I think it was after, but I didn’t turn it on as it felt like cheating, and fundamentally it’s not the difficulty that puts me off (though that does as well). There have been very, very few roguelikes that I’ve stuck with. FTL is the only one I can think of, basically. Which is barely a roguelike. I’m just not a fan of the structure. I gravitate toward interlocking strategic systems, crafted level design and narrative, not exercises in action combat skill without full RPG progression to flesh them out and make them sticky. I understand Hades does more with narrative than your usual roguelike, but based on what I played I prefer every other Supergiant game.
Well that’s kind of a new addition to the concept, at least. Older rogue-likes didn’t have anything like that, you lost all you had earned and all you were carrying and started you over at step 1, best of luck to ya.
Nobody ever said you couldn’t use other people’s good ideas—otherwise Blizzard herself would be out of business.
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SlightAbleCaiman-max-1mb.gif
Completely true, of course.
Yep, which is why I wrote:
Bolding mine. :)
I’d say it’s the main element that accounts for the popularity of rogue-likes. It’s a psychological compensation for the pain of permadeath, which might otherwise make modern gamers go play some MMO instead.
-Tom
I don’t know, reviewing a fantastic game isn’t exactly brain surgery, you know?
Pedant alert: Froot Loops. Not Fruit Loops. They can’t call it that because it’s never been within miles of fruit.
Can’t call 'em Fruit Lupes either, because wolves won’t touch the stuff.
It’s never been within miles of a Froot either. How do they get away with it?!
I was making a tongue-in-cheek comment about how they cleverly they worked quote-unquote “death” into a story where you don’t really ever die. I would say that keeping stuff between runs is different from permadeath in the classic sense. You can have metaprogression in games without keeping things between runs; Binding of Isaac is a good example of this. But in any case, I didn’t mean to make it a major point of contention.
Indeed. When you died in a roguelike, you lost everything… except the “meta-progression” that took place IN YOUR MIND.
With each playthrough, you got better at the game, but not because you got a bigger sword.
You got better because you got a bigger WANG.*
*Wisdom About playiNg the Game.
The most satisfying unlockables… are the unlockables in your MIND, man.
Still, I can’t deny: in-game unlockables are fun.
But unlockables that make the game easier are exactly the opposite of what unlockables should do. The game’s already getting easier – because you’re getting better!
So, smart game designers put in unlockables that don’t make the game easier. The unlockables should add variety (like a new character or new content), or they should make the game harder (like the derpy or obtuse unlockable mech squads in Into The Breach). Or both.
I don’t know what Hades does.
The voice acting is very good. Probably the best of Darren Korb’s soundtracks, and I was astonished when the credits rolled and discovered he plays Zagreus, too.
Wow I’m gonna have to check this out now!
I’m with you. On principle I can’t stand the idea of meta-progression. But sometimes I want to turn off my brain and grind up my character! I can’t help it!
Hades has it but I wouldn’t call it aggressively necessary. Someone in the roguelike thread called it more like a tutorial that ran for a few hours. That’s a good way to put it. At that point you’re mostly into variety upgrades.
And I’m pretty convinced an action games savant could finish the first run, which ought to count for something.
Probably attack toucans. Or even threecans.
I was thinking they just got some sucker in the food lab to legally get their name changed. “Here! This is your new supervisor, world famous flavour chemist, Dr. Sally Froot. She’s in charge now.”
I really think they missed an opportunity by not going with Froot Luips.
Chemist? I thought it was an astronaut.
The fundamental premise of the commercial, the inciting event for the dramatic reveal, is flawed. Nonsensical, in fact.
They’re not giving it to Mikey because he hates everything. They’re foisting it on Mikey because they don’t want to eat it. In the act, one of the brothers doing the foisting opines the exact same objection you hold: He won’t eat it. Mikey hates everything. In that brief moment, condensed by a 30 second ad spot, the boys are lost. They don’t want to eat this healthy cereal, but their little brother won’t either. What are they to do? How can they get back their own lives, free of the shackles of this healthy cereal? Life finds a way. Mikey actually likes it. If Mikey likes it, the older brothers will love it! Life is good, and the world holds promise and potential once more.
Sometimes the acronyms just write themselves!
And of course, it’s better than the alternative.
That’s a very good point. I mean, I love me some NetHack, but there’s no way someone could ever complete that on the first run. If you don’t know when to #dip or when to #pray or what to wish for, you’re basically stuck.
Let’s run the tape:
