5 ms·

I think there's two separate concepts, and it can be worthwhile to separate them out, namely ironman (or permadeath), versus roguelikes which encourage more fre

I think there's two separate concepts, and it can be worthwhile to separate them out, namely ironman (or permadeath), versus roguelikes which encourage more frequent, "short"(-er) games. E.g. you might play a game like XCOM or Europa Universalis on ironman, and that is what will give the situations you encounter the seriousness / gravitas that they deserve, and it can be thrilling. On the other hand, a game like Everspace actually pulls of the "fun of dying" quite nicely. Games are relatively short, especially early on, and unlike most roguelikes your character's skills and weapon choices do survive deaths to some degree. So much of the time, you're dying with a smile on your face, because you know you've just achieved an important milestone, and you can't wait to try again with whatever you just unlocked. I thought it was an interesting hybrid take on the roguelike genre.

ferongr 8y ago
>roguelikes which encourage more frequent, "short"(-er) games Those are roguelites, not roguelikes.
- taneq 8y ago
  Or "coffee break rogues".
  - floatboth 8y ago
    Yeah, "roguelite" usually implies losing some of the big classic elements (e.g. not being turn based). "coffee break" only implies short length.
chongli 8y ago
I would argue that if a game is meant to make dying fun, it isn't a roguelike. The purpose of death in roguelikes is to add the sense of gravitas, as you say. The fun aspect of death is accidental at best. Perhaps a good analogy is with horror movies. Horror movies are meant to scare you. Horror movies can often be funny. But a movie that was intended to be funny is not a horror movie, it's a comedy.
setr 8y ago
>roguelikes which encourage more frequent, "short"(-er) games. I wouldn't say roguelikes encourage shorter games; they encourage long games, and are mechanically designed around long sessions. The difficulty makes it more ..difficult.. to achieve a longer game, but there's absolutely nothing to encourage killing off your character. Someone new to roguelikes, I think, might be perceive that everything revolves around the initial roll of the dice, and the items you find, but the games are balanced such that you should be capable of surviving regardless of the initial roll (except in really, awful, just plain terrible starts). And you'll still trivially die with even a great start. You're encouraged towards a long session, but unlike most games, roguelikes fight really hard to not let you have it. in a similar fashion as https://i.imgur.com/mHXiz.png https://i.imgur.com/mHXiz.png roguelites on the other hand encourage shorter sessions to some degree, by the usual mechanic of meta-rewards that persist between sessions. With it, it's not just less punishing to die; it actively encourages you to die, because you'll be able to start again with a better character, with better equipment, abilities, whatever. And this will inevitably mean you take more risks with your character (like say, investing more in health, because you have a guaranteed strong weapon), and eventually reach the same point as where you died but stronger than before. They push death onto you, whereas a roguelike offers next to nothing. Just another roll, but you'll get those anyways if you push on..
- danielbarla 8y ago
  Yeah, good points re: rougelikes and rouge-lites (though [1]). I think there's still an essential element of difference between a rougelike and normal ironman games, which is that rougelikes nevertheless typically expect you to die. While it's true that it's not RNG-based as badly as many believe (since top players can usually achieve wins consistently despite bad rolls), there are usually dead-ends which you have no way of knowing about without prior experience, realistically. Contrast that with a game of XCom on easy + ironman, and there's a chance that a new player may actually win that. Whereas with NetHack, that chance is about as close to zero as it can get. So, while dying might not be outright fun in the literal sense, it might be "Fun", and at the same time you may learn something critical for your next playthrough. In that sense, roguelikes are very much intended to be replayed many dozens of times, which differentiates them from normal ironman games in my view. [1] My main experience is with ToME, which I believe is considered a roguelike rather than a rogue-lite, and I'm pretty sure games don't tend to go into dozens of hours, normally. Assuming you don't die very early, it's probably closer to 5-6 hours, in my experience, which is far shorter than other normal games.

ferongr 8y ago

>roguelikes which encourage more frequent, "short"(-er) games Those are roguelites, not roguelikes.

taneq 8y ago
Or "coffee break rogues".
- floatboth 8y ago
  Yeah, "roguelite" usually implies losing some of the big classic elements (e.g. not being turn based). "coffee break" only implies short length.

chongli 8y ago

I would argue that if a game is meant to make dying fun, it isn't a roguelike. The purpose of death in roguelikes is to add the sense of gravitas, as you say. The fun aspect of death is accidental at best. Perhaps a good analogy is with horror movies. Horror movies are meant to scare you. Horror movies can often be funny. But a movie that was intended to be funny is not a horror movie, it's a comedy.

setr 8y ago

>roguelikes which encourage more frequent, "short"(-er) games. I wouldn't say roguelikes encourage shorter games; they encourage long games, and are mechanically designed around long sessions. The difficulty makes it more ..difficult.. to achieve a longer game, but there's absolutely nothing to encourage killing off your character. Someone new to roguelikes, I think, might be perceive that everything revolves around the initial roll of the dice, and the items you find, but the games are balanced such that you should be capable of surviving regardless of the initial roll (except in really, awful, just plain terrible starts). And you'll still trivially die with even a great start. You're encouraged towards a long session, but unlike most games, roguelikes fight really hard to not let you have it. in a similar fashion as https://i.imgur.com/mHXiz.png https://i.imgur.com/mHXiz.png roguelites on the other hand encourage shorter sessions to some degree, by the usual mechanic of meta-rewards that persist between sessions. With it, it's not just less punishing to die; it actively encourages you to die, because you'll be able to start again with a better character, with better equipment, abilities, whatever. And this will inevitably mean you take more risks with your character (like say, investing more in health, because you have a guaranteed strong weapon), and eventually reach the same point as where you died but stronger than before. They push death onto you, whereas a roguelike offers next to nothing. Just another roll, but you'll get those anyways if you push on..

danielbarla 8y ago
Yeah, good points re: rougelikes and rouge-lites (though [1]). I think there's still an essential element of difference between a rougelike and normal ironman games, which is that rougelikes nevertheless typically expect you to die. While it's true that it's not RNG-based as badly as many believe (since top players can usually achieve wins consistently despite bad rolls), there are usually dead-ends which you have no way of knowing about without prior experience, realistically. Contrast that with a game of XCom on easy + ironman, and there's a chance that a new player may actually win that. Whereas with NetHack, that chance is about as close to zero as it can get. So, while dying might not be outright fun in the literal sense, it might be "Fun", and at the same time you may learn something critical for your next playthrough. In that sense, roguelikes are very much intended to be replayed many dozens of times, which differentiates them from normal ironman games in my view. [1] My main experience is with ToME, which I believe is considered a roguelike rather than a rogue-lite, and I'm pretty sure games don't tend to go into dozens of hours, normally. Assuming you don't die very early, it's probably closer to 5-6 hours, in my experience, which is far shorter than other normal games.