@ Roguelike games

It's totally silly and fun. Like Peggle upgraded to be, you know, challenging.

clippa wrote:

My only real gripe playing the beta was that runs lasted an awfully long time.

How long is too long? I'm accustomed to Binding of Isaac (Eden hard mode) where I can reliably complete the game in 40-60 minutes depending on gear. It feels like the sweet spot to me.

Slay the Spire can go a little long for me, usually over an hour if I dont lose in the first 20 minutes.

Sorry, polypusher, I didn't see that.
It's not that I dislike long runs in roguelites, it definitely depends on the game, but with this game, it seems like it would benefit greatly from shorter runs, in my view.

It's been ages since I played the beta, and to my eternal shame, I didn't grab the final release just yet, not in the mood for that sort of thing at the minute, so I'll let someone else answer, but I'm guessing a run lasts half an hour or so if you make it to the finish.

Rogue Legacy 2 announcement - https://twitter.com/CellarDoorGames/...

I remember having to dig out my snes pad to get through the first game! It's the only time I've ever had to do that. Not sure if I'd be interested in more of the same, myself, but I thought I'd share the news.

I don't know if you lot are already aware of the game, but Curious Expedition is fab and is getting console releases at the minute so I thought I'd big it up.

Curious Expedition releases March 31st on PlayStation 4, April 2nd on Nintendo Switch, and April 3rd on Xbox One for $14.99 / €14.99

One of my favourites, I got really addicted to it last year.

You can play a demo in your browser here - https://curious.j.layershift.co.uk/demo

It's like a sort of like a choose your own adventure game with simple dice combat. Feels like Sid Meier's Pirates to me in some ways. Excellent winding down game for when you're tired.
It's hard to make the game look sexy and it takes a little while before it reveals it's full appeal, but I can highly recommend you grab it!

Finally got the "Six Arms None the Richer" cheevo in Caves of Qud, achieved by having six arms. 15 total equipment slots for all my arms and hands!

Anyone have much experience with ADOM? I'm trying to get into it and could use some newbie-tips.

Math wrote:

Anyone have much experience with ADOM? I'm trying to get into it and could use some newbie-tips.

My ADOM expertise is a decade out of date, but I don't think the core stuff has changed for the start of the game. That said, early game tips:

Character Creation:
There's a lot of viable builds, but also some that are more challenging. Once you've got a basic handle on the game, feel free to switch things up, but for your first few characters:
For the star sign, pick Raven, Candle, or Tree. Start as a caster (probably a Wizard or Elementalist), a Fighter, or a Paladin, and pick a race that has some ability to take a hit (Drakeling, Dwarf, Gnome, Human, Orc, Ratling, Troll). Avoid Mist elf. For the early game, optimize for PV and/or speed. Dwarf Paladin, Orc Barbarian, or Gnome Elementalist are some easy starting combos.

Go to the village (Terinyo). Be careful with the early game quests, they're optional and often an extra challenge (rescuing the puppy, etc.) Buy food. Explore and see what locations you can get to.

Doors can be trapped. Be careful, check before opening them. Opening them from a diagonal angle is also safer.

Use the Tactics settings (F1 - F7, I think). Coward (F7) greatly increases your defense at the cost of your attack, Bezerk (F1) does the opposite.

Ranged attacks against melee monsters are good; even throwing rocks can be helpful.

If you don't have the healing skill, the quest given by Rynt in Terinyo is a way to get the skill. (Though it's mutually exclusive with the quest that Guth'Alak the druid has for you.)

Thanks for the tips. I can semi-regularly get to the Dwarf city in the Caverns of Chaos now, but after that I'm kind've at a loss for where to go next. I usually pick a random destination and die en route.

I feel confident enough to put Armoured Commander II into this group. It's definitely a Roguelike; the graphics are very early 80's and it's got 8 bit sound. Turn-based WWII combat where you are in command of a vehicle platoon fighting through various campaigns.

