I'll bite
Do you mean that the repetition of the early game is unavoidable, making it an inherent flaw, and then you make that to mean that the genre itself is inherently bad? If so, can you offer me a genre or even a game that has the same desirable aspects of a roguelite (extremely high replayability and variety later in the run) without the negatives of repetition?
If this is bait then feel free to respond with whatever.
They are inherently badly designed because they solely rely on the player getting upgrades to win the game, there's no skill involved.
They only appeal to players with gambling addictions who want the rush of random loot every time.
Ah, so by roguelites you mean roguelikes with metaprogression or something of the sort? I'll assume you're moronic, so, I'll put away the "no skill" comment and ask you this - at what point do you draw the line between what upgrades do or don't let you win? We can obviously say that the upgrades in Hades have a massive impact over the runs, but what about Isaac? If you want to tell me that any upgrades lead to a "no skill" situation, then do the few spells you can unlock in Noita, that only really affect the post game, matter? Do the optional tunnels in Spelunky that let you practise later areas matter?
Isaac is particularly bad because even if you're the most skilled player in the world, you can't win on a 0% save. You can get to Mom and that's it.
Show me a roguelite that doesn't just artificially make the game easier the longer you play because you unlock more upgrades to make your character stronger.
The gameplay idea behind in Isaac is not in it's difficulty, but moreso in it's idea of collection. I admit that idea behind unlocking areas further in the game is moronic and it is only after you have all of the areas unlocked and you can start collecting all of the marks that the game becomes more interesting. Since that part of the game is so much longer than the initial part of unlocking things, I choose to view Isaac as a game that becomes good, rather than just a bad game.
As for a roguelite that doesn't make you stronger then, well, even Isaac kinda fits. Yes, there are some cases where characters gain starting items, making them playable, but most things you unlock are just items you can later get - some of those items will be good and worth taking, others will fill the item pool with less desirable items.
Similarly, there's Slay the Spire, Dead Cells, Gungeon and Monolith, which also give you random weapons the more you play. Nuclear Throne gives you different characters to play. These do not affect runs in a major way and simply give more reason to do specific things to get more ways to play.
Isaac is the only good randomizer game because it has such a large item pool and a billion synergies. Someone will come in and b***h about how "all the new items are trash" or some nonsense but the point still stands that these types of games are only worth the size of their pool and Isaac's is actually as vast as you would hope from a genre like this. The only thing I would argue it needs is a handful more new room layouts but that's about it.
I do also find roguelites that focus on variety most enjoyable, such as Isaac and Noita, but I don't think that games such as Nuclear Throne or Risk of Rain 2, that focus a lot more on the core gameplay, are necessarily bad games.
Also, I don't think I've ever thought about needing more room layouts in my 300 hours of Isaac, there's thousands of them.
A game that requires me to die to win/finish it is bad game design.
It's like saying you can't score a goal if you haven't let your opponent score first.
It relies on extrinsic rewards manipulation of numbers going up instead of the intrinsic fun value of play itself.
The latter is something its predecessor, Roguelikes, already managed to do.
Fail states are fine, though. They are a natural consequence of the lack of skills.
I agree, but I don't view this as making roguelites inherently poorly designed both because this is a relatively small part of a roguelite and even then, a lot of roguelites simply don't do this.
Lets see, cutscene starts, you go back to the main menu after seeing said cutscene, you don't die, and the game counts it as a victory - how exactly is this "not winning" ?.
>Lets see, cutscene starts, you go back to the main menu after seeing said cutscene, you don't die, and the game counts it as a victory - how exactly is this "not winning" ?.
You can be wilfully difficult all you like, Black person, it doesn't make you right.
1 year ago
Anonymous
You can end an isaac run in so many different ways, with varying levels of difficulty between the different ways to end the game - all will show up on your game file as a victory. Have you actually even played the game before you autistic whiny frick?
