4 ms·

The problem with applying this to some roguelikes, such as Nethack, is that part of the fun is finding out what you can do. Getting a handy contextual menu whe

The problem with applying this to some roguelikes, such as Nethack, is that part of the fun is finding out what you can do. Getting a handy contextual menu when you find a sink, or an alter, or whatever makes the game easier and less confusing, but also takes away a wonderful aspect of it when you learn or hear about some new crazy aspect of it. That's not to say it doesn't have a place in roguelikes, just that each game needs to carefully consider what it brings to the table, and also what it cuts out.

otikik 7y ago
> takes away a wonderful aspect of it when you learn or hear about some new crazy aspect of it. It might be useful to think about this in term of how many players it affects. My opinion is that for each seasoned roguelike player who enjoys this "wonderful" aspect, there will be multiple roguelike newbies who will be discouraged by the unfriendly UX and just leave.
- alchemism 7y ago
  That encapsulates what happened in the transition from text parser (keyboard-driven) games to mouse-driven games: discoverability went up, complexity went down; the first generation of gamers lost interest and a second larger generation of gamers came into being.
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    Not everyone lost interest... I loved keyboard driven games, and I love mouse driven games, too.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > My opinion is that for each seasoned roguelike player who enjoys this "wonderful" aspect, there will be multiple roguelike newbies who will be discouraged by the unfriendly UX This is a strange viewpoint. This "wonderful" aspect of NetHack applies solely to newbies; seasoned players already know what they can do.
- dragonsngoblins 7y ago
  I actually find the opposite to be true. I enjoyed not having a clear idea of what everything did when I was just starting out. Once I knew what I could do with most things it became annoying that I didn't have an easier interface because there wasn't potential in the complexity anymore
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  There's nothing saying that one should prefer wider audience to a smaller one. Ultimately, the quest of appealing to the lowest common denominator lowers a ceiling for possible enjoyment.
meheleventyone 7y ago
At first blush it might seem that simplifying the interface loses this element. But really as you allude to having "fun finding out what you can do" is just a design goal that can be accomplished even with a simpler interface. For example crafting systems or other forms of modifiers. I combine water with my sticks and get wet sticks then use those to make a camp fire which makes it extra smokey. Which leads to more introducing more systemic interactions and the beauty of those is that systems that interact have great potential for emergent behavior. Simplifying Nethack's interface may well make it a worse game but it's not the case that a simpler interface in another game implies losing out on the fun of discovery.
- kbenson 7y ago
  > Simplifying Nethack's interface may well make it a worse game but it's not the case that a simpler interface in another game implies losing out on the fun of discovery. Sure. That's what I was trying to say in the second paragraph. It's not a matter one being better than the other in general, or even for roguelikes. It's that there are things to consider about how you interact with the system in every case, so it deserves some attention. For Nethack, I think the game is better for the interface not giving you clues what you can and cannot do. For other games, that likely isn't the case (very few support both the breadth of unique actions and make discovering those part of the draw of the game).
reggieband 7y ago
I think you can have both. You could start out not knowing what you can do to any noun and through attempting verbs->noun you can build a library of options. Once you know you can apply a verb to a noun that "unlocks" the noun->verb menu. That would retain the "discovery" aspect of the game while also providing the convenience. You could even spin it into a game mechanic with "confusion" (randomizing your noun->verb options) and "amnesia" (erasing your noun->verb options).

otikik 7y ago

> takes away a wonderful aspect of it when you learn or hear about some new crazy aspect of it. It might be useful to think about this in term of how many players it affects. My opinion is that for each seasoned roguelike player who enjoys this "wonderful" aspect, there will be multiple roguelike newbies who will be discouraged by the unfriendly UX and just leave.

alchemism 7y ago
That encapsulates what happened in the transition from text parser (keyboard-driven) games to mouse-driven games: discoverability went up, complexity went down; the first generation of gamers lost interest and a second larger generation of gamers came into being.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  Not everyone lost interest... I loved keyboard driven games, and I love mouse driven games, too.
thaumasiotes 7y ago
> My opinion is that for each seasoned roguelike player who enjoys this "wonderful" aspect, there will be multiple roguelike newbies who will be discouraged by the unfriendly UX This is a strange viewpoint. This "wonderful" aspect of NetHack applies solely to newbies; seasoned players already know what they can do.
dragonsngoblins 7y ago
I actually find the opposite to be true. I enjoyed not having a clear idea of what everything did when I was just starting out. Once I knew what I could do with most things it became annoying that I didn't have an easier interface because there wasn't potential in the complexity anymore
TeMPOraL 7y ago
There's nothing saying that one should prefer wider audience to a smaller one. Ultimately, the quest of appealing to the lowest common denominator lowers a ceiling for possible enjoyment.

meheleventyone 7y ago

At first blush it might seem that simplifying the interface loses this element. But really as you allude to having "fun finding out what you can do" is just a design goal that can be accomplished even with a simpler interface. For example crafting systems or other forms of modifiers. I combine water with my sticks and get wet sticks then use those to make a camp fire which makes it extra smokey. Which leads to more introducing more systemic interactions and the beauty of those is that systems that interact have great potential for emergent behavior. Simplifying Nethack's interface may well make it a worse game but it's not the case that a simpler interface in another game implies losing out on the fun of discovery.

kbenson 7y ago
> Simplifying Nethack's interface may well make it a worse game but it's not the case that a simpler interface in another game implies losing out on the fun of discovery. Sure. That's what I was trying to say in the second paragraph. It's not a matter one being better than the other in general, or even for roguelikes. It's that there are things to consider about how you interact with the system in every case, so it deserves some attention. For Nethack, I think the game is better for the interface not giving you clues what you can and cannot do. For other games, that likely isn't the case (very few support both the breadth of unique actions and make discovering those part of the draw of the game).

reggieband 7y ago

I think you can have both. You could start out not knowing what you can do to any noun and through attempting verbs->noun you can build a library of options. Once you know you can apply a verb to a noun that "unlocks" the noun->verb menu. That would retain the "discovery" aspect of the game while also providing the convenience. You could even spin it into a game mechanic with "confusion" (randomizing your noun->verb options) and "amnesia" (erasing your noun->verb options).