I was for it for the first 100 clones. Now it’s in the same vein as 2d pixel shooter rougelikes, way too saturated. I never give these a second look because there’s just so many uninspired clones.
I want to normalize having a sarcastic commentator making scathingly aggressive Youtube videos about people in the news who are doing unethical things.
They way it reads is that they were actually playing and circumventing bans, possibly selling accounts too maybe. They were streaming their exploits on Twitch too.
Because they’re popular, and they’re super easy to slap together (graphically at least. In theory, you could make a completely text based deck builder and it would function identically to one with fancy graphics).
This is the equivilant of zombie games in the shooter genre. Why program complex ai when you could make braindead (pun intended) bots walk in a straight line at the player and deal damage when they touch them.
It’s even easier than that. Both of these genres have design features that require minimal balancing, making for an even faster dev cycle.
Roguelikes side-step the need for traditional game balance by providing meta progression and building inevitable-death-by-impossible-odds into the core game. For Roguelikes that actually have an ending, all the developer needs to do is provide enough meta progression perks to overcome the game’s peak difficulty, for even the worst of players. Everyone else gets bragging rights for beating the game faster than that. Either way, the lack of balance and “fairness” in the core design are features, not flaws.
Deck builders follow in Magic The Gathering’s footsteps: you never need to fully balance it. Ever. The random draw mechanisms, combined with a deep inventory of resource and item/creature/action cards, make it unlikely that a player gets an overpowered hand all the time. Pepper a few ridiculously overpowered cards in there, and it just feels more fun. Plus, if you keep the gravy train going with regular add-ons, the lack of balance is even further masked by all the possible choices. And yes, some player will min/max a deck at great personal expense and wipe the floor with their opponents because it was never fair in the first place, and doing so is a feature.
Maybe my subjective take of sudden is different, but is it sudden? (aka I progressively succumb to madness over a title)
There’ve been many fantastic roguelike deckbuilders out since 2020, a little after Slay teh Spire’s official release date. It feels more like people have became aware of how fun the subgenre is after the hype Baltaro generated on streaming platforms. If anything is sudden, it’s the second-wind of attention we’re getting thanks to the above-mentioned game.
I know I’m continuing to split hairs over nothing down here, but 861 games is a little misleading once you get to the end: “Surprisingly, deckbuilders are still an underserved market”
You never know when you’ve reached the peak of a trend, but deckbuilders seem like they’re not quite there yet. Games-Stats tracks 527 roguelike deckbuilders, and Dev_Hell’s Westendorp suggests their higher-than-average revenues, wider revenue spread, and demand make them “relatively underserved as a market.”
So, there’s not 861 games, but 527 games?
If you investigate why there’s a large gap in reported game listings, it’s because Steam is including packs like [Slay the Spire x Backpack Hero] and DLC where Game-Stats is tracking the individual games (i.e, bloatless). This ties back to the title - ultimately we’re not trying to answer the literal question, “Why are there 861 roguelike deckbuilders on Steam”, because OP never answers that question. Instead, we are answering an alternative interpretation: “Why are there so many roguelike games appearing on Steam in a short amount of time?” The answer, may shock you:
spoilerMoney, popularity, ez(er) to dev
While I’ve taken those answers from the article, I find it further interesting that they conclude a different question all-together: “Why are roguelike deckbuilders taking off?”
Buh, I’ve lost it. Ultimately I really liked the core article and their enthusiasm, but I’ve driven myself to madness here.
Yeah, this same article can be written for Mini Golf games, or shmups, or visual novels, or any other genre that’s relatively easy to develop for. Once one gets popular, others will jump on because the barrier to entry is fairly low. Lots will be low effort clones, but some will really try to build something new.
It’s basically like. Someone drawing a picture. Then watching the buttons you’re pressing on a controller. And then drawing a new picture. And based on the game that they think you’re playing in their head trying to guess what the next picture ought to look like. With no error correction and no conceptualization other than what the next picture should look like.
The… many limitations of this is the inability of image generators to rationalize 3 dimensional space. It can only approximate it based on what it thinks should appear on the screen. It lacks any ability to keep track of variable information. It really is more like a Doom-style hallucination than anything else. Some of the videos on that article are truly bizarre looking. I’d imagine after a few minutes every single one of them would devolve into an endless loop of being trapped in non-sensical geometry or killing the same enemy over and over again as the AI has no way of remembering the enemy existed to begin with, let alone that you killed it.
I’ll be honest I don’t think there is much use in this at all. It suffers from the same limits as any other model AI. Believability at a glance is not believability under scrutiny and if it’s only believable at a glance then there’s not much practical use in it. The advance in computational power and model sophistication required to stand up under scrutiny is massive.
Newer, cheaper competitors like the FPGBC are finally muscling in on the Analogue Pocket’s market, so I guess they’ve decided to double down on being the ‘premium option’.
The same reason a movie theater owner can’t show Pee Wee’s Big Adventure every weekend. Value is derived from exclusivity. Exercising your “rights” to a work means preventing anyone from having access to the work unless you are paid when and how you want.
This is what I keep telling people, we already live in a post-scarcity world… We just can’t reap the benefits because Capitalism forces us to pretend we don’t.
“Yes, we already have more empty houses than homeless people, but I’m sure building more houses is the solution to homelessness. We can’t disrupt the economy, after all.”
We need to instill voters with the courage to vote for actual left wing parties so we can get some politicians in Parliament who’ll just do what needs to be done, and seize the empty houses from the investors and landlords.
Trying to never disrupt the Economy when the Economy is based on materially impossibly extracting ever growing profits out of a finite world is itself a futile self-destructive endeavor.
It all comes down to “well, sure we might have plenty, but if not for capitalism how could we decide how to divide it?”
But any solution has to promote self-interest as a virtue and can’t take things away from people who currently own them, and also must conform to a bunch of myths we have about “how the world works”
I would be all in favor of “Use it or lose it” rights to Digital Distribution… Don’t offer a reasonable way to access a product? Can’t bitch when Abandonware sites give it away for nothing.
Copyright is not "use it or lose it", but as it is, it is unworkable for digital media. Computer hardware doesn't last a century and with no other measures being taken to preserve that content, it's effectively doomed by the law. It also doesn't reflect a world where average people make edits of copyrighted content as a means of expression without seeing any problem with that.
Because if good games from a decade ago are freely available, they can’t shove a new overexploiting live service game down our throats when it pales in comparison to the entertainment that’s available for free.
They can only sell less for more, by taking the previous option off the table.
arstechnica.com
Ważne