5 ms·

I haven't played this game, but I'll definitely add it to my watchlist from this insightful conversation. I had an interesting experience with friction playing

I haven't played this game, but I'll definitely add it to my watchlist from this insightful conversation. I had an interesting experience with friction playing the Retro Bowl (football) and Retro Goal (soccer) games on my iPhone. I don't usually play sports titles, but they build an interesting feeling where you just can't win 'em all. If you are building a franchise, some matches will be impossible to win, so you just need to try your damndest to lose less. While action games will warp you to a checkpoint when you die and roguelikes will bring you back to the beginning, these games give you a penalty and let you proceed. It's a fun procedural narrative when you have an abyssal record, pissed off investors/fans, and a team with great potential, but low morale. Unfortunately, these games are single player but F2P, so there is a tempting micro-transaction of spending $2/$5/$10+ to get a morale boost or funds. I appreciate the design decisions, but it does make me think the game traps you into failure until you spend some cash. I had to admit that I spent real money in Retro Goal. I actually justified it by pretending I had to take Qatari funding to keep my Premier League team afloat.

LightG 5y ago
Last line, hilarious.
rhn_mk1 5y ago
> and roguelikes will bring you back to the beginning I think the best roguelikes are the ones who let you fail and then proceed limping. Or maybe the best games in general, since I'm not sure if Rimworld counts as a roguelike. Either way, to start from the beginning in a good roguelike means to have made a chain of bad decisions.
- brimble 5y ago
  That's more a quality of the "rogue lite" subgenre, no? Which I do personally prefer to the traditional kind. Though "fail but keep going" can go very wrong, in the case of something like FTL, where you can easily have "lost" by the end of the first or second area due to a bad roll, but still manage to limp all the way to the end (with no hope whatsoever of winning). An early "game over" would be preferable there to keep new players from wasting their time on doomed-in-the-first-15-minutes attempts that won't even be good for learning purposes (the way you have to play when you're already dead but don't know it yet and are just trying to maintain forward movement, is very different from what you do when you're on anything resembling the path to victory, in that game).
  - eru 5y ago
    Your observation about FTL sounds about right. Though, if you are an experienced player and playing on a lower difficulty, there's many scenarios that you can turn around that might look lost? I am not sure if FTL is the best example here? FTL is slightly unusual because it has a turn-limit, because you always have to move forward, and you might not have enough time left to recover. By contrast, in Nethack there are basically no mistakes that damn you to limp along and lock you out of winning. Either you die quickly, or you can recover into a winnable position. (Though you might be locked out of certain niceties for a run, you don't need any specific permanently-loseable nicety to win.)
    - brimble 5y ago
      Yeah FTL's problem is that once you fall behind in the game's economy, if you will, there's only very limited ability to take it easy and try to catch up, but it lets you avoid a lot of combat so it's possible to limp along almost-losing all the way to the end (or damn close) and reach the boss in such a state that you can hardly scratch it. The trouble is that if you aren't able to handle encounters, you're already toast, because you need to be handily winning most encounters to stay ahead in the game-economy. If you're avoiding fights out of necessity, you're likely doomed—which is part of what I meant about playing-to-limp-as-far-as-possible and playing-to-win looking very different, so the former not even being very useful practice for the latter. IIRC (it's been a while) the luck component in it is also largely negative, in that bad things can randomly happen to you but (substantial) good random effects are minor and unusual, so you can't even luck your way into enough resources to have a hope of winning, as in something like Nethack where a desperate prayer or