I feel nearly obligated to grab Fallout New Vegas Deluxe/Complete/Adjective for 9 bucks even though I have no idea when I'd play it. Especially when a fair number of people consider it better than both FO3 and FO4.
I liked the environments from Fallout 3 more (the whole abandoned porn/Urbex theme was cool, especially once you add the mod that brings trees and foliage back and gets rid of the pea soup filter), but New Vegas let me have spurs that jingle jangle jingle.
New Vegas also has a companion that, when you recruit him, straight up tells you "If I see any members of [FACTION], I'm gonna start shooting. You got a problem with that?" and it's glorious.
I feel nearly obligated to grab Fallout New Vegas Deluxe/Complete/Adjective for 9 bucks even though I have no idea when I'd play it. Especially when a fair number of people consider it better than both FO3 and FO4.
I mean I grabbed it during a previous sale when I already own it and beaten it a few times on 360, so I guess what I'm saying is, graaab it.
See, I would say Rogue Legacy is a misnomer, and is actually the antithesis of a Roguelike.
In a Roguelike you learn to progress, and sometimes that kills you.
In Rogue Legacy, you die to progress, and sometimes you might learn something. But more likely you'll just reattempt the boss with more damage/HP.
Also, a Roguelike should have little performative skill required to allow that knowledge to be in the forefront.
Rogue Legacy is a platformer, and so does not do that.
Expected death is fine.
Required death is not.
I really did not like Rogue Legacy, and the whole repeated necessary death loop killed an otherwise decent platformer for me there.
Roguelike became a very loosely defined term like "action adventure" quite a while back. At this point, I think the only thing people agree on is that randomly generated levels are a part of the package and even then not every map has to be randomly generated. A lot of people would blanch at Binding of Isaac or Enter the Gungeon being called roguelikes because you gain unlocks that affect future runs but no one likes using the term Roguelikelike.
Finished Alan Wake and Alan Wake's American Nightmare. Both are very good games that hold up, but American Nightmare while shorter just plays better and is more fun-sized.
Both did a lot of interesting things, but I feel like Alan Wake's combat in particular overstays it's welcome by the end of the game. The story throughout both is great, though I feel like the ending of the original game is a bit abrupt. The suspense builds and builds and then it's sudden curtains. American Nightmare helps to fill in some of what I feel like is a gap in the storytelling though. Lots of interesting characters and situations. Particular highlight for me was the interstitial music at the end of each chapter. The first game got me with a blatant jump scare and I don't like that game ;_;
Recommended if you've never gotten around to playing them!
Did you play the 'special' episodes in Alan Wake before moving on to Nightmare?
Steam chat asked similar and it seems like I might not have? I played everything the game gave me and it didn't make any indication that there was more or that I should go poke around, but doing some plot reading of the first DLC, yeah, I didn't play that. So going back now.
See, I would say Rogue Legacy is a misnomer, and is actually the antithesis of a Roguelike.
In a Roguelike you learn to progress, and sometimes that kills you.
In Rogue Legacy, you die to progress, and sometimes you might learn something. But more likely you'll just reattempt the boss with more damage/HP.
Also, a Roguelike should have little performative skill required to allow that knowledge to be in the forefront.
Rogue Legacy is a platformer, and so does not do that.
Expected death is fine.
Required death is not.
I really did not like Rogue Legacy, and the whole repeated necessary death loop killed an otherwise decent platformer for me there.
Roguelike became a very loosely defined term like "action adventure" quite a while back. At this point, I think the only thing people agree on is that randomly generated levels are a part of the package and even then not every map has to be randomly generated. A lot of people would blanch at Binding of Isaac or Enter the Gungeon being called roguelikes because you gain unlocks that affect future runs but no one likes using the term Roguelikelike.
Nah, let's go for it. Make the term completely obtuse and meaningless as a game descriptor: "You guys hear about that new game? It's less like a roguelikelike as it is the dark souls of roguelikelikelikes."
See, I would say Rogue Legacy is a misnomer, and is actually the antithesis of a Roguelike.
In a Roguelike you learn to progress, and sometimes that kills you.
In Rogue Legacy, you die to progress, and sometimes you might learn something. But more likely you'll just reattempt the boss with more damage/HP.
Also, a Roguelike should have little performative skill required to allow that knowledge to be in the forefront.
Rogue Legacy is a platformer, and so does not do that.
Expected death is fine.
Required death is not.
I really did not like Rogue Legacy, and the whole repeated necessary death loop killed an otherwise decent platformer for me there.
