3 ms·

Weird, as a roguelike fan, I find Spelunky enormously tedious and repetitive. I would much rather crack out BoI or good ol' Nethack. And that's not for lack of

by zzalpha 10y ago

Weird, as a roguelike fan, I find Spelunky enormously tedious and repetitive. I would much rather crack out BoI or good ol' Nethack. And that's not for lack of trying. I've spent many hours trying to find satisfaction in Spelunky. But no matter the amount of time I put into it, it always seems like you're far more likely to be punished by bad luck than rewarded for skill or thoughtful play. Perhaps I've just never gotten over some hump in the game, but I also find it remarkably shallow for a roguelike. Of course this is all a matter of taste, but I thought it only fair to offer a counterpoint to your glowing review. :)

ufo 10y ago
I kind of have the opposite feeling. Whenever I die on Spelunky I feel like it was my fault, usually because I was rushing though things too quickly or because I tried to go through a dangerous area without spending resources. That said, this probably does explain a bit the contradicting reviews from you and the grandparent poster. Not having the game boil down to luck (or feel like that is the case) is what separates the good procedurally generated games from the bad ones.
chongli 10y ago
I'm a veteran roguelike player as well. I've beaten BoI, ascended NetHack quite a few times and beaten Spelunky many times as well. Out of those 3, Spelunky is the only one I keep coming back to. NetHack and BoI, to me, are monstrously tedious exercises in building an "ascension kit" and then merely brute-forcing the remainder of the game with it. Spelunky, on the other hand, stays fresh and challenging no matter what items you get. As for luck? Spelunky is the least luck-based game out of the 3. It's possible to beat the game with no items at all. The enemies all behave in deterministic ways and there are no dice rolls involved in the combat. Winning comes down to a combination of manual skills and experience at reading the situations and reacting appropriately. Most of the times I die these days come down to taking unnecessary risks (milking the ghost for diamonds or murdering all the shopkeepers in the black market) in the hopes of racking up a really high score.
- zzalpha 10y ago
  That may very well be why I find the game so tedious. I want a roguelike to offer me tools/equipment/power ups that offset the difficulty such that I don't constantly feel abused by the game. Spelunky isn't designed that way. You can't stack items so all you can do is pick those items that best match your play style. Beyond that it does very little to help you... it's deeply and fundamentally unforgiving. Combine that with the lack of variability in level design (while the levels are individually procedurally generated, each major section of the game feels very similar from run to run), and whenever I play I find I'm just waiting for my next jump to not be quite precise enough, leading to YASD. So I suspect for those that really revel in highly precise platformers with zero room for error, Spelunky is probably a great game. For me it's just game after game of deep frustration. Edit: BTW I'll happily admit that what I call bad luck is probably just a lack of skill. Unfortunately I doubt I'll ever develop the level of timing and precision necessary to play Spelunky well. And because the margins of error are so small, it feels like bad luck when I die... again...
  - chongli 10y ago
    I guess you have a different idea of tedious than me! :) Things are tedious to me only when they aren't challenging. If something is frustrating and really hard, it only makes me want to try again and again and again. If something is easy but just takes many steps to get done, I find it tedious and boring! NetHack was my first roguelike and I absolutely adored it when I was learning it. I found it very intense and challenging and exciting going for my first ascension run. After having done it more than 10 times, I now just find it tedious. There is so much stuff to do that doesn't take any skill at all such as: item identification, Sokoban (same puzzles over and over for years), castle wand, magic marker, reverse genocide silver dragons, writing tons of enchant scrolls, doing the invocation ritual... It feels more like filling out government paperwork than playing a game.
    - zzalpha 10y ago
      Yeah, I get that. I actually find BoI hits pretty good sweet spot in that regard. While I enjoy an OP build, most are playable (as evidenced by the challenges), so it doesn't feel like checking boxes on a spreadsheet, but it also feels like the game rewards you as you progress. For me I find Spelunky just swings too far the other way. But to each their own! I know plenty of people who love it. And talking about it now, I'm tempted to take another crack at it... :)

by zzalpha 10y ago

ufo 10y ago

I kind of have the opposite feeling. Whenever I die on Spelunky I feel like it was my fault, usually because I was rushing though things too quickly or because I tried to go through a dangerous area without spending resources. That said, this probably does explain a bit the contradicting reviews from you and the grandparent poster. Not having the game boil down to luck (or feel like that is the case) is what separates the good procedurally generated games from the bad ones.

chongli 10y ago

I'm a veteran roguelike player as well. I've beaten BoI, ascended NetHack quite a few times and beaten Spelunky many times as well. Out of those 3, Spelunky is the only one I keep coming back to. NetHack and BoI, to me, are monstrously tedious exercises in building an "ascension kit" and then merely brute-forcing the remainder of the game with it. Spelunky, on the other hand, stays fresh and challenging no matter what items you get. As for luck? Spelunky is the least luck-based game out of the 3. It's possible to beat the game with no items at all. The enemies all behave in deterministic ways and there are no dice rolls involved in the combat. Winning comes down to a combination of manual skills and experience at reading the situations and reacting appropriately. Most of the times I die these days come down to taking unnecessary risks (milking the ghost for diamonds or murdering all the shopkeepers in the black market) in the hopes of racking up a really high score.

zzalpha 10y ago
That may very well be why I find the game so tedious. I want a roguelike to offer me tools/equipment/power ups that offset the difficulty such that I don't constantly feel abused by the game. Spelunky isn't designed that way. You can't stack items so all you can do is pick those items that best match your play style. Beyond that it does very little to help you... it's deeply and fundamentally unforgiving. Combine that with the lack of variability in level design (while the levels are individually procedurally generated, each major section of the game feels very similar from run to run), and whenever I play I find I'm just waiting for my next jump to not be quite precise enough, leading to YASD. So I suspect for those that really revel in highly precise platformers with zero room for error, Spelunky is probably a great game. For me it's just game after game of deep frustration. Edit: BTW I'll happily admit that what I call bad luck is probably just a lack of skill. Unfortunately I doubt I'll ever develop the level of timing and precision necessary to play Spelunky well. And because the margins of error are so small, it feels like bad luck when I die... again...
- chongli 10y ago
  I guess you have a different idea of tedious than me! :) Things are tedious to me only when they aren't challenging. If something is frustrating and really hard, it only makes me want to try again and again and again. If something is easy but just takes many steps to get done, I find it tedious and boring! NetHack was my first roguelike and I absolutely adored it when I was learning it. I found it very intense and challenging and exciting going for my first ascension run. After having done it more than 10 times, I now just find it tedious. There is so much stuff to do that doesn't take any skill at all such as: item identification, Sokoban (same puzzles over and over for years), castle wand, magic marker, reverse genocide silver dragons, writing tons of enchant scrolls, doing the invocation ritual... It feels more like filling out government paperwork than playing a game.
  - zzalpha 10y ago
    Yeah, I get that. I actually find BoI hits pretty good sweet spot in that regard. While I enjoy an OP build, most are playable (as evidenced by the challenges), so it doesn't feel like checking boxes on a spreadsheet, but it also feels like the game rewards you as you progress. For me I find Spelunky just swings too far the other way. But to each their own! I know plenty of people who love it. And talking about it now, I'm tempted to take another crack at it... :)