I don't understand Roguelikes

Alright, this has been on my find for quite a while now - since my first encounter with roguelikes - so here it is: what is the deal with rogue likes. Seriously, I understand that, clearly, they're not meant for me but what do the people that like roguelikes get out of them?

In my opinion, roguelikes (such as: Rogue Legacy, Dark Souls (somewhat) and The Binding of Issac) are simply brutally hard for the sake of being brutally hard. Now, this may harken back to an era of games that were like that but what purpose do they serve in this generation or this age? Is it purely for the sake of being retro or is there something more to them - the rogue likes - that I am simply not getting, because playing a game for it's difficulty is a rather shallow reason to play a game.

(I don't dislike a difficult game but I do dislike a game that isn't expressing what I am doing wrong.)

Now, I admit, I'm not typically a sadist or hardcore gamer, but I do know a thing or two about good games and poor games, and every time I get my hands on a rogue like I'm hit with the conclusion that they are not, 'good,' games (for me). What makes them bad, or poor, you might ask? Well, I'll tell you.

It appears to me that majority of rogue likes throw you into a situation without much knowledge of the mechanics or the game itself. The patterns, which you are suppose to follow to, 'learn,' the game become blended or you're simply dropped into a situation where you have no idea what to do. Now, some of you might say this, "but that's what the internet is for," and to that I say yeah; however, a, 'good',' game should be able to drop you into a situation with enough prior knowledge to interact with the environment without being squished to pieces too many times. i.e. there should be no need for a player to go onto the internet to discover what the game is really all about. "Well maybe you should just get better at the game," is what some might say as well and to this I say: At some point in time it's no longer my fault for being bad at the game. i.e. maybe it's just the game, or maybe the game is bad at conveying the information relative to my faults.

I realize that rogue likes are clearly not targeted at a demographic like myself, however, the markets (mainly Steam) seem to be inundated with games like The Binding of Issac and Rogue Legacy and I am left eddying in a stream of material that is simply not meant for me.

Basically I'm saying this: There are far too many rogue likes (good or bad). You may not like me for that but it's what I am sensing each time I spend 15+$ on a game that I want to enjoy but am left scrambling to even understand the basics of because I keep dying so often. Simply stated, I think the age of rogue like games is coming to a close and other, funner, games might take their place.

"What are those games"? I have no idea, but they're certainly not rogue likes (or those darn Minecraft clones) and I am interested in seeing what they will be.

What are your thoughts on rogue likes? Do you share a similar opinion or are our minds too diverse to come to a compromise on what a rogue like should or shouldn't be? What games do you see bubbling to the surface? Will there be a rise in action games again or is strategy taking the lead? What about city builders or RPGs? Please, let me know what you think.

So basically, you have a very poor understanding of these types of games and don't enjoy them, so you think they should go away? Have you considered maybe not buying them and instead playing other games? I don't know where you're getting this idea that rogue-likes are the most prominent and popular games in the industry, but it's simply not true. There have been a handful of games with rogue-like elements that have become popular in recent years, but it's nothing more than a small subset of indie games. If you want to play action games or strategy games or city builders or RPGs, play those instead. Apart from city builders those genres each outnumber rogue-likes by a huge margin.

You should just stay away cause clearly you don't understand anything about this type of game. Some people like a game to be challenging and not have to explain every little thing to you. You learn by exploring and trying things out. That strategy didn't work, then try something else. I didn't have to go to the internet to play Rogue Legacy. I learned how to play the game by trying stuff out. You can get through the Souls games by trying random stuff out until something works. Rogue Likes are popular now but in a few years something else will be the popular thing. Just because you don't like a genre and are terrible at it doesn't mean it isn't good. It means you don't understand it.

You should try examining why you die. That's kind of the key to the entire subgenre.

Also, stop buying games you know you don't like.

"Rogue Likes" offer a more "organic" and interesting rule set for adventure games than your standard single player campaign. Not a lot of games do this style because of the design and tech involved where I'm not sure where or why you believe so many games use this design.

