Seventeen wrote:
i thought the game would be a series of very wide levels or one wide level rather than a few short ones. The progression would be enhanced a great deal, and i would actually care much for the way i handle my heroes for example.

The main-reason why the first levels are so small is because big early levels made it too easy.

There was a build where I had 3 heros at level 5 before entering the second level. It was a massive first level and I took almost an hour to complete it and at the end had like 20 rooms powered.



So there certainly shall be levels where you have to sit much longer.



Also I think it would be almost a crime of them not to make an endless mode in a game with procedurally generated levels that has the word "endless" in it's title.



Btw. the play-time for the only other roguelike i really played, Pokemon Mystery Dungeon, was like 30 hours for the main-story and probably up to 200 hours to unlock and complete all the after-story-hardcore-content, which I never managed to do. Wiping in an 80ish floor of a 99 floor dungeon several times in a row is pretty frustrating.



So a roguelike definately doesn't have to be a game where you are done in 1-2 hours as currently is case with DoTe.

I want the game to make me cry out to the Gods in frustration... and then raise my shaky claw over to the "restart button"... and do it all again - but die a even more horrible or strange or frustrating death which, is probably all my fault.

Tiphereth wrote:
That's the point : it's unfinished. No one said it was hard for now (well, maybe the author of the subject, but he's more concern by the future of the game too).

I said it was punitive, and also, i never hid the fact that i wasn't very good at those games.

Tiphereth wrote:
What the game will look like when it will be finished, that's the subject. And yeah, as a rogue-like, Seventeen is right : the game should be pretty hard, and if he doesn't like that, don't like the die&retry thing, maybe the game will not be for him.

Indeed, my point exactly, is the game will be exactly as is with more features etc etc, or is it just some kind of elaborated POC with any kind of hardcoded progression like one Rogue Legacy or a Saving possibility like ES.

That was all, and thanks for pointing it out.

Roguelike games tend to be obscure. However, more recently, other genres have adapted concepts found in the Berlin Interpretation of roguelike games, drawing new attention to the roguelike approach.



Classical roguelikes / Berlin Interpretation

Rogue proved successful among computer users at the time, and numerous variations were created. Most of these maintained the same core principles as Rogue, with procedurally generated dungeons, turn-based gameplay, tile-based movement, and permadeath, but often expanded on the depth of gameplay and story and the persistence of the generated dungeon levels.

The gameplay elements characterizing the roguelike genre were explicitly defined at the International Roguelike Development Conference 2008, named the so-called "Berlin Interpretation". Some of the "high value factors" used in this definition include:

Roguelike games randomly generate dungeon levels,[4] though they may include static levels as well. Generated layouts typically incorporate rooms connected by corridors, some of which may be preset to a degree (e.g., monster lairs or treasuries). Open areas or natural features, like rivers, may also occur.

The identity of magical items varies across games. Newly discovered objects only offer a vague physical description that is randomized between games, with purposes and capabilities left unstated. For example, a "bubbly" potion might heal wounds one game, then poison the player character in the next. Items are often subject to alteration, acquiring specific traits, such as a curse, or direct player modification.

The combat system is turn-based instead of real-time. Gameplay is usually step-based, where player actions are performed serially and take a variable measure of in-game time to complete. Game processes (e.g., monster movement and interaction, progressive effects such as poisoning or starvation) advance based on the passage of time dictated by these actions.

Most are single-player games. On multi-user systems, leaderboards are often shared between players. Some roguelikes allow traces of former player characters to appear in later game sessions in the form of ghosts or grave markings. Some games such as NetHack even have the player's former characters reappear as enemies within the dungeon. Multi-player derivatives such as TomeNET, MAngband, and Crossfire do exist and are playable online.

Roguelikes traditionally implement permadeath. Once a character dies, the player must begin a new game. A "save game" feature will only provide suspension of gameplay and not a limitlessly recoverable state; the stored session is deleted upon resumption or character death. Players can circumvent this by backing up stored game data ("save scumming"), an act that is usually considered cheating.

Though there are many variations within the roguelike genre, there are generally two broader classes of classic roguelikes that branched out from Rogue.

