3 ms·

A roguelike (berlin interpretation) can be made always winnable, without this issue, because their fundamental goal differs from games like Slay the Spire -- a

by setr 6y ago

A roguelike (berlin interpretation) can be made always winnable, without this issue, because their fundamental goal differs from games like Slay the Spire -- a roguelike's victory condition is to steal the object in the depths, and escape, and enemy battles are just an aspect of that task; its not key to the gameplay. Which is why you can have no-kill runs, and non-combat-optimal builds and be successful. It's also why you can have a monster that spawned way too early and can one-shot you while rewarding nothing on death, and you can decide not to fight it. The 40 damage does matter, but you as a player decide as part of your risk management strategy whether its worth potentially being crippled, or killed, by such a monster. It also means a roguelike can introduce unbeatable creatures (at least at your current strength), or overly high risk-reward scenarios, and it doesn't mean the game is actually over. Slay the Spire on the other hand is a battle simulator -- a series of fights until you win. You don't get an option in the matter, because there is no grander goal. Which means the same monster that is a choice in a roguelike, is simply game over in StS. Jorbs is right about StS; he is not right about procedural generation. This is a direct result of the game's mechanics.

runevault 6y ago
Keep in mind Jorbs' bread and butter are particular types of games, in particular deck based roguelites and strategy games in the vein of the new X-Com series. Also before that he came from a poker background so a lot of his analysis of games comes through those lenses.
chongli 6y ago
I’m surprised to hear the Berlin interpretation brought up here. I thought for the most part that people had moved on. Anyway, a lot of classic (Berlin) roguelikes put you in situations where it is impossible to escape combat. If the enemy you’re facing is faster than you and you have no tools of escape, combat is probably unavoidable. So there are plenty of situations in a classic roguelike which are simply game over because you saw a monster (likely out of depth) you had no chance of beating. It may be unlikely if the game throws lots of escape tools at you, but there’s always the chance you don’t get any of them on a given seed.
- setr 6y ago
  > I’m surprised to hear the Berlin interpretation brought up here. I thought for the most part that people had moved on. Its primary value for me is to differentiate between roguelikes and roguelites, where the latter term seems to have been given too much weight and controversy (roguelike communities trying to hold onto their name too strongly, as to become unseemly); referring to berlin interpretation seems like a less sensitive workaround. Roguelite is a dumb name anyways. The differentiation is still very useful though, because the roguelike genre is a very interesting one to be able to reference. (and so thoroughly distinct from roguelites, that the short distance in naming really isn't very appropriate -- similar to NoSQL vs SQL DBs) > So there are plenty of situations in a classic roguelike which are simply game over because you saw a monster (likely out of depth) you had no chance of beating. It may be unlikely if the game throws lots of escape tools at you, but there’s always the chance you don’t get any of them on a given seed. This is true; the general design trends towards combat encounters (roguelikes really just being the DnD combat & dungeoneering mechanics ripped out and pushed on computers, dropping most of the other elements), but that's more out of design choice than out of any necessity to keep the game "interesting". That is, you can trivially conceive of interesting situations and mechanisms that are not directly combat-related, and you can also find examples of them implemented (like the orb-chasing of DCSS orb spiders, which force an awkward dance -- the challenge is from limiting positioning, and the damage is what gives it weight, but it is in no way unavoidable). Rougelikes aren't interesting because there's always a chance you might end up in an unavoidable death -- they're interesting because there's always a chance you'll push yourself into an unavoidable death. > It may be unlikely if the game throws lots of escape tools at you, but there’s always the chance you don’t get any of them on a given seed. The core point of my argument is that you could force a minimal set of escape tools to the player, and the game would still be interesting. The games aren't actually dependent on having unavoidable threats, and being able to win each and every encounter, because the goals are different from StS. The threat can be there, without the unavoidable loss. That the procedural generation may produce unwinnable games is not a requirement of procgen games -- it is a just an artifact of the implementation. But for StS and its kin, I think Jorbs is right -- potentially unwinnable games may be a requirement of that style of game.

by setr 6y ago

runevault 6y ago

Keep in mind Jorbs' bread and butter are particular types of games, in particular deck based roguelites and strategy games in the vein of the new X-Com series. Also before that he came from a poker background so a lot of his analysis of games comes through those lenses.

chongli 6y ago

I’m surprised to hear the Berlin interpretation brought up here. I thought for the most part that people had moved on. Anyway, a lot of classic (Berlin) roguelikes put you in situations where it is impossible to escape combat. If the enemy you’re facing is faster than you and you have no tools of escape, combat is probably unavoidable. So there are plenty of situations in a classic roguelike which are simply game over because you saw a monster (likely out of depth) you had no chance of beating. It may be unlikely if the game throws lots of escape tools at you, but there’s always the chance you don’t get any of them on a given seed.

setr 6y ago
> I’m surprised to hear the Berlin interpretation brought up here. I thought for the most part that people had moved on. Its primary value for me is to differentiate between roguelikes and roguelites, where the latter term seems to have been given too much weight and controversy (roguelike communities trying to hold onto their name too strongly, as to become unseemly); referring to berlin interpretation seems like a less sensitive workaround. Roguelite is a dumb name anyways. The differentiation is still very useful though, because the roguelike genre is a very interesting one to be able to reference. (and so thoroughly distinct from roguelites, that the short distance in naming really isn't very appropriate -- similar to NoSQL vs SQL DBs) > So there are plenty of situations in a classic roguelike which are simply game over because you saw a monster (likely out of depth) you had no chance of beating. It may be unlikely if the game throws lots of escape tools at you, but there’s always the chance you don’t get any of them on a given seed. This is true; the general design trends towards combat encounters (roguelikes really just being the DnD combat & dungeoneering mechanics ripped out and pushed on computers, dropping most of the other elements), but that's more out of design choice than out of any necessity to keep the game "interesting". That is, you can trivially conceive of interesting situations and mechanisms that are not directly combat-related, and you can also find examples of them implemented (like the orb-chasing of DCSS orb spiders, which force an awkward dance -- the challenge is from limiting positioning, and the damage is what gives it weight, but it is in no way unavoidable). Rougelikes aren't interesting because there's always a chance you might end up in an unavoidable death -- they're interesting because there's always a chance you'll push yourself into an unavoidable death. > It may be unlikely if the game throws lots of escape tools at you, but there’s always the chance you don’t get any of them on a given seed. The core point of my argument is that you could force a minimal set of escape tools to the player, and the game would still be interesting. The games aren't actually dependent on having unavoidable threats, and being able to win each and every encounter, because the goals are different from StS. The threat can be there, without the unavoidable loss. That the procedural generation may produce unwinnable games is not a requirement of procgen games -- it is a just an artifact of the implementation. But for StS and its kin, I think Jorbs is right -- potentially unwinnable games may be a requirement of that style of game.