AnxiousTube's forum posts

Avatar image for anxioustube
#1 Edited by AnxiousTube (245 posts) -

@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.

Avatar image for anxioustube
#2 Edited by AnxiousTube (245 posts) -
Avatar image for anxioustube
#3 Posted by AnxiousTube (245 posts) -
Avatar image for anxioustube
#4 Posted by AnxiousTube (245 posts) -

@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.

Avatar image for anxioustube
#5 Posted by AnxiousTube (245 posts) -

@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.

Avatar image for anxioustube
#6 Edited by AnxiousTube (245 posts) -

@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.

Avatar image for anxioustube
#7 Posted by AnxiousTube (245 posts) -

@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.

Avatar image for anxioustube
#8 Posted by AnxiousTube (245 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for anxioustube
#9 Edited by AnxiousTube (245 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for anxioustube
#10 Edited by AnxiousTube (245 posts) -

Hm, Patrick, you bring up a truly intriguing point on our perceptions of characters in stories, especially in video games, (where we have the ability to literally play out the story) where our interactions have an impact on the world but not the plot. A rogue-like, Han Solo esque character that comes to mind for me is John Marston and is a great foil to Aiden's, seemingly, non redeeming qualities and actions.

In Red Dead Redemption, the game in which Marston is the key figure, we also have an impact on our environment; much like in Watch Dogs. However, unlike in Watch Dogs, Marston's plot line takes a much more liberating path that has the player, and the character, reach an incredibly cathartic moment by the end. And, Red Dead's ending almost acts as a foil to Watch Dog's; pulling any sense of control from the player, and Marston, putting you before the void and telling you to dive in without any other choice.

Marston's history is rather similar to Aiden's, in regard to their sordid pasts. However, once again we have Marston truly trying to atone for the dark deeds of his past while continuing to commit atrocities more on the level of a mass murder; much like Aiden. Unlike Aiden, however, we have a true sentimental connection to Marston and feel that what he is doing is truly building a bridge to a better future for himself; whether it's by liberating a small desert town from an unruly gang or overthrowing a harsh, despotic, Mexican dictator. Simply, Red Dead Redemption built a fairly basic connection to his family, his land, and his desire to live a life in peace -something most of us wish for at some point. However, this plot device serves a much better basis for building an anti-hero that doesn't feel as though he deserves his ill begotten fate, despite his truly deplorable actions and past choices; most of which were circumstantial.

This is an interesting topic that really does deserve the attention of game developers. As creators, game developers deserve to give their characters a sense of life and awareness. Clearly, Aiden is not aware that he has created his own awful fate, and whether the developers knew this or not is in their ball park. However, as consumers, We have the right to say that their portrayal of this character type is not realistic or not emotionally significant, and/or left an incredibly awful taste in our mouths.

Hopefully, both consumer and developer continue to take a better look at what we are doing with our in-game characters and how the plot line impacts our perception of those characters and our choices.