Quick Look: The Swords of Ditto

Hey a Giant Bomb Quick Like! How many times can Alex and Abby say "like" in 28 minutes (not including for Rogue-Like).

Will this be another case of lovely graphics hiding deficiencies in the design/gameplay?

"You see what I mean about some things not being communicated well?"

Not really? This is my first time watching gameplay for this game and things like, the big key is for the boss door, seems pretty obvious...

That said, the fact that you can't seem to aim the laser at the teleporting orb things seems ridiculous, even when you aimed it manually it ignored the teleport while an enemy was nearby, really weird. Also the boss later in the dungeon seemed like the animations and the hitboxes attached to them were weird.

Though honestly, he was talking about the fact that you don't keep much between lives and it made me want to play it more. I'm not a big fan of the rogue-lites that is more about do it again and again and level up, rather then the concept that you as a player are getting better at the game... However that requires the game to have good enough mechanics to facilitate that, and I can't really tell if that's the case in this video.

Interested in the game, definitely, 20 bucks though (while it seems reasonable) is probably too much for my broke self.

Yeah, I'm with you; that's how I like my roguelikes too, and it's the thing that frustrates me the most about Flinthook. He's played Dead Cells. This shouldn't be a foreign concept to him, but perhaps he's too attached to the Zelda design they're trying to evoke.

Do you want a Zelda inspired roguelike?

No, thanks.

Hearing various people talk about this game one thing has really struck me. It seems like a great example of preconceptions and/or perspective being able to wildly affect your experience.

For instance! If you look at this game as a Zelda-type first and foremost that has some rogue like elements added in then you might be more negative since a somewhatrandomly generated Zelda that penalizes progress on death seems antithetical.

However! If you look at this game as a rogue like first and foremost with Zelda type elements as the flavor, or the "hook", then you may wind up having a more positive impression because you're expecting all these same things from a rogue like that you'd not expect in a Zelda game.

What you get depends on what you take in with you.

I'd never want a rando-Zelda but a Zelda inspired roguelike looks cool as hell :p

This game screams that it was built off the Zelda charity runs.

For you guys, every year a bunch of communities get together and do Zelda LttP charity runs with a twist. They use a true randomizer that switches every single item in the game up. It's only rule is that it guarantees you a weapon from your Uncle. But that could be anything, from a bomb to the staff of Bjurna. Everything else is fair game.

For a lot of Hardcore Zelda fans, it's a good way to keep playing the game into it's far future. It also changes the nature of the game pretty heavily, because you suddenly have access to far greater areas earlier, perhaps not with everything you'd expect. So you have to somewhat pick and poke at various dungeons hopefully finding more stuff to access earlier dungeons and start finishing stuff.

For all the criticism over the way this game handles dying and starting over they sure did a great job of being stuck on a boring puzzle for 20 minutes. I don't even know what this game is but a drab night looking plant area with a puzzle. What a bad representation of the game unless this is what one can expect is just shooting a ring of lasers at things and stumbling around.

@ilseroth: I think he was mostly talking about the normal key just chilling on the floor in the room, visually indistinct from the rest of the stuff on the ground. I was just as confused as they were because I didn't even notice the key.

In Zelda, even the normal keys are in chests, so you know what you're looking for.

It's a small design detail, but it helps avoid scenarios such as the one in the quick look

Edit: I just rewatched that part, and the key isn't even there in their first pass through the room. wtf.

I'm a sucker for top-down zelda-style adventure games, but I'm with Alex; I'd rather have a curated experience. I can still put this game on my very long list of games to eventually get around to playing.

@tevor_the_third: I think you hit the nail on the head.

Like, those are two very distinct and different games.

A-A zelda-alike with randomly generated content you can keep playing and playing. You keep you progress (mostly) but death means a new set of dungeons to explore and etc.

B-A rogue-like which's systems have a zelda-like feel. Dieing often resets you very far back.

I think I'd enjoy either kind of game, a rogue-like that plays like a zelda sounds fun on paper. and a zelda-clone with randomly generated dungeons and over-worlds that essentially offered me the chance to (if they were good) play 100 hours of always new Link to the Past content? Yes please. But both games pull at very different parts of my 'I am looking to play X kind of game' mind.

I think Dan is looking for more of a rogue-lite, and less of a rogue-like. I too prefer that style of these regenerated playthrough games, though the fashion certainly appears to favour the latter.

The way they solved the puzzle at 12:18 was mindblowing to me because it's literally how I wanted to solve so many puzzles in Link to the Past as a kid, but they didn't allow it.

Uggh, I had high hopes for this game when I first heard about it. I'm with Alex about the procedural generated mediocrity! Give me a designed experience head to tail.

Abby seems real quick to assume a game is bugged if she can't figure something out.

This seems like a massive bummer. Everything looks well-made but the design doesn’t know if it needs to be a roguelike or a roguelite.

I've spent over 500 hours in Binding of Isaac, so I'm not against what this game is going for, but it just seems badly executed.

For this sort of game the procedural generation needs to be rock-solid, always creating interesting variations and never creating frustrating or badly designed scenarios. That random dungeon seemed like a nightmare, with two different "puzzles" that were just frustrating based on bad design. That's leaving aside the fact that re-doing puzzles of the same difficulty with the same mechanics is generally not fun, and more an annoying time-sink, as opposed to more skill-based challenges like bosses.

The game also needs enough variety in terms of enemies, scenarios, and items for each run to feel fresh and a way for you to build on your knowledge. It's hard to tell from the QL, but what I've seen doesn't look promising.

This seems like a game that could be really good with more polish.

This honestly looks like a bit of a mess. It's trying to incorporate elements of rogue-likes, rogue-lites, and Zelda games, and it doesn't look like it all comes together in a good way.

Probably gonna pass on this one.

I’ve been playing this game for four or five hours and so far it’s been pretty fun. I will say that I’m playing it on the lowest difficulty and I think that makes a difference. The enemies seem to hit the same on each difficulty but there are less of them on the easier settings, and the time limit for me is seven days instead of four.

The combat is designed to be simple and the difficulty comes from it being a roguelike, so If you’re going to try it I recommend trying it on easy before writing it off completely.

All hail Mollusca, the slimelord!

But this game looks neat. I might have to check it out some time. Definitely a rogue-like first with Zelda elements second, rather than a Zelda game with rogue-like elements.

is it just me, or are they starting to sound old? basically the, I wish this game was like this old game I played.

Top down Zelda-likes with overt references and visual homages are getting pretty tired. Wish most of them would just stop putting visual and story nods to their very obvious inspiration and do their own thing.

For example, there needs to be a ban on "triumphant chest opening" animations in these types of games. We get it, you guys are heavily inspired by Zelda!

Gotta love when devs add in a leveling system, and then make everything else level with you, effectively rendering the leveling system pointless

I wish Ql had death in it. If this game is rogue-something than one of the most important parts is what happens when you die and restart. Dan tried to explain it, but didn't seem 100% on how it worked. Maybe its cause I'm interested in the game that I wish there was more info given on how game actually works.

This looks like something i'd buy if it weren't another damn rogue-like. I'm tired of every indy game being a rogue-like.

I've played this game for ten hours or more and so far I can't really recommend it. The game tries to mesh a few different concepts together but never manages to make them gel.

It aims to be a 2D Zelda Rogue-like/lite with a few Soulsborne elements and if you now think "well, this sounds like a bad idea" then I'd say that you're probably right. The game feels like it doesn't really know what it wants and as if the designers don't know why the individual game genres work and what you'd need to do to fuse them together.

On top of that it also doesn't control well. The controls feel sluggish and heavy, the walking speed is too slow and there's no run button. You take too much damage because of the bad controls.

It also features an in-game time limit and gives you only a very limited ability to rewind time (costs huge amounts of in game currency)

- It wants to be a Rogue-lite but the progression system is too light-weight. The character level only increases hitpoints and nothing else and there's no real progression that carries over between runs like in Rogue Legacy or Dead Cells or Dungreed. There's not even an item unlock system like in Enter the Gungeon or Binding of Isaac. You can keep certain items between runs but only after you unlock that ability and even then you have to pay a huge amount of in-game currency

- It wants to be a Rogue-like but but the runs take entirely too much time. For me the ideal run-length of a good rogue-like is 30 minutes to an hour. You want that "just another run" kick and you want a system where the eventual fuck up and death is cheap and a restart is easy. A Swords of Ditto run can take two or three hours and that's entirely too long. Especially since you don't gain from previous runs.

- it wants a "complex-ish" combat system. It features dodge-roll and combos and enemies with attack patterns, it has guard break and commits you to animations (you can't animation-cancel attacks). It has damage-over-time debuffs like poison with the corresponding meters like in Dark Souls. Your character doesn't have a shield though and can't block and the controls are too clunky and imprecise so you take a lot of unnecessary damage.

- drops and consumables are tuned to the rogue-like game. This makes health drops rare-ish and expensive to buy. This is especially true for items that remove debuffs like poison and so you can die very easily to ticking dots. The combat system also gives you nothing to mitigate dots or make it so you don't get affected. You don't have a ranged weapon or spells so tough luck if you need to engage an exploding enemy in close-combat.

- It wants to be a 2D Zelda and wants to introduce a certain exploration aspect to the game. The main dungeons are very heavily inspired by Zelda with the puzzle-dungeon mechanics and there are side-quests and random side dungeons and things to explore. This clashes heavily with the rogue-like aspects of the game (inherent risk of perma-death) and the time limit.

- the leveling mechanic is not only pointless it is counter productive. The game level-adapts each run to your character level. If you're Level 5 all enemies are at least Level 5. Levelling your char ONLY increases HP. Levelling enemies gives them additional abilities and attacks, increases their HP and spawns more of them. So in a sense levelling up your char makes the game harder.

- You have to grind each and every run. Dungeons have level-requirements and the first dungeon's level requirement is always one level above your current character level. So you have to level-grind each run to be able to enter the in-game dungeons. You also have a time limit though

- In-game cut scenes and flavor animations (like the Kazoo-Air teleport of the bus teleporting in) don't pause the in-game timer and are un-skippable. You can't skip any of the mandatory in-game events or scenes and every run plays exactly like the first one. The game even makes you run to the cemetery each time to pick up the sword with the exact same in-game dialogue as in the tutorial. Regardless if it's run 1 or run 22.

- Pet Peeve: The walking speed is too slow and there's no run button. Pet Peeve 2: Collecting coins doesn't have a sound associated to it (it makes no sound at all)

I bounced off pretty hard after run 10 or 11. None of the ideas really mesh. There's no progression between runs, the runs take too long and the control scheme is not really fun. It mashes a few game ideas together but has no real clue why the games it takes it from are fun or why those ideas may work well together or why they might not.

It's sad because the graphical representation, music and sound design is really great. I like the art style and I like both 2D Zeldas and Rogue-likes/Rogue-lites.

This game won't please either 2D Zelda lovers or Rogue-like afficionados, though

It sounds like this game just isn't very good. It sounds like a game that wants it's foot in two areas (rouge-lite like Rouge Legacy, and a Link to the Past) but doesn't succeed at either.

Beautiful game though.

Yeah, i love the look; don't mind the controls; I pre-ordered it. I want to love it.
But I don't.

I admit i didn't really know how rogue-like it was when i bought it. Guys up top talk about how they love that system. That it makes skill so important. I don't. I would have rather had a save system in Castlevania on the NES. I couldnt beat it as a kid because it was too hard and I had to restart over and over. I played it as an adult with a save scum system, loved it! ha-ha
I like Rogue Legacy and Sundered to a point (didn't beat either) because even if you die, you at least come back a little more powerful each time. I did like to grind those (both got to a point where new abilities got too expensive though and my progress flatlined at a boss i couldn't beat)

But this game has even less progress per death than Dead Cells (and that lost me due to lack of what little you keep per playthough just like this, loved the gameplay though). And Ditto adds a time limit on top of it! I'm not sure how much time matters? But it stops you from grinding out money for the items you lost, and stresses me out. i wish it had ONE OR THE OTHER!
And all you do keep is your level - which makes the creatures harder each time... SO Id almost want to just reset the game and start from my first run (if all you do is retry and "skill" is the main factor as some people point to, why not start with your skill in an easier world????). Yes you can keep some items later on - but as others have said it takes a while to unlock and is crazy expensive.

My first run, my town had a dungeon in it, no time went by inside. i spent about an hour an a half grinding for stickers and loot and the bow. And got to like level 3. Then died (with a ton of food, so that was dumb), only to realize that I started again with NOTHING> And now that dungeon isn't in the main town.. I played about 30 more minutes, couldn't get past a few areas that were blocked, saw my time ticking away, and said, i think Im done for now... im going to retry on easy, but yeah. Time management, or Rougue-like systems might have been fine alone. For me - having both sucks. At least there isn't like a daily food requirement, weight limit on your backpack, or medicine needed like in Farcry 2. All trends I hate.

I do feel bad making any criticisms though, its a small 2 man team. They made a good product, it just wasn't what I was looking for (I'm entitled! I spent $16! ha-ha).
I read on Twitter (through this developers feed), Devolver Digital founder says people shouldn't criticize indie games, gamers are dicks online forums, and developers shouldn't read our comments. To a point I agree, but also, id give the same feedback to a AAA game too. (He argues AAA studios have a PR buffer that indies don't).
So its a good game, still buy it, maybe someday a patch can be made, or at least now you know what youre buying, (I kind of didn't). Its not bad. Its not broken. I feel bad for it getting a bad Quicklook response.
As much as gamers may complain and bitch, we are also supportive, and we also buy LOTS of games. Steam did an article a few months back that said they see the data that gamers don't even play like 66% of the games they buy. That's me! Ive invested THOUSANDS in games I want to do well and I have never had a chance to play. So when we do pick a game to play, we want the best games we can, so sue us :) But really, i wish they'd patch an easy mode with items you can keep for my sake, (entitled again!) - But its a two man team, that wont ever happen. And thats fine. I'm happy I supported them.

I wished they showen the multiplayer.

I mean, it looks really cool, and plays well. I haven't seen anything overwhelmingly shit or off-putting about it, it's just a flawed, beautiful game, and I want to support it so the next beautiful game they make can learn from those flaws.

I am excited to buy it next month simply to see all of the art they created, and I'm more than okay with that. It is a shame it isn't as good as it looks, though.

I've really enjoyed playing this on the lowest difficulty level, though I'm starting to suspect the mechanic for actually finishing the game proper is a little grindy. It looks great, the music is really good and it has charm to spare. Without sounding too mean, I think some of Dan's issues with communication stem from his tendency to not read stuff and miss details during recordings. I never once had an issue figuring out what was next or whether I was done in a dungeon or not.

The Zelda/roguelike combo is an interesting pitch but I don't think they nailed the progression aspect well enough. Dan's right when he says it's a massive bummer having to find major objects again every run, and I think the boss numbers are severely limited. Unlike, say, Dead Cells when there's always a feeling that you've made progress, this game definitely has a "alright, back to zero you go" vibe.

@steveurkel: I hate to agree with you, but it seems that this is becoming a theme with a lot of the Quick Look coverage these days.. ignorance or lack of interest. Either way, a disappointment coming from such a seasoned(and beloved) team.

I'll keep playing Link to the past randomizer. Infinite fun made in a more interesting way. Turning the game you love to a cool puzzle.

Man, that roll just killing its momentum right before walking again looks like it feels like complete garbage. No flow to the traversal at all.

@hassun: 100%

"my cat thinks the things I do are very dumb" This killed me.

Fun Fact: Mormo is also the final boss of the Mormonism.

@frymillstrum: The likes have been killing me every week on the Bestcast but I think i might have finally gotten past it.

I posit that Zelda is Dan's jam and peanut butter.

I kind of like that procedural generation means there are pieces of the puzzle that are unused sometimes. Sometimes, when everything has a purpose, it can make puzzles too easy to logic out. Which isn't to say this game does puzzles well; just a thought I had.

Edit: just finished the QL and.... we didn't get to see how the rogue-like handles death?

I wonder if Dan was not caring about coins for the quick look or if they're so unimportant that he actively avoids them during normal gameplay.