SHP Forums

Tawmis wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:18 pmDiablo is a very pretty "Rogue"-like game ...

Except that Diablo (any of them) lacks the one major genre-defining game mechanic of a Rogue-Like and that's "you have a single life and if you die, you have to start over."

Yes, there's "hardcore" mode in Diablo II (and presumably Diablo III, but I don't know for sure) where you get one life, but that's a specific setting, not the game's default. In a Rogue-Like, it's expected that you'll die a lot and have to restart the game many times. In a well-designed Rogue-Like you'll still gain something — experience, skills, items, etc. — from each run, so your time isn't wasted, but the one basic game mechanic that all Rogue-Likes share is the "single life" concept.

The top-down view of a dungeon has absolutely nothing to do with being a Rogue-Like. There are card battlers (examples include Monster Train or Slay the Spire) or Action-Platformers (like Rogue Legacy) or even Puzzle games (such as Ironcast) that are all Rogue-Likes, yet share little-to-no gameplay with Diablo and certainly don't use a top-down view.

To further drive home this point, let's go for a different comparison: Action games vs Flight Simulators.

No one in their right mind would ever classify Dogfight 1942 or the Ace Combat series as a Flight Simulator. Both Dogfight 1942 and Ace Combat are Action games that have no realism to speak of (you don't have to know a thing about flight dynamics or all the controls in your fighter) and was designed for people to "jump in, shoot stuff down, and jump out."

Contrast that with a real Flight Simulator, such as Digital Combat Simulator or Microsoft Flight Simulator, or even Dynamix's games (A-10 Tank KIller, Red Baron, Aces of The Pacific, Aces Over Europe) which are somewhere in the middle between serious Flight Sim and Action game.

All of those games I mentioned share certain qualities, such as you fly different planes or jets and shoot down enemy craft or potentially bomb land targets. However, the way they go about doing this is drastically different and the amount of knowledge needed to fly or even turn on your aircraft (seriously, there's a good 20-step process to even get the A-10 ready to take off in DCS, let alone actually flying it!) is so different between these games that despite looking similar, they share very little in-common when it comes to gameplay.

If we went with your definition of genres, Tawmis, we'd lump DCS or MSF in the same category as Dogfight 1942 or the Ace Combat series, and that would inevitably anger and/or disappoint players who were either looking for a quick action-oriented dogfight or a complex and serious Flight Sim.

This is why proper classification of game genres (preferably based on game mechanics and not look or feel) is important.

Hmm. Would Darkest Dungeon count as a Rogue-Like, DPX? The description calls it " ... a rogue-like turn-based RPG about the psychological stresses of adventuring". (Incidentally, it's also 85% off right now - but I already have it, and the little expansions too).

Incidentally, Iratus: Lord of the Dead is a game that tries hard to be like "Darkest Dungeon", but to be honest, I was not impressed with it. Is it also a "rogue-like", or is it just an action game?

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 5:49 am Hmm. Would Darkest Dungeon count as a Rogue-Like, DPX? The description calls it " ... a rogue-like turn-based RPG about the psychological stresses of adventuring". (Incidentally, it's also 85% off right now - but I already have it, and the little expansions too).

Incidentally, Iratus: Lord of the Dead is a game that tries hard to be like "Darkest Dungeon", but to be honest, I was not impressed with it. Is it also a "rogue-like", or is it just an action game?

Both are Rogue-Likes, and you're right, Iratus does try to be Darkest Dungeon, but there's a good reason for that: the devs were heavily inspired by DD... maybe TOO inspired.

In most cases, I dislike Rogue-Likes because the game is based around dying and losing all of your work. That said, there have been a few Rogue-Likes I've enjoyed, but usually those games are less harsh (to the point where some people might refer to them as Rogue-Lites instead). Rogue-Lites generally include "carry-over progression" so even when you die and have to start over, there's some sort of gain for the player. This gain might be items, abilities, increased stats, new classes, etc.

Sometimes people confuse Rogue-Like with "Hardcore" or "Iron Man" (this has nothing to do with the Marvel comics character) modes available in some games. Those modes usually disable manual saving and instead force auto-saving and checkpoint saving, and make character death permanent. This can range from having to start over entirely (which isn't commonly done in non-Rogue-Likes because it annoys players) to losing soldiers or teammates in strategy games.

X-Com: Enemy Unknown (the 2012 remake of the original that came out in 1994) included an alternate mode where soldiers who died were permanently gone and you couldn't save mid-mission. I never played that mode because I don't find game mechanics like that enjoyable, but I guess some people like it, so good for them.

