the same is true when you're on the receiving end of the crap: There's no use taking the haters too much to heart. In creative endeavors, I think you just have to jump into it. You absolutely have to trust your own instincts and take other people's comments as just that: perspectives that differ from your own, and which may hopefully help you develop a more complete vision of what you're working with. In the end, though, you're probably the one who will understand your own project better than anyone else. Everyone will experience getting some bad ideas or implementations shot down, in which cases it's often best to just move on to the next. It's also to be expected that some people dislike what you're doing just because they don't "get" where you're coming from – not much to be done about that – and the overall reception will likely be rather lukewarm. Not everyone can get carried around on a golden chair, and is that even a goal in itself? The vast majority of those who derive any experience (positive or negative) from your creation will just be silent. Their experiences still count, though. In the end, it's just something you have to live with, I think. For my own part, I try to take needlessly negative comments with a grain of salt, while hopefully remaining receptive to what's being said.

It's a shame that the Roguelike Incubator is sleeping. That could have been the perfect place to give and get constructive criticism.

As always,
Minotauros

[Gr3yling]

Thanks Minotauros.  I appreciate the kind words.  I'll keep in mind what you said.

[Vanguard]

Vanguard, how did I even start arguing with you about randomly generated towns/dungeons?  I remember now that wasn't even what I was talking about.  I was talking about having a pool of static locations, a fraction of which would be selected and placed when the game world was being generated at the beginning of a play through.  The locations themselves would not be randomly generated at all.

I assume that you do not like that idea either, though.

I already said I thought it sounded cool, but also that it would be a lot of work.

I think I gave you the wrong impression before.  I was just talking more about randomizing locations than randomizing the plot.  Take ADOM, for example I was just saying that sometimes there could be a "goblin village" instead of the dwarf town.  Would that be really hard to implement?

It really would be.  Even if there was just one alternate version of each location, that means the developer is making twice as much content.  That means doing more than twice as much work, because they need to both produce that extra content and ensure that every possible combination fits together.

It's a cool idea and I'd love to see someone take a shot at it, but making a one set of content to fill a game is already hard enough.

[akeley]

Even though we can objectively judge a cultural artifact as kitsch or trash, that doesn't mean it has no intrinsic value. If we were to imagine a perfect world, there would be no place in it for human imperfection. So even if bad art/entertainment/lifestyles can rightfully be considered harmful to the media, and in some cases even an affront to all that makes humanity noble, we still in some way need that cultural trash to remain human in the first place. If "the world demands deception", as the saying goes, we should probably stop and consider why it is deception is in so high demand.
[...]
 I definitely agree that life's too short to spend energy crapping on other people's efforts or to wallow in one's own prejudices (much nicer put by you, I might add).

I`m sorry guys, but it seems that you managed to completely turn the initial argument over its head. Made "us" look like some kinda sneering monsters who just sit on the sidelines and wait to devour poor game devs and their gentle creations, while also nodding sagely "coz back in my day, son, it was all glitter`n gold, I tell you (cough cough)" with nostalgic fog enveloping the whole scene.

This couldn`t be further from the truth. My original remark was aiming to express my endless surprise on how all the potential from the early days got smothered in recent years - we`re talking long-time, decade spanning trends, not some local occurrences. These processes are real and do happen in the gaming world,  and as someone who`s been closely watching the subject - nearly 5 decades of it - I do have a strong opinion, yes (one other of my hobbies is bias-fighting therefore I automatically try`n remove all the obvious obstacles like the dreaded "nostalgia" factor)

It`s not even about lack of "innovation" - I consider this concept quite nebulous, and don`t require some earth shattering new concepts to constantly appear - but the thing is, in the last decade we`re actually seeing the reversal taking place. They call it "streamlining", I call it "dumbing down", speaking bluntly. It should be obvious for anybody following major genres/franchises - would you really put Dragon`s Age next to Baldur`s Gate (and I don`t even consider BG a be-all-end-all of the RPG world, like most folk). Mass Effect is my favourite example - the original was no Starflight, for sure, but it was a truly open-world game with plenty of real "gaming" things to do - the sequel surgically removed the best bits leaving just cutscenes, across-the-room quests and combat that plays itself out (even on hardest setting).