Roguelike became a very loosely defined term like "action adventure" quite a while back. At this point, I think the only thing people agree on is that randomly generated levels are a part of the package and even then not every map has to be randomly generated. A lot of people would blanch at Binding of Isaac or Enter the Gungeon being called roguelikes because you gain unlocks that affect future runs but no one likes using the term Roguelikelike.
See, my main concern with BoI being considered a roguelike is that it is purely based around player dexterity rather than player knowledge.
Same with Spelunky (the shopkeeper murder simulator).
FTL qualifies because you can pause time.
The difference is, a Roguelike makes you feel smart for beating it rather than making you feel dextrous.
Dr. ChaosPost nuclear nuisanceRegistered Userregular
edited January 2018
Still got to play little Miss and The Struggle but Revelations 2 was pretty good. Hopefully we get more of them because both this and the first game are incredibly solid and get to focus on characters that haven't been seen in awhile or probably never would be again. Its the perfect side series, doesn't try too hard to reinvent the wheel, its RE comfort food.
On a side note, enough with Chris already too. Need more games with Jill, dammit.
SteevLWhat can I do for you?Registered Userregular
I stopped using the term "roguelike" a while back and switched to "roguelite" because I decided that "roguelike" should be reserved for games that are like Rogue. So, Nethack, Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, Dungeons of Dredmor, etc. It's still arbitrary, but it makes sense to me.
Yeah, my arbitary boundary is a bit broader, including FTL, Invisible Inc and XCOM in there.
Just stretching the definition to 'what you learn in the previous run helps you in the next' and 'victory is always possible if you know what to do'.
I don't think RNG is a necessity to a rogue-like, but more that element forces players to formulate general strategies rather than following a walkthrough, and that is the key requirement.
IanatorGaze upon my works, ye mightyand facepalm.Registered Userregular
Steredenn is kicking my ass. I gain momentum, reach the third stage and then flip a coin re: whether I'll be seeing the retry screen at the boss. Same with the stage after, except I'm rolling a d20 and coming up short every time.
I'm enjoying it. I really am! But the "git gud" wall is looming large and I'm not sure I'll be able to scale it.
Twitch | Blizzard: Ianator#1479 | 3DS: Ianator - 1779 2336 5317 | FFXIV: Iana Ateliere (NA Sarg) Backlog Challenge List
+2
SteevLWhat can I do for you?Registered Userregular
I never beat Rogue, but I have fond memories of playing it on various PCs in the 1980s and early '90s. I didn't have a PC, so I got to play it rarely at school and sometimes when we'd visit friends on family road trips. Usually if someone had a PC, they'd have Rogue.
My main roguelike from that era was a game on Mac called Dungeon of Doom, which was actually the shareware version of a game called The Dungeon Revealed. I also never beat it. Basically, I was never good at roguelikes.
The extra episodes are not integrated into the game.
They don't even mention them at all, they're just hiding in the episodes menu. Boo.
There are reasons they aren't integrated.
Yeah, they were originally DLC on the X360 version. They aren't essential, but they do make for a much less abrupt ending and a smoother transition to Nightmare.
Not to sound totally stupid. I played this game non-stop at my Uncle's house every time we would visit him. Is this the game that everybody references when they say "roguelike"?
See, I would say Rogue Legacy is a misnomer, and is actually the antithesis of a Roguelike.
In a Roguelike you learn to progress, and sometimes that kills you.
In Rogue Legacy, you die to progress, and sometimes you might learn something. But more likely you'll just reattempt the boss with more damage/HP.
Also, a Roguelike should have little performative skill required to allow that knowledge to be in the forefront.
Rogue Legacy is a platformer, and so does not do that.
Expected death is fine.
Required death is not.
I really did not like Rogue Legacy, and the whole repeated necessary death loop killed an otherwise decent platformer for me there.
Roguelike became a very loosely defined term like "action adventure" quite a while back. At this point, I think the only thing people agree on is that randomly generated levels are a part of the package and even then not every map has to be randomly generated. A lot of people would blanch at Binding of Isaac or Enter the Gungeon being called roguelikes because you gain unlocks that affect future runs but no one likes using the term Roguelikelike.
See, my main concern with BoI being considered a roguelike is that it is purely based around player dexterity rather than player knowledge.
Same with Spelunky (the shopkeeper murder simulator).
FTL qualifies because you can pause time.
The difference is, a Roguelike makes you feel smart for beating it rather than making you feel dextrous.