The basic idea is that you are on a strategic map and have to capture areas during the day to get victory points, which you can spend to better your crew. You move from area to area, taking time to recon and move, or maybe resupply. Then when you encounter enemies, you zoom into a big hex of hexes, with vaguely denoted terrain and enemies. This is a surprisingly detailed combat sim and is nail-biting turn-based combat where you have control of your crew, but the others in your platoon act autonomously to support you in various ways. Air and artillery support are possible but you can't control them.

If your tank is knocked out, your crewmembers can be killed or injured. But the survivors keep their skills, unless permanent injuries degrade a skill. They are then assigned another vehicle, given any needed replacements, and away you go back into the campaign!

So... Entirely turn-based, skill advancement, perma-death for crew members, and progression is maintained until a crewmember dies, then you get a new one. If you die, game over.

It's great fun. Graphics and sound are straight out of 1982. No, literally. If you're my age, this will remind you of your very first computer wargames. However, the screens are all info packed and highly useable. Keyboard control centered on WASD. I don't think it does mouse control in-game.

Single man studio on Steam for the first time, very inexpensive. Enjoy!

Don't sleep on this, lads - Gunfire Reborn

Plays great single player. Wears it's "Immortal Redneck" influence proudly on it's sleeve. The most fun I've had since Risk of Rain 2!

Found this... Turns out there is alchemy in Noita! This game keeps on delivering the goods...

Hello thread. I was thinking about recent action/puzzle roguelikes today and was looking for a thread to post, glad I found it.

I definitely like the whole persistence between runs, but I think this genre is evolving, or maybe "branching" is a better term.

On one hand, we have some of the older titles that introduced the Action/Puzzle/Legacy roguelike like Rogue Legacy, Dead Cells or Slay the Spire. I've actually never finished the first two though I have gotten many hours of enjoyment out of them. StS I beat once but not after like 30-40 hours.

On the other hand, there are games like Monster Train or Round Guard. These also have similar legacy rogue like characteristics, but the first runs seem so easy. I beat Monster Train within 2 hours of gameplay and I barely understand the mechanics. Roundguard is fun, but I beat it in my 3rd run.

My general gaming tendency is beating a game once is good enough. I haven't played StS since I beat it. I just have no desire to do everything I just did over again but slightly differently regardless if was a 50 hour or 2 hour experience. I guess my expectation out of this genre is that it should be challenging to beat it the first time, not a tutorial.

Am I missing the point here? Other games I've played that I think fall into this genre are Children of Morta, Hades, and Moonlighter. I finished Children of Morta. I thought it was really fun. I have less hours in that than Rogue Legacy or Dead Cells and was happy with my experience, but haven't picked it up again. I thought Hades was amazing, I haven't finished it (and its still in Early Access), and Moonlighter I just picked up.

My opinion is that when you "beat" a game, whether its a long story RPG or an action shooter or anything in between, you should have seen a good portion of what the developer wanted you to see. In the case of Monster Train and Round Guard I certainly don't think that's the case and am pretty disappointed to how they just assume the player wants to beat the game multiple times.

Monster Train (and others in the genre) aren't really about getting a win, they're about working with the different factions and combining them in interesting ways. The "win" is the acknowledgement that you set up a good run.

I could get your point here if it *was* an RPG and everything stayed the same each run. But it doesn't. To me, it's like saying "oh, I hit my exercise goal, I'm done, I need to do something else for exercise now". What? No, you set new goals, distance, time, added complexities, more weights, new forms, whatever, and keep at it. I think you're being a bit unfair to the game lol.

Yeah, I view roguelikes as more of a chess game. Yes, I may have "won" it once or twice, but did I enjoy the gameplay and the systems? If yes, then the roguelikes with procedural content (or other emergent systems) will keep throwing new challenges at me allowing me to use the same mechanisms but in new and different ways giving me a challenge I know I enjoyed and wanted more of. I'm not sure if that is the case with all of the titles listed, especially if they have a hand-crafted story or such, but it is in a lot of roguelikes or other strategy games with procedural/emergent content (e.g. Dwarf Fortress, DCSS... even AI War).

I get what you're saying. I think Monster Train in particular bothered me because of how it is so easy to compare to StS, and when I finally beat StS I felt that I worked hard to get there and the right combination of good cards and better understanding of the mechanics finally got me the win. Monster Train I was able to figure out the winning combination after 3 plays.

Your exercising analogy makes perfect sense. I guess I flip it on its head and say "I hit my exercise goal of losing 10 pounds by running 5 miles a day". I don't then gain all 10 pounds back (as tasty as that sounds) and say "now I'm going to lose the same 10 pounds by jumping rope for 2 hours a day".

Well, but these games don't take you back to the start. You *start again*, but with new combinations and abilities and limitations, and you go for the next ten pounds. But this time, you run some, and then you learn some martial arts to change things up.

You could still be at the same gym, and running the same paths, but now it's changed up some. But I feel like we're talking about "winning" vs "playing". I think more of "finishing a run" than "winning" in Roguelikes, and maybe that makes it easier for me to replay them with a different set of skills than if I thought "Oh, there's an end point and I reached it".

I think Spelunky will cure what ails ya. It's a slog and a half beating that game, and then it's even more of a slog to beat it properly. If you don't beat it and immediately want to dive right back in, I'll eat my hat. Best game ever made.

You can get it for £1.64 if you hurry - https://store.steampowered.com/app/2...

Noita is also very good.

clippa wrote:

I think Spelunky will cure what ails ya. It's a slog and a half beating that game, and then it's even more of a slog to beat it properly. If you don't beat it and immediately want to dive right back in, I'll eat my hat. Best game ever made.

You can get it for £1.64 if you hurry - https://store.steampowered.com/app/2...

Avatar checks out.

Robear wrote:

Noita is also very good.

Oh yeah, I consider myself a big boy gamer and that continues to kick lumps out of my backside. Just jumped back into that recently. Great fun.

polypusher wrote:

Avatar checks out.

Haha, yeah, I just realised that after I'd posted. I forgot I used that avatar on here. I don't work for Spelunky Corp or nuffink, honest!

Yeah, I think that's where I have a different POV. For me, beating the game is the goal, and there has to be a real reason for me to want to beat it again. Looter shooters or MMRPG's can do it by promising shinier weapons of uberness, so I'm willing to play through them again to obtain or they just add more challenging content. I'm not sure what beating StS or Monster Train a second time gives me.

Even if you look at my history in Diablo or World of Warcraft (neither of which I play anymore), while I had different characters, my total playtime was basically 90% one character and 10% between all other characters. I just wasn't interested in doing everything again with just a different play style, and seasons in Diablo basically killed it for me for the same reason.. why would I want to start over again at level 1?

So I guess I like the idea of these legacy rogue games but as a mechanism of watching my character grow and improve every single time to ultimately beat the game, not just as a method of ultimately just unlocking more ways to beat the game over and over again.

Oh and yes I have both Noita and Spelunky! Both are fun.

Do you think it's a flaw of the game if they didn't do enough to keep you playing after beating it? Or is it just the way your mind works? once you've completed a game, you don't get the urge to keep playing?

I definitely feel that with some roguelites, but the randomisation and/or high score factor is usually enough to keep me interested. I love games with huge replay value, I love the feeling of constantly getting better.

I think shmups are a good example, if it's a game I really enjoy, a 1cc is only just the start of my journey.

For traditional roguelikes, I find that replayability comes from the challenge of beating them with different classes/races/gods/etc or with speedrun or other conduct goals.

Binding of Isaac is just FUN to run and re-run. Its more like Slay the Spire where one run takes maybe an hour, so essentially the purpose is to keep beating it (most unlocks are behind wins anyway)

Gonna have to set the Switch back up to play soon!

clippa wrote:

Do you think it's a flaw of the game if they didn't do enough to keep you playing after beating it? Or is it just the way your mind works? once you've completed a game, you don't get the urge to keep playing?

I definitely feel that with some roguelites, but the randomisation and/or high score factor is usually enough to keep me interested. I love games with huge replay value, I love the feeling of constantly getting better.

I think shmups are a good example, if it's a game I really enjoy, a 1cc is only just the start of my journey.