1 year ago
Anonymous
You cannot "complete" the game, as in see everything there is to see, without playing the same levels over and over. That is not good game design.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Why don't you just stick to the latest 3rd person action adventure AAA title if you want a game with literally 0 incentive to replay it. You can't even "see everything there is to see" on a normal isaac run with everything unlocked unless you get the R key multiple times in 1 run which since they've made it a shit load harder to reliably break the game, is not realistically going to happen.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Why don't you just stick to the latest 3rd person action adventure AAA title if you want a game with literally 0 incentive to replay it.
There are plenty of games with incentive to replay them just because they're fun games. They don't force you to replay them just to progress in the fricking game, like
A game that requires me to die to win/finish it is bad game design.
It's like saying you can't score a goal if you haven't let your opponent score first.
It relies on extrinsic rewards manipulation of numbers going up instead of the intrinsic fun value of play itself.
The latter is something its predecessor, Roguelikes, already managed to do.
Fail states are fine, though. They are a natural consequence of the lack of skills.
said.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Why would someone go through and unlock the various endings if they didn't find the game fun? Do you think the expectation is that the average person who picks up the game will spend the required several hundred hours and unlock everything and do everything there is to do in the game? How do you define progression in isaac? What is a win for you in isaac? Is it doing the alt path? Killing the beast? Ending at delirium? Mega satan? Blue baby? The lamb? Would you criticise a game like nier automata / replicant for similar practices?
This is some horrid fricking bait but frick you take the (you).
To play any game, and beat it requires varying levels of skill. You can play just about any roguelite in existence, unlock every upgrade and item, and give your completed save file to someone who's never played before and they would eat shit almost immediately. Why? Because these games rely on much more than the items you get to beat the game. You need to understand game mechanics, enemy attack patterns, in some cases relevant floor layouts, interactions between items that you may pick up and their relevant synergies, literally everything else in the game BUT the items you pick up. It's not the fault of the game that as you play, you understand more and therefore the game gets easier as you start to internalise the correct way to approach situations meaning you take less damage, and learn when / where to do certain things to succeed. Even in a game like Hades which really just fricking stacks your character with objectively OP upgrades, if you don't understand how the game actually works you're going to make incorrect decisions and lose.
>You need to understand game mechanics, enemy attack patterns, in some cases relevant floor layouts, interactions between items that you may pick up and their relevant synergies, literally everything else in the game BUT the items you pick up.
Yeah, that's how other games work, but we're talking about roguelites.
Take a game like, I dunno, Devil May Cry. The difference between a skilled player and a newbie is night and day. In Isaac, the only "skill" someone who played the game a lot has over a newbie is knowing attack patterns, the rest is just luck with random loot.
Wow game with flashy combos is easier to see that someone has sweated out the game more at a glance, great point! In a game with 196 enemy types with much higher punishment stakes than DMC (if you reference something like dante will die mode you're moronic), what you're referring to is the way to display the skill. In DMC you literally need to know how to press buttons in a sequence, so if you can memorise patterns on a 1st grade level the game requires skill? Lmao
I don't have to explain to you why you shouldn't sniff glue, because it's obvious - right?
Please explain how memorising a button sequence in a game as casual as DMC is more skillful, i'm waiting.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Please explain how memorising many different combos and patterns in both your head and your muscles is less skillful than just remembering wiki articles.
1 year ago
Anonymous
One requires applying conceptual knowledge to differing situations, the other is route memorisation . Like i said, a first grader can repeat an action. It's not surprising that every 12 year old will pick up DMC and get SSS by literally just stringing together unoptimal combos and feel the dopamine and go wow game good, i must be good because game said i am good, look mom it said smoking sexy stylish - that's me! Versus why people make posts b***hing about Isaac on the internet and blaming it on the game being fully luck based.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Also please keep refusing to acknowledge literally all the other knowledge checks I mentioned, and please ignore the fact that to successfully build runs in isaac you need to know how every item you see will interact with the items you do have, and adjust your gameplay according if the item is not just a flat stat increase. Did you actually study at all in school? Do you understand the difference between applying concepts versus repeating an action and how one is very different to the other?
1 year ago
Anonymous
I can tell you haven't even played these games enough and you're just blaming the fact you suck shit and would prefer to smash your face on a controller in DMC because woah ebic dante do ebic sword slice , on "bro there's no skill in the game"
Isaac is the only good randomizer game because it has such a large item pool and a billion synergies. Someone will come in and b***h about how "all the new items are trash" or some nonsense but the point still stands that these types of games are only worth the size of their pool and Isaac's is actually as vast as you would hope from a genre like this. The only thing I would argue it needs is a handful more new room layouts but that's about it.
>Beat a run with a character >If you did not look up the unlocks in advance and choose your character/route accordingly, then there is a high likelihood that one of your item pools is now measurably worse
This isn't great game design
Though at least it's not as bad as Dead Cells
Honestly I think the items you get for completing the post-its are usually at the very least situationally good only, with most being good and few being borderline run winning.
What raped the item pools imo were all the DLCs added since rebirth which just put in like a million different ways to say "Hp up"
What
Since rebirth, there were only 2 items added that are just HP ups, 4 more that are an HP up with some other effect or a twist, and like 5 that feature an HP up as one of many bigger effects
And half of those are unlocks
A game that requires me to die to win/finish it is bad game design.
It's like saying you can't score a goal if you haven't let your opponent score first.
It relies on extrinsic rewards manipulation of numbers going up instead of the intrinsic fun value of play itself.
The latter is something its predecessor, Roguelikes, already managed to do.
Fail states are fine, though. They are a natural consequence of the lack of skills.
Agreed.
Starting from level 1 each time is backbreaking and feels bad.
Gambling for upgrades sucks especially in poorly-balanced roguelikes/lites.
A lot of these games use permadeath as an excuse to forego basic level design and difficulty curves.
The lack of bespoke levels makes me very unequaled, ironically the fact that the levels are RNG generated makes them feel very samey and boring.
Roguelikes/lites are great as an endgame challenge mode, after some main campaign has already eased you into the mechanics. Testing your skill and knowledge of meta strategies to their limits is fun. But as a stand alone game I hate roguelikes/lites because they abuse their permadeath system to just forget about designing levels and difficulty curves.
I firmly believe that every roguelike/lite stands to benefit from just having a "No Permadeath" mode so people can actually learn the ins and outs of their combat system first and foremost before tackling the permadeath mode. But many won't dare to do that because secretly a lot of roguelike/lite device know they only have like 30 minutes of campaign stretched out over 5 hours thanks to the permadeath system making learning the actual game difficult.
My first 5k fun run for charity was an awful affair. I was so out of shape. Couldn't run around the block without stopping for a breather and walking a bit. Sore muscles, aching joints, blisters, all of it. I was embarrassed and ashamed that I had let myself get that out of shape. But I pushed through and kept training, and eventually got to the point where I could finish the race.
If I wanted to do another 5k, would I honestly want to start over from the beginning? With those sore muscles and blisters? Hell no. As far as running is concerned, I take more satisfaction in crossing the finish line than I do overcoming the struggle of getting there.
If I wanted to struggle again, I'd increase the distance to a 10k. Or I'd revisit my 5k goals and start to work at getting the fastest time I can.
But I'm done with the sore muscles and the blisters just to run a 5k. I've been there, I've done that, it sucked, and I'm so glad to have taken that journey. I want to struggle chasing something new.
Roguelites have a more well-defined finish line than roguelikes.
I genuinely just like a game with an enjoyable formula cut down into ~30 minute chunks with randomization to keep runs fresh and meta progression that makes runs rewarding in some way. No idea why these ideas cause so much seethe to you people
Most roguelites are 1 hour worth of game stretched to fill 20 hours and a $40 price tag so yes, you're right, but some games that are actually built to be roguelites from the ground up and aren't just trend chasing or being lazy are good. They're just really rare.