But yeah, Roguelike no longer means anything.
But learning how to handle a situation via inputs is the same as learning how to handle it via choices.
The former just has the capability of a player being just flat out skilled enough at games to overcome the lack of knowledge. That doesn't make it a roguelike.
Also, if you can accept expecting death, then why the hell would you care if it is required? Not only is the line between those SUPER thin, but disliking required is almost a pride thing at that point. If you expect death, then in your mind it already was required because you knew it was coming.
I guess I don't understand that, because I really never took offense to games directions. Rogue Legacy made dying fun because it meant advancement, and advancement is fun. I do not care if a game is out to kill me, so the reason for it really doesn't matter. I expect death in ANY game and often will be disappointed if I don't see it because it means I have no chance to feel I mastered anything. If those deaths are required, then they are just fulfilling my expectations.
To me Roguelike means exactly what it says It is not 100% Rogue. It has elements. I mean, the same was argued about RPG long ago. What made an RPG an RPG and not an action adventure game? Levels and experience? Parties of NPCs? Turn Based Battle? What COULD make a roguelike is often randomization and said randomization having much to do with difficulty. Also, that you are expected to fail very often before succeeding. Rogue Legacy said "hey, lets make dying still have the player get somewhere instead of lose everything". I doubt they did that to REQUIRE death. It may be a perceivable side effect, but there was no way to reward a player for failure without someone being able to perceive it as such. I guess if you can't let go of perceiving that gaining something from death makes it required, then it would be hard to enjoy a game that wants to throw you a bone when you fail.
0
SteevLWhat can I do for you?Registered Userregular
Not to sound totally stupid. I played this game non-stop at my Uncle's house every time we would visit him. Is this the game that everybody references when they say "roguelike"?
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
edited January 2018
Rise of the Tomb Raider feels a lot shorter than Tomb Raider 2016. Seems like the story length has been padded quite a bit with the optional missions in the hub area and the (admittedly quite decent) voiced logs left around the place. TR2016 had those voiced logs as well but it seems there's a lot more in Rise. Pretty sure I'm at the half way point and it feels like a decent chunk of that time has been spent listening to those logs.
It's sad because the combat has been improved a lot, but seems like there's less of it than its predecessor.
-Loki- on
0
KalnaurI See Rain . . .Centralia, WARegistered Userregular
I get annoyed dying in games, but then I'm also not playing for skill or challenge, but exploration, story, and yes action.
Some games have death as a speed bump, like Ratchet & Clank, but the more I have to redo, usually the less interested I am. Strangely, a game like Dark Souls has more of a money death penalty than an actual regression, so it weedles through on a technicality. Meanwhile, I can't even stand the original Super Mario Bros game anymore (the NES one, not the SNES remake).
Basically, the more time wasting the death is, the less willing I am to put up with it.
I make art things! deviantART:Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
Republic Commandos done! Man, that was pretty good, but i wish the squad mechanics were deeper. You can only command squadmates to pre-determined spots. But, it was a pretty good game, and I enjoyed it. That's 2 games done this year!
See, I would say Rogue Legacy is a misnomer, and is actually the antithesis of a Roguelike.
In a Roguelike you learn to progress, and sometimes that kills you.
In Rogue Legacy, you die to progress, and sometimes you might learn something. But more likely you'll just reattempt the boss with more damage/HP.
Also, a Roguelike should have little performative skill required to allow that knowledge to be in the forefront.
Rogue Legacy is a platformer, and so does not do that.
Expected death is fine.
Required death is not.
I really did not like Rogue Legacy, and the whole repeated necessary death loop killed an otherwise decent platformer for me there.
Roguelike became a very loosely defined term like "action adventure" quite a while back. At this point, I think the only thing people agree on is that randomly generated levels are a part of the package and even then not every map has to be randomly generated. A lot of people would blanch at Binding of Isaac or Enter the Gungeon being called roguelikes because you gain unlocks that affect future runs but no one likes using the term Roguelikelike.
See, my main concern with BoI being considered a roguelike is that it is purely based around player dexterity rather than player knowledge.
Same with Spelunky (the shopkeeper murder simulator).
FTL qualifies because you can pause time.
The difference is, a Roguelike makes you feel smart for beating it rather than making you feel dextrous.
But yeah, Roguelike no longer means anything.
But learning how to handle a situation via inputs is the same as learning how to handle it via choices.
The former just has the capability of a player being just flat out skilled enough at games to overcome the lack of knowledge. That doesn't make it a roguelike.
