Post your searing hot takes

fiish said:
youre literally on a competitive pokemon forum
Click to expand...
I mean, there's a reason why I mostly post on the social forums. Competitive Pokémon can be fun to mess around with, but I would never take it super seriously for exactly the reason that you're alluding to.
RainWaiv said:
Roguelikes aren't built around their procedural generation. They're built around a certain unique game mechanic. Procedural generation is the medium by which the mechanic is enjoyed. Any given roguelike game would be an objectively worse experience if you were playing through a set map, and the skill you have through your experience in a roguelike is rarely going to reach a point where your runs are based 100% on luck. Early on, luck doesn't matter because you've bad at the game and are bound to die anyways. Once you've cleared the game a few times, you'll have the skill where you can consistently make good runs/clear the game regardless of whether the items you get are good or not.
Take for example Noita. The game features 2 prominent mechanics: The wand system and environmental interactions. If the game had been built around a set map, there would be a 100% consistent way to beat the game every single time, and it would get really boring really fast. However, because your spells/wands and the environment is random, the game will provide a slightly new experience every time you play, and due to the nature of the game being that you kill everything fast (including yourself) the only thing stopping you from winning is your own skill. You can't blame anything on luck.
Click to expand...
Regarding luck and skill: This is a fair point, and something that I wish I had acknowledged in my original post. In most of the roguelikes that I've played, the game is fundamentally skill-based; that is, you can always theoretically win with sufficient skill, even if you get a relatively poor set of starting circumstances. This isn't a universal truth — in Dicey Dungeons, for example, it's possible to lose before you have a chance to do anything about it because the first enemy got insanely good dice rolls — but it's consistent enough that I'll concede the point. However, I find that being put at an automatic disadvantage due to a poor seed still feels miserable, even when it's theoretically possible for me to overcome said disadvantage through some old-fashioned getting good. Given the popularity of the genre, this is clearly not an issue that everyone has, but it massively damages the appeal for me. One of my good friends used to be really into The Binding of Isaac, and I would watch him spam the reset button on the first floor until he got a great starting item when he was trying to get deep runs. It seemed like an awful time.

I've never played Noita, so I can't speak to how much worse it would be if it wasn't a roguelike. However, I reject the implicit assertion in your post that replay value is inherently good. A game might be able to provide me with a slightly new experience on each replay, but that doesn't excite me if none of those experiences are especially enjoyable. I'd much rather play a game with one set experience that's really good, even if it doesn't quite hit the same on replay. I'm also not convinced that there are any game mechanics that absolutely cannot be explored as well through deliberate design as they can be through procedural generation, but I haven't played every video game, so this isn't something I can really argue.
 
adjectivenoun said:
I've never played Noita, so I can't speak to how much worse it would be if it wasn't a roguelike. However, I reject the implicit assertion in your post that replay value is inherently good. A game might be able to provide me with a slightly new experience on each replay, but that doesn't excite me if none of those experiences are especially enjoyable. I'd much rather play a game with one set experience that's really good, even if it doesn't quite hit the same on replay. I'm also not convinced that there are any game mechanics that absolutely cannot be explored as well through deliberate design as they can be through procedural generation, but I haven't played every video game, so this isn't something I can really argue.
Click to expand...
Not what I said. What I said was more along the lines of "Replay value is a big part of what makes roguelikes good." I've played great games without any replay value (Portal and HL2 comes to mind) but that's because the core game mechanics would not benefit from random levels and procedural generation. The vast majority of games in the roguelike genre (Hades, TBOI, Noita, Gungeon, etc.) are going to be directly hampered by not having procedural generation because having a new experience each run makes you learn the game mechanics FIRST before you can do... really anything. It's a style that lets you put the thing that makes your game special up front.
Specifically about Noita (Great game, you should play it), the central game mechanics I mentioned of the wand system and environmental interaction benefit so incredibly much by being part of the roguelike genre. The TL;DR of it is that wands have some number of slots you can put spells into that are then released in order once you input. Individual spells aren't anything special, mostly relegated to basic bolts and fire and whatnot, but when you can instantly make 3 bigass nuclear bomb spheres that create a chain of electricity between them that also home into enemies then set off the sulfur vein underneath your feet killing everything in the room (including you probably) you can see how boring it would be if you could get that specific combo every single time, compared to getting a variety of spells/modifiers every single run that forces you to experiment with 1. how to not die and 2. how to kill shit (also the third "how do i mine through this wall" but that's not super important).
Also about your TBOI friend he's probably just a tryhard. Tell him to stop rerolling and just do a run.
 
Hello! I am very new to the forums(i joined 21 minutes ago as i am typing), although I have been playing Showdown for quite a while.
That being said, I’ve got no idea where else I should ask this question, but does anyone know why Showdown isn’t working? Is it down or something?
 
adjectivenoun said:
[seed discussion]

A game might be able to provide me with a slightly new experience on each replay, but that doesn't excite me if none of those experiences are especially enjoyable. I'd much rather play a game with one set experience that's really good, even if it doesn't quite hit the same on replay.

I'm also not convinced that there are any game mechanics that absolutely cannot be explored as well through deliberate design as they can be through procedural generation, but I haven't played every video game, so this isn't something I can really argue.
Click to expand...

I sympathize with your complaints–one of the two rougelikes I enjoy, Balatro, is pretty susceptible to seed issues and "why couldn't this be deliberately designed" at higher difficulties.

They also gave me new perspective on my favorite rougelike, ADOM. I hadn't explicitly realized this, but most of its most iconic and dangerous dungeons are deliberately designed and non-random, despite it being one of the classic rougelikes. Combined with its slow pace (my two wins took about 20 hours each), you get a dynamic I find very interesting: you're free to spend all the time you need looking for infinitely-regenerable loot to optimize your loadout for the predictable hardest levels, which makes seeds way less of an issue, but you have to jump in the hole at some point. Especially since many of these dungeons are gates to unlock large areas of the game, and sanity dictates you won't be able to find a perfectly optimal kit before jumping in. Some of the value I see in ADOM's randomness is the balance between these predictable, harder dungeons and less predictable, but usually easier generic dungeons–the former tests your static, longer-term planning, and the latter tests different skills, your quick-feet reaction / consistency / microknowledge. If you're interested in rougelikes that are less susceptible to your complaints, older, slower-paced ones like ADOM, Nethack, and Dwarf Fortress (if you count it) may be your best bet.

(if you want me talk more about adom just say the word)

and shoutout fiish for mentioning nethack
 
Just A Shroom God said:
It boils down to this: does the game acknowledging its own crappiness make it subversively a good game? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
I think this give GOI an unfair shake. I don't even really think GOI is a "bad controls" game as people often say: its controls are what prevents the game from being trivially easy, they are the foundation of the game and not an unnecessary add-on to a normally functional game. I think it's closer to being, just, a difficult game, one with a tough skill curve and deceptive looks. It bodies you at first while still seeming so achievable, which is a non-trivial balance to create, and then you slowly painfully achieve mastery, and now parts that took you hours to complete take one minute instead. I think GOI's "bad game"ness is more aesthetic–in the literal and metaphorical senses of the word–then mechanical. Besides the [redacted] maybe lol
 
disco elysium is tedious and the people who claim to like it are doing so to look cultured, not because they enjoyed playing it
 
monkfish said:
the people who claim to like it are doing so to look cultured, not because they enjoyed playing it
Click to expand...
I've never played it because it doesn't seem like my kind of game, but I'm sure that there are people who legitimately enjoy it. It seems like a reasonably fun and clever detective romp for those who are into that sort of thing.
 
Adeleine said:
I sympathize with your complaints–one of the two rougelikes I enjoy, Balatro, is pretty susceptible to seed issues and "why couldn't this be deliberately designed" at higher difficulties.

They also gave me new perspective on my favorite rougelike, ADOM. I hadn't explicitly realized this, but most of its most iconic and dangerous dungeons are deliberately designed and non-random, despite it being one of the classic rougelikes. Combined with its slow pace (my two wins took about 20 hours each), you get a dynamic I find very interesting: you're free to spend all the time you need looking for infinitely-regenerable loot to optimize your loadout for the predictable hardest levels, which makes seeds way less of an issue, but you have to jump in the hole at some point. Especially since many of these dungeons are gates to unlock large areas of the game, and sanity dictates you won't be able to find a perfectly optimal kit before jumping in. Some of the value I see in ADOM's randomness is the balance between these predictable, harder dungeons and less predictable, but usually easier generic dungeons–the former tests your static, longer-term planning, and the latter tests different skills, your quick-feet reaction / consistency / microknowledge. If you're interested in rougelikes that are less susceptible to your complaints, older, slower-paced ones like ADOM, Nethack, and Dwarf Fortress (if you count it) may be your best bet.

(if you want me talk more about adom just say the word)

and shoutout fiish for mentioning nethack
Click to expand...
Your description of ADOM intrigued me, so I decided to buy it and give it a try. Unfortunately, I bounced off pretty fast, but the reasons for that seem to be mostly disconnected from the game's roguelike elements, so there's that. My main issues were with the game's approach to presenting information to the player, which I found overwhelming, and with the combat, which became stale very quickly. Granted, I was playing a melee-based character, and I assume that the magic system has more going on. I got the distinct feeling that I was missing something, but I lacked the energy and inclination to figure out what that thing was. So it goes. I could, however, see a younger version of me becoming fixated on this game for months at a time.
 
My take on the roguelike discourse is I prefer roguelikes to not be centered around mechanical skill

A lot of roguelikes that have deep combat end up frustrating me because I wish I could just keep playing the combat without also trying to learn how the builds and upgrades work, and often I end up saying "I wish this wasn't a roguelike at all."

Like Enter the Gungeon combat is fun to me and I can imagine an awesome well-crafted dungeon crawler, but as is I just can't get into it since I find the idea of having to restart from the beginning point and figure out the new guns I'm given randomly on top of trying to learn how to play the game to just, not be worth it.

And it's not like I'm bad at games either, I'm jusf average and prefer to play other games that are mechanical. I'll grind 3 hours of a dogshit Mario Maker level/kaizo, but make me play Spelunky's first part several times to learn the later parts and I'll not find it fun.

I also realized over time that I can enjoy mechanical roguelikes, they just have to be for games I already know how to play. Splatoon's Side Order is really fun to me because I'm already a competitive Splatoon player, and I'm not flapping about trying to learn how to play Splatoon on top of the roguelike mechanics.
 
adjectivenoun said:
Your description of ADOM intrigued me, so I decided to buy it and give it a try. Unfortunately, I bounced off pretty fast, but the reasons for that seem to be mostly disconnected from the game's roguelike elements, so there's that. My main issues were with the game's approach to presenting information to the player, which I found overwhelming, and with the combat, which became stale very quickly. Granted, I was playing a melee-based character, and I assume that the magic system has more going on. I got the distinct feeling that I was missing something, but I lacked the energy and inclination to figure out what that thing was. So it goes. I could, however, see a younger version of me becoming fixated on this game for months at a time.
Click to expand...
All totally reasonable reasons. I have theoretical answers to these points (tldr: magic is indeed deeper but melee also has depth), but they all require taking in a lot of information, so all I’ll note is that there’s a very good and helpful wiki if you ever decide to come back, which could help with the information. I appreciate you giving it a try!
 
TV shows getting movies can often be a lil weird

TV shows look different from movies. They usually have less music, more limited camera movement, have different lighting, the color palettes of scenes are different, it goes from 16:9 to 21:9, the cinematography is more elaborate in movies... It often doesn't feel like part of the show

Prime example would be El Camino. It looks nothing like Breaking Bad. Feels nothing like it. Sounds nothing like it. It's a fine movie but it feels weird

A perfect counter example is Twin Peaks. Fire walk with me is sooooo different from the show, but fits in perfectly with the darker scenes of the series and the disturbing ending of season 2. It feels like a continuation in cinematography and feel, in a way. It's an amazing movie that, despite being technically a prequel (albeit, that is debatable), feels like such a proper continuation to the show
 
Classic Sonic is poorly designed not just for the obvious reasons, but because even as a speed platformer it is literally worse than its competitor.

Classic Sonic fans talk about how you replay the same level again and again and learn how to go fast on it, but that causes the casual experience to suffer with it often being pretty tedious or even kinda boring. The average casual experience is dipping out by the halfway point, which is why only like the first few zones of each game is iconic + maybe the final boss.

In your average 2D platformer Mario game you can still go really fast but if you're good at the game you can also freestyle it because it's more open, with it being harder to go fast just because it's more of a precision platformer. The levels are also more interesting for casual players.
 
ant4456 said:
Classic Sonic is poorly designed not just for the obvious reasons, but because even as a speed platformer it is literally worse than its competitor.

Classic Sonic fans talk about how you replay the same level again and again and learn how to go fast on it, but that causes the casual experience to suffer with it often being pretty tedious or even kinda boring. The average casual experience is dipping out by the halfway point, which is why only like the first few zones of each game is iconic + maybe the final boss.

In your average 2D platformer Mario game you can still go really fast but if you're good at the game you can also freestyle it because it's more open, with it being harder to go fast just because it's more of a precision platformer. The levels are also more interesting for casual players.
Click to expand...
As a fan of the classic Sonic games, I'm curious to know what you think "the obvious reasons" are.
 
adjectivenoun said:
As a fan of the classic Sonic games, I'm curious to know what you think "the obvious reasons" are.
Click to expand...
Tbh originally I wrote that line with,it being generally about the Sonic series (mainly newer ones are the most flawed), and later added Classic because that is what I was moreso talking about.

Most 3D boost Sonic games are just corridor sim so a lot of these don't apply, they are glorified racing games.

Sonic 3 and Mania are p good imo I think 1 and 2 and CD are p ass, mostly due to level design, lives structure, how emeralds work and I personally think things like the Rings system is perhaps the worst designed health system in history
 
tv shows are better off with weekly episodes than the binge model thing where they release the whole season at once.

It is so fun to tune into a show every week and when something exciting happens everyone is all talking about it at once, same if the episode was kinda shitty then people will be talking about that, just gives time for the community to discuss every episode and also gives you time to digest and think about each episode before immediately watching the next one.
 
ant4456 said:
Tbh originally I wrote that line with,it being generally about the Sonic series (mainly newer ones are the most flawed), and later added Classic because that is what I was moreso talking about.

Most 3D boost Sonic games are just corridor sim so a lot of these don't apply, they are glorified racing games.

Sonic 3 and Mania are p good imo I think 1 and 2 and CD are p ass, mostly due to level design, lives structure, how emeralds work and I personally think things like the Rings system is perhaps the worst designed health system in history
Click to expand...
Gotcha. Personally, I think that the Rings system fits classic Sonic pretty well. It encourages more reckless play by making the punishment for getting hit fairly manageable, which is appropriate for the games' general emphasis on going fast and enjoying the feeling of your own motion. It's not a system that I would prescribe for a lot of other games, but I think that it works well for classic Sonic's purposes. You won't see me defending the level design of the first two games very strongly, though. In my estimation, it wasn't until Sonic 3 that they really figured out how to design levels that fit the mechanics.
 
furlessduck said:
tv shows are better off with weekly episodes than the binge model thing where they release the whole season at once.

It is so fun to tune into a show every week and when something exciting happens everyone is all talking about it at once, same if the episode was kinda shitty then people will be talking about that, just gives time for the community to discuss every episode and also gives you time to digest and think about each episode before immediately watching the next one.
Click to expand...
you can just... wait to watch the next one
 
Cancel cult said:
you can just... wait to watch the next one
Click to expand...
You're missing their point. Their point is that releasing a show over several weeks which keeps it relevant in the public mind for a longer period of time as opposed to if you just dump all the episodes at once in which case people just binge all the episodes and discussion of it dies up after a week or two. That said, I much prefer binging a season all at once because I'm a zoomer and therefore have no attention span.
 
furlessduck said:
tv shows are better off with weekly episodes than the binge model thing where they release the whole season at once.

It is so fun to tune into a show every week and when something exciting happens everyone is all talking about it at once, same if the episode was kinda shitty then people will be talking about that, just gives time for the community to discuss every episode and also gives you time to digest and think about each episode before immediately watching the next one.
Click to expand...
I've found that following sports can be a good way to get that kind of "weekly update" community back. You can't play every game of the season in one day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top