Excellent Game. But Roguelike?

[TexRex]

I've seen the opinion floating around a little already- That this shouldn't have been a roguelike game. At first, I couldn't disagree more, because I'd just started playing. But with nearly 20 hours logged, it's become very clear that the game's decision the take on a roguelike build has soured the entire experience for me.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't a ranty-thread to talk about how much I hate this this and that, because as far as I'm concerned, the game plays well and is built with a great deal of care. This is an open disccusion, by the nature of these forums.

Roguelike games get their appeal from the variability you are given, and the fact that you are forced to work with what you come across. The best example of this working splendidly, for argument's sake, is FTL, where you could have a completely different build in between two playthroughs. Games like Binding of issac, Slay the spire, etc are all great examples of everything that makes the roguelike Genre fun and engaging.

However, ITB's roguelike aspects are intrusive, obnoxious, and serve no purpose to enhance the gameplay.

The first, and most obvious flaw that the game has, is your ability to pick your squad from the very start, and maintain a great deal of control over your team. This makes your team completely and utterly rigid from the get-go. It makes it easier, and gives you quite a bit of control, but utterly erases the advantages of a roguelike system, and quite frankly, might be the biggest issue I have with the game overall. The upgrades you can get are never set in stone, and can be easily changed between missions without any drawbacks, except for the pilot specific upgrades, which are not significant enough to change the way you play the game.

You may change your weapons as you advance, but your opportunities to do so are very limited. Not only are the weapons that you can come across only accessible through drop pods and a limited store variety at the end of each chapter, but most of these weapons are carbon copies of the weapons that each mech has available to them. Considering the limitations on mech customization, of which there are many, there is not much benifit to buying new weapons, as opposed to just buying cores, which are essential for late-game victory on harder difficulties. In an enviroment where you have quite a great deal of control over almost every aspect of the game, these random elements are, again, intrusive, and clash dramatically with the core design choices behind the gameplay. There simply aren't enough random factors in your builds, and the random factors that do exist have little to no influence on your overall success, from my experiences.

Now I'm not a fan of RNG determining my fate in a lot of cases. But dice rolls can be fun, and they certainly work well in an enviroment where you are forced to re-roll your dice once you lose. But the reason this works so well in many roguelike games, is because the benificial chances you come across are often equally, or more influencial than any negative chances you have to deal with. This brings us to the second biggest issue with Intro the breach, the negative consequences of RNG.

Thankfully, you won't come across negative consequence when it comes to builds. This is only an issue when dealing with enemies, enemy spawn, and enemy stats. When playing a strategy game, I hold to the idea that you should never be placed in a "well there's literally nothing I could have done" or 'fubar' situation. Even in terrible metagames like with hearthstone, these situations are rare. Unfortunately, ITB shares the same issue as FTL. There are just situations that are completely unavoidable, even with decked out bots. These situations are dependant on enemy generation in both cases, but unlike in FTL, where you have a massive safety net and hundreds of options to choose from, ITB offers very little in terms of contigency for these 'Fubar' situations. With the presetablished fact that random advantages grant you little to no... Well, advantage when faced with random disadvantages, 'Fubar' situations hold so much more weight than they should. It can be argued that this creates an interesting dynamic, it still ends acting as an obtrusive and undeserved penalty that serves to artificially increase game length. of course, that's what roguelikes do. But as I've mentioned earlier, ITB doesn't apply the most entertaining benifits of a roguelike to its game design.

So I have to ask: Why Roguelike? Was it only a narrative choice? Is that enough? What are your thoughts?

[Lv 20 Bolting Bot]

Well, firstly, this would be a "Rogue-lite" rather than a "Rogue-like", but I wouldn't even call it that. This belongs in the same category as XCOM and nobody calls XCOM a Rogue-lite/like.

[TexRex]

Originally posted by BOLTINGBOT:

Well, firstly, this would be a "Rogue-lite" rather than a "Rogue-like", but I wouldn't even call it that. This belongs in the same category as XCOM and nobody calls XCOM a Rogue-lite/like.