Hmm ... yes, I noticed that in Darkest Dungeon you couldn't save in the middle of a mission (e.g. an 'exploration' mission or a 'render this area harmless' mission, etc.). If a member of your party died, or even a whole party ... too bad. You should've prepared better. OTOH, I thought that sometimes DD "cheats" by stacking the odds against the player.

DD is clearly inspired by the Cthulhu mythos, but that's fairly clear to anyone who knows anything about "The Call of Cthulhu".

On the other hand, DD also allows you (by editing the text files that control your party members' stats) to give your party members a fighting chance. I haven't tried it, but I've seen videos on YouTube of people doing it. Is that cheating? *curious* What do you think?

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 4:52 pm On the other hand, DD also allows you (by editing the text files that control your party members' stats) to give your party members a fighting chance. I haven't tried it, but I've seen videos on YouTube of people doing it. Is that cheating? *curious* What do you think?

Yeah that’s definitely cheating lol

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 4:52 pm On the other hand, DD also allows you (by editing the text files that control your party members' stats) to give your party members a fighting chance. I haven't tried it, but I've seen videos on YouTube of people doing it. Is that cheating? *curious* What do you think?

Anything done to modify the game - whether it's characters or inventory item or environment - that isn't done by "earning" it by playing the game itself - is cheating.

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 4:52 pm On the other hand, DD also allows you (by editing the text files that control your party members' stats) to give your party members a fighting chance. I haven't tried it, but I've seen videos on YouTube of people doing it. Is that cheating? *curious* What do you think?

Yes, it's cheating as far as game mechanics go, but since DD is a single-player game, what you do (or don't do) doesn't affect anyone else so the only person whose opinion matters here is your own.

The only time cheating really matters is in multiplayer gaming because your actions can negatively affect someone else, whereas in a purely single-player game, your actions affect you and only you, so unless it bothers you, go ahead and do whatever you want.

You'll find a lot of very outspoken and opinionated gamers online who, for some reason or another, believe it's their place to tell others how to play single-player games. Your best bet is to ignore them as attempting to understand their screwed up "logic" will lower your IQ and trying to change their opinion is about as effective as knocking down a building by smashing the walls with your face.

Tawmis wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 6:34 pm ... that isn't done by "earning" it by playing the game itself - is cheating.

The "earning it" argument is an interesting one when it comes to specific gaming models, such as "pay-to-win" (aka P2W) in games marketed as "free" but really aren't.

I'm sure you know all about it, Tawmis, but the explanation of it below is for Rath who probably doesn't know much about it.

The debate here is if it's okay for someone with relatively few hours to play to pay with real money to get themselves beyond the grinding stage.

Lots of gamers (most of whom are younger, which means they have more time and less disposable income) see this as a huge slap in the face because they had to "work" to get to wherever they are in the game by grinding away in the game. Their argument is that you need to earn whatever you get in the game itself.

That's not an entirely unreasonable stance to have... however, there's a problem when it comes to older gamers who have less free time and more disposable income.

These older gamers are likely married, have kids, and have busy work schedules. If and when they get some time to play a game, they want to actually PLAY it and not spend those few precious hours grinding away in the hopes that one day in the future they'll actually get to do something more interesting. Their argument is that they've spent time working in the real world, so if they can use their real money to get beyond the drudgery and spend whatever little free time they get having fun, where's the harm? If they have to plug away in the game like someone else who can spend hours upon hours every day in the game, they'll never get anywhere due to have far less time to actually play at all.

That's not an unreasonable position either, and from a business standpoint, it makes a lot of sense since you'd lose these customers otherwise.

So who's right? Both? Neither? That's the problem with the debate around "pay-to-win" and it still goes on because there's very little consensus between gamers due to having differing priorities and commitments.

Fair enough, DPX. Thank you for informing me. I had no idea about the "pay-to-win" debate.

What sort of thing are 'games marketed as "free" but really aren't"? Is World of Warcraft one of these -- or LOTR Online?

And yes, I don't care about multiplayer gaming (much), so the opinion of opinionated gamers -- at least about what I do in single-player games -- means zipola-zilch to me. OTOH, when these opinionated gamers take a team game (such as TF2) and treat it as their own private ... thing (aka "I'm gonna be Rambo and f*** all you other losers" etc.) ... that's when things start becoming, ahem ... problematic.

