"Roguelikes"

[Krokadul]

Leaving aside the fact that Griftlands is a very poor choice for a permadeath game, due to the relatively long playtime and the involvement you get with the story and quests as they unfold, I don't understand the point of "rouguelikes" which keep a save on my disc drive. You're just making it inconvenient for me to save the game. There's nothing bad with making that an option for players at the start of a session, but forcing a playstyle, which is not suitable for the amount of playtime and frustration threshold I have, is not good game design.

[ElNogal]

This game is perfect for the rogue-like genre. Runs may be longer than other rogue-likes, yes. But that isn't enough to say it's a poorly made decision. Btw most of the time you spent in this game is reading actually, all of the playthrough I've done while I already had read most of the dialogs have been between 1-2h long, which in many cases is normal (in StS you spend between 30min-1h for a game, in EtG you spend around an 1h... it is true Griftlands takes a longer approach, but I think it's a rather good approach because it introduces some freshness in the genre. Maybe it's just not a game for you, but blaming it on the devs I think is incorrect.

[Krokadul]

Diablo 2 got it right 20 years ago - if you want permadeath you start a hardcore game. People who want bigger challenge play hardcore, and those who don't go softcore. Really simple. The game will be absolutely the same for you and more enjoyable for me. What's the problem with that?

[Proteus Effect]

I think some people are just more prone to be placated indefinitely to forget about other problems while others only feel like their actions matter if they're completable and challenging to them, regardless of the fact that progress in a video game is ostensibly just as much of an illusion. The rogue-likes appeal to the latter crowd, grindy rpgs appeal to the former. Some people like both. There's plenty of games that blend these elements to varying degrees.

Gaming is a lot of things to a lot of different people, and despite the fact that is sounds like it would just be a "simple switch" to do something, rebalancing a game towards a permanent mode is a lot more complicated than it sounds. It's something that happens slowly and over time. I can imagine that trying to take the rogue-like out of a rogue-like is about as appealing to Klei as trying to make Griftlands their go-to game for Diablo fans.

[RageLeague]

Traditionally Klei games usually have permadeaths(except Hot Lava, because that's like a parkour game), because their games are usually about surviving in a hostile situation. Griftlands is also about surviving in a world where everything and everyone wants to kill you.

You also sustain all of your health and resolve after encounters, so that not only do you have to win, you have to win while taking minimal damage so you can survive later.

This game, on prestige 0, you get a free retry every in-game day, just so if you get screwed by rng, you can redeem yourself. If you fail a second time, that probably means that your deck is too weak to complete the game with, and it's better for you to restart the run.

[LETSCHAT]

On 6/18/2020 at 2:05 PM, Krokadul said:

Leaving aside the fact that Griftlands is a very poor choice for a permadeath game, due to the relatively long playtime and the involvement you get with the story and quests as they unfold, I don't understand the point of "rouguelikes" which keep a save on my disc drive. You're just making it inconvenient for me to save the game. There's nothing bad with making that an option for players at the start of a session, but forcing a playstyle, which is not suitable for the amount of playtime and frustration threshold I have, is not good game design.

Even when you die, you have the chance to restart at the last day.

And if you're really scared, you can always close the window and relaunch.  But chances are, if you're resorting to that, your deck sucked anyway and you have to accept the learning loss. 

[TripLykely]

On 6/18/2020 at 12:05 PM, Krokadul said:

There's nothing bad with making that an option for players at the start of a session, but forcing a playstyle, which is not suitable for the amount of playtime and frustration threshold I have, is not good game design.

Not everything is made for everyone. Griftlands is perfect as a permadeath game for exactly the reason you think it isn't; to me. Because the story is deep and because you invest lots of time, the deaths carry more weight. Losing to the boss is brutal. My first time beating the game I had 3 health - what an epic feeling after losing multiple runs in a row as I figured mechanics out! As far as rogue-likes go, Griftlands is no where near as harsh as most. Also, once you beat the game you get brawl mode - which is quick paced, just the cards and not the story. The first game with permadeath was so popular is spawned an entire genre - Rogue-likes - so its confusing how you think because you don't like them Griftlands is designed poorly. Everything is subjective, hopefully you find a way to enjoy Griftlands, and if not there's plenty of games to try.

15 hours ago, Proteus Effect said:

I think some people are just more prone to be placated indefinitely to forget about other problems while others only feel like their actions matter if they're completable and challenging to them, regardless of the fact that progress in a video game is ostensibly just as much of an illusion.

Like the way your head works.

[Anarchil]

The relationship between game design and player choice is definitely interesting. Certain things are only valuable because they're difficult, for example. If a certain boss wasn't hard to beat, you wouldn't really feel rewarded when you beat it. Similarly, successfully finishing a run of Griftlands feels good because it was at least some challenge. Still, I'm not sure whether the game should include more save options.
Related point (and one where I'm much more certain as to what the truth is): the game is balanced around permadeath. It would be difficult to introduce more saves without completely throwing out the balance of the game.

[Hekateras]

Every game design choice is about balancing challenge and frustration. Different people have different frustration thresholds which affects what games they play and how they play them. Some people have extremely high frustration thresholds, I'm talking about people who do "no death" runs in platformers and the like, something that takes dozens or even hundreds of hours of practice and attempts to achieve. Some games are designed with that kind of people as a target audience. Now, Griftlands is nowhere that extreme (it's about middlish on the permadeath front, a lot more forgiving than Don't Starve, for instance), but you get the idea. Maybe it's just not your kind of game.

That said, if you die a LOT you're probably making poor deck choices and need to revisit your strategy. I kept dying to boss fights with Rook until I noticed I had completely misunderstood his charge mechanic - namely, the fact that empty charges give him free Defense at end of turn. World of difference after that.

[RiC David]

OP, how many roguelikes have you played, out of interest? Because the first thing to establish is if you're against the idea in concept or in execution.

Generally speaking, games that have a permadeath option but where it isn't the default intended playstyle do not play as actual roguelikes (not getting into strict definitions, just talking the 'spirit' of the genre). Griftlands plays like one despite it being lighter on randomised content than most because the game just wouldn't work if it had save restoration. If I could restore a save point after dying (beyond the once-a-day 'Ankh of Second Chances' single use safety net), I'd be assured that every run would eventually be a win, I'd have far less reason to start another run, and it would just be a pretty unremarkable experience all around.

I would never play with permadeath on a game that's just not designed for it - permadeath Skyrim or one life Super Mario World or something. The reason roguelikes work is because of the random/procedurally generated world and content, meaning that whenever you suffer the crushing blow of meaningful defeat (as opposed to simply delayed victory/lost time) the silver lining and the thing that lifts you up is then experiencing something new and different.

This perhaps works far better than it sounds on paper, which is why I ask how many you've played. If you have played either a traditional roguelike (Brogue is the one to play) or a roguelite such as Spelunky, Binding of Isaac, FTL etc. and you still just savescum (reloading via exploit) because you feel it's broken with permadeath then there's nothing for you to get because you're just one of the unfortunate few who won't ever enjoy what for most is extremely rewarding. I've been playing games since age 5 and once I discovered the roguelike genre 22 years later, it became virtually all I play because the replayability is unparalleled.

Taking randomised/proc-gen content and permanent death and forcing reloading into it is the equivalent of living a real life Groundhog Day rather than waking up tomorrow - sure there are times we'd desperately like a do-over but the experience of a new day is the essence of life.

[minespatch]

I'm just used to Roguelikes due to Klei. Pretty sure Guacamelee isn't one.

[Cpt. KatKit]

You can pause at any moment and continue the game from there. You don't have to play a full run in one sitting.