If you don't like a game, don't worry about it. You should never worry about what the other guy likes and instead focus on what you like and play the hell out of that.

ll_Exile_ll

No, I don't think they should go away, and on top of that, playing the number of them I have, I think I know what they're about and I simply do not like them. When was the last time any editor on this site mentioned a new and decent city builder? Banished? Anno 2070? And when has a decent action game been less than 60+$. I realize that rouge-likes are niche market, but they're a market that is incredibly difficult to become apart of and growing in popularity.

It's not simply about playing the game I want either. The gaming market seemed to come to a stagnation in 2013, in my opinion - the focus of 2013 was on the launch of the next generation -, with rogue-like games becoming the highlight of decent gaming during that period of time. I would love to play a decent RPG or city builder, but simply, they do not exist right now. Maybe Divinity, but after playing their previous games I'm not interested in what they have to offer.

@extomar:

That's some fairly decent advice; however, the genres I would like to play are either in a bad state of production - mainly city builders - or are simply too expensive for what they actually offer - games like Battlefield.

Yeah, it sounds like you don't really understand the point. Dying when you don't have a lot of knowledge isn't a problem because the less knowledge you have the shorter runs you have. If you're not learning from every death that's a fault of your own and not of the game. It's about learning and overcoming a challenge that only recently seemed insurmountable. And then doing that again and again every time the game throws something new at you. It's refreshing not having games tell you exactly how to play and how to deal with every mechanic as soon as it's introduced.

I moved this to the Roguelike concept board and edited your topic title - please don't force users to click on your topics just to find out what they're about. If you want to edit it to something else go ahead, just make sure it's descriptive.

You do make it sound like you haven't given the rogue-likes you've played enough time to reveal the appeal they can have. Patience is fundamental to the enjoyment of something like Spelunky or the BOI because if you're not taking your time and picking up on how to deal with different enemies/traps/items in ways that prevent you from getting hit or losing resources, you will die. The reason for the level of difficulty is down to the fact that if it were easier, you wouldn't need to think about the best way to traverse a situation, you could just plough through it. The whole thing about these games is that learning process and the rewarding feeling you get by overcoming something that had been causing you problems, a la the bosses in Dark Souls. They're not for everyone but if you give them the time of day I think they are the best kind of games around at the moment, even with all the abuse they seem to be getting.

@yi_orange: maybe you're right. Maybe I don't understand the game. But at some point I have to fault the game for not letting me know, 'how to play.' I've reviewed why I've died but I simply do not have the patience to go in every time and understand exactly what I am doing wrong. Simply, I do not think this style of game is for me, but I would love to see how it could be more inclusive to someone like me.

@allprox: Okay, I'm seeing the pattern here. I simply do not have the patience to play rogue-likes, or to give them the respect they deserve. I like the concept, but I don't like the actual mechanics of it. I guess I'll simply observe rogue-likes from a distance, waiting for that one rogue-like that'll let me 'plough through,' whilst still having the challenge that rogue-like lovers desire.

Some would say that being able to hit Quick Load or load Last Checkpoint every time you take some damage is taking the fun out of the game. Staying on your toes all the time and thinking about every decision makes progress much sweeter. And dying is part of the fun. It sucks for a while but you're more often than not happy to start over (if it is a good game, that is).

I strongly recommend you'd read LtSquigs' blog about the various kinds of roguelikes to get a better understanding of what they are, first and foremost.

The genre isn't for everyone, but it's not the "sadist" aspect of it that's enticing, at least not to me, but the fact that you explore something new in every run. Unlike Dark Souls (which you bring up as an example of a Roguelike, while it doesn't really share a single trait of that genre), you never know what's around the next corner. Unlike Dark Souls and many other games you don't learn it by endlessly grinding the same area or boss pattern until you get it (yes, I know it's overly reductive, and I like the Souls games, but while the game rewards you for patience and understanding of the mechanics, you can generally brute force your way through everything too, if you play through the same encounter enough times), your ability to get deeper into the game is more about understanding the game mechanics, than to learn how to get through a set list of events. And the game mechanics in old school roguelikes are at first glance extremely simplistic - you and the enemy take turns at the same time, you move to their tile to attack them and then you trade blows until one of you die, and your only expressed goal is to reach the deepest level in the dungeon (usually the 10th floor). But beyond that there's a huge list of things to worry about - hunger, fatigue, health, the weight of the items you carry (in some roguelikes, there's also wounds, crippled limbs and stuff like that to worry about), forcing you to decide between exploring another room of heading for the ladder to the next level.

