Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
Este tópico foi trancado 
Regras e diretrizes para discussões
0 
Denunciar esta mensagem
If they wanted to do that, then they'd have tagged it as a roguelike game, and described it as a roguelike game in all of their descriptions, instead of avoiding that term and using roguelite / action roguelike instead.
Except, again, that's purely your own subjective opinion.
The entire point of permanent progression / upgrade systems in roguelite games is that you get to discover and unlock more content and things to play with as you progress further into the game, that's the main appeal for many people. It both gives you some pre-set goals to reach, and also potentially provides weaker players with upgrades that might make the game easier for them as they go. It's a deliberate design choice, not "uh oh we didn't think about the difficulty" mistake, and you personally not liking it doesn't make it objectively bad. In fact I'd go as far as to say that you're in the minority, considering the popularity of roguelite / action roguelike games with permanent progression, especially in comparison to traditional roguelikes which always were, are and will be a niche genre.
That being said, I enjoy both traditional roguelikes and the modern evolution of the genre. Sometimes I'm in the mood for DCSS, ToME or NetHack, other times I'd rather play something like Risk of Rain, Gungeon or Hades, because why not? The point is, these are completely different genres despite having common roots, and there's absolutely no sense in crying over roguelites deviating from the traditional roguelikes, or claiming that something you personally don't enjoy should be removed because it's "objectively" bad. You could've spent this time playing games that you actually enjoy instead.
In many cases, and in this case, the unlockables are not just "options" they are flat stacking power upgrades that you will always want like additional health, dmg and healing.
It's not "potentially" it definitely makes the game easier for everyone, not just weaker players. And oftentimes what happens is that the difficulty will slide from hard to normal to easy with no way to reverse it except by deleting the save.
I don't dispute that it's a deliberate decision, I'm saying it's a bad decision. It's lazy game design because it shifts the balancing effort from designer to player. It's counter-intuitive game design because it rewards dying and progressively strips away challenge, especially from earlier stages. Instead of promoting player skill growth it oftentimes promotes grinding. Best case it pads out the game length a bit, but that in itself shouldn't be a problem if they just have enough actual content.
None of what I said here is just "personal opinion", they are objective faults within the system.
Most people eat at mc donalds what can I say? If you want to argue for populism the most common death-system is just a respawn at savepoint. So if you honestly think popularity decides quality you should argue for that instead.
Or we could get into a discussion about how the roguelike or even soulslike systems encourages player skill growth both through their deathsystem and skillfully balancing the difficulty, but I doubt you'd get past the "everything is subjective nothing matters" angle.
Sure and I can enjoy those games as well while still being well aware of their flaws and arguing for them to improve were they are lacking.
I'm not "crying", i'm criticizing. And I'm not saying that the games are objectively bad, I'm criticizing a specific system many of those games hold in common to be objectively bad.
And similarly you could have been playing games with this time as well, guess we chose to spend our time differently. Nothing wrong with that either.
If they're just straight stat / power upgrades and not additional content (such as some character upgrades in Devil Slayer for example), no one forces you to get them if you feel like they undermine your achievements and make the game too easy for you.
And again, stricte stat upgrades are usually entirely optional in roguelite titles, whereas most other unlocks are just additional content.
And yet seemingly a lot of people, myself included, don't share your totally-not-personal opinion. The way I see it, is that most of these games aren't meant to be finished on your first run (or ten). You're supposed to slowly build up your arsenal, character and of course grow as a player until finally during your Nth run you manage to reach the end goal. It's all part of the experience and why people play these games, they're designed to have you (most likely) die and lose over and over again until you finally don't. I wouldn't call it a bad game design, because that's the entire point of this (sub)genre, repetition, upgrades and progressively unlocking more content.
Honestly, it's kinda like saying that korean grinders are badly designed because "there's a lot of padding" and grind, and that you have to kill lots of mobs to "lower the difficulty" of harder mobs. You're just not the target audience it seems.
Yeah, except that these are completely different genres of games, and even then in souls games you can (and in most cases will) overcome a lot of your challenges by simply leveling up and upgrading your equipment, which directly affects the difficulty and makes things easier. You really could've picked up a better example, such as the classic NES era Castlevania titles, which are far more skill based and difficult than most of the Dark Souls series, and don't even allow you to "grind for upgrades", but again, different genres.
The problem is that you're not arguing for them to improve what they're lacking in, you're arguing that they should completely abandon some core elements of the genre simply because you personally don't like them and you believe that they're "objectively bad".
Yeah, but again, that's entirely your own subjective opinion that you're forcefully trying to present as a fact, just because you can't accept that your preferences aren't universal.
And no, I don't go onto Steam forums of battleroyale games to say that they're "objectively" badly designed and should have respawn systems, because I don't like being out of the match after one death and having to waste my time sitting in queue for another one. I simply don't play them, don't care, let others have fun with them.
Most players are going to chose the most optimal decision they can make, which is to level up. If the optimal decisions lead to boring and stale gameplay, you can't blame the players for that.
It's not opinion, for example when I write that "it's counter-intuitive design that rewards dying" that's simply the truth. Similarly if super mario had spikes on the heads of all the goombas it would be counter-intuitive design to kill goombas by jumping on them.
Wrong, the design seems to be specifically to make up for player growth and make it possible for players to win without actually improving their skills. As long as the player keeps throwing themselves into the meatgrinder they are rewarded for it. The player isn't actually required to "grow as a player".
It's like the baby version of real roguelikes were noobs can trick themselves into thinking they are improving as players and getting better at a hard game when it's really only an illusion.
I haven't played korean grinders so I can't comment on whether they have a particular design pattern which could be improved.
I don't think the grind is what makes a soulslike special in relation to roguelikes and roguelites, it's rather the risk/reward of a punishing deathmechanic that's interesting. The mechanic creates excitement in staying alive and bringing home loot safely, it encourages players to play better.
The "core element" is counter-intuitive, it encourages bad gameplay and more often than not acts as entropy for balance. So yeah it should be abandoned.
Just because what I present is indisputable does not mean that it's subjective.
Yes this used to be a common complaint. Nowadays a lot of battle royale games try to solve that with ingame respawn systems. Battle Royales aren't really my thing, but I think the system in Apex is pretty good. I know there are other systems and I wouldn't be salty if someone with more knowledge about them showed up and talked about how some are better or worse.
The same could be said about most games, including the entire souls series which can easily be trivialized through level ups and weapon upgrades, not to mention summon signs which are also a part of the game.
Yeah, and it's their problem not yours if they find it boring, just like it's no one else's problem that you personally find something boring. Also, it appears that vast majority of people don't find progressive upgrades boring, stale or cheap considering how popular the genre is, so again, you're in the minority and yet you still make all these bold claims that the common core features of an entire genre of games are objectively badly designed, just because you don't like them. That's very self-centered, don't you think?
Yes it is an opinion that most people simply don't share, and the biggest problem with this conversation is that you're either incapable of realizing it, or admitting it. Also, you're comparing a well established core concept behind many popular games to a completely nonsense hypothetical design scenario where someone decided that spikes don't hurt the player.
Except that's the entire point of said games and has been since the very beginning of roguelite genre. Hell, a lot of titles deliberately don't even allow you to finish a full run / get the true ending / kill the final boss / complete all challenges unless you unlock more stuff first via permanent progression. That's the point, you're not meant to jump in, run through the game and experience everything in one go, and the fact that you don't get something even that simple just shows that you are not the target audience.
Ah yes, so you're starting to show your true colors, telling us what's your real issue. Believe me or not, but you're really not impressing anyone with your "cool gamer skills" and elitist approach towards "baby gamers" aka people with different taste and priorities than you. Maybe if you grow up you will understand that one day.
They're all based on some form of grind and repetition in order to progress, obviously, and yet there are still vastly popular, because there are people who enjoy that type of gameplay, even if to me personally it's mind numbingly boring compared to the typical repetition of roguelite games.
Yeah except that there are roguelites that also do exactly that, such as Devil Slayer - Raksasi or GetsuFumaDen: Undying Moon, among others. In fact, souls games are laughable in terms of punishment in comparison to them, since you can always easily regain your lost souls or quickly run back to where you were before.
The "core element" is one of the reasons why this entire genre, including some hugely popular titles like Hades or Dead Cells, got popular. Nothing should be abandoned just because you dislike it, you're not the center of the world.
Except that it's completely disputable and arguably nonsensical, but you're not mature enough to accept the fact that different people have different preferences, and to realize that you're being full of yourself.
And yet the genre grew rapidly despite of that, because the majority really didn't mind or care regardless of what I or some other people thought. Not every game and not every genre is for everyone, and it's great, because we all have the freedom to choose something of our liking, which is what you should be doing instead of trying to bend genres to your own set of preferences and ideas.
Also quick EDIT:
I've said everything I had to say on that matter and I see no point in continuing this discussion, there are other things that I'd like to do with my time, so I'll leave it at that.
That's a really bad approach to design. It's possible to do better, when designing a game players optimal decisionmaking should be one of the main things to account for. If a system leads to bad outcomes that's a bad system.
The vast majority of people like gambling as well. Addicting design and good design aren't synonymous. The vast majority of people can't really tell good from bad, they just buy whatever is popular and convenient.
Most people don't understand that dying to get a reward is counterintuitive? I guess the vast majority of people are Chinese and don't understand English, but I'm sure if it was translated they would get my point.
When you get a reward when it would be expected that you receive a punishment then that's counter-intuitive. In every other instance, when you die, lose or fail then you get punished. So it's counterintuitive when you get a reward instead. Do you understand how that just follows logically or should i type more slowly?
If a game presents you with an objectively unwinnable situation from the start that's an excellent example of poor balancing.
It's not a hard thing to understand, it's wannabe roguelike players going powerfantasy with no effort. I'll introduce you to a new concept, it's possible to understand the allure of something but still be able to reject it.
Being "cool" never factored into it, I wouldn't play games and certainly not write on forums if I cared about that. I just wanted to discuss the topic cause I'm knowledgeable about it.
I haven't played those game specifically. But death punishment and game difficulty in fromsoft games are intertwined and well-thought out, those systems work together and lead to engaging gameplay. A game can have otherwise engaging gameplay but still be hampered by subpar systems, Hades is a good example of this.
If you think the popularity of Hades and Dead Cells are due to the roguelite upgrade system you are extremely mistaken. The studio that made Hades for example made many good and recognized games before that, they were already rising in popularity due to their amazing sound-design and all around quality.
You say "it's completely disputable" but you don't really dispute what I say, you just ignore it and say generalities like "it's subjective." or "personal preferences". Well tbf you are also kinda locked into the whole "popular = quality" angle as well.
Do you appeal to populism when it comes to politics as well? How bout music? Art? Movies?
I've already stated I don't use the term lite at all unless im comparing likes to lites. Otherwise its completely pointless because lite is a niche term and everyone understands the statement the moment I say "roguelike" anyway. The problem is when someone DOES use the term "roguelite" but does so incorrectly muddying conversation and making themselves look really stupid.
My statement was all encompassing to begin with if a "true" roguelike were to be designed in this manner itd also be awful so going with that the conversation went...
"this design is terrible"
"oh no that design is called "roguelite" (incorrect) and thats just how they are"
Roguelite is exclusively a gamemode term for purists to distinguish games LIKE rogue versus games that take influence from rogue as a game mode. Games which are infinitely replayable thanks to dynamic mechanics which allow for unpredictable outcomes and have permadeath to make those results meaningful, something youre forced to adapt to and to make choices have greater weight. It applies the strengths of rogue which are universal but to any number of genres.
Games with cumulative progression usually (emphasis on usually, not always) arent rogueanything because they dont capture the strengths or core values of rogue. They're usually inspired by roguelites but not rogue itself. They're closer to playing a dungeon crawler where you die and lose your gold but keep your xp and loot.
Calling those rogueANYTHING would be like calling those flash games where you progressively build a sled/kite/shopping cart as it goes off a ramp and goes progressively further with upgrades you buy with money earned till you eventually have your rocket propelled vehicle that goes for miles. If you're not sure what im talking about i mean this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GesC7knkXH8
we dont call this a roguelike and for obvious reason. The ONLY time it is ever worthwhile to bring up roguelite in conversation is to talk about the history of rogue, reccomend a "true" roguelike or to discuss the distinction between roguelikes and roguelites. Otherwise you're better off using the term roguelike regardless because as you've proven you'll look foolish when you use it incorrectly.
You are diluting the term roguelike so much that you can't even separate between roguelike and roguelite. Why even have any precise language at all? Everything is just things anyway.
This might have been true around the time dungeons of dredmor was released. But nowadays its it's own genre. There are clearly a lot of games that dub themselves roguelites, and that Turbodude thinks that they are good on their own merits (even though the game system is an abomination).
I agree that the permanent upgrades go against the core values/strength of rogue but we are dealing with reality here. These games are called roguelites, they have been called roguelites for many years at this point. You can't fight this, it's just as pointless as those japanese island soldiers who are found 40 years after the war. You already lost.
The obvious reason being that it doesn't fulfill any of the conditions of the Berlin interpretation. The permanent upgrade system alone is not enough to make a roguelite, similarly shooting mechanics alone is not enough to be classified as fps.
This is clearly not true and it's a failure of your imagination. Also words doesn't work like that, there is no objective limiting factor of "worthwhile conversation". See every woman in history for reference. If you got a limitation like that it's personal.
Three people already called you out. No one is on your side. The fourth person who showed up tacit agreed to my definition of roguelite. As much as I harped on populism as a bad deciding factor in quality, language is made for communication. It just doesn't work if you are making up your own definitions that no one else agrees upon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roguelike
No, you don't. I tried to help you but you're incapable of doing anything but repeating a misconception, goodbye.
The ideas of "descriptivism" vs "prescriptivism" are appropriate here. Some people tend to clamp on to the idea that language can only be described and to try to steer it with rules is mostly futile. Others attach to the idea that for knowledge to progress language must become more accurate and this requires people to engineer precise rules for language and to try and spread these to others.
Obviously enough, both ideas are both correct and incorrect, because they are complementary. You can steer language a bit (otherwise there would be no argument about "likes vs lites") and this can be especially useful in narrow, specialized contexts (such as a scientific field or the niche territory of traditional roguelikes), but you can't control it absolutely, and you especially can't expect to control wide public usage by people who mostly don't care about language arguments in the first place. They don't have enough knowledge of that specific subject to care about the word distinctions, and expecting them to develop their knowledge of a niche subject that only vaguely relates to them is probably unreasobable and definitely unrealistic.
Think of people who start using a new slang word. It spreads like wildfire and people are using it in many ways and contexts, but it mostly fits into a natural "niche" of sorts (like a meme). And then you catch people arguing in comment sections about whether they are using the slang "right". These would be people who are more "prescriptivist" by natural tendency, I'd say.
The main thing that stands out is how many words and how much time are taken to try and convince the other.
The short version is that you image applies to most of the discussion above. I also agree with some of your points. Either way, prescriptivism vs descriptivism is an interesting topic. Worth reading if you plan to argue linguistics.