3 ms·

I'd never thought about it that way, but you're exactly right. Roguelikes that feel like roguelikes always have a certain "open/transparent case" sense to them,

by djur 2y ago

I'd never thought about it that way, but you're exactly right. Roguelikes that feel like roguelikes always have a certain "open/transparent case" sense to them, even if the actual mechanics are hidden away from you a lot (such as in NetHack). They make a virtue out of not feeling curated and crafted (even though there's a lot of craft that goes into them), and the more narrative, cinematic quality, visual polish, etc. that gets added the less it feels like Rogue.

throw4847285 2y ago
Honestly, I think the closest experience to a classic Roguelike is playing Minesweeper or Solitaire. Most of the time your next move is pretty clear, but you always reach a point where you have incomplete information and you have to way the risk/reward of, say, trying that armor on or zapping that tough enemy with a wand of polymorph. Not a lot of video games really lean into incomplete information as a core mechanic. Experimentation is necessary to figure out all the interactions. Though to be honest, I like my Roguelikes pretty limited in scope. I could never get into Nethack because it felt like the number of factors you needed to take into account outstripped my working memory. I found myself going to a wiki, which isn't my favorite activity. And if we want to really get nerdy about the history of game design, I have a theory about Dark Souls. Dark Souls is a roguelike/lite... but without the three gameplay elements considered most necessary to be a descendant of Rogue: there's no permadeath, it's not turn based, and it's not procedurally generated. And yet... no other game of its era leaned as hard into the idea of incomplete information, high challenge, necessity for experimentation, and risk/reward calculations. The history of games is so cool, because nothing ever gets forgotten. There's always some visionary who grew up on some genre of game considered outdated and niche but who can adapt that genre into a new form which can find a fresh audience.

by djur 2y ago

throw4847285 2y ago

Honestly, I think the closest experience to a classic Roguelike is playing Minesweeper or Solitaire. Most of the time your next move is pretty clear, but you always reach a point where you have incomplete information and you have to way the risk/reward of, say, trying that armor on or zapping that tough enemy with a wand of polymorph. Not a lot of video games really lean into incomplete information as a core mechanic. Experimentation is necessary to figure out all the interactions. Though to be honest, I like my Roguelikes pretty limited in scope. I could never get into Nethack because it felt like the number of factors you needed to take into account outstripped my working memory. I found myself going to a wiki, which isn't my favorite activity. And if we want to really get nerdy about the history of game design, I have a theory about Dark Souls. Dark Souls is a roguelike/lite... but without the three gameplay elements considered most necessary to be a descendant of Rogue: there's no permadeath, it's not turn based, and it's not procedurally generated. And yet... no other game of its era leaned as hard into the idea of incomplete information, high challenge, necessity for experimentation, and risk/reward calculations. The history of games is so cool, because nothing ever gets forgotten. There's always some visionary who grew up on some genre of game considered outdated and niche but who can adapt that genre into a new form which can find a fresh audience.