drink at a fountain or something might totally turn your game around. If you're more than very slightly behind, the game's not going to hand you enough to salvage your run, period. I think part of the trouble is the illusion-of-choice map system. In reality, you have to be taking certain routes to do well, by deliberately seeking encounters, et c. The illusion is that you can take an easy route through an area and still be on a path to victory. IMO the maps are kinda pointless in that game, given how the mechanics work, basically just providing an opportunity to fuck up without knowing it, and also permitting the limping-to-the-end-but-long-ago-doomed effect. I find FTL frustrating because I like some aspects of it but IMO it makes some major mistakes in terms of game mechanics, to a degree that I find it hard to appreciate the things I like (mainly the tactical combat minigame). I get what they were trying to do with the rest of it—the time pressure cutting off options and forcing choices, et c—but it doesn't all come together correctly. Needed one more conceptual pass to make it all fit properly, which is even more frustrating when it's not that complex a game. All that effort to finish it, but fundamental flaws left in place throughout.
duxup 5y ago
Maybe I’ve had good luck but I’ve run across more f2p games that have all the trappings of dark patterns and having to pay just to win and … they’re actually good games and skill wins over pay to win. I wish there was a good way to classify a “f2p… but reasonably balanced “ game.
- the_af 5y ago
  Do you have examples of good F2P games? I'd like to take a look. To me, a bad pattern -- usually done by F2P games, but I don't think it's mandatory for them to use it -- is both the mindless grind ("am I having fun with this, or just clicking stuff?") and the pay-to-skip aspect. To me the latter is the worst, an admission by the game developers that their game is boring and the only way to get to the "good parts" is to spend money to fast-forward them. Usually there aren't even any good parts, it's all skippable.
  - schnevets 5y ago
    I have had a lot of fun with Brawl Stars. Supercell got a bad wrap because Clash of Clans was so frequently mimicked, but they clearly have some passionate designers.
    - Marazan 5y ago
      Clash Royale is also a superb game. Skill is the majority component in the game (given that top players can take a level 1 account all the way to legendary level) and it is so generous handing out in game currency to level up cards you can happily never spend a penny on the game. So surprising given it comes from the same people as Clash of Clans.
      - duxup 5y ago
        > So surprising given it comes from the same people as Clash of Clans. I suspect a lot of devs and etc are just trying to find a revenue source and not committed to dark patterns or etc.
  - 5y ago
DylanSp 5y ago
I'm guessing they're a step up in complexity, but the Football Manager series might be up your alley. Especially starting in the lower leagues, there's going to be a similar dynamic, where your semi-pro team just isn't going to be able to win everything out of the gates.
- schnevets 5y ago
  I have had some fun with Football Manager, and it does have a similar vibe of "letting the story play out". However, the Retro games allow you to actively control players in the match itself, instead of only being the manager like in FM. That's the cool thing: an extremely skillful player may thrash an opponent and earn a big reward, but in a different situation may only be able to "avoid disaster". I feel like this is similar to real-life, but isn't really applied in a lot of games.
MWil 5y ago
I had a similar urge in Retro Bowl but it wasn't based on my impression that I was being "trapped" into failure unless I spent cash so much as that's what legitimately happens when there's a finite game clock. The Green Bay Packers for example, can absolutely take up the last 9-10 minutes of the game in real life leaving you with 30 seconds for a hail mary strategy. That's a real life pressure that I felt in that game where the CPU has the ball and the lead.
- NoNameHaveI 5y ago
  PACKERS!!! WOOO!!!
- sushid 5y ago
  That's very interesting. I felt like Retro Bowl was well made but almost too easy. As long as I had a mid-term QB and a top tier WR the games were a breeze.