I'll bite
Do you mean that the repetition of the early game is unavoidable, making it an inherent flaw, and then you make that to mean that the genre itself is inherently bad? If so, can you offer me a genre or even a game that has the same desirable aspects of a roguelite (extremely high replayability and variety later in the run) without the negatives of repetition?
If this is bait then feel free to respond with whatever.
They are inherently badly designed because they solely rely on the player getting upgrades to win the game, there's no skill involved.
They only appeal to players with gambling addictions who want the rush of random loot every time.
Ah, so by roguelites you mean roguelikes with metaprogression or something of the sort? I'll assume you're moronic, so, I'll put away the "no skill" comment and ask you this - at what point do you draw the line between what upgrades do or don't let you win? We can obviously say that the upgrades in Hades have a massive impact over the runs, but what about Isaac? If you want to tell me that any upgrades lead to a "no skill" situation, then do the few spells you can unlock in Noita, that only really affect the post game, matter? Do the optional tunnels in Spelunky that let you practise later areas matter?
Isaac is particularly bad because even if you're the most skilled player in the world, you can't win on a 0% save. You can get to Mom and that's it.
Show me a roguelite that doesn't just artificially make the game easier the longer you play because you unlock more upgrades to make your character stronger.
The gameplay idea behind in Isaac is not in it's difficulty, but moreso in it's idea of collection. I admit that idea behind unlocking areas further in the game is moronic and it is only after you have all of the areas unlocked and you can start collecting all of the marks that the game becomes more interesting. Since that part of the game is so much longer than the initial part of unlocking things, I choose to view Isaac as a game that becomes good, rather than just a bad game.
As for a roguelite that doesn't make you stronger then, well, even Isaac kinda fits. Yes, there are some cases where characters gain starting items, making them playable, but most things you unlock are just items you can later get - some of those items will be good and worth taking, others will fill the item pool with less desirable items.
Similarly, there's Slay the Spire, Dead Cells, Gungeon and Monolith, which also give you random weapons the more you play. Nuclear Throne gives you different characters to play. These do not affect runs in a major way and simply give more reason to do specific things to get more ways to play.
I do also find roguelites that focus on variety most enjoyable, such as Isaac and Noita, but I don't think that games such as Nuclear Throne or Risk of Rain 2, that focus a lot more on the core gameplay, are necessarily bad games.
Also, I don't think I've ever thought about needing more room layouts in my 300 hours of Isaac, there's thousands of them.
I agree, but I don't view this as making roguelites inherently poorly designed both because this is a relatively small part of a roguelite and even then, a lot of roguelites simply don't do this.
Lets see, cutscene starts, you go back to the main menu after seeing said cutscene, you don't die, and the game counts it as a victory - how exactly is this "not winning" ?.
Also, noita
>Lets see, cutscene starts, you go back to the main menu after seeing said cutscene, you don't die, and the game counts it as a victory - how exactly is this "not winning" ?.
You can be wilfully difficult all you like, Black person, it doesn't make you right.
You can end an isaac run in so many different ways, with varying levels of difficulty between the different ways to end the game - all will show up on your game file as a victory. Have you actually even played the game before you autistic whiny frick?
You cannot "complete" the game, as in see everything there is to see, without playing the same levels over and over. That is not good game design.
Why don't you just stick to the latest 3rd person action adventure AAA title if you want a game with literally 0 incentive to replay it. You can't even "see everything there is to see" on a normal isaac run with everything unlocked unless you get the R key multiple times in 1 run which since they've made it a shit load harder to reliably break the game, is not realistically going to happen.
>Why don't you just stick to the latest 3rd person action adventure AAA title if you want a game with literally 0 incentive to replay it.
