I have a very low opinion of “sidegrades.” Games used to give you all their options up front.
This overwhelming trend during the past 15, 20 years to trickle-feed the player unlocks does untold harm. For one, players are rarely ever talking about the same game because everyone is at different points in the progression. The actual game doesn’t start until the final thing is unlocked and this is often a place that most players will never reach.
Can’t tell you how much advice I’ve read that goes something like “use X with Y” where at least one of those is locked behind 50 more hours of progression and my eyes once again roll all the way out of my head. As a developer, don’t you want players to experiment with the things you put in the game?
Can’t tell you how refreshing it is to play a game like NetHack where I can install a fresh copy and not have to worry about managing my save files because everything that’s in the game is… in the game. Also, a quick study can start winning games much sooner because their options aren’t all gated behind arbitrary time sinks.
But even just… skin selection in multiplayer. Games used to give you ALL of them from the start and players could just, you know, pick the one they liked. This whole ‘grind to show off how cool you are’ is a dark pattern to coerce players to spend more time on the game than they want to.
You know what this is, is developers are catering to diamonds and they forgot that some of us are spades.
That is exact;y how I feel about MMORPGs. Limited event items, items available at specific levels but you're going to be there grinding and grinding for hours. You might not even get that thing anyways until what was 9 hours of grinding turns into 7 days of grinding. That's not progressing, that's sweatshop levels of work. How is this fun? How is this rewarding? You go through all of that and all you get is maybe a few pats on the back before everyone is back at the woodwork again.
I don't like any game that makes you feel like you've got to live on it to go anywhere. Sure, I play Diablo 2 which by guilt, can fall into the same category. But I make that an exception per my preferences. It's like that's the only game I'll only have room for that I don't mind doing it for, but any other game, I can't be bothered and it is just dropped dead cold.
This is also why people hate mobile games because their premise largely can constitute dark patterns.
Developers who make these games want you to have a sense of "pride and accomplishment" (like EA expected you to). But all I feel at the end of the day? "FUCK YOU DEVELOPERS, GO TO FUCKING HELL!!"
The antithesis to what you and OP are describing would be The legend of Zelda: Breath of the wild. But even fans of that formula are tired of it after 2 games in the series because as much freedom as it gives you, it‘s overwhelming.
I think what I‘m trying to say is that trends have cycles. They come and go. What you said is a valid opinion that I can kot possibly disagree with. However, these down sides become more apparent with time until we‘ve had enough and move on to the next thing. I am sure we‘ll remember most of those games fondly one day regardless. Nostalgia will kick in one day and we‘re able to look past the flaws again.
That link to the different player types was very interesting. I’m somewhere between an Achiever and Explorer. Probably more explorer, but I am a sucker for hitting the next level, gear upgrade, etc.
For a while, meta progression felt like a clever way to keep games fresh. You’d unlock new gear, perks, or passive bonuses between runs, and that sense of forward motion made failure feel productive.
Sort of. Roguelike’s defining feature as a genre is the reset of all player progression between runs, and the random generation of the runs themselves. Basic progression is transitory, so a name for progression that goes outside the runs and doesn’t reset is useful
They say this one is even more combo heavy than the second one, but I see no launchers yet. I’ll be watching from afar until I see something that hooks me.
For a while, meta progression felt like a clever way to keep games fresh.
It always felt like a cop out to me, TBH. I’d rather you give me fewer tools and a lot of potential for synergy among them. Dead Cells definitely has more weapons than Dante has in DMC5, but the amount of shit you can pull off with Dante is insane in comparison because every weapon can do so much. People are still discovering new tech to this day: now that’s keeping things fresh.
More and more I feel like instead of removing the frustration, meta progression is removing the sense of improvement.
It always felt like this from the get-go. It needlessly muddies the water: am I progressing because I’m improving, or am I progressing because I’m unlocking more powerful weapons/perks? The answer is most likely a blend of both, but it’s never clear what’s the bigger reason.
I recommend Magenta Horizon or The Dishwasher if you want something similar to Rogue Legacy/Dead Cells without rogue elements.
I like Team Ninja and the way they do character action, so I’m happy both Ninja Gaiden 4 and Nioh 3 were well reviewed and successful. Probably won’t jump into this for a long time due to my backlog (I’m working on Ninja Gaiden 4 at the moment, though!), but will most likely tentatively wishlist this for a future sale.
It was never “clever” or “keeping the game fresh”, all I see this as is a crutch for badly designed gameplay. “Ok but the game gets fun as long as you play it THE WAY WE INTENDED” no I’m sorry if you’re gonna keep the game’s actually fun part behind a 30-hour time gate, I’m refunding that shit. There’s been games that were fun, but I lost my safe file for and thus all the progression is reset and it’s just not fun to grind anymore, I’ll go play something that gives me the whole game that I paid for, right off the bat.
Yeah I don’t really like the model where it starts basic and hard, and each failure makes it a little easier.
Feels like it would be more interesting if you started with high stats, and each successful run you had to remove or lower something. Sure, you won with 200 health but can you win with 100? Hades kind of had this alongside the upgrades as you go.
I didn’t like dead cells or rogue legacy that much because it felt like I would’ve won if I had grinded more, and that’s not what I want.
I feel like games are usually a mix of execution challenges and numbers challenges. In a pure action game or other games without progression (eg: chess) you win or lose from your decisions and input. But in numbers games, you win or lose based on the stats. There’s really no way cloud from the start of the original ff7 can defeat disc 3 bosses. The numbers just aren’t there.
Some rogue-lites feel like they’re trying to be execution games but have a less clear numbers check on top. Doesn’t always work for me.
I do really like the traditional rogue like Crawl: Stone Soup, though. No meta game aside from the occasional player ghost.
I feel like this is why I dropped playing many rogue-likes and am currently addicted to playing arc raiders, as you lose so many things if you die and have to self-evaluate every single time you don’t get home.
I have to get home and survive in order to actually grow my character positively, where dying punishes me for losing (almost) everything and gaining very little experience points to allocate to my characters permanent buffs.
I think a good evolution of roguelite meta-progression is actually extraction mechanics.
Like escape from duckov etc. is essentially a roguelite where you have to survive and extract with your meta