One branch of Rogue developed the game towards the fantasy setting of J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle Earth, with Moria (1983) based on the complex underground maze featured within Tolkien's fiction. Levels were not persistent; when the player left the level and then tried to return, a new procedurally-generated level would be made; the goal would be to descend to the deepest depths and kill the most powerful monster in the game. Variations on Moria would lead to Angband (1990) (another Middle Earth location), which featured larger levels and more variation in player attributes, equipment, and monsters, and often featured a town level where the player could buy and sell equipment before returning to delve. At least fifty known variations on Angband exist, but maintain the concept of non-persistent dungeon levels and lacking any deeper story.

The other branch bore out in Hack (1982), where dungeon levels would contain more specialized rooms, such as vaults and stores, and where the player was to seek out the "Amulet of Yendor". Levels would remain persistent once generated, allowing players to revisit these special rooms. Hack would eventually lead to Nethack (1987), an expansion of Hack but bringing together numerous influences from other cultural works, including those that would otherwise be anachronistic in the dungeon setting. Nethack and its variants would typically feature some fixed story and specific gameplay goals in order to fully complete the game, often necessitated by revisiting the previously explored levels.



(Wikipedia) - "Roguelike"

LordOfLostSocks wrote:
Please stop calling this game hard, when it's incredibly easy and unfinished.

That's the point : it's unfinished. No one said it was hard for now (well, maybe the author of the subject, but he's more concern by the future of the game too). What the game will look like when it will be finished, that's the subject. And yeah, as a rogue-like, Seventeen is right : the game should be pretty hard, and if he doesn't like that, don't like the die&retry thing, maybe the game will not be for him.

Smauler wrote:
TL;DR : Just play the game, and don't worry when you die. You'll enjoy it more.

Again : not my cup of tea. I do get why people like it, I just don't, that's a matter of taste I guess.

I suppose I'll be on my way to another game a little more suited to my newbieness

Chance is unfair random gameplay. If you make a game procedural, the the Random Number Gods will deign that sometimes you will die. It's just how it is.

Yeah, I'm not agree with that vision.



To me, random parts of a game mecanism have to be here to a purpose : stimulate the adaptability of the player or/and offer multiple of new game experiences. But I hate a gameplay with huge random effects. It's just unacceptable to have a game where you win or you loose only thanks to/because of the chance. It's just some dices rolls, or a Monopoly.



Random gameplay, okay, but a limited one. And we can perfectly do that. For example, actually (it's going to change), the rooms of DofE are totally randomized, but you always found the exit after some exploration. So, you have to explore, and to adapt at the situations. But you always find the exist after X opened rooms. So it's a limited random gameplay. There is plenty of ways to maintain interest of chance with a limited randomization.

Tiphereth wrote:
If it’s true, so it’s a huge problem (or it will be if it’s like that in the finished game). I can accept the game is really hard, but it would be a shame if only luck could make a difference between a success and a fail. It’s my biggest concern with rogue-like games, so I hope the random side of the game will not be more important than the tactical gameplay. Chance, okay, but not unfair random gameplay.

Chance is unfair random gameplay. If you make a game procedural, the the Random Number Gods will deign that sometimes you will die. It's just how it is.



What you gain with the randomness far outweighs what you lose though, in my opinion.

Seventeen wrote:
There's just one thing that troubles me, the game is pretty much very punitive, and has a "Binding of Isaac" feels. No real evolution throughout the game, since each new run calls for a new set of room/heroes/tech/etc. Since you can't save and redo, and since dust is scarce and so on and so on.

This is how the game is set up (no saves), and is getting more and more common with smaller games. I personally love it, it lets me enjoy the game more, and min/max a lot less (which is often my tendency with some games). It is punitive... that's the point. It makes you not over-expand or take silly risks just in case they pay off, and then go back to a save.



These games are not more difficult most of the time - generally they are a lot easier (try playing a game that does allow saves without using them). The only thing you lack is a save game. It takes a different mindset to play them - we, as gamers have gotten used to having a backup, and relying upon that backup rather than relying upon making the right decision.



One of my favourite games of the past few years is FTL. I'm guessing some of the Amplitude guys will have played this too, there are some ideas and themes similar (I'm not claiming DotE is derivative of FTL here, just that some it may have given them some ideas - that's how culture works). FTL is horrible hard when you start out... when you learn how it works, you can get up to about a 50% win rate (some people get higher, I'm going by my experience). There will be some starts and some bad luck which are literally impossible to get out of. It's all about managing your ship and crew so that you have the best chance, and I like that - you're not bound to win, even if you make all the right decisions.