There are plenty of games with incentive to replay them just because they're fun games. They don't force you to replay them just to progress in the fricking game, like
said.
Why would someone go through and unlock the various endings if they didn't find the game fun? Do you think the expectation is that the average person who picks up the game will spend the required several hundred hours and unlock everything and do everything there is to do in the game? How do you define progression in isaac? What is a win for you in isaac? Is it doing the alt path? Killing the beast? Ending at delirium? Mega satan? Blue baby? The lamb? Would you criticise a game like nier automata / replicant for similar practices?
can't you get to dark room/chest through sacrifice rooms before mother though
Are you implying that he's actually played any of the games he's b***hing about? Lol, lmao even.
Nuclear Throne
This is some horrid fricking bait but frick you take the (you).
To play any game, and beat it requires varying levels of skill. You can play just about any roguelite in existence, unlock every upgrade and item, and give your completed save file to someone who's never played before and they would eat shit almost immediately. Why? Because these games rely on much more than the items you get to beat the game. You need to understand game mechanics, enemy attack patterns, in some cases relevant floor layouts, interactions between items that you may pick up and their relevant synergies, literally everything else in the game BUT the items you pick up. It's not the fault of the game that as you play, you understand more and therefore the game gets easier as you start to internalise the correct way to approach situations meaning you take less damage, and learn when / where to do certain things to succeed. Even in a game like Hades which really just fricking stacks your character with objectively OP upgrades, if you don't understand how the game actually works you're going to make incorrect decisions and lose.
>You need to understand game mechanics, enemy attack patterns, in some cases relevant floor layouts, interactions between items that you may pick up and their relevant synergies, literally everything else in the game BUT the items you pick up.
Yeah, that's how other games work, but we're talking about roguelites.
Take a game like, I dunno, Devil May Cry. The difference between a skilled player and a newbie is night and day. In Isaac, the only "skill" someone who played the game a lot has over a newbie is knowing attack patterns, the rest is just luck with random loot.
Wow game with flashy combos is easier to see that someone has sweated out the game more at a glance, great point! In a game with 196 enemy types with much higher punishment stakes than DMC (if you reference something like dante will die mode you're moronic), what you're referring to is the way to display the skill. In DMC you literally need to know how to press buttons in a sequence, so if you can memorise patterns on a 1st grade level the game requires skill? Lmao
You literally didn't refute my point, you're just seething.
- Knowing attack patterns
- Knowing item synergies
- Knowing floor routes
- Knowing secret room locations
- Knowing ways to manipulate the game RNG
- Proper resource management
- Knowing proper pill / rune / card usage
I don't have to explain to you why you shouldn't sniff glue, because it's obvious - right?
Please explain how memorising a button sequence in a game as casual as DMC is more skillful, i'm waiting.
Please explain how memorising many different combos and patterns in both your head and your muscles is less skillful than just remembering wiki articles.
One requires applying conceptual knowledge to differing situations, the other is route memorisation . Like i said, a first grader can repeat an action. It's not surprising that every 12 year old will pick up DMC and get SSS by literally just stringing together unoptimal combos and feel the dopamine and go wow game good, i must be good because game said i am good, look mom it said smoking sexy stylish - that's me! Versus why people make posts b***hing about Isaac on the internet and blaming it on the game being fully luck based.
Also please keep refusing to acknowledge literally all the other knowledge checks I mentioned, and please ignore the fact that to successfully build runs in isaac you need to know how every item you see will interact with the items you do have, and adjust your gameplay according if the item is not just a flat stat increase. Did you actually study at all in school? Do you understand the difference between applying concepts versus repeating an action and how one is very different to the other?
I can tell you haven't even played these games enough and you're just blaming the fact you suck shit and would prefer to smash your face on a controller in DMC because woah ebic dante do ebic sword slice , on "bro there's no skill in the game"
>there's no skill involved
This Black person needs to go play Slay the Spire.