Also, if you can accept expecting death, then why the hell would you care if it is required? Not only is the line between those SUPER thin, but disliking required is almost a pride thing at that point. If you expect death, then in your mind it already was required because you knew it was coming.
I guess I don't understand that, because I really never took offense to games directions. Rogue Legacy made dying fun because it meant advancement, and advancement is fun. I do not care if a game is out to kill me, so the reason for it really doesn't matter. I expect death in ANY game and often will be disappointed if I don't see it because it means I have no chance to feel I mastered anything. If those deaths are required, then they are just fulfilling my expectations.
To me Roguelike means exactly what it says It is not 100% Rogue. It has elements. I mean, the same was argued about RPG long ago. What made an RPG an RPG and not an action adventure game? Levels and experience? Parties of NPCs? Turn Based Battle? What COULD make a roguelike is often randomization and said randomization having much to do with difficulty. Also, that you are expected to fail very often before succeeding. Rogue Legacy said "hey, lets make dying still have the player get somewhere instead of lose everything". I doubt they did that to REQUIRE death. It may be a perceivable side effect, but there was no way to reward a player for failure without someone being able to perceive it as such. I guess if you can't let go of perceiving that gaining something from death makes it required, then it would be hard to enjoy a game that wants to throw you a bone when you fail.
...
Becoming more dextrous is a completely different challenge to learning and implementing new strategies.
A game requiring experimentation, which will likely result in death, is different to Rogue Legacy preventing any further progress until you've died some X*(requisite gold) times.
There were points where I was making no progress until I had died the appropriate number of times.
Dying was not fun, because I was just grinding gold in order to advance.
I was learning nothing new each life, as I simply was not able to execute the known strategy for 10 minutes or so, and so the game deigned to reduce the challenge to 9 minutes long the next time.
And, IMO Rogue Legacy is less Roguelike than most games.
Mario is more Roguelike.
And at least there the white Tanooki-suit is obvious.
But rehashing this is not really useful to anyone.
I just wanted to get my counter-view out there.
I feel nearly obligated to grab Fallout New Vegas Deluxe/Complete/Adjective for 9 bucks even though I have no idea when I'd play it. Especially when a fair number of people consider it better than both FO3 and FO4.
I feel nearly obligated to grab Fallout New Vegas Deluxe/Complete/Adjective for 9 bucks even though I have no idea when I'd play it. Especially when a fair number of people consider it better than both FO3 and FO4.
I really liked all the talking in New Vegas. One of the memorable parts for me was the Boomer kid explaining his people's history via a mural on the wall: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RelkrhF4UeM
Republic Commandos done! Man, that was pretty good, but i wish the squad mechanics were deeper. You can only command squadmates to pre-determined spots. But, it was a pretty good game, and I enjoyed it. That's 2 games done this year!
Ending spoilers:
Supposedly the sequel was supposed to deal with Sev surviving and kickstarting the rebellion, it got canned and we ended up getting the rebellion begins storyline from The Force Unleashed. Not that it matters now, since it's all likely non-canon anyway.
Imagine how rad a sequel would be if it had four player co-op though.
Republic Commandos done! Man, that was pretty good, but i wish the squad mechanics were deeper. You can only command squadmates to pre-determined spots. But, it was a pretty good game, and I enjoyed it. That's 2 games done this year!
Ending spoilers:
Supposedly the sequel was supposed to deal with Sev surviving and kickstarting the rebellion, it got canned and we ended up getting the rebellion begins storyline from The Force Unleashed. Not that it matters now, since it's all likely non-canon anyway.
Imagine how rad a sequel would be if it had four player co-op though.
I get annoyed dying in games, but then I'm also not playing for skill or challenge, but exploration, story, and yes action.
Some games have death as a speed bump, like Ratchet & Clank, but the more I have to redo, usually the less interested I am. Strangely, a game like Dark Souls has more of a money death penalty than an actual regression, so it weedles through on a technicality. Meanwhile, I can't even stand the original Super Mario Bros game anymore (the NES one, not the SNES remake).
Basically, the more time wasting the death is, the less willing I am to put up with it.
Dark Souls is able to get away with high challenge while still being much more accessible than other games of similar difficulty because death isn't the reset it is in other games.
Elona is a Japanese made indie roguelike that came out years before Dark Souls and even Demon Souls and one big change it made to the usual formula was not having permadeath. Forumers noted that while it made the game more accessible, it did not make it necessarily easier as the developer now had the freedom to throw a lot of brutal hazards at you without making them feel insurmountable brick walls. It opens up a lot of design space when death doesn't halt progression.