Seventeen wrote:
The game is quite hardcore in my very humble opinion, and seems oriented for the elite, leaving more casual gamers behind, which i can understand, i would just like to know if it was it.

I don't think it's oriented for the elite, it just requires a different mindset. My mum is a casual gamer, but a while back she was addicted to Angband (and then Zangband). Those are difficult games (I never actually completed Angband, despite having spent countless hours), and she never got close to completing either. However, she enjoyed them, and didn't worry when her characters died. I currently play TOME quite a lot, and have never even gotten to the second half of the game.



TL;DR : Just play the game, and don't worry when you die. You'll enjoy it more.

Unfortunately I might end up taking a lot of cues from Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup because in that you will die... a lot, you will underestimate situations... a lot, you will be ignorant of that and die because of your ignorance... a lot. But once you get the hang of it you will succeed... up to a certain point. In DCSS there was a couple of things that was great that come to mind, one was the randomization in all of its aspects the best being the item randomization, never knowing what an item might do until you identify it or use it; sometimes it was cursed and stuck to your hand or blows up in your face. Another was turning - or running - round corners and arriving in bad or worse situations. There is of course a ton more pleasing aspects about DCSS.



With DoTE it is likely going to become harder and better as diversity increases; more room types, items, introduction of science, bigger/badder enemies and harder choices. The thing I would like to see is a big challenge at the end of each floor set, like a boss of sorts, either an actual boss or the floor is the hard part; it would add a wonderful build up to the final floor.

VieuxChat wrote:
In fact the devs WILL add some meta-game. So even if you'll have to redo the same "kind" of games, you will progress as in Rogue legacy.

This is most confusing.

I like Rogue Legacy for this aspect, there's sense of progression.

Well I guess I'll have to wait and see where the game is going

Tei wrote:
I can virtually guarantee you that the current length of the game is nowhere near what it will be at launch. And I imagine an Endless Mode is practically obligatory with this game. Because right now I think most people will agree with me when I say it's far too easy as of now.

Then again, if the game is as is, i don't see the point of an endless mode, the death penalty being so high.

Ail wrote:
Btw. the play-time for the only other roguelike i really played, Pokemon Mystery Dungeon, was like 30 hours for the main-story and probably up to 200 hours to unlock and complete all the after-story-hardcore-content, which I never managed to do. Wiping in an 80ish floor of a 99 floor dungeon several times in a row is pretty frustrating.

I assume there were a way to save your progress? Or did you have to do all the levels all over again? This doesn't seem to be very enjoyable to me.

VieuxChat wrote:
In fact the devs WILL add some meta-game. So even if you'll have to redo the same "kind" of games, you will progress as in Rogue legacy.

This is most confusing.

I like Rogue Legacy for this aspect, there's sense of progression.

Well I guess I'll have to wait and see where the game is going

Tei wrote:
I can virtually guarantee you that the current length of the game is nowhere near what it will be at launch. And I imagine an Endless Mode is practically obligatory with this game. Because right now I think most people will agree with me when I say it's far too easy as of now.

Then again, if the game is as is, i don't see the point of an endless mode, the death penalty being so high.

Ail wrote:
Btw. the play-time for the only other roguelike i really played, Pokemon Mystery Dungeon, was like 30 hours for the main-story and probably up to 200 hours to unlock and complete all the after-story-hardcore-content, which I never managed to do. Wiping in an 80ish floor of a 99 floor dungeon several times in a row is pretty frustrating.

I assume there were a way to save your progress? Or did you have to do all the levels all over again? This doesn't seem to be very enjoyable to me.

Hi.

For me, the only way to loose now is bad luck (like 4-5 crappy rooms at the beginning of level 3)

If it’s true, so it’s a huge problem (or it will be if it’s like that in the finished game). I can accept the game is really hard, but it would be a shame if only luck could make a difference between a success and a fail. It’s my biggest concern with rogue-like games, so I hope the random side of the game will not be more important than the tactical gameplay. Chance, okay, but not unfair random gameplay.



Personnaly, I think it’s normal the game is hard. Rogue-like are that type of games. The game is short, and the replay-value is all based on the difficulty mixed-up with random parts of the game.



On the other hand, I must admit it’s really cool to have a progression in the gameplay. To my mind, Rogue Legacy was a wonderful compromise between difficulty, multiple deaths, but constant progression.



