1) This game is REALLY easy, even on the hardest setting its a complete faceroll
2) Shitty art style that forces you to play as some ugly penny arcade reject that fights slimes, totally detaching you from giving a god damn about your character
3) Abysmal music that gets repetitive about 10 minutes in
4) Absolutely useless skills. You literally have 98% of the recipes available with level 1 smithing. Deep!
5) megaboring copy-paste rooms. EVERYTHING looks the same. I'd rather take an underground ASCII forest over this ugly boring turd any day of the week.
TL;DR game blows go play a real roguelike
Dungeons of Dredmor
Game » consists of 2 releases. Released Jul 13, 2011
Explore the dangerous diggle-infested dungeons of Lord Dredmor in this comical, graphical roguelike RPG. Just don't smell of fear and lutefisk.
Fans of roguelikes - dont bother
And just to add I can forgive copy-pasting if the game has interesting combat. This games combat consists of using maybe 1-2 spells and clicking enemies with no further thought.
I'm pretty sure it's aim is to make Rougelikes more accessible and add some humor to it, in that regard it succeeds.
@NekuSakuraba said:
I'm pretty sure it's aim is to make Rougelikes more accessible and add some humor to it, in that regard it succeeds.
The Cynical Brit agrees with this take.
1) This game is REALLY easy, even on the hardest setting its a complete faceroll 2) Shitty art style that forces you to play as some ugly penny arcade reject that fights slimes, totally detaching you from giving a god damn about your character 3) Abysmal music that gets repetitive about 10 minutes in 4) Absolutely useless skills. You literally have 98% of the recipes available with level 1 smithing. Deep! 5) megaboring copy-paste rooms. EVERYTHING looks the same. I'd rather take an underground ASCII forest over this ugly boring turd any day of the week. TL;DR game blows go play a real roguelike1) I can't say I really agree. What difficulty and skills were you using? How far did you get?
2) Sure. This was actually one of my main reservations about getting the game. Some of the sprites are nice, but mostly the game looks pretty crude =/
3) I wouldn't say the music is abysmal; it's not great, but I have to say that I did turn it off and started listening to podcasts instead.
4) Uh, not quite...and smithing is only one of the game's 34 skills...
5) I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here...'copy-paste' rooms is pretty much how the genre works. Also, each level has a different tile set.
I swear I´ve never heard the term "roguelike" until this article on GB a couple of days ago.
Anyway, the game has a REALLY unappealing artstyle, otherwise I would be really interested in it.
@Superfriend said:
I swear I´ve never heard the term "roguelike" until this article on GB a couple of days ago. Anyway, the game has a REALLY unappealing artstyle, otherwise I would be really interested in it.
Really? It's a fantastic little genre that in no small part the reason for the Diablo series.
There are better roguelikes that are totally free, but not everyone has a taste for ASCII graphics or learning a dozen or more keyboard shortcuts.
If nothing else this succeeds in being more accessible than the ADOMs or Nethacks of the world. But I think it's perfectly decent game, especially for only $5.
Nethack fanboy screaming again...
The game is awesome and well worth the money. ASCII based roguelikes all have different
key configurations and it's a mess to learn more than couple of those to play decently.
Sure, Nethack and ADOM are legends but so is many other games that no one plays anymore.
1) Too easy if you play it like you have to play ADOM.
2) Better art style than any ASCII-rogue
3) Better music than in any ASCII-rogue to date
4) Any of the skills don't require button-combo
5) Go to your #...# then
See where I'm going?
People are saying it's not fair to judge this game harshly because it's "only $5". Bullshit.
There are dozens more FREE roguelikes that are MANY times better. If I'm paying for something that I could get free elsewhere, I expect a premium experience. It is not to be found here. It's not worth anyone's time, people experienced in the genre or people unexperienced. Stone Soup is accessible as well and much better.
I think the worst part about it is that you can equip a traffic cone onto your character and it won't show up on the sprite. How can you waste that kind of oppurtunity. I would rather not have loot than have unique loot that doesn't actually show up on the character at all. It's just lazy.
@Phonics said:
@AndrewB: you are living in a world where modern warfare 3 will sell a billion copies.
I'm pretty certain you're about 975,000,000 copies off.
@AndrewB said:
If that was TL:DR for anyone, they shouldn't even be on the internet.
I agree with this entirely. Sadly, it eliminates about 90% of internet users.
For me it was a nice reminder of the genre. I'd pretty easily recommend it for people new to Roguelikes. After a couple hours though, I moved onto Tales of Maj'Eyal. Hopefully the genre in general can make a more mainstream combat. I'd love to see something with a little bit more (and not cartoony) graphical flare and a decent story/quest system.
This is gonna sound weird, but I think this is the only type of game I could see myself contributing to as a UI/graphic designer. Might be a fun project.