If you want to play the Rambo-type "lone hero", maybe Team Fortress 2 isn't for you. Right?

There was a debate about that regarding Marmalade Cluedo/Clue - that game only offered hints as DLC. Hints means you can, among others, peek at cards that are shown to opponents, and even stop opponents from accusing for one turn. In that case you can see pay-to-win is a real issue.
But that's resolved now. Now all players have hints available and you can turn them on or off for all players upon startup.

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 7:20 am What sort of thing are 'games marketed as "free" but really aren't"? Is World of Warcraft one of these -- or LOTR Online?

No, World of Warcraft is still subscription-based (at least as far as I know; I may be wrong as I haven't played it in over 15 years), but LOTR Online allows both "free" and subscription-based accounts.

When I mentioned games that were advertised as free but aren't really, I'm talking more about the so-called "freemium" model. This first started with mobile games, where apparently people see nothing wrong with spending $800 on a phone, but balk at paying over a dollar or two for a game or app.

Freemium is where the game is free to download, install, and play, but... it requires either purchases to keep playing (such as having any chance of accomplishing anything) or it uses real-time against the player. The latter is the most insidious in my opinion. This is when a game only lets you do a specific set of moves or selections and then makes you wait in REAL TIME to continue playing.

Here's an example: you've told your people to build something in a city builder, but then are told you'll need to wait 24 hours before you can do anything else in the game. That's annoying, but if it stopped there, it wouldn't be underhanded. No, the game then suggests you PAY real money to continue playing RIGHT NOW and bypass waiting. Most people have very little patience, especially when they're in the mood to play a particular game, and game developers know this so they design these games to get players hooked and against their better judgment, pay to prevent waiting hours to play.

Of course, you could say this isn't necessarily the fault of the dev, but the player for lacking any self-control, and when talking about adults, I definitely agree. The problem is these games are often marketed towards children and teens, who somehow find ways to use their parents' credit cards to pay to keep playing because people that age are generally terrible at thinking ahead and/or of the consequences of their actions.

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 7:20 am And yes, I don't care about multiplayer gaming (much), so the opinion of opinionated gamers -- at least about what I do in single-player games -- means zipola-zilch to me.

Yeah, there's a lot of gatekeeping in gaming for some reason or another. It's weird, because when I was a kid I would've loved mainstream acceptance of gaming so I didn't feel like a weirdo (which is how the general public viewed gamers well into the 90s and even early 2000s), but now that we have that, there's a very vocal minority of gamers who want to make gaming less approachable.

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 7:20 am OTOH, when these opinionated gamers take a team game (such as TF2) and treat it as their own private ... thing (aka "I'm gonna be Rambo and f*** all you other losers" etc.) ... that's when things start becoming, ahem ... problematic.

If you play a team-based game, you need to be prepared to play as a team, otherwise don't play. Unfortunately, a lot of gamers in competitive online games are very rigid about roles and gameplay styles, so if someone isn't playing EXACTLY how they feel that person should, they'll berate them, which does absolutely nothing for team dynamics.

BBP wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 1:03 pm There was a debate about that regarding Marmalade Cluedo/Clue - that game only offered hints as DLC. Hints means you can, among others, peek at cards that are shown to opponents, and even stop opponents from accusing for one turn. In that case you can see pay-to-win is a real issue.
But that's resolved now. Now all players have hints available and you can turn them on or off for all players upon startup.

That's a case of pay-to-win literally being an option to pay to win, whereas in most situations it's really "pay to avoid spending hours doing busywork."

DeadPoolX wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 3:22 pm

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 7:20 am What sort of thing are 'games marketed as "free" but really aren't"? Is World of Warcraft one of these -- or LOTR Online?

No, World of Warcraft is still subscription-based (at least as far as I know; I may be wrong as I haven't played it in over 15 years), but LOTR Online allows both "free" and subscription-based accounts.
When I mentioned games that were advertised as free but aren't really, I'm talking more about the so-called "freemium" model. This first started with mobile games, where apparently people see nothing wrong with spending $800 on a phone, but balk at paying over a dollar or two for a game or app.
Freemium is where the game is free to download, install, and play, but... it requires either purchases to keep playing (such as having any chance of accomplishing anything) or it uses real-time against the player. The latter is the most insidious in my opinion. This is when a game only lets you do a specific set of moves or selections and then makes you wait in REAL TIME to continue playing.
Here's an example: you've told your people to build something in a city builder, but then are told you'll need to wait 24 hours before you can do anything else in the game. That's annoying, but if it stopped there, it wouldn't be underhanded. No, the game then suggests you PAY real money to continue playing RIGHT NOW and bypass waiting. Most people have very little patience, especially when they're in the mood to play a particular game, and game developers know this so they design these games to get players hooked and against their better judgment, pay to prevent waiting hours to play.
Of course, you could say this isn't necessarily the fault of the dev, but the player for lacking any self-control, and when talking about adults, I definitely agree. The problem is these games are often marketed towards children and teens, who somehow find ways to use their parents' credit cards to pay to keep playing because people that age are generally terrible at thinking ahead and/or of the consequences of their actions.

