I HATE roguelite designed around unlock to feel good, it SUCKS, why do EVERY roguelike do this ?

[dhoma[FR]]

I don't understand why so many roguelite are doing this.
I mean :

- nearly impossible to beat game that you have to dive in, feel bad, die, die die again, litteraly doing run not to beat the game or do anything but FARM to get unlocks.
- after a certain amount of time (10-15 runs, maybe more, depends on the game) you eventually have enough unlocks and ressources to not feel like ♥♥♥♥ and now you are able to make some progress

that mean you have to have a bad time, dying without any hope of success or progress, with the only goal to farm, get some unlocks/bonusses, die again, for few hours, and THEN after that, you start to feel good and actually can progress and play the f*cking game.

It really annoy me and amaze me at the same times that people consider this a good game design. Like, wtf ? The goal of roguelite is to just play, enjoy gameplay, kill bosses and get new items/things and progress further, why so many of them are gated by stupid stats checks where you need to die on and on to have base stats and then be able to play the game.

Like hades 1 where zagreus is a huge pile of trash until you have enough miror unlocks and trinket to actually be able to make a build, plan a run and then play the game.
the ~10 first run are useless, serve no purpose except hitting you with a brick and with the "git gud" stupid thing and then bam, you have stats, healing, hp, sneak attack etc... and you can play the damn game.

I like much more games like isaac or neon abyss where the first runs are really short, but pretty easy, and then the game get progressively harder and you have to get better and get more and more unlocks and then progress further.

What's the point to make the game instantly very very hard, impossible to beat, and then your first runs are just a mindless stupid grind until you pass the stats checks and be able to beat the game, then progress further (like hades 1, when you beat hades, then the game really start with heat levels, weapon aspects etc... before that it's a stupid grind for unlocks...)

Sorry i needed to vent a bit, but i think designing games like that is very lazy and boring. Farming for the sake of it and paying the farm tax in a game to be able to really play it and enjoying it is stupid game design and should not be praised at all.

[Fringehunter7719]

I don't feel as strongly as you on the subject, because I really like Hades 1 and 2, but overall I prefer the design philosophy of games like FTL, where you don't gain power between runs, just choices.

I really enjoyed that style of rogue lite, which was briefly the standard before the genre morphed somewhere around the time of rogue legacy. Which I also quite enjoyed to be fair, if for its novelty more than the change in philosophy it came to represent.

[werwolfgaming]

Rouge lites is u unlock permanent upgrades while rouge-likes are the games where u lose everything no upgrades but u might unlock new unlocks like weapons after but nothing permanent so u hate rougelites not rougelikes

[vid23]

This is literally the main point of these games.
Games start out close to impossible to beat, so you need to play more and more, unlock things, learn things, find things until you can beat it.

[Sollós]

How do you suspect the story of the game gonna progressing? You earn the place for victory not one time clearing then tossing the game aside.

[Fringehunter7719]

Originally posted by werwolfgaming:

Rouge lites is u unlock permanent upgrades while rouge-likes are the games where u lose everything no upgrades but u might unlock new unlocks like weapons after but nothing permanent so u hate rougelites not rougelikes

Just as a minor correction on a point of fact, this is not accurate.

The games that popularised the rogue lite genre (and term) were things like FTL: Faster Than Light and The Binding of Isaac. These do not have the system of meta progression based on upgrades. You unlock variants, not explicit power ups.

The term "rogue like" means what it says on the tin - there was a 1980 video game called "Rogue", which was typified by certain features, such as:-

• Permadeath
  
• Turn based
  
• Square grid
  
• Resource Management
  
• Procedural Generation

A "rogue like" is a game that is like rogue - it more or less has these features.

An often quoted, but non-authoritative codification of these factors is the so-called "Berlin interpretation".

Hades 2 has some of the core features - Permadeth, resource management and procedural generation and lacks others. So it falls into the not quite a rogue like, but nearly a rogue like bucket - "rogue lite".

Meta progression is very commonly found in rogue lites these days, having been popularised by games like Rogue Legacy, but it is not in any way inherent to the genre or design. You can find the occasional rogue like that has meta progression too, such as Dungeonmans.

[dhoma[FR]]

Originally posted by Fringehunter7719:

I don't feel as strongly as you on the subject, because I really like Hades 1 and 2, but overall I prefer the design philosophy of games like FTL, where you don't gain power between runs, just choices.

I really enjoyed that style of rogue lite, which was briefly the standard before the genre morphed somewhere around the time of rogue legacy. Which I also quite enjoyed to be fair, if for its novelty more than the change in philosophy it came to represent.

yeah FTL is an other good example, unlocks, progression, but the game is very possible to beat the first time you play it (while you will probably not beating it, it is possible and every run can be cleared).

Originally posted by vid23:

This is literally the main point of these games.
Games start out close to impossible to beat, so you need to play more and more, unlock things, learn things, find things until you can beat it.

not really, it's not the point, the point of a roguelike/roguelite is the replay value, and the huge variance between run, that require global knowledge and skill, and you have a very satsifying sensation of progression all along the way.

With new roguelite design style, it's not the case anymore, many roguelite are pretty easy but impossible at the start, because you have to grind on and on then you are able to clean the game, then the content expand and the game become more difficult, but the first "clean" is most of the time a huge stats/grind check and i really hate that because I feel like it's a pure waste of time and there is no real progression exept a stats grind. Because the game is balanced around maxxed stats and it's stupid. You should start with maxxed stats and having to learn and actually get better instead of just a stats check.

Dead cells is an other good example, and better balanced, because you have unlocks and stats check, but the game is pretty easy at the beginning, and becomes really hard after with big difficulty modes, alternatives routes and bosses.

Sorry if I sound salty and very passionate about it, I'm more and more exhausted of seing good games or good base idea ruined by laziness or poor games design. Recent video games are really disapointing and I hoped for a big change for hades 2 but at the core the game stay the same, very difficult at the start because of stats checks and you have to farm to be able to pass the first run.

[dhoma[FR]]

Originally posted by houseof.atu7:

How do you suspect the story of the game gonna progressing? You earn the place for victory not one time clearing then tossing the game aside.

I don't understand, as roguelite are mostyl gameplay based and the point is to do runs and trying to do win streak, challenge runs, get hard unlocks etc...
I know hades is very story based but it's not the case for a vast majority of roguelite but they have the same issues lol (game is impossible to beat and you have to pay the grind tax)

[Sir_Noob]

You'll really hate this one then because Eris will show up to make you take 10% damage more stacking after every encounter if you clear zones too quickly for the story, on top of not having almost necessary arcanas like MP regen (which you can get around with lucky boons)

[rick432656]

It just goes against the whole concept to me. The whole point of it has (in my view) is get random tools maybe some core upgrades after a while but also that skill is huge part. That if your skilled enough you can win at start but obviously most players need some help getting there. I would feel really bad playing any game that artificially up difficulty because they recognized I am good player especially rouges likes like this where Rng can really make or break some runs. I know Eris is only 12 runs of whatever and I am no where near good enough to even get close to that but the concept is still trash. Like I said in another thread is better to just be honest end the run early when someone gets to far and give them a loot box of rare goods. At least that your getting rewarded for skillful play which whole point of video games as a whole. Games that punish you for being skillful end of up being most toxic and annoying games like League of Legends where when your do well you get a bounty which makes it even harder to carry.

[werwolfgaming]

Originally posted by Fringehunter7719:

Originally posted by werwolfgaming:

Rouge lites is u unlock permanent upgrades while rouge-likes are the games where u lose everything no upgrades but u might unlock new unlocks like weapons after but nothing permanent so u hate rougelites not rougelikes

Just as a minor correction on a point of fact, this is not accurate.

The games that popularised the rogue lite genre (and term) were things like FTL: Faster Than Light and The Binding of Isaac. These do not have the system of meta progression based on upgrades. You unlock variants, not explicit power ups.

The term "rogue like" means what it says on the tin - there was a 1980 video game called "Rogue", which was typified by certain features, such as:-

• Permadeath
  
• Turn based
  
• Square grid
  
• Resource Management
  
• Procedural Generation

A "rogue like" is a game that is like rogue - it more or less has these features.

An often quoted, but non-authoritative codification of these factors is the so-called "Berlin interpretation".

Hades 2 has some of the core features - Permadeth, resource management and procedural generation and lacks others. So it falls into the not quite a rogue like, but nearly a rogue like bucket - "rogue lite".

Meta progression is very commonly found in rogue lites these days, having been popularised by games like Rogue Legacy, but it is not in any way inherent to the genre or design. You can find the occasional rogue like that has meta progression too, such as Dungeonmans.

As ive told u in another forum before, rouge likes definition has wildly changed and debated alot, we did have a definition from 2008 wich was the berlin interpretation but binding of isaac is seen and actually tagged as rouge-like not lite, people see that as a rouge-like and most agree what diffrence rouge-like and lite is the upgrade system where rouge-like dont have perma upgrades lites do,

The definition at this point is up to opinion old school gamers that played rouge-likes before they became super popular might feel like u and newer once that started with binding of isaac will see it as most people where upgrades is the diffrence theres some smaller diffrences too but gatekeeping the whole genre when most people agree that the old definition off what makes a rouge-like is outdated is just weird

[dacarpen]

I think its more that the game gives you tools to scale in power so its accessible, you don't need to be a god of gaming to get through it and experience the story, then as you progress further it stops being about adding upgrades and starts being about taking them away or upping the difficulty so now your skill has to be what is progressing and carrying you forward. The gods of the game can play with all of these sliders up (or do fresh save file speedruns, whatever) and people in general can find the sweet spot for their own difficulty.

Even as you are gaining upgrades, there is an implicit challenge - how few of these will you need to win?
It lets you actually learn the game and practice as you advance before it expects you to be a master of it. Whereas a pure rougelike expects you to be a master out the gate and you better beat your head against it before you can get there.

If you want the pure hardcore challenge of beating it with pure skill alone, you don't have to ever buy an upgrade. Its not an impossible difficulty level, people do win fresh save file runs.

[Ka-mai19]

They're doing it because it works for their game, lol. Hades 1 is one of the most beloved games in recent history and it reached that status because it is the way it is.

It's understandable if you don't like it, but to not understand why it's popular is to be dense.

[Morton Koopa Jr.]

Originally posted by dhomaFR:

Originally posted by Fringehunter7719:

I don't feel as strongly as you on the subject, because I really like Hades 1 and 2, but overall I prefer the design philosophy of games like FTL, where you don't gain power between runs, just choices.

I really enjoyed that style of rogue lite, which was briefly the standard before the genre morphed somewhere around the time of rogue legacy. Which I also quite enjoyed to be fair, if for its novelty more than the change in philosophy it came to represent.

yeah FTL is an other good example, unlocks, progression, but the game is very possible to beat the first time you play it (while you will probably not beating it, it is possible and every run can be cleared).

Ironically, I'd argue that FTL is far more impossible to beat the first time you play it.

I mean, I still haven't beaten FTL.

Meanwhile, you can technically kite to victory in every encounter in Hades 2.

[brun🎨]

You clearly don't like roguelikes or roguelites lol

[Nico]

You gotta earn your win.