To have this sort of feeling again, it’s possible to imagine a special game mode with multiple ships, or multiple shuttle. Once a group die, an other group arrive and discover the previous installations. To balance that, the monsters wave would be more aggressive and powerfull. It could result in a lot more death, but with a constant progression. There would be no new recruits at first but the player could only recruit some of his old characters which could have survived (random chances?), and only somewhere in the floor where he was when he "died". The cost in food for these character could be more expensive with higher level and equipment. And at least, if the 30 characters planed in the final game died, so it’s a final and definitive game over (unless we're in an endless mode). Of course, this gameplay would change a lot the game, so it should be a game mode in addition to the main game. But I know it’s not easy cause it’s a lot of work (but it would be so cool to have several game mode). : )

Hi all,



I played with a friend of mine at DotE, because i was anxious to try it, and maybe buy it.

I must say i like the concept behind the game, the system of rooms, heroes, art, etc... great.



There's just one thing that troubles me, the game is pretty much very punitive, and has a "Binding of Isaac" feels. No real evolution throughout the game, since each new run calls for a new set of room/heroes/tech/etc. Since you can't save and redo, and since dust is scarce and so on and so on.



I wondered in quite simple terms if this is what the game was going to be like "in the end", or is it just that it is in pre-alpha or beta and that the whole system would be in place later.



The game is quite hardcore in my very humble opinion, and seems oriented for the elite, leaving more casual gamers behind, which i can understand, i would just like to know if it was it. Endless Space wasn't at all constructed that way (a game lasts longer, evolution & heroes are saved, there's levels of difficulty, etc...), that's why i was glad when i saw this game and the mechanics, i thought it would be a more classical gameplay i guess.



Merci de m'avoir lu.

That could be due to the absence of the Science + Tech tree, dungeon "Biomes", skills, game length and so on.

Seventeen wrote:
Interesting post, but i guess when i was totally unaware of the game mechanics and had just seen the trailer, i thought it would be some kind of campaign game, or at least that the playthrough wouldn't have to be "oneshot".

I think a lot of people have misconceptions as to what kind of game this is when they first setup to get it. At least, assuming they don't have anyone to talk to about it beforehand. This is why I am working on a quick runthrough let's play of the game just so people can get a good idea as to what the game is like. Because currently the Steam page isn't all that helpful.

Seventeen wrote:
I think to alleviate the playstyle as it is, i would have simply enabled savegames and probably offered a longer playtime for a single game. I guess this would have not exactly applied to the game as it is (which i guess is what a roguelike is supposed to be), but i thought the game would be a series of very wide levels or one wide level rather than a few short ones. The progression would be enhanced a great deal, and i would actually care much for the way i handle my heroes for example.

I can virtually guarantee you that the current length of the game is nowhere near what it will be at launch. And I imagine an Endless Mode is practically obligatory with this game. Because right now I think most people will agree with me when I say it's far too easy as of now.

Seventeen wrote:
Thanks for sharing.



I guess my message wasn't as clear as i intended it to be.



So yes, there is the aspect of the difficulty, and i'm assuming that at some point you get the hang of it and play "better", but i was more wondering about the way the gameplay is.



Basically is the game just meant to be a "do it all over again" kind of game?

I know that ES is this way, but games are "very long", which gives some kind of feel of progression, here, since each level don't last very long, it feels more like a very "short" kind of game. I'm assuming that with experience the games go longer and longer, but since some events are unavoidable and like stated before very punitive (like i could loose my most evolved hero hence pretty much terminating my game since all my resources would have gone in the guy), i'm assuming games are not meant to last forever, like a bunch a level and be done for, and then? Start all over again? There goes the : "For what?", since everything is pretty much random, i see the point of playing a few games, but i don't see the same lifespan than a game like ES. Again, this is not criticism per se, more a very personal (still shared by some) point of view, a lot of people liked The Binding of Isaac, i, for myself, did not.



Hence my message.

In fact the devs WILL add some meta-game. So even if you'll have to redo the same "kind" of games, you will progress as in Rogue legacy.

Hey Seventeen, I'm glad that wall of text seemed to help you out at least a little bit



For some reason I am yet to fathom there are a relatively massively number of roguelike games released recently that are accessible to regular gamers. I'm looking at you Don't Starve & Rogue Legacy, among others.