I wouldn't call it a flaw.. I personally don't really have much urge to play a game again after its "finished", and because of that I disagree with the design decision of making the first playthrough so easy (like Monster Train or Roundguard) that the expectation is that you have to play it again to get the full experience. Any additional playthroughs should be a bonus or purely a preference of the player, not an expectation.

I haven't played a lot of shmups recently but I'm guessing no first playthrough would have been considered "easy" the way Monster Train or Round Guard was for me. Once you beat it the first time, now you can score chase vs. your friends.

Maybe I'm just being grumpy old gamer man.. Slay the Spire, Dead Cells, Rogue Legacy were hard(er). When you died you got a few extra items or abilities and you went out and got a little further and died again, then a little further, and repeat. When (if) you beat them, you felt you came a long way from where you started. In Monster Train, I beat the game knowing I barely scratched the surface of the systems, and really had no desire to start back at the beginning and do it again.

So Carl, when are you going to quit Rocket League? I'm sure you won a match already.

I think I’m work Carl on this one (including Roundguard in particular). StS and Dead Cells Do a great job of making me feel like I’m getting better, getting closer. I need to understand what’s going on to progress; if I progress, I feel like I’m understand more. The drip feed of unlocks helps this a bunch, especially when those unlocks help me feel like I’m moving forward.

Roundguard was a pleasant distraction for an hour or two, but since I “beat” it quickly, there was no progression for me. Why do I want to unlock things if there’s no need to do so? The gameplay loop was interesting enough to keep me in for a couple hours, but beating the game almost by accident (because I certainly had no real knowledge about anything but the most surface level of the game) made it feel, for me, like that’s all there was.

This may be something key to Roguelikes. After all, the goal of Rogue is to get to the end of the dungeon, which is procedurally generated each time. Some people may say "Oh, it was hard, but I got there, done", while others may say "Hey, was that a fluke? Lemme try again, but this time I'm only gonna use scrolls on alternate levels". Roguelikes, even complicated ones, have an element of "Okay, here's the system, as you win more you get extra variants, but really dude, make your own fun".

I think of roguelikes as being much more about the journey than the destination, and that may be key to enjoying them. It's reason people keep playing Jenga after they have won their first game. What changed in Jenga after winning? Nothing, but people play it many more times after they win a game. With roguelikes, you can get new races, new abilities, all sorts of new things after winning a run, but that's to make the next journey more varied.

Like Jenga, though, you have to enjoy the base game enough to go back to it.

Stele wrote:

So Carl, when are you going to quit Rocket League? I'm sure you won a match already. ;)

I like Rocket League for a lot of the same reasons I've been playing Rogue for decades: I enjoy the mechanics and as I play matches/runs over and over I am improving my own understanding of the mechanics and my own ability to play and win the game, not some character stats/abilities that give me an advantage over time.

Most roguelikes I enjoy fall in this same category. I could have won it my first try if I was personally good enough at the mechanics to do so and the gameplay itself is enjoyable enough that I want to play it again regardless of whether I beat it. Frequently my own improvement is what keeps me coming back.

As I read the responses I think I see where the viewpoints diverge.

I like my rogulites to make me want to beat the game....and it does that by being "hard" but giving me little bits of advantage combined with my growing skill and ultimately I beat it. I want the game to give me a high mountain to climb and slowly give me the tools to climb it. Once I'm done climbing I'm going to enjoy the view and call it a day because I'm exhausted after climbing the 10,000 foot mountain.

The counterargument is that beating the game is irrelevant. I'm going to reward you with more ways to beat the game, and that should be the motivating factor. I'm going to make the mountain so low that its easy to climb, and once you do I'm going to incentive you to climb it again by giving you new shoes or putting snow on the mountain, but ultimately its the same low mountain. The game wants you to climb the 1000 foot mountain 10 different ways.

Which I guess takes it back to my original point which was I wish there was a way to distinguish between these two. Clearly I personally strongly favor one vs. the other.

(btw I could continue with the Rocket League analogy but since we can all agree that there's nothing Rogue-ish about it that we would be diverging from the topic).