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
My personal issue is I like to use campfires to upgrade cards. You only get so many campfires in the first place so forcing you to chose a keyy piece over a upgrade or a needed rest is kind of annoying. 2nd I hardly ever unless necassary fight elites. So loosing a relic from a chest or having to fight a super elite is also more trouble than it ends up being worth.
Also there's usually enough alternate pathing to easily path around the super if you really don't want to deal with it. Act 4 and the path towards it are meant to be an extra challenge. If you don't want to engage in Act 4, it's simple enough to just not engage with them.
I don't think you understand what artificial difficulty means. The keys add an extra layer of thought and planning, as well as necessitating sacrificing essentially one of each type of benefit during a run to reach Act 4 (an upgrade/rest, an item chest, the choice of bypassing elites through strategic pathing). If we were talking about some of the ascensions like just giving ♥♥♥♥ more health or more damage, then yea you might have a point.
wtf? Why post a question like this in a completely unrelated thread from 2019?
on the other hand, "giving ♥♥♥♥ more health or more damage" ie Stat Checking, is just a widely complained form of difficulty
(and it`s not considered Artificial unless we are talking bullet-spongifying, which is not the case here)
What does this even mean? It sounds like "unless I'm told everything I'm going to face ahead of time, its artificial difficulty", which I assume isn't what you are trying to say, because that would mean 99% of games are artificially difficult (an utterly stupid term in the first place, but anyway). I can't really think of what else you could mean with that though. Do you consider learning the game to be artificial difficulty?
Unrelated: this thread is from 2019, consider when responding.
A.k.a:
What number I'm I thinking?
a- 3+3
b- 4(x + 4) + 3(x -3) = 2(x -3) + 12
c- a number between 3 and 8
a is easy
b is difficult
c is fake difficult because it requires you to get lucky or die and replay
Like the (old) Champ fight
if you triggered the Execute phase without a way to kill him quickly.
(and that`s why we strongly encourage save and quit, lol)
Games based on replayability can mud the definition a bit
but if we want to call something "fake difficult" that`s probably it
That analogy falls apart once you try to apply it though, because sts doesn’t actually do that at all. It never asks “hey if you don’t land an exact number of block you lose”.
Almost all of the enemies have some kind of pattern players can pick up on, and the few who don’t either have damage values low enough to where it’s not an extreme threat unless the player put themselves in a bad spot through play errors already or the player has some agency in dictating what the enemy will do (see spaghetti monster).
Hell sts even tells you roundabout what enemies are gong to do each turn. With the exception of pure damage sure it’s kind of vague (status, block, flee or buff) so even from that perspective your analogy just doesn’t work.
The fact the game doesn’t hold your hand and tell you every single pattern and mechanic of each and every fight and leaves it up to the player to learn through experience doesn’t make it fake difficulty, it’s literally what most games expect of its playerbase.
but the Execute example is pretty hard to dispute
and so is a bunch of other stuff that only works because the whole "roguelike experience" presupposes multiple playthroughs.
Much like "good cards" and "under-the-threshold-cards" this is just Classical Game Design Theory
you can agree or disagree, but that`s on you
it`s not like it`s a real science anyway lol
It`s like the "Roguelikes" e co...
there`s an actual definition(of questionable authority), but that doesn`t stop half the internet from disagreeing with it