@Phonics said:
@snide: I've never tried / heard of Tales of Maj'Eyal but that chain lightning screenshot instantly sold me on it. It looks like a really funky combination of tiles/ASCII/basic spell effects from the screens.
Yeah, the screens are terribly old. The new version is under pretty active dev and while it's still a tile based game, it's still definitely a looker.
DCSS for life yo.
Now with webtiles.
Agreed. It is a little disappointing that none of the loot changes the character sprite.I think the worst part about it is that you can equip a traffic cone onto your character and it won't show up on the sprite. How can you waste that kind of oppurtunity. I would rather not have loot than have unique loot that doesn't actually show up on the character at all. It's just lazy.
But as someone who isn't really a fan of roguelikes, I like this game. After 4 hours and a couple deaths, I'm having a good time. If their goal was to make the genre more accessible then I think they've succeeded.
Branches are like dungeons within the dungeon. Some branches are mostly cleared for EXP but other branches have great rewards. Some of the branches have a rune at the bottom which affects your final score. You can go for a 3-rune run and skip most of the harder branches or try to get every single rune which takes time skill and dedication. Each of the branches are completely different and you usually need a different strategy for each branch. The game also has a massive selection of monsters, magic spells and unique monsters. If having a story isn't a pre-req to you enjoying a roguelike you will probably really dig dcss.
@snide:
Actually I haven't tried ToME4 so can't really comment on that :)
I was surprised to hear you prefer to hear you prefer the UI, as the DCSS tiles client had the best UI I've seen in a traditional roguelike (the browser version is still in early development and not comparable to the client). It's full of great convenience features like Auto Explore and mouse based inventory/quick item/spell slots. It sounds like ToME4 does some of this too though.
If you're interested in things like lore and quests then DCSS may not be for you though. It's strength lies in the mechanics and I think in terms of pure dungeon crawling and combat there are none better that I've tried. It's just excellently designed and balanced for a roguelike (though not without its own problems). It leaves out all the spoiler stuff that plague the likes of ADOM or Nethack, and focuses on killing you through brutal combat encounters. When you die in Crawl (and you will, a lot) it's more likely due to a tactical/player mistake than some cheap gotcha death. Which is exactly how I like it :)
ToME4 sounds interesting too.
DoD is fun, accessable, and generally has decent humor. It is definitely a gateway drug to more serious RL for people that have never heard of/played before. There's nothing wrong with that, and it is a good game on its own merits.
As far as more classic RLs:
http://slashie.net
Slashie has made some crazy RLs, including one of my favorites, Castlevania RL. Most of them aren't finished, but they're pretty crazy, like the MegaMan RL and Metroid ones.
I agree, a complete waste of 5 bucks for me... hated the art style, the music is downright horrendous, your dude is always the same stupid looking guy with a vest no matter what gear you have on... and like the OP said, not much of a challenge.
All in all not a good game at all, roguelike or not, I'll stick with Powder, Angband and Dwarf Fortress for the time being thank you very much.
edit: BTW I recommend Powderto anyone new to this genre, it's very easy to pick up and play and it's free, there's also a DS version in case your DS can run homebrew apps.
Well, since we're all now recommending other roguelikes, I'm going to recommend Reaping the Dungeon/Dungeon Rogue :)
@tsolless: Wonder who ever said that this game was meant for ASCII fanboys?Har. Again, Stone Soup, it uses a texture pack by default, though you can get those for basically any ASCII roguelike.
And you know what? They look better than this game's mismatched abomination of an artstyle.
There is no reason to get this game for experienced people, OR people new to the genre.
@littlecaesar said:And artstyles are of course the first thing that experienced roguelike players look for in a game...@tsolless: Wonder who ever said that this game was meant for ASCII fanboys?Har. Again, Stone Soup, it uses a texture pack by default, though you can get those for basically any ASCII roguelike. And you know what? They look better than this game's mismatched abomination of an artstyle. There is no reason to get this game for experienced people, OR people new to the genre.
@Phonics: You're totally right, i love bad games! they're fun.
I have read the title again as you suggested. if you are what qualifies as a rougelike fan, then lord help us all because damn.
This game is meant to be a fun quirky representation of the genre, it's not for you anyway. But it's good that you've informed your fellow kind that it's not for them. It really is.
@AndrewB: you are living in a world where modern warfare 3 will sell a billion copies.Hah.. hahaha... hah..heh....er...damnit...
*cry*
I bought it because everyone in here is so angered by it, which told me it must be pretty good!
And it is, entertaining, decent little game. It's not incredibly complex, but if I want to sit in the dark playing an incredibly complex, masochistic game by myself while staring at ASCII graphics, I think I'll opt to masturbate with sandpaper.
Please Log In to post.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment