Author Topic: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death  (Read 75194 times)

chooseusername

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #165 on: April 18, 2014, 09:28:47 PM »
Remember when people used to talk about more than one thing here? Remember when if one topic was an uninteresting mess you could read threads on totally unrelated topics?
Woah there buddy, let's not start talking crazy.


chooseusername

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #167 on: April 18, 2014, 10:19:35 PM »
At least *I* was not forcing my opinion down to the permadeath lot's throats, you can play what you like, I'm not your enemy ffs. When I make a game, I will use one of the alternatives, yes. Fortunately, many have been suggested  thus far and I have a few extra thoughts on my own. But I think extreme/stubborn opinions and generalisation of some posts here paint everybody in a bad light; both sides appear very argumentative and aggressive-defensive and therefore the climate is not extremely healthy for civilised discussion anymore. As rickton said, good posts and suggestions have been drowned by stupid arguments.

Also, Jesus was save-scumming, so it must be ok :P Happy easter!
Yes.  It's other people being argumentative.  It's the posts you do not like being inconvenient, and their stupid arguments, I assume.  And the posts you do like being drowned out by these, I also assume.  And should there be resistance to the concepts you agree with, they are extreme/stubborn or dealing in generalisations.  It's no wonder you interpret my post overly personally, and talk in terms of me seeing you as an enemy in an upset way.

In truth, the posts which you and rickton see as good, are still there.  If anyone has been reading them, and got value out of the discussion of them,  then isn't that the point?  And if they didn't get any value, then they have as much right to be posting the ideas and suggestions they consider good, as you do yours.

Also, please do not push your religion at me.  You wouldn't like it, if I pushed mine at you.  And even if you did, here is not the place.

reaver

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #168 on: April 19, 2014, 07:27:26 AM »
Also, please do not push your religion at me.  You wouldn't like it, if I pushed mine at you.  And even if you did, here is not the place.

Dude relax, I was not *pushing* anything, I was making a joke. I don't even believe in that religion. Just wow.

LazyCat

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #169 on: April 19, 2014, 07:40:19 AM »
I guess some people don't like permadeath. But.. it's an essential feature of a game type called roguelike.

Why is it important for a game to be like Rogue?

Imagine people instead invented "pacmanlike" genre, and decided, for some strange reason, that success of any pacmanlike game will not be measured by popularity, but likeliness to the original Pac-Man. People would then argue how any good pacmalike must have three lives and four ghosts, because those are the essential features of a game type called pacmanlike.

Think about it, it's insane. Roguelike is not a genre, it's a semantic blunder, ambiguous, meaningless and non-existing word. It's a bunch of arbitrary restrictions, a measure not of any quality, but just plain similarity. And do we really need any more Rogue clones, really?


But if you already must to be remaking one and the same game for 30 years, then at least pick up a better version to imitate than ugly PC one. Macintosh and Atari ST versions from 1985 have graphic tiles, mouse support and even few sounds, they are still more advanced than most roguelikes of today, it's embarrassing.



rust

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 70
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #170 on: April 19, 2014, 10:30:54 AM »
Why is it important for a game to be like Rogue?

Imagine people instead invented "pacmanlike" genre, and decided, for some strange reason, that success of any pacmanlike game will not be measured by popularity, but likeliness to the original Pac-Man. People would then argue how any good pacmalike must have three lives and four ghosts, because those are the essential features of a game type called pacmanlike.

Think about it, it's insane. Roguelike is not a genre, it's a semantic blunder, ambiguous, meaningless and non-existing word. It's a bunch of arbitrary restrictions, a measure not of any quality, but just plain similarity. And do we really need any more Rogue clones, really?

I sometimes wonder if you're dumb or just pretending. Roguelikes are similar to Rogue in the same way as FPS games are similar to Doom or RTS games are similar to Dune II. They just evolved less due to not being a mainstream genre. The name 'roguelike' is just a convenient shortcut, because nobody would stand calling roguelikes 'turn based dungeon crawlers with procedural generation and permadeath' every time they mention them.

Krice

  • (Banned)
  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 2316
  • Karma: +0/-2
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #171 on: April 19, 2014, 11:03:45 AM »
Why is it important for a game to be like Rogue?

What you are asking is not actually a question. So there is no answer either.

But I'd like to add that today games are under a pressure from people who think everything must be equal. You know, those assholes who get media time for bashing games for being racistic, being sexist or whatever. It's great to have a traditional game genre for nerd guys. Something that's not watered down by women. Yes. Women are behind all this equality crap.

LazyCat

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #172 on: April 19, 2014, 12:11:39 PM »
Roguelikes are similar to Rogue in the same way as FPS games are similar to Doom or RTS games are similar to Dune II. They just evolved less due to not being a mainstream genre. The name 'roguelike' is just a convenient shortcut, because nobody would stand calling roguelikes 'turn based dungeon crawlers with procedural generation and permadeath' every time they mention them.

No other genre is defined by the type of graphics, type of level design, difficulty or number of lives. It's fascinating you don't realize how ridiculous that is. Those are very general and arbitrary properties of any game. Permadeath is just a difficulty setting. Roguelikes difficulty does not concern you any more than difficulty of any other game in whatever genre. Offering different difficulty options for different people can only help your game become more popular, whatever type of game it is. And for games, popularity is the only measure of success. Is it not?

rust

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 70
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #173 on: April 19, 2014, 02:18:14 PM »
No other genre is defined by the type of graphics, type of level design, difficulty or number of lives.

Roguelikes aren't defined by graphics. Procedural generation isn't level design, it's a process. Permadeath isn't just a difficulty level, it's a mechanic that puts procedural generation to use. No other genre does that, even though you can play any game with permadeath.
Once again your incompetence stems from inability to play and enjoy roguelikes the way they are meant to be played. Instead, you break their rules by save scumming (which effectively removes procedural generation and permadeath, two features vital to the genre), making the game at best a mediocre RPG.

And for games, popularity is the only measure of success. Is it not?

It's not, unless you're a greedy developer. Compare Dwarf Fortress and the newest Call of Duty: according to you, CoD is more successful because a lot of people play it. I say that DF is a whole lot more successful, because it gathered a relatively small group of devoted fans (just like roguelikes) while Call of Duty players don't feel attached to the game. It's also more successful because of what it accomplishes in terms of gameplay, which has a lot more depth than Call of Duty.

awake

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 43
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #174 on: April 19, 2014, 03:07:15 PM »
I blame the rest of you for this, it's obvious LazyCat can't help it.

mushroom patch

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #175 on: April 19, 2014, 04:17:50 PM »
No other genre is defined by the type of graphics, type of level design, difficulty or number of lives.

Roguelikes aren't defined by graphics. Procedural generation isn't level design, it's a process. Permadeath isn't just a difficulty level, it's a mechanic that puts procedural generation to use. No other genre does that, even though you can play any game with permadeath.
Once again your incompetence stems from inability to play and enjoy roguelikes the way they are meant to be played. Instead, you break their rules by save scumming (which effectively removes procedural generation and permadeath, two features vital to the genre), making the game at best a mediocre RPG.

And for games, popularity is the only measure of success. Is it not?

It's not, unless you're a greedy developer. Compare Dwarf Fortress and the newest Call of Duty: according to you, CoD is more successful because a lot of people play it. I say that DF is a whole lot more successful, because it gathered a relatively small group of devoted fans (just like roguelikes) while Call of Duty players don't feel attached to the game. It's also more successful because of what it accomplishes in terms of gameplay, which has a lot more depth than Call of Duty.

Dwarf Fortress is also on display at the MoMA. I think we can be pretty sure CoD will never have that kind of recognition or prestige.

LazyCat

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #176 on: April 19, 2014, 05:47:54 PM »
Roguelikes aren't defined by graphics. Procedural generation isn't level design, it's a process. Permadeath isn't just a difficulty level, it's a mechanic that puts procedural generation to use. No other genre does that, even though you can play any game with permadeath.

Call it what you want, the fact stays those are general properties any game can have and many games do have. Vague or general classification is not classification at all, it's a semantic nonsense, hence all the stupid arguments about true roguelikes and false roguelike-likes. It's retarded.
 

Quote
....roguelikes the way they are meant to be played.

Meant to be played... says who? Who meant it, who invented that commandment and in what Bible it is written?


Quote
It's not, unless you're a greedy developer. Compare Dwarf Fortress and the newest Call of Duty: according to you, CoD is more successful because a lot of people play it. I say that DF is a whole lot more successful, because it gathered a relatively small group of devoted fans (just like roguelikes) while Call of Duty players don't feel attached to the game. It's also more successful because of what it accomplishes in terms of gameplay, which has a lot more depth than Call of Duty.

That's incorrect usage of the word "successful". Unless you think like majority yours is only a subjective personal opinion. Majority defines what is and what is not successful, particularly in the case of books, music, movies and games where success and popularity have the same meaning.

Vanguard

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 1112
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #177 on: April 19, 2014, 06:28:41 PM »
Don't respond to LazyCat posts.

Zireael

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 604
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #178 on: April 19, 2014, 07:35:15 PM »
Don't respond to LazyCat posts.

I think the thread should be locked.

rust

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 70
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #179 on: April 19, 2014, 07:57:26 PM »
Don't respond to LazyCat posts.

Just one more time. It's so tempting.


Meant to be played... says who? Who meant it, who invented that commandment and in what Bible it is written?

Developers. I sincerely don't know how dumb are you if you don't know who sets rules for a game.