LightG 5y ago

Last line, hilarious.

rhn_mk1 5y ago

> and roguelikes will bring you back to the beginning I think the best roguelikes are the ones who let you fail and then proceed limping. Or maybe the best games in general, since I'm not sure if Rimworld counts as a roguelike. Either way, to start from the beginning in a good roguelike means to have made a chain of bad decisions.

brimble 5y ago
That's more a quality of the "rogue lite" subgenre, no? Which I do personally prefer to the traditional kind. Though "fail but keep going" can go very wrong, in the case of something like FTL, where you can easily have "lost" by the end of the first or second area due to a bad roll, but still manage to limp all the way to the end (with no hope whatsoever of winning). An early "game over" would be preferable there to keep new players from wasting their time on doomed-in-the-first-15-minutes attempts that won't even be good for learning purposes (the way you have to play when you're already dead but don't know it yet and are just trying to maintain forward movement, is very different from what you do when you're on anything resembling the path to victory, in that game).
- eru 5y ago
  Your observation about FTL sounds about right. Though, if you are an experienced player and playing on a lower difficulty, there's many scenarios that you can turn around that might look lost? I am not sure if FTL is the best example here? FTL is slightly unusual because it has a turn-limit, because you always have to move forward, and you might not have enough time left to recover. By contrast, in Nethack there are basically no mistakes that damn you to limp along and lock you out of winning. Either you die quickly, or you can recover into a winnable position. (Though you might be locked out of certain niceties for a run, you don't need any specific permanently-loseable nicety to win.)
  - brimble 5y ago
    Yeah FTL's problem is that once you fall behind in the game's economy, if you will, there's only very limited ability to take it easy and try to catch up, but it lets you avoid a lot of combat so it's possible to limp along almost-losing all the way to the end (or damn close) and reach the boss in such a state that you can hardly scratch it. The trouble is that if you aren't able to handle encounters, you're already toast, because you need to be handily winning most encounters to stay ahead in the game-economy. If you're avoiding fights out of necessity, you're likely doomed—which is part of what I meant about playing-to-limp-as-far-as-possible and playing-to-win looking very different, so the former not even being very useful practice for the latter. IIRC (it's been a while) the luck component in it is also largely negative, in that bad things can randomly happen to you but (substantial) good random effects are minor and unusual, so you can't even luck your way into enough resources to have a hope of winning, as in something like Nethack where a desperate prayer or drink at a fountain or something might totally turn your game around. If you're more than very slightly behind, the game's not going to hand you enough to salvage your run, period. I think part of the trouble is the illusion-of-choice map system. In reality, you have to be taking certain routes to do well, by deliberately seeking encounters, et c. The illusion is that you can take an easy route through an area and still be on a path to victory. IMO the maps are kinda pointless in that game, given how the mechanics work, basically just providing an opportunity to fuck up without knowing it, and also permitting the limping-to-the-end-but-long-ago-doomed effect. I find FTL frustrating because I like some aspects of it but IMO it makes some major mistakes in terms of game mechanics, to a degree that I find it hard to appreciate the things I like (mainly the tactical combat minigame). I get what they were trying to do with the rest of it—the time pressure cutting off options and forcing choices, et c—but it doesn't all come together correctly. Needed one more conceptual pass to make it all fit properly, which is even more frustrating when it's not that complex a game. All that effort to finish it, but fundamental flaws left in place throughout.

duxup 5y ago

Maybe I’ve had good luck but I’ve run across more f2p games that have all the trappings of dark patterns and having to pay just to win and … they’re actually good games and skill wins over pay to win. I wish there was a good way to classify a “f2p… but reasonably balanced “ game.

the_af 5y ago
Do you have examples of good F2P games? I'd like to take a look. To me, a bad pattern -- usually done by F2P games, but I don't think it's mandatory for them to use it -- is both the mindless grind ("am I having fun with this, or just clicking stuff?") and the pay-to-skip aspect. To me the latter is the worst, an admission by the game developers that their game is boring and the only way to get to the "good parts" is to spend money to fast-forward them. Usually there aren't even any good parts, it's all skippable.
- schnevets 5y ago
  I have had a lot of fun with Brawl Stars. Supercell got a bad wrap because Clash of Clans was so frequently mimicked, but they clearly have some passionate designers.
  - Marazan 5y ago
    Clash Royale is also a superb game. Skill is the majority component in the game (given that top players can take a level 1 account all the way to legendary level) and it is so generous handing out in game currency to level up cards you can happily never spend a penny on the game. So surprising given it comes from the same people as Clash of Clans.
    - duxup 5y ago
      > So surprising given it comes from the same people as Clash of Clans. I suspect a lot of devs and etc are just trying to find a revenue source and not committed to dark patterns or etc.
- 5y ago

DylanSp 5y ago

I'm guessing they're a step up in complexity, but the Football Manager series might be up your alley. Especially starting in the lower leagues, there's going to be a similar dynamic, where your semi-pro team just isn't going to be able to win everything out of the gates.

schnevets 5y ago
I have had some fun with Football Manager, and it does have a similar vibe of "letting the story play out". However, the Retro games allow you to actively control players in the match itself, instead of only being the manager like in FM. That's the cool thing: an extremely skillful player may thrash an opponent and earn a big reward, but in a different situation may only be able to "avoid disaster". I feel like this is similar to real-life, but isn't really applied in a lot of games.

MWil 5y ago

I had a similar urge in Retro Bowl but it wasn't based on my impression that I was being "trapped" into failure unless I spent cash so much as that's what legitimately happens when there's a finite game clock. The Green Bay Packers for example, can absolutely take up the last 9-10 minutes of the game in real life leaving you with 30 seconds for a hail mary strategy. That's a real life pressure that I felt in that game where the CPU has the ball and the lead.

NoNameHaveI 5y ago
PACKERS!!! WOOO!!!
sushid 5y ago
That's very interesting. I felt like Retro Bowl was well made but almost too easy. As long as I had a mid-term QB and a top tier WR the games were a breeze.