4 ms·

Do you think "diamond in the rough" games exist? Some claim that there are games that are hidden gems that haven't received the recognition they deserve. Othe

Do you think "diamond in the rough" games exist? Some claim that there are games that are hidden gems that haven't received the recognition they deserve. Other claim they have never seen a generally good game that didn't have generally good success. What is your view? I think some games are good within their niche, but their niche sucks. Something like a hardcore roguelike with ASCII graphics. Within the hardcore roguelike niche, the ASCII game might be "good" and have some interesting new mechanics, good execution, etc; but within the entire gaming industry, classic roguelikes with ASCII graphics are outdated, they "suck". Some will say the ASCII roguelike is underappreciated, but only because they over-appreciate the niche. I'd like to believe that a generally good game guarantees at least some success.

ChadNauseam 2y ago
I'm not sure if it counts, but I had a great time playing screencheat but it never really seemed to be very popular. I think part of the problem may be that it's only fun to play with friends, so you kind of had to buy copies for yourself and your friends which added a ton of friction.
SXX 2y ago
Around 19,000 games are released on Steam in 2024 and platform itself give very little traction. You can't sell bad game with all marking in the world, but good games flop without marketing. > I'd like to believe that a generally good game guarantees at least some success. Many "good" games werent "good" in very beginning during early access or first release. If game dont get any traction at all there simply no resources for developer to keep refining it.
teamonkey 2y ago
There are many, many, many great games that fail, while many mediocre games succeed. There's some correlation with fun, art style and polish, but more often it's down to marketing, exposure and luck. I've heard it said that a fun game is the baseline, though. The game should be doing the heavy lifting, not the marketing. Marketing a bad game doesn't automatically lead to success, for sure. Many breakaway hits are simply lucky by hitting the zeitgeist. Among Us is an example - without the covid hangover and some bored streamers randomly deciding to play it one day, you can imagine it not being the massive success that it is.
partomniscient 2y ago
I've even played a version of the original Rogue. Nethack and Brogue are my preferred rogue-likes. The term rougelike has been watered down so much it means many different things to many different people. I do however have a hard time nostalging over old games I used to love - mainly for screen resolution issues. Once you get the new space/bling its hard to go back. I do like some of the remasters though, but some have been done so poorly or so identically they're almost meaningless. Its a bit of a quandry. I played the Command and Conquer remaster for a bit, and it looked nice/resized nice and played well until you realised it had the same @#%ing pathfinding bugs - which is authentic to the original, but to me an opportunity to improve so missed it made me lose interest in continuing playing the remaster. I can't even comprehend how young people would view old games, there'd be a few hipster types into the equivalent of cassettes, but for the most part old games are the equivalent of phones that can only be used if they're attached to the wall of the house, though they are a few exceptions to this that seem universal such as Tetris. I think there are some great games out there that aren't successful, and a lot of games that are more succesful than they deserve to be. A lot of longer lasting franchises from Diablo, to Call of Duty and recently Civilization are averaging down, not up. As a 50+ year old, the OG posters pachinko type game has no attraction and seems way to ADHD for me to deal with, let alone associating it with rogue/rouge-likes. I also tried to like Dwarf Fortress, but there's too much complexity too early (same is true for a lot of games coming out now). I miss the era of well designed tutorial levels that introduce and build on previous levels before you get to 'open, anything goes' levels of complexity. Even minecraft has (had?) this built-in by design originally. The original rouge/rogue-like games all worked well because of the difficulty curve ramping up so nicely as you progress to deeper dungeon levels, although reading the source or alt.nethack was kind of spoilerish. The world is different now. Because we're so connected, we follow online 'recipes' on how to play the game so we don't get 'left behind' rather than immerse our individual selves via experimentation. Also what makes a game great is going to vary from individual to individual. Some love puzzle games, some hate them. Some like twitchy FPS games, some like strategical slow-play FPS games etc. etc.
- Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
  > it had the same @#%ing pathfinding bugs - which is authentic to the original, but to me an opportunity to improve so missed it made me lose interest in continuing playing the remaster. Remasters/Remakes are often a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for the developers. If they make the game function exactly like the old one, just with an updated skin, people complain that it's all they did. If they fix bugs and update mechanics for a modern audience, people complain that it isn't the same game at all, just a similar story being told through a different game.