I don't think this compares with XCOM from a design standpoint at all, aside from the grid format, and focus on repositioning. XCOM's completely driven by narrative, and has very stiff progression. I'm also on the fence on whether this is really a 'rogue-lite' even if the term itself is very loose. The only true retainment between attempts would be a poultry pilot save on gameover. New bots and pilots too, if you want to count that.

[DarkExcalibur42]

Originally posted by BOLTINGBOT:

This belongs in the same category as XCOM and nobody calls XCOM a Rogue-lite/like.

When people ask me what Into the Breach is like, I say it's XCOM Judo Chess with Kaiju

[Knight Lamune]

"Roguelike" is a meme-tag, like most of them are now. Anything with even the slightest bit of procedureal generation (vs being a Mario Maker level) is a "roguelike."

♥♥♥♥ is different every time. Thus, roguish. That's all it means.

[DarkExcalibur42]

Most Rogue-like rogue-like of all rougue-likes:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/249630/Delver/

[TexRex]

Originally posted by Knight Lamune:

"Roguelike" is a meme-tag, like most of them are now. Anything with even the slightest bit of procedureal generation (vs being a Mario Maker level) is a "roguelike."

♥♥♥♥ is different every time. Thus, roguish. That's all it means.

That seems like an oversimplification of the genre based on community bias, to me. Thinking to the most defining games in the genre, there are iconic design choices that define a roguelike game, which ultimately amounts to 'difference in outcome' by the nature of chance.

Though, non-roguelike games have difference in outcome as well. Divinity Original sin, League of legends, bioshock, etc. The biggest difference in roguelike games, is that you are forced into difference of outcome.

The genre itself, at any rate, is defined by more than just randomosity.

[DarkExcalibur42]

Originally posted by TexRex:

'difference in outcome' by the nature of chance.

Different island layouts with a random mixture of objectives and maps. Different rewards, and rewards being highly limited throughout the course of the game. Random pilot rewards.

A strategy you rely on in one playthrough might not be available in the next. ITB does require you to improvise with what you find along the way. That's why it's tagged as rogue-like. Similar to games like Distrust, Sunless Sea, and the Long Journey Home.

However, because of its squad-based strategy elements many of those chaotic elements are less apparent. If you want more of that "deal with what you have", roll a random squad. That's why they put that in there.

[DarkExcalibur42]

Originally posted by TexRex:

The genre itself, at any rate, is defined by more than just randomosity.

Do you know what the original Rogue was? It was ALL randomosity. That was sort of the point. Potions were random, you didn't know what they were or what they did till you drank them. Rooms were random. Traps were random. Monsters? Random. Weapons and loot? Random. Games in the rogue-like style have greatly refined from their origin of really terrible game design.

[glass]

I don't really think of ITB as a roguelite. Sure, it share some mechanics, but so does tetris, and I don't consider that a roguelite.

If not a "roguelike". Then what genre?

A puzzle game, perhaps? How far can you undo? As far back as the start of the battle? How then would the player know that they have already screwed up due to bad build decisions, do the player keep retrying until they find out that it is impossible?

Then it doesn't make sense to only allow them to undo to the start of the battle... Maybe let them undo across games? If the player finds themself in a seemingly impossible battle.. how far back do they undo, one island? two?

Obviously the current design of the game won't work with a puzzle as the game itself was design around allowing the players to make mistakes.

Originally posted by TexRex:

However, ITB's roguelike aspects are intrusive, obnoxious, and serve no purpose to enhance the gameplay.

The above answers this question. The purpose it serves, and the way it enhance gameplay is by allowing the players to make mistakes.

A design that allows the player to make mistakes and have randomly elements allows for a more open game design.

Originally posted by TexRex:

Unfortunately, ITB shares the same issue as FTL. There are just situations that are completely unavoidable, even with decked out bots.

I strongly disagree.

The RNG in ITB feels like a "punish" mechanism. You only get into very bad situations if you previously made a mistake. However, if you are lucky, you can avoid getting punished.

Here, punish means having your mistakes be capitalise on.

Everytime I get into a situation where there is no way out, if I think back hard enough, there is always a bad decision that lead to this.