I get annoyed dying in games, but then I'm also not playing for skill or challenge, but exploration, story, and yes action.
Some games have death as a speed bump, like Ratchet & Clank, but the more I have to redo, usually the less interested I am. Strangely, a game like Dark Souls has more of a money death penalty than an actual regression, so it weedles through on a technicality. Meanwhile, I can't even stand the original Super Mario Bros game anymore (the NES one, not the SNES remake).
Basically, the more time wasting the death is, the less willing I am to put up with it.
Dark Souls is able to get away with high challenge while still being much more accessible than other games of similar difficulty because death isn't the reset it is in other games.
Elona is a Japanese made indie roguelike that came out years before Dark Souls and even Demon Souls and one big change it made to the usual formula was not having permadeath. Forumers noted that while it made the game more accessible, it did not make it necessarily easier as the developer now had the freedom to throw a lot of brutal hazards at you without making them feel insurmountable brick walls. It opens up a lot of design space when death doesn't halt progression.
Also, notably, Souls games are exquisitely tuned, with generally excellent hit/harmboxes. The stuff that's "bullshit" can be totally outplayed if you're on the ball, which is how a non-zero number of people manage no-hit runs.
Many roguelikes cannot say the same.
+3
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
edited January 2018
sometimes though, the games are in fact just bullshit
Zxerol on
+7
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
Posts
I liked the environments from Fallout 3 more (the whole abandoned porn/Urbex theme was cool, especially once you add the mod that brings trees and foliage back and gets rid of the pea soup filter), but New Vegas let me have spurs that jingle jangle jingle.
New Vegas also has a companion that, when you recruit him, straight up tells you "If I see any members of [FACTION], I'm gonna start shooting. You got a problem with that?" and it's glorious.
I mean I grabbed it during a previous sale when I already own it and beaten it a few times on 360, so I guess what I'm saying is, graaab it.
Roguelike became a very loosely defined term like "action adventure" quite a while back. At this point, I think the only thing people agree on is that randomly generated levels are a part of the package and even then not every map has to be randomly generated. A lot of people would blanch at Binding of Isaac or Enter the Gungeon being called roguelikes because you gain unlocks that affect future runs but no one likes using the term Roguelikelike.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
I consider that a gift from both of y'all.
Steam profile - Twitch - YouTube
Switch: SM-6352-8553-6516
Steam chat asked similar and it seems like I might not have? I played everything the game gave me and it didn't make any indication that there was more or that I should go poke around, but doing some plot reading of the first DLC, yeah, I didn't play that. So going back now.
Silly game >:
Nah, let's go for it. Make the term completely obtuse and meaningless as a game descriptor: "You guys hear about that new game? It's less like a roguelikelike as it is the dark souls of roguelikelikelikes."
They don't even mention them at all, they're just hiding in the episodes menu. Boo.
See, my main concern with BoI being considered a roguelike is that it is purely based around player dexterity rather than player knowledge.
Same with Spelunky (the shopkeeper murder simulator).
FTL qualifies because you can pause time.
The difference is, a Roguelike makes you feel smart for beating it rather than making you feel dextrous.
But yeah, Roguelike no longer means anything.
There are reasons they aren't integrated.
@Pixelated Pixie is a monster, case and point.
Thank you for the wonderful booby-looking 'not really a booby-game' game.
On a side note, enough with Chris already too. Need more games with Jill, dammit.
Not available on Steam. :sad:
Just stretching the definition to 'what you learn in the previous run helps you in the next' and 'victory is always possible if you know what to do'.
I don't think RNG is a necessity to a rogue-like, but more that element forces players to formulate general strategies rather than following a walkthrough, and that is the key requirement.
Steam | XBL
I'm enjoying it. I really am! But the "git gud" wall is looming large and I'm not sure I'll be able to scale it.
Twitch | Blizzard: Ianator#1479 | 3DS: Ianator - 1779 2336 5317 | FFXIV: Iana Ateliere (NA Sarg)
Backlog Challenge List
My main roguelike from that era was a game on Mac called Dungeon of Doom, which was actually the shareware version of a game called The Dungeon Revealed. I also never beat it. Basically, I was never good at roguelikes.
Seriously guys, thanks so much for the gifts. You've really made my day here you fantastically classy bunch
Steam profile - Twitch - YouTube
Switch: SM-6352-8553-6516
Yeah, they were originally DLC on the X360 version. They aren't essential, but they do make for a much less abrupt ending and a smoother transition to Nightmare.