ChadNauseam 2y ago

I'm not sure if it counts, but I had a great time playing screencheat but it never really seemed to be very popular. I think part of the problem may be that it's only fun to play with friends, so you kind of had to buy copies for yourself and your friends which added a ton of friction.

SXX 2y ago

Around 19,000 games are released on Steam in 2024 and platform itself give very little traction. You can't sell bad game with all marking in the world, but good games flop without marketing. > I'd like to believe that a generally good game guarantees at least some success. Many "good" games werent "good" in very beginning during early access or first release. If game dont get any traction at all there simply no resources for developer to keep refining it.

teamonkey 2y ago

There are many, many, many great games that fail, while many mediocre games succeed. There's some correlation with fun, art style and polish, but more often it's down to marketing, exposure and luck. I've heard it said that a fun game is the baseline, though. The game should be doing the heavy lifting, not the marketing. Marketing a bad game doesn't automatically lead to success, for sure. Many breakaway hits are simply lucky by hitting the zeitgeist. Among Us is an example - without the covid hangover and some bored streamers randomly deciding to play it one day, you can imagine it not being the massive success that it is.

partomniscient 2y ago

I've even played a version of the original Rogue. Nethack and Brogue are my preferred rogue-likes. The term rougelike has been watered down so much it means many different things to many different people. I do however have a hard time nostalging over old games I used to love - mainly for screen resolution issues. Once you get the new space/bling its hard to go back. I do like some of the remasters though, but some have been done so poorly or so identically they're almost meaningless. Its a bit of a quandry. I played the Command and Conquer remaster for a bit, and it looked nice/resized nice and played well until you realised it had the same @#%ing pathfinding bugs - which is authentic to the original, but to me an opportunity to improve so missed it made me lose interest in continuing playing the remaster. I can't even comprehend how young people would view old games, there'd be a few hipster types into the equivalent of cassettes, but for the most part old games are the equivalent of phones that can only be used if they're attached to the wall of the house, though they are a few exceptions to this that seem universal such as Tetris. I think there are some great games out there that aren't successful, and a lot of games that are more succesful than they deserve to be. A lot of longer lasting franchises from Diablo, to Call of Duty and recently Civilization are averaging down, not up. As a 50+ year old, the OG posters pachinko type game has no attraction and seems way to ADHD for me to deal with, let alone associating it with rogue/rouge-likes. I also tried to like Dwarf Fortress, but there's too much complexity too early (same is true for a lot of games coming out now). I miss the era of well designed tutorial levels that introduce and build on previous levels before you get to 'open, anything goes' levels of complexity. Even minecraft has (had?) this built-in by design originally. The original rouge/rogue-like games all worked well because of the difficulty curve ramping up so nicely as you progress to deeper dungeon levels, although reading the source or alt.nethack was kind of spoilerish. The world is different now. Because we're so connected, we follow online 'recipes' on how to play the game so we don't get 'left behind' rather than immerse our individual selves via experimentation. Also what makes a game great is going to vary from individual to individual. Some love puzzle games, some hate them. Some like twitchy FPS games, some like strategical slow-play FPS games etc. etc.

Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
> it had the same @#%ing pathfinding bugs - which is authentic to the original, but to me an opportunity to improve so missed it made me lose interest in continuing playing the remaster. Remasters/Remakes are often a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for the developers. If they make the game function exactly like the old one, just with an updated skin, people complain that it's all they did. If they fix bugs and update mechanics for a modern audience, people complain that it isn't the same game at all, just a similar story being told through a different game.