It is easy to mix up having bad RNG and making mistakes.

It's like in tetris, You can make mistakes and build in a way that a Square-block cannot fit anywhere without holes. Have bad RNG and the game gives you and Square-block. However, you only have a hole because of your previous mistakes.

It is not as obvious what mistakes are in ITB however, this is becaues the game has such an open design. It's hard to objectively say that one desicion is better than the other. It's hard to know where you when wrong.

[DarkExcalibur42]

Originally posted by glass:

The purpose it serves, and the way it enhance gameplay is by allowing the players to make mistakes.

This is probably my favorite element. I dislike it when failing a mission just straight-up ends the game with nowhere forward to go. It's a benefit shared by games like XCOM.

Everytime I get into a situation where there is no way out, if I think back hard enough, there is always a bad decision that lead to this.

Not always. Like when you're on a train defense mission and the exit point is in a mountain range two mountains deep and an Alpha Hornet decides to fly into the last square of the train's path. Sometimes you just don't have the mechs to deal with that and you have to eat the loss. Bad luck happens, and sometimes it's unavoidable. That's somewhat freeing as compared to games with more literal railroading that lead you into really miserable designed missions.

[TexRex]

Originally posted by DarkExcalibur42:

Originally posted by TexRex:

The genre itself, at any rate, is defined by more than just randomosity.

Do you know what the original Rogue was? It was ALL randomosity. That was sort of the point. Potions were random, you didn't know what they were or what they did till you drank them. Rooms were random. Traps were random. Monsters? Random. Weapons and loot? Random. Games in the rogue-like style have greatly refined from their origin of really terrible game design.

I understand the origins of the roguelike genre, and I like to think that I've done enough research to know what some of the most crucial roguelike traits are; roguelikes are not merely defined by their randomosity.

Originally posted by DarkExcalibur42:

Originally posted by TexRex:

'difference in outcome' by the nature of chance.

Different island layouts with a random mixture of objectives and maps. Different rewards, and rewards being highly limited throughout the course of the game. Random pilot rewards.

A strategy you rely on in one playthrough might not be available in the next. ITB does require you to improvise with what you find along the way. That's why it's tagged as rogue-like. Similar to games like Distrust, Sunless Sea, and the Long Journey Home.

However, because of its squad-based strategy elements many of those chaotic elements are less apparent. If you want more of that "deal with what you have", roll a random squad. That's why they put that in there.

I don't think we disagree there. I'm not saying this isn't a roguelike, quite the opposite. What I have issue with, was their choice to include roguelike elements.

Originally posted by glass:

You only get into very bad situations if you previously made a mistake....It's hard to objectively say that one desicion is better than the other. It's hard to know where you when wrong.

This is where I'm seeing a flaw in your line of reasoning. The punishment you refer to is random in nature, and completely unpredictable- That is to say, it is quite impossible to plan ahead for every last random element. It is possible to put yourself in a situation where the outcome may favor you, but you will be punished for no reason, more often than not.

It comes to question, then, whether this should be considered a result of your mistakes, or a result of a bad roll. In FTL, you can make mistakes in the same fashion. You can buy the wrong weapons or upgrade your ship poorly to prepare for a random encounter. Would upgrading your shield 1 more tick have saved you? Or would adding an Ion cannon have been better? You can't possibly know, considering how random the game is. Perhaps you come across a ridiculous volley of lasers, or shields+defense drones you can't deal with. So then, is it your fault for no planning well enough? Or is it the game's?

Clearly, in FTL's situation, it is entirely the game's fault- But FTL allows for far more mistakes than ITB. Of course, it's easier to avoid mistakes in ITB, but the same theorum applies. There are occasions you cannot plan for, as you cannot possibly see the future, and the actions of the enemies are completely random. If the enemy AI was as intelligent as a human player, you could not possibly win, which plays in a case against the logistics of mistakes and the consequences therein being just.

'Allowing a player to make mistakes' is not mutually exclusive with the roguelike genre, nor is it defining of roguelikes as a whole. In fact, roguelikes force mistakes upon you (for good reason) in order to propogate your failure, more often than not. From start to finish, the roguelike genre is against the player, turning them into a rogue that is fighting against the unpredictable nature of the game.