I feel like a lot of "free to play MMOs" - could fall under that.
For example, as DPX said - Lord of the Rings Online is free to play. Even the Star Wars - The Old Republic - free to play.
However, should you become a subscriber - you get a ton of benefits.
For example, you always get daily rewards (both games) just for logging on.
However, if you're a subscriber - where the F2P maybe got 200 gold, as a subscriber you get a mount that is exclusive to subscribers, and say 10% faster than any mount that can be bought. This allows you to get across maps much faster, thus saving you time.
The example of "pay now so you don't have to wait do XYZ" is pretty notoriously found in a lot of mobile games, I find. A few of the Marvel ones I played would do that.

DeadPoolX wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 3:22 pm

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 7:20 am What sort of thing are 'games marketed as "free" but really aren't"? Is World of Warcraft one of these -- or LOTR Online?

No, World of Warcraft is still subscription-based (at least as far as I know; I may be wrong as I haven't played it in over 15 years), but LOTR Online allows both "free" and subscription-based accounts.

When I mentioned games that were advertised as free but aren't really, I'm talking more about the so-called "freemium" model. This first started with mobile games, where apparently people see nothing wrong with spending $800 on a phone, but balk at paying over a dollar or two for a game or app.

Freemium is where the game is free to download, install, and play, but... it requires either purchases to keep playing (such as having any chance of accomplishing anything) or it uses real-time against the player. The latter is the most insidious in my opinion. This is when a game only lets you do a specific set of moves or selections and then makes you wait in REAL TIME to continue playing.

Yeah, that's horrible - especially when they use it against kids. What's the point of playing a game if you can only do one thing and then have to wait 24 hours in real time before you can go again?

This is one reason that I don't play games on my phone. Reading a book is much more involving. (Yes, I'm a dinosaur)

DeadPoolX wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 3:22 pm

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 7:20 am OTOH, when these opinionated gamers take a team game (such as TF2) and treat it as their own private ... thing (aka "I'm gonna be Rambo and f*** all you other losers" etc.) ... that's when things start becoming, ahem ... problematic.

If you play a team-based game, you need to be prepared to play as a team, otherwise don't play. Unfortunately, a lot of gamers in competitive online games are very rigid about roles and gameplay styles, so if someone isn't playing EXACTLY how they feel that person should, they'll berate them, which does absolutely nothing for team dynamics.

True. I remember once playing TF2 with a bunch of strangers. Initially they were welcoming and encouraged me to play either an Engineer or Medic (either of which they needed). Everyone then raced off to a capture point, which they captured, and I (as Engineer) set about building protective equipment. But none of my team-mates helped to protect me -- so I died again, and again, and again -- to the amusement of my so-called "team-mates", who told me to "harden up" and a lot of other things, most of them unprintable.

So I reincarnated as a Medic, but then these "team-mates" amused themselves by scattering in all directions and screaming "MEDIC!!!" etc. Naturally, I died again, and these "team-mates" needled me about that, too.

At this point, I said "You know what? Get stuffed," and disconnected.

What's the point of asking someone to help in a team-based game, if you're not prepared to accept help?

Randomly, swinging this back on topic -

Just beat Lego Pirates of the Caribbean: The Video Game Story Mode. Have to say that the PotC LEGO game is by far, the best LEGO themed game I've played.

Although, I hated the Blackbeard (final fight of the entire time) - because the bombs thing... was at it for an hour. Threw so many bombs that never seemed to hit.

Splitting my time right now between Final Fantasy 7 Remake, Final Fantasy 1 on mobile, and both the original and remake of Demon’s Souls to try to finish off the platinums.

I just started STAR WARS II: LEGO... and realizes it plays on XBOX One... which means all the Achievements I got on the X360 were for nothing when I played Pirates (since that has no service on it)... and it too works on the XBOne.

So I may replay Pirates at some point on XBO.