EVERYBODY WANTS TO SIT IN THE BIG CHAIR, MEG!
Not to sound totally stupid. I played this game non-stop at my Uncle's house every time we would visit him. Is this the game that everybody references when they say "roguelike"?
Steam: betsuni7
But learning how to handle a situation via inputs is the same as learning how to handle it via choices.
The former just has the capability of a player being just flat out skilled enough at games to overcome the lack of knowledge. That doesn't make it a roguelike.
Also, if you can accept expecting death, then why the hell would you care if it is required? Not only is the line between those SUPER thin, but disliking required is almost a pride thing at that point. If you expect death, then in your mind it already was required because you knew it was coming.
I guess I don't understand that, because I really never took offense to games directions. Rogue Legacy made dying fun because it meant advancement, and advancement is fun. I do not care if a game is out to kill me, so the reason for it really doesn't matter. I expect death in ANY game and often will be disappointed if I don't see it because it means I have no chance to feel I mastered anything. If those deaths are required, then they are just fulfilling my expectations.
To me Roguelike means exactly what it says It is not 100% Rogue. It has elements. I mean, the same was argued about RPG long ago. What made an RPG an RPG and not an action adventure game? Levels and experience? Parties of NPCs? Turn Based Battle? What COULD make a roguelike is often randomization and said randomization having much to do with difficulty. Also, that you are expected to fail very often before succeeding. Rogue Legacy said "hey, lets make dying still have the player get somewhere instead of lose everything". I doubt they did that to REQUIRE death. It may be a perceivable side effect, but there was no way to reward a player for failure without someone being able to perceive it as such. I guess if you can't let go of perceiving that gaining something from death makes it required, then it would be hard to enjoy a game that wants to throw you a bone when you fail.
Yep! It was originally created in 1980. You can read about it in this wikipedia article.
It's sad because the combat has been improved a lot, but seems like there's less of it than its predecessor.
Some games have death as a speed bump, like Ratchet & Clank, but the more I have to redo, usually the less interested I am. Strangely, a game like Dark Souls has more of a money death penalty than an actual regression, so it weedles through on a technicality. Meanwhile, I can't even stand the original Super Mario Bros game anymore (the NES one, not the SNES remake).
Basically, the more time wasting the death is, the less willing I am to put up with it.
...
Becoming more dextrous is a completely different challenge to learning and implementing new strategies.
A game requiring experimentation, which will likely result in death, is different to Rogue Legacy preventing any further progress until you've died some X*(requisite gold) times.
There were points where I was making no progress until I had died the appropriate number of times.
Dying was not fun, because I was just grinding gold in order to advance.
I was learning nothing new each life, as I simply was not able to execute the known strategy for 10 minutes or so, and so the game deigned to reduce the challenge to 9 minutes long the next time.
And, IMO Rogue Legacy is less Roguelike than most games.
Mario is more Roguelike.
And at least there the white Tanooki-suit is obvious.
But rehashing this is not really useful to anyone.
I just wanted to get my counter-view out there.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
(To be linked when I get home)
I really liked all the talking in New Vegas. One of the memorable parts for me was the Boomer kid explaining his people's history via a mural on the wall:
(The part I'm talking about starts around 1:20)
Ending spoilers:
Imagine how rad a sequel would be if it had four player co-op though.
Some dedicated fans are working on a mod that brings all of New Vegas into Fallout 4
Steam profile - Twitch - YouTube
Switch: SM-6352-8553-6516
Dark Souls is able to get away with high challenge while still being much more accessible than other games of similar difficulty because death isn't the reset it is in other games.
Elona is a Japanese made indie roguelike that came out years before Dark Souls and even Demon Souls and one big change it made to the usual formula was not having permadeath. Forumers noted that while it made the game more accessible, it did not make it necessarily easier as the developer now had the freedom to throw a lot of brutal hazards at you without making them feel insurmountable brick walls. It opens up a lot of design space when death doesn't halt progression.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
Also, notably, Souls games are exquisitely tuned, with generally excellent hit/harmboxes. The stuff that's "bullshit" can be totally outplayed if you're on the ball, which is how a non-zero number of people manage no-hit runs.
Many roguelikes cannot say the same.
sometimes though, the games are in fact just bullshit
Handmade Jewelry by me on EtsyGames for sale
Me on Twitch!
"Stop impaling yourself! Stop impaling yourself!"
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356