I don't think this is thematically appropriate for ITB, which appears to place more importance on your active decisions, than your ability to adapt an react. It is a game to be acted upon, making the player the subject rather than the object, which is a common practice and an effective design ethic for roguelikes.

[Lv 20 Bolting Bot]

It's very confusing when people throw "Rogue-like" around with no meaning. A Rogue-like is a game like Rogue, with the same gameplay mechanics as Rogue. A "Rogue-lite" is a game with elements from Rogue, but their gameplay can vary from turn-based strategy, to FPS, to action platforming. "Rogue-lite" also isn't a genre, but a genre modifier. This, for example, would be a strategy Rogue-lite, strategy being the genre.

If any of the two, ITB belongs in the "lite" category as its gameplay is nowhere near Rogue's. However, unless you go with random squads, this is more a pure strategy game than a Rogue-lite. Some random elements, sure, but not a whole lot, and the game gives you almost all information beforehand (mission info, enemy intents, a squad that determines your play style et.c.) This is hardly more random than XCOM.

However, considering how perverted some genre definitions have become now (looking at you, RPG tag), I don't even think genres have any meaning anymore. Half the time, community tags aren't decribing the game properly any way.

[DarkExcalibur42]

Originally posted by BOLTINGBOT:

It's very confusing when people throw "Rogue-like" around with no meaning.

I have this issue with lots of words ._.

As someone who majored in philosophy I very much feel pained when words lose their specificity through dilution. The meaning of words is critical to their application, and they should all be clearly defined and used.

Really we need a better term for games that incorporate procedural generation with a large amount of random content. But as you say, this is sort of a genre modifier term we're dealing with because it can cross so many genres. Makes it harder.

[TexRex]

Originally posted by BOLTINGBOT:

It's very confusing when people throw "Rogue-like" around with no meaning. A Rogue-like is a game like Rogue, with the same gameplay mechanics as Rogue. A "Rogue-lite" is a game with elements from Rogue, but their gameplay can vary from turn-based strategy, to FPS, to action platforming. "Rogue-lite" also isn't a genre, but a genre modifier. This, for example, would be a strategy Rogue-lite, strategy being the genre.

If any of the two, ITB belongs in the "lite" category as its gameplay is nowhere near Rogue's. However, unless you go with random squads, this is more a pure strategy game than a Rogue-lite. Some random elements, sure, but not a whole lot, and the game gives you almost all information beforehand (mission info, enemy intents, a squad that determines your play style et.c.) This is hardly more random than XCOM.

However, considering how perverted some genre definitions have become now (looking at you, RPG tag), I don't even think genres have any meaning anymore. Half the time, community tags aren't decribing the game properly any way.

I believe genres have meaning if we consider their elements. Genre and genre application help us analyze and identify certain choices in games, movies and music without complicating language and resorting to gobbledegok.

That aside, I can't agree that this game is not a rogue-like title. It sports many of the staple rogue-like elements, such as perma-death, randomization of resources/resource management, varied options, etc. I don't think rogue-'lite' is a poor, and pointless modifier that only serves to over-complicate a genre that isn't very complicated in the first place. If a game has core roguelike elements, it is roguelike, end of story. I don't think there's much of an argument to be made otherwise, honestly. I could care less about the semantics of what exactly a 'roguelike' is to be perfectly honest, as it bears no importance.

Though to be clear, I am at odds with ITB's rogue like elements, and the choice to include them at all. Permadeath, and the random resources, specifically. It seems like the entire game is built around the time travel gimmick, which I'd argue to be poor, backwards game design. But that's a matter of opinion, I suppose.

[DarkExcalibur42]

Originally posted by TexRex:

It seems like the entire game is built around the time travel gimmick, which I'd argue to be poor, backwards game design. But that's a matter of opinion, I suppose.

TBH, this is one of my favorite parts of ITB. I like the means of carrying over something from my previous play-through and I really like all the stats it records for each of my squads and pilots.