It's not that roguelikes weren't always being made but usually they choose, presumably voluntarily, to be accessible only to a niche of gamers who love ascii graphics and absolutely hideous control schemes (Dwarf Fortress: Adventure Mode). The ability to play at all is almost considered a rite of passage. If you're super lucky you would be pulled kicking and screaming into the future and find a roguelike with tile based graphics! (The Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead)



Perhaps the success of XCOM:Enemy Unknown and Dark Souls trigged the realisation to a wider group of people that difficult games can be fun (not punishing)?



There is simply no greater satisfaction for a gamer than successfully completing a challenge that was sufficiently difficult.



I still play the old, original XCOM games. I have previously literally table flipped due to how difficult and brittle those bastards can be. I will continue to swear like a sailor for months on end from having "fun" in Dwarf Fortress. I will continue to inevitably bask in the glow of the challenge overcome.



The number of levels and thus the length of this game should be quite easy to expand once all the core mechanics are in place. If you're super lucky the number of levels may dynamically increase based on how well the game thinks you're doing



To (finally) specifically address your simple question; If this game turns out as well as I think it potentially can then if you eventually conquer it you will likely swear you will never touch it again. If you finish it you will also understand why you will always, inevitably, step into the breach once more and kick in the door.

It's weird that i've seen this exact picture on different forums twice in a very short time.



Interesting post, but i guess when i was totally unaware of the game mechanics and had just seen the trailer, i thought it would be some kind of campaign game, or at least that the playthrough wouldn't have to be "oneshot". I think to alleviate the playstyle as it is, i would have simply enabled savegames and probably offered a longer playtime for a single game. I guess this would have not exactly applied to the game as it is (which i guess is what a roguelike is supposed to be), but i thought the game would be a series of very wide levels or one wide level rather than a few short ones. The progression would be enhanced a great deal, and i would actually care much for the way i handle my heroes for example.



I saw this game rather on the same "style" as ES rather than on a style which i do not like very much. I am not one for the repetition ad eternam of the same game just to improve my score of one point, or at least, i would like one game to be more fullfilling on its own (again i understand this is a personal point of view probably not shared by everyone), even if it would allow for a better gameplay experience for the next game (exactly what ES offers in my opinion).



I guess i had a totally different expectation of the game, that's why i was just wondering what it was aiming for exactly, but i guess that answers it.



There is still the question of how many levels is there, and as it is, if i were to finish the game, what would be the point of starting another one?

Are you referring to progression in the context of a win or a loss situation? I am assuming you are primarily referring to a loss situation.





Any or all of those points are completely valid and interesting issues which I think warrants significant discussion. It is notable that it has been debated at length with regard to other games, which we can potentially learn from.



I'd like to take a moment to talk about tangible death progression. It is not specifically what you are suggesting but is one possible solution and one I consider damaging enough to game play to shut down right off the bat. Unfortunately any sort of tangible death progression tends to breed death goal games where people deliberately use non-optimal and often suicidal strategies to fulfil a specific non-win goal, in order to use the subsequent inevitable death to springboard into an attempted super game. For example if you were allowed to carry over one hero with all items and levels on unsuccessful game end then people could be tempted to only build up a single hero, to the detriment of all other goals and indeed the win, solely in order to start with significant advantage in the next game.

This can be extremely destructive to game play for a number of reasons however this occurs only for tangible death progression. There are other valid solutions.



Two great suggestions I have seen previously are;

-Provide the player with specific contextual feedback on death

-Optionally dynamically modify various chance occurrences in future games based on the context of previous death(s)



I am more than happy to debate the merits of either of these options if anyone wishes however I am prone to long winded posts as is.



It is notable that either of those options requires the development of basically a contextual story engine to track the players progress. This may be either extremely difficult or relatively easy depending on how and indeed if the game engine already tracks various statistics. I have seen no substantive information on this point yet (beyond tracking total kill numbers).





Loss of a valuable asset can be an interesting one. XCOM:Enemy Uknown/Within recently aptly demonstrated the successful implementation of assets that simultaneously required significant investment and were also subject to permadeath. If this is a concern that lessons are likely best drawn from that success.





In the context of progression in a win situation; I believe Roguelikes and similar surprise permadeath games tend to offer very heavy satisfaction reward that far outweighs any potential want for progression. That being said it is not impossible to potentially reasonably have a minor tangible reward on next game after a win. Non-tangible rewards such as Steam Achievements / Forum Badges / enabling bragging rights can also work quite well.





Words, soo many, I am sorry. Please forgive me by considering the relationship between difficulty & fun, and then visiting; http://dwarffortresswiki.org/images/4/40/FunComic.png