Stupid frog poster
Isaac is the only good randomizer game because it has such a large item pool and a billion synergies. Someone will come in and b***h about how "all the new items are trash" or some nonsense but the point still stands that these types of games are only worth the size of their pool and Isaac's is actually as vast as you would hope from a genre like this. The only thing I would argue it needs is a handful more new room layouts but that's about it.
also to remove boomfly bridge
>Beat a run with a character
>If you did not look up the unlocks in advance and choose your character/route accordingly, then there is a high likelihood that one of your item pools is now measurably worse
This isn't great game design
Though at least it's not as bad as Dead Cells
Honestly I think the items you get for completing the post-its are usually at the very least situationally good only, with most being good and few being borderline run winning.
What raped the item pools imo were all the DLCs added since rebirth which just put in like a million different ways to say "Hp up"
What
Since rebirth, there were only 2 items added that are just HP ups, 4 more that are an HP up with some other effect or a twist, and like 5 that feature an HP up as one of many bigger effects
And half of those are unlocks
A game that requires me to die to win/finish it is bad game design.
It's like saying you can't score a goal if you haven't let your opponent score first.
It relies on extrinsic rewards manipulation of numbers going up instead of the intrinsic fun value of play itself.
The latter is something its predecessor, Roguelikes, already managed to do.
Fail states are fine, though. They are a natural consequence of the lack of skills.
>it’s a “my opinion is objective fact” thread
Agreed.
Starting from level 1 each time is backbreaking and feels bad.
Gambling for upgrades sucks especially in poorly-balanced roguelikes/lites.
A lot of these games use permadeath as an excuse to forego basic level design and difficulty curves.
The lack of bespoke levels makes me very unequaled, ironically the fact that the levels are RNG generated makes them feel very samey and boring.
Roguelikes/lites are great as an endgame challenge mode, after some main campaign has already eased you into the mechanics. Testing your skill and knowledge of meta strategies to their limits is fun. But as a stand alone game I hate roguelikes/lites because they abuse their permadeath system to just forget about designing levels and difficulty curves.
I firmly believe that every roguelike/lite stands to benefit from just having a "No Permadeath" mode so people can actually learn the ins and outs of their combat system first and foremost before tackling the permadeath mode. But many won't dare to do that because secretly a lot of roguelike/lite device know they only have like 30 minutes of campaign stretched out over 5 hours thanks to the permadeath system making learning the actual game difficult.
yo froggy i dont think its good for you, eating pepsi cans whole.
just saying, you do you.
why?
My first 5k fun run for charity was an awful affair. I was so out of shape. Couldn't run around the block without stopping for a breather and walking a bit. Sore muscles, aching joints, blisters, all of it. I was embarrassed and ashamed that I had let myself get that out of shape. But I pushed through and kept training, and eventually got to the point where I could finish the race.
If I wanted to do another 5k, would I honestly want to start over from the beginning? With those sore muscles and blisters? Hell no. As far as running is concerned, I take more satisfaction in crossing the finish line than I do overcoming the struggle of getting there.
If I wanted to struggle again, I'd increase the distance to a 10k. Or I'd revisit my 5k goals and start to work at getting the fastest time I can.
But I'm done with the sore muscles and the blisters just to run a 5k. I've been there, I've done that, it sucked, and I'm so glad to have taken that journey. I want to struggle chasing something new.
Roguelites have a more well-defined finish line than roguelikes.
I genuinely just like a game with an enjoyable formula cut down into ~30 minute chunks with randomization to keep runs fresh and meta progression that makes runs rewarding in some way. No idea why these ideas cause so much seethe to you people
Ganker doesn't play videogames
Most roguelites are 1 hour worth of game stretched to fill 20 hours and a $40 price tag so yes, you're right, but some games that are actually built to be roguelites from the ground up and aren't just trend chasing or being lazy are good. They're just really rare.
But they're fun.