3 ms·

That’s a shame, because meta-progression ultimately undermines the spirit of these classic games. Roguelikes were designed to play like arcade games in that yo

That’s a shame, because meta-progression ultimately undermines the spirit of these classic games. Roguelikes were designed to play like arcade games in that you’d always start over from scratch and try to get a high score. Most attempts ended in failure but as you got better at the game it was reflected in your score. Even after players achieve a high degree of expertise they still find the games challenging to win and so they keep playing and enjoying them for years to come. Meta-progression takes away the from-scratch element and just allows you to win through sheer persistence, chipping away at the problem until it’s easy enough for you to finish it in one final run. But then what? The game is no longer the same challenge it was when you first started. It’s like a mountain that keeps getting smaller every time you attempt to climb it, until it’s finally shrunk to the size of an anthill. This is not a recipe for a game you can play for many years. Ultimately, what meta-progression does is turn a roguelike into a standard narrative RPG just like any other. This is one where the player’s goal is to reach the end of the game and that’s it, not to learn the game’s systems and reach a high level of mastery.

jncfhnb 2y ago
Eh, idk. Theres an argument to be had that meta progression tends to cap in most of these games so eventually it becomes a stable thing. Although generally I find the meta progression of things goes too far and starts off too weak.
- chongli 2y ago
  Yes, because the goal of the game designer who adds meta progression is to increase the number of players who actually finish the game, at least when it comes to the "true progression" style meta progression. There is another approach based on unlocks, where the player unlocks new characters or game modes rather than having a single character get more and more powerful with each run. Some people prefer these unlocks but others don't. I saw one streamer, Jorbs, who got a brand new game and immediately looked up a save file hack to unlock everything from the beginning because he so detested unlocks.
  - tstrimple 2y ago
    One thing I like about meta progression is the gradual expansion of the game. It doesn't have to necessarily make everything easier, but it can be a good way to temporarily lock away more complicated features and abilities. For example, unlocking a new class after completing the game with a previous class doesn't necessarily mean the new class is more powerful or will make the game easier. In some cases, the later class unlocks are explicitly more difficult to beat the game with and are unlocked for additional challenge.
    - chongli 2y ago
      Yes, that class / character unlock system is very common. Some purists will say that a traditional Roguelike cannot have these unlocks but I don't mind them. It definitely is a way of gating the game's complexity so that a new player doesn't have to cope with it all at once. I think it should be optional though. There should be an option to unlock everything from the beginning for players who don't want to fiddle around with that stuff and just dive into the full experience. Players like Jorbs can feel so strongly about it that I think they're actually offended by games that try to curate their experiences to that degree.
      - tstrimple 2y ago
        Agreed on the optional part. I've picked up Satisfactory again since 1.1 hit experimental. I like having the option to skip a lot of the tedium. Don't get me wrong. I normally love the early game tedium. That's where a lot of decisions have long term consequences. But sometimes you just want to play with new features, and games like Satisfactory give you enough granularity of control to tailor that experience to what you're looking for in most cases. I appreciate options to make games much more difficult or accessible at the same time. Just because I tend to like brutally punishing games doesn't mean others have to experience the same games in the same way. I want fallout games to have a survival mode and I want rougelites to have a tourist mode. At the same time not all games have to cater to all audiences. So it's perfectly fine for casual games to focus on their audience and the same for more "hardcore" games. I just really appreciate it when a developer is able to thread that needle and give way more folks a way to enjoy their games across skill / difficulty boundaries. I'm particularly interested in the area of coop games where you've got two players of radically different capabilities. I really like newer games in the vein of "Split Fiction" or "It Takes Two". But they tend to assume somewhat equal levels of competence for skill based sections of the game. So if I try to play with my wife I have to wait over and over again as she fails what are to me basic jumps. I'd love to see more exploration of asymmetric gameplay. Where it's not just both players having to navigate the same obstacles, but allows players to better leverage their skills to overcome something together. I remember staying up late nights with my now wife playing Diablo 2. But now I'm at the point where I want to push high tier rifts and she just wants to finish the story line. I'd like to see more examples of coop games where the burden falls more heavily on one player and the other is mostly along for the ride. Not all gamers are looking for the same things out of their games, but that doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't be playing together.

jncfhnb 2y ago

Eh, idk. Theres an argument to be had that meta progression tends to cap in most of these games so eventually it becomes a stable thing. Although generally I find the meta progression of things goes too far and starts off too weak.

chongli 2y ago
Yes, because the goal of the game designer who adds meta progression is to increase the number of players who actually finish the game, at least when it comes to the "true progression" style meta progression. There is another approach based on unlocks, where the player unlocks new characters or game modes rather than having a single character get more and more powerful with each run. Some people prefer these unlocks but others don't. I saw one streamer, Jorbs, who got a brand new game and immediately looked up a save file hack to unlock everything from the beginning because he so detested unlocks.
- tstrimple 2y ago
  One thing I like about meta progression is the gradual expansion of the game. It doesn't have to necessarily make everything easier, but it can be a good way to temporarily lock away more complicated features and abilities. For example, unlocking a new class after completing the game with a previous class doesn't necessarily mean the new class is more powerful or will make the game easier. In some cases, the later class unlocks are explicitly more difficult to beat the game with and are unlocked for additional challenge.
  - chongli 2y ago
    Yes, that class / character unlock system is very common. Some purists will say that a traditional Roguelike cannot have these unlocks but I don't mind them. It definitely is a way of gating the game's complexity so that a new player doesn't have to cope with it all at once. I think it should be optional though. There should be an option to unlock everything from the beginning for players who don't want to fiddle around with that stuff and just dive into the full experience. Players like Jorbs can feel so strongly about it that I think they're actually offended by games that try to curate their experiences to that degree.
    - tstrimple 2y ago
      Agreed on the optional part. I've picked up Satisfactory again since 1.1 hit experimental. I like having the option to skip a lot of the tedium. Don't get me wrong. I normally love the early game tedium. That's where a lot of decisions have long term consequences. But sometimes you just want to play with new features, and games like Satisfactory give you enough granularity of control to tailor that experience to what you're looking for in most cases. I appreciate options to make games much more difficult or accessible at the same time. Just because I tend to like brutally punishing games doesn't mean others have to experience the same games in the same way. I want fallout games to have a survival mode and I want rougelites to have a tourist mode. At the same time not all games have to cater to all audiences. So it's perfectly fine for casual games to focus on their audience and the same for more "hardcore" games. I just really appreciate it when a developer is able to thread that needle and give way more folks a way to enjoy their games across skill / difficulty boundaries. I'm particularly interested in the area of coop games where you've got two players of radically different capabilities. I really like newer games in the vein of "Split Fiction" or "It Takes Two". But they tend to assume somewhat equal levels of competence for skill based sections of the game. So if I try to play with my wife I have to wait over and over again as she fails what are to me basic jumps. I'd love to see more exploration of asymmetric gameplay. Where it's not just both players having to navigate the same obstacles, but allows players to better leverage their skills to overcome something together. I remember staying up late nights with my now wife playing Diablo 2. But now I'm at the point where I want to push high tier rifts and she just wants to finish the story line. I'd like to see more examples of coop games where the burden falls more heavily on one player and the other is mostly along for the ride. Not all gamers are looking for the same things out of their games, but that doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't be playing together.