I (want to?) love AAA titles. If you look at my other posts on this site I think there`s enough evidence of this, even though I`m more than aware it might sound daft in the RL underground. I`m playing GTA V at the moment -  a technical masterpiece, with engine finally tweaked to near perfection, where driving, shooting, hell, even walking - is pure pleasure. And the world is beyond beautiful. But...it`s also empty. Past the main quest line, it`s just meaningless rubbish - so you can go to a strip joint or cinema, sit down and smoke a bong - completely pointless activities that only set off cutscenes...or play simplified game of tennis. Why? What for? Why on earth not fill this gorgeous world with real gameplay...you know, like 2 iterations down, namely GTA: San Andreas? Well, maybe because it`s easier to spend gazillion on promoting the game and then rely on multiplayer for longevity (fueled by microtransactions of course). It`s atrophy at it`s worst.

Take look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_04PLBdhqZ4 Dude might look like a janitor from Activision HQ but look him up - it was in his living room the little thing known as GDC started (there`s also Sid Meier in the room). Then tell me you can imagine any of the gaming world`s current bigwigs delivering such spiel, and I`ll take it all back :P

[guest509]

Gawd you guys write a lot...this is why I don't play RPGs.   

[zasvid]

It`s not even about lack of "innovation" - I consider this concept quite nebulous, and don`t require some earth shattering new concepts to constantly appear - but the thing is, in the last decade we`re actually seeing the reversal taking place. They call it "streamlining", I call it "dumbing down", speaking bluntly. It should be obvious for anybody following major genres/franchises - would you really put Dragon`s Age next to Baldur`s Gate (and I don`t even consider BG a be-all-end-all of the RPG world, like most folk). Mass Effect is my favourite example - the original was no Starflight, for sure, but it was a truly open-world game with plenty of real "gaming" things to do - the sequel surgically removed the best bits leaving just cutscenes, across-the-room quests and combat that plays itself out (even on hardest setting).

These are quite disagreeable examples. Bioware is doing plenty of amazing game design innovation in their games, though perhaps in areas you don't appreciate, but it's there (Dragon Age's or Mass Effect 2's plot structure? Brilliant for a storytelling game!).  In other areas there's progress that's not so amazing, but still pretty good (like single party inventory or ending the game on TPK, not just main character's death) and makes the games better than their predecessor. Then, there are also areas where the games are worse (unchallenging, sloggy fights), but I chalk them up not to "dumbing down", but to the fact that they never displayed particularly strong design chops in them (it was in Baldur's Gate 2 that they noticeably regressed in that direction for the first time) - the evidence points to them doing it as well as they did in Baldur's Gate a bit by accident. However, it's not like they're incapable of doing good gaming bits, as evidenced by Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer (even though by their own admission they were surprised how good it turned out).

[AgingMinotaur]

If "the world demands deception", as the saying goes, we should probably stop and consider why it is deception is in so high demand.

I`m sorry guys, but it seems that you managed to completely turn the initial argument over its head. Made "us" look like some kinda sneering monsters who just sit on the sidelines and wait to devour poor game devs and their gentle creations, while also nodding sagely "coz back in my day, son, it was all glitter`n gold, I tell you (cough cough)" with nostalgic fog enveloping the whole scene.

Hahaha. I was really just making a side remark, with no intention of vilifying a critical mindset. As I also pointed out, a content creator of any kind needs to develop a thick skin precisely because harsh criticism is need in all media. As far as AAA games go, I wouldn't have a clue, as I've played RLs almost exclusively for the last 15-20 years. Television series and the Internet keeps me more than spiritually sterile enough, thank you very much, without having to add mainstream computer games into the mix

As always,
Minotauros

[Quendus]

I haven't been able to read the whole of this thread and others due to sheer volume of text, but from what I've skimmed it looks like some of the disagreements I've seen stem from a lack of understanding of what computers can feasibly do, and what humans can feasibly program computers to do (and how this relates to differences between computer and tabletop RPGs). Would a quick exposition of those issues be useful?

[Gr3yling]

I`m sorry guys, but it seems that you managed to completely turn the initial argument over its head. Made "us" look like some kinda sneering monsters who just sit on the sidelines and wait to devour poor game devs and their gentle creations, while also nodding sagely "coz back in my day, son, it was all glitter`n gold, I tell you (cough cough)" with nostalgic fog enveloping the whole scene.

Sorry Akeley.  I don't think of you that way, okay?  And I realize that you have made some valid points.

How about this: what advice would you give someone who wants to one day make a roguelike?  What is the best way you think that the sort of design pitfalls you have been talking about can be avoided?

I haven't been able to read the whole of this thread and others due to sheer volume of text, but from what I've skimmed it looks like some of the disagreements I've seen stem from a lack of understanding of what computers can feasibly do, and what humans can feasibly program computers to do (and how this relates to differences between computer and tabletop RPGs). Would a quick exposition of those issues be useful?

Yes could you please tell us?  That sounds like it would be helpful.