Admittedly, a lot of Roguelikes do involve a bit of ramming your head against a brick wall until you figure stuff out. But the struggle is also an intrinsic part of the appeal. Figuring things out in games as hard and unforgiving as these and succeeding is cathartic in a world with increasingly easy and hand hold-y game design. If you don't have the patience or don't find that cycle very fun then... I dunno, play something else?

Well I'm gonna try to explain why I like hard games..

I guess I could be considered a roguelike enthusiast. I play ARPG's only on hardcore mode, I love the souls games, I usually play any "normal" type of game on the harder difficulties. I've been a gamer for a long time and naturally, I get better at them across the board. I usually can't enjoy myself if the game isn't challenging enough. Overcoming a challenge is very rewarding for me, even if it is in a video game.

I guess, for me, part of the search for challenge comes from my competitive FPS background. The joy of an adrenaline rush when you pull off the "impossible" in a high-stakes multiplayer game is in a way comparable to the joy of overcoming the challenges of really hard games.

Modern roguelikes however are generally not very hard because most of them have a progression system. When you fuck up, you still get something out of it to make the next run easier. Progress, in a hard game is rewarding by itself, even if it is somewhat handed to you. The "challenge" can be very different from roguelike to roguelike. But, most of them are simply about understanding the mechanics of the game, aka knowledge, which in itself could be considered a type of progression. Knowledge, even in video game form, can be quite fascinating. So I guess the progression in older roguelikes is the meta-game, the knowledge.. while in some modern ones the progression is actually a mechanic of the game although there is still of course some knowledge to be had as well.

I'm super excited to see all the new takes on roguelikes and other difficult games we've seen in the last few years, it is just what I want to see in the games industry. I just wish that more big budget studios will embrace it as well, not just indies and FROM Software, but that's probably merely a dream..

Also, roguelikeroguelikeroguelike

I think Rogue Likes are dumb too. Alot of people like stuff thats dumb. Thats cool with me. I like alot of stuff that other people think is dumb.

(Edited to make me seem like less of a dick)

@fisk0: Hmm, you make it sound like older rogue-likes were about character management and know-how and not necessarily one's skill. Interesting

@loafsmooch: I would agree with you on the difficulty in games, I do enjoy a challenge, but the challenge that rogue-likes offer me is not interesting. When I played my last rogue-like, Rogue Legacy, I was getting better each time I played, yes, but the ratio of progress: time was not enticing enough to keep me playing.

I would also agree that the knowledge aspect of a game is intriguing to me as well, however, I understand what rogue-likes or mechanic oriented games (e.g. Dark Souls) are about but I simply do not like them. The real problem with that statement is that I cannot, personally, identify what I don't like about them other than the repetitive aspect that is endemic to games like Rogue Legacy and Dark Souls. i.e. variety is more intriguing to me than repetitive mechanics.

@devil240z: Yes!

It's kind of hard to explain the appeal when the entire appeal of these games (for myself) is the journey. Constantly learning new things about the games, finding new items, and learning new lessons about the enemies. It's also hard to put into words how exhilarating it was to beat Olmec, or even Yama for the first time in Spelunky, when my early hours of that game were spent dying over and over again in the Mines.

If you really, really want to understand the genre, you need to find a game that you actually want to get good at, and do it. When you do that, and look back at everything you've accomplished and learned from the game, you'll understand. You might not like it, sure, it's definitely not a genre for everyone.

As far as you wishing Roguelikes went away, that's kind of silly. There really aren't that many of these games coming out. At least not enough to overwhelm the entire Steam store with them.

Oh man. As an English speaker, this sentence hurts me.

Eh, I really enjoyed Dungeons of Dredmor, but that's pretty much the beginning and end of my foray with actual roguelikes. (Games like spelunky and rogue legacy are barely roguelikes)

@alexw00d: You should check out ToME, it's pretty great.

It's like people playing Diablo on hardcore with permadeath. I don't get it. I would loose it if I lost a character forever after having spent a lot of time on that.

I have nothing against games being hard, I enjoyed the Halo games on Legendary and the Mass Effect games on Insane, but permadeath is something I can never understand why you would want. Being able to try again from a checkpoint is what makes it fun because you can just try another strategy if one fails otherwise you need to play super concervative to never risk anything.

@hunkulese: English is a dying language anyways.

@dagas: Exactly. It's not really about the difficulty. It's more about the chances you get to understand the game are so far and few between that the game become a conservative bore. i.e. I simply lack the desire to learn about a game through my fault with the game when it restarts me every time. I have better things to do.

I love me some Spelunky. While there were things about The Binding of Isaac and Rogue Legacy that I liked, I felt like they were less focused in their core design as Spelunky was. For me, the thing so satisfying about Spelunky is learning the behaviours of each enemy and trap. Usually, taking down an enemy or avoiding a trap can be incredibly quick, the difficulty instead comes from identifying each dangerous behaviour and avoiding it through cautious play. You end up playing a bit of a mind game with yourself, trying not to be too careless.

I played Rogue Legacy recently and found its structure a bit less satisfying. The game focuses more on its upgrade tree for progression than cautious play. This meant that a lot of the time I felt my deaths had more to do with me being less well-equipped than failing to be cautious. There isn't much to be learned from your deaths and instead it felt like I was grinding through playthroughs in order to artificially improve my abilities.

The Binding of Isaac is similar in that it is pretty luck-based and that certain upgrades require multiple playthroughs in order to even spawn.

Spelunky is a game that I feel respects your time by comparison. You improve based on your own willingness to learn, as apposed to the amount of time you simply spend playing. That's probably the element I enjoy most from the genre, but it's something that doesn't necessarily exist in all rogue-like-like-like-likes...

I think roguelikes are the closest we are going to get nowadays in having an authentic arcade experience, where games were bastard hard and there was little room for error. Sure you can keep feeding an arcade machine money to keep going but if you were a kid then you would be lucky if you had enough money for 5-10 credits (at least in my experience). So the only alternative to being loaded with cash was to get really good at a game, good enough to finish it with one credit, and the buzz you got once you managed to go through a game from start to finish just with one coin was pure euphoria. Compare that with what you do with roguelikes, and you can see the similarities.

@anxioustube: I don't play many roguelikes either. However, I have gathered that part of the appeal and part of the learning process is figuring out how and why you died. You learn by doing, not by a tutorial prompt or slowly ramping up. You die, figure out why you die, and when that situation comes up again, you know what not to do. And you start learning what to do.

It's a very different way of teaching. And it's way harsher than guiding your hand through an hour or two of gameplay to make sure that you're ready. I can appreciate the kind of design they're going for, but I also really dislike losing progress and I especially dislike randomizing levels so I don't play many of them.

@believer258: I, as well, enjoy the concept of how they teach you the game, but I think that what rogue-likes have done so far to highlight their mechanics is done rather poorly; especially in games that have you restarting every time you die.

So how are they done poorly, really? Pick a few examples and tell me how you think they fail to teach players what they need to know.

I'm not trying to get you to like the genre, just to understand its merits (which you don't seem to, despite what you say).

EDIT: Well-known examples, please, not a random example you picked up off of Desura.

Kinda. Also depends a bit on what you mean by skill. Roguelikes aren't reaction based like stuff like Dark Souls, Rogue Legacy, Binding of Isaac or Spelunky are - you can take whatever time you want to take your turn, but unlike common turn based games you and the enemies don't alternate turns, but take them all at once (kinda like in Superhot), so it's not as easy to plan ahead and set events up as it is in something like X-COM or Divinity - if you take your turn to shoot an arrow at a distant enemy, the enemy may move away from where you aimed during that same turn, instead of patiently waiting for their turn to move. But the fact that the areas are generated every time you play makes it more important for you to try to understand the situation you are in, than in games where you can replay the same battle over and over until you get it. I think there's skill in that too. I guess I'd kinda compare it to when you know exactly what'll come up in a test during school and study specifically for that, maybe not understanding anything but exactly what comes up in those questions, instead of studying for a broader knowledge of the entire subject. Games that let you play the exact same battle over and over can boil down to just learning that specific event, but not to handle slightly different events, whereas randomly generated stuff demands that you have learned the basics to take on the unknown.

You mention that good RPGs don't exist right now - which is total bullshit - and then you proceed to enumerate a good one and then dismiss it.

@believer258: I dislike Rogue Legacy for the same reasons you disliked it. It wasn't based on a players skill, it was gear and class based. The Binding of Issac's mechanics were based on pattern. You could observe a creature attack pattern and learn from it. Issac also had loot pick ups that were random and did little to mark what they actually did; an internet source was needed to know what each item pick-up did and how to properly use it. That is two faults in two well know rogue-like-like-likes.

@fisk0: I understand how the learning process works and I even enjoy it, but I feel that, upfront, developers do little to exemplify what is needed to be done. e.g. the item pickups in The Binding of Issac; you do not know what they do until you use them or pick them up.

@ghostiet: Based on my past experiences with other Divinity games I have the absolute right to say I am not confident in how good it is. I didn't like the other Divinity games and I probably wouldn't like that one. On top of that, I don't want to shovel out 50+$ for a game that I may or may not like and that doesn't appeal to me and what my sense of a good RPG is, e.g. Dragon Age: Origins, Skyrim, Oblivion.

You should really play dungeons of dredmor its a pretty good beginner rougelike, things are pretty well explained and you can even turn off perma death if you really want.

@schreiberty: I'll give it another go. I bought it on a Steam sale for cheap and I didn't explore it enough to make a decision on it yet.

@anxioustube said:

I don't know, dude. If you really dislike roguelikes, why would you start and entire forum topic dedicated to trying to understand why you don't like it? I think you might actually be really intrigued by roguelikes but frustrated because you can't get very far in them. That's why you're putting so much time and energy into this conversation.

I recommend trying to learn these games with the help of a guide. Yes, look up information on the internet. Most guides or wikis for these types of games will have a section for "basic survival tips" or "beginner strategy." When playing the game, try to give yourself a concrete goal and take time to think about your strategy every step along the way. Give that a shot for an hour or two, even though I'm sure you expect you'll hate it. But maybe doing this will either open up the game for you, or lead to a clearer realization as to why you don't like these games, which is what you wanted to know in the first place.

Beating something that is hard feels good, that's pretty much all there is to it.

Some people might play Diablo that way, but I don't think that's really a valid comparison for modern rogue-likes in any way. Diablo 3 is a long game, with a ton of investment in a particular character, and you're going to fight through the same acts, the same bosses, and a lot of the same/similar encounters every time you play it. A game like Spelunky can be beaten in a couple of minutes, the investment on any particular run isn't even in the same ballpark.

The investment you make is in the game mechanics, and how to use the randomly generated items/content to your advantage. When your character survival timeline (even for super successful runs) are measured in minutes, not hours or days, then the penalty for dying and starting over is negligible.

It's just fun. Why do people like grinding in RPG's? It's the definition of tedious, but people like it. I like having a game where you really have to master the mechanics to get through. The random factor makes it even cooler because you always have to go in fresh. It never gets stale because of that.

I've put in over 100 hours in the binding of isaac, got every ending possible and I could still go play it right now and have fun. Same with spelunky. Beat olmec and yama and I could still go back and play it and have as much fun now as I did the first time. It clicks with me.

I don't think anyone is saying that you don't have the right, but it is a bit silly. First off, the game is $40, not on sale. And all you have to do is look at the game's critical reception compared to the rest of the Divinity franchise to see that most people agree with you...they haven't had a super strong past with these games. Most agree that this one has risen considerably above. You specifically site Dragon Age: Origins as an RPG that appeals to you...I'd be curious as to what about Original Sin specifically has steered you the other way. They share a good deal of similarities, at least as far as the gameplay is concerned.

Considering Divinity: Original Sin is not even remotely similar to previous games of that series, that argument is invalid. Although your selection of what you consider "good RPGs" is a bigger part of the problem. But hey, it's your funeral.

The issue isn't the game design, its as you said that you don't find the ratio of time/progress enticing. That is essentially the core of the genre. Its like learning a musical instrument (or any other new skill). There are lots of very small gradual rewards with rare big payoff. You have to invest time and "practice" the game, instead of learning notes and rhythms you are learning attack patterns, hit boxes and other mechanics depending on the game.

I think Rogue Legacy is one of the most newbie friendly games with roguelike elements because its has a very evident structure of progress. Even if you don't make any real progress in the castle you can still spend money earned on upgrades. That level counter next above your health keeps ticking up and gives you something to measure progress in a very real way.

What about Roguelike-likes. Do you like them?

@anxioustube: I thought not knowing what stuff did in BoI was one of the best parts. It mystified the experience and forced you to learn the ropes of what the game was presenting to you. Eventually you get to a point where you understand the mechanics of each item and know how to utilize them well. Even still you could go on a forum board and see people talk about something you never even knew was possible. It was cool; It was damn cool.

Clearly there is a community behind these games that I am not apart of, and many of you have highlighted my exact opinions on the genre; good and bad. However, I'm still not sold on what games like Rogue Legacy and The Binding of Issac do. I'm, however, now, more interested in The Dungeons of Dredmor and will give it another go when I get the chance.

As for the Divinity tangent, I'll take another look at its reception and its gameplay, but I'm still wary of what that game has to offer based on my past experience; as I've stated.

@anxioustube: Just wondering, are you old enough to have been around while arcades were still around? I really love the challenge of roguelikes & I wonder if part of it stems from the fact I use to play a variety of arcade cabinets back in the 90s. It was a pleasure to try & beat an old arcade brawler using one credit before the internet was around & playing roguelikes feels a lot like that.

kind of understand where you are coming from. There has been a tidal wave of really poorly executed games calling themselves rogue-likes. You can't be blamed for the haphazard bandwagoning going on.

FYI nothing about the Souls series is remotely related to Rogue.

It's worth noting these are all wildly different games with only the loose concept of rouge-likeness linking them and many other of this genre, if you can call it that, are equally different so it's not about liking rouge-likes, it's about like the games this one element is tied to. If you like Platformers then Legacy and Spelunky are more for you than, say, FTL or Dungeons of Dreadmore but if you like something where you control the pace then it's reversed. Comparing those games shows that you're not really thinking about the games, you're thinking about what is ultimately a buzzword. The way we use rouge like now is so broad it's like calling every game that involves shooting, be it Geometry Wars, Doom or Super Metroid, "shooters" and acting as if they're all essentially the same.

Stop thinking of the games as rouge-likes and look at the much more prominent game mechanics.

Also, the idea that these games aren't skill based because "random chance" is a very reductionist idea of skill, as if adaptability isn't a huge skill. "Skill", like rouge-like is an incredibly broad term. Painting and Brian Surgery are two very different things that both require huge amounts of very different skills. Same goes for all these different games. Having to adapt to random rooms or learn a range of items through actual trial and error LEARNING are honest to goodness skills and to claim otherwise is really weird.

@mysterysheep: This sums up how I feel pretty well. I put a lot of time into Binding of Isaac as well, but it often became more reliant on what kind of pick-ups I found. Sometimes I would get totally boned on drops and, while I still beat the game with a poor build, I didn't have as much fun doing it.

Spelunky is a game that you can, if you are fantastic at it, pick it up one single time and play it all the way through to Yama and get the true ending. No bullshit, no unlocks, just pure skill and awareness. So satisfying.