Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
2 
Report this post
That's just an assumption at this point, rather give the benefit of the doubt. They most likely just don't know about Gun Dealer giving -1, and didn't get evil the first rotation perhaps. I feel most things have already been talked about long enough now
Youre literally admitting the system can brick. Its bad. Theres no reason for a system where you have to "buy X amount of items to progress a run". Theres no skill involved. Its needless RNG that forces you to spend resources on mostly useless items. Still in this entire thread no one can list a single positive of this system.
Why dont you make it so it costs 20 gold to progress a floor while we are at it. You can always get 20 gold per floor, or you can use the pawn shops or other systems to get gold. AND you can stockpile gold to make sure you can keep progressing floors in case you get "baD RnG" and cant find much later. Its a skill issue if you cant figure out how to get 20 gold per floor.
I'm certain that the majority of the people taking issue with Tiny Rogues' implementation of mechanics/systems enjoy plenty of other complex games. You're assuming that everyone critiquing the current iteration of the game only plays Cookie Clicker or something. But I guess you have to make that assumption in order for your childish "if you don't like it's because you can't handle it" thing to make any sort of sense.
I'd also challenge you to name any comparable games that are higher on your 10 point complexity scale. But then you might find that all or most of the people who don't like Tiny Rogues version of complexity actually love those games because, again, the issue isn't just complexity in and of itself, but the implementation of complexity.
You have to ask the more difficult questions like, why does this system feel complex to players? Instead of just going "It doesn't bother me personally so that means it's good and I have to defend it". That feedback has no value, both to other players and to the developers who wish to understand how players feel about specific parts of their game.
"All or most" people love Tiny Rogues too, it has roughly 97% positive reviews on Steam and a large playerbase for a solo dev indie game. I very much doubt anyone that thinks Alignment is too much is going to be lining up to play actually complex games.
I'm assuming by "Comparable" you mean other twinstick roguelike action games, in which case most of them aren't as complex. The popular ones like Isaac often get played by people cheating at them, using mods to remove the vague aspects or complex aspects, and people google how to do things like unlock the tainted characters. I still wouldn't call Isaac as mechanically complex as tiny rogues because it doesn't typically ask the player to think or manage anything more complex than key/bomb/coin, there's no inventory management or weight management and the "alignment" in Isaac is just picking up a single item you're guaranteed to see from a choice of 2. You play that game by stacking up buffs and the most complex it gets is the alt path asking you to do a few specific tasks, or playing specific characters that the community complains about for being complex. If by "Comparable" you just mean more complex games, here you go:
Steel Batallion requires a dedicated controller with something like 40 buttons on top of dials and switches and pedals. Even learning the controls is more effort than remembering on Heaven runs to visit the good shop and memorizing all the ways to maximize your odds. If you die because you fail to eject when asked, your save file is wiped, and the game has no mercy on people unwilling to learn and improve from mistakes.
There's La-Mulana, which is complex in that it actually demands the player take notes and do high level thinking across the entire game map to solve puzzles if they're not cheating. It's a simple looking game that many people have played but very few can fully beat without looking up solutions online.
Cookie Clicker. Oh, you thought I'd say that game is simple because you just click a cookie? Well you're letting bias blind you, it's absolutely got more complexity than Tiny Rogues when it comes to mechanics that require thought instead of just reading the text on screen. Someone that thinks alignment is too complex is not going to learn the optimal ways to set up their farming plots, they're probably not going to touch the stock market at all unless they're just guessing at it, they're not going to have the patience to get all of the achievements which actually has an impact since achievements fuel your multipliers in Cookie Clicker. The kind of player that thinks Alignment in Tiny Rogues is too complex is the kind of player that will think Wrinklers are enemies and pop them on sight forever.
If you're telling me the people that think alignment is too complex would be willing to truly learn Steel Batallion or Cookie Clicker La-Mulana without cheats, you're just wrong. Those are all games in the "it's not for everyone" group, not every game has to exist for the lowest common denominator that want only the simplest mechanics and least amount of player thought.
To put in my two cents I'm not a huge fan of alignment in TR, in D&D it's there to give a general idea of how somebody will act, rather than a transactional system prone to extreme changes without something big going down
it's also weird that a "Good" aligned player would want to invade Heaven. Wouldn't they want to destroy evil instead?
From what I can gather of what many of the bosses are saying, your character, regardless of an arbitrary number, is not a good person. They're just mindlessly rampaging through the dungeon in pursuit of power. Your best friend is a sapient bonfire who obviously cares nothing for you beyond the souls you can feed to it.
It's weird how so many other people here obsess over the identities of forum users. It's impossible for you to imagine that someone... enjoys the game and actually understands the game design choices? The idea that only the dev could like the choices the dev made on purpose is just funny.
It's not that only good characters want to get into heaven. It's that only good characters qualify to enter heaven. Even if you don't know religious mythology this is directly explained in plain text when you reach the gates. Your character's goals are slightly vague but you're sent by the fire to conquer death, with there being multiple ways to do that. It just so happens that someone trying to conquer death can be good aligned and decide that toppling heaven to rule it themselves has the ends justify the means. The alignment system here is simple but if it was true to hardcore RPGs the people that already think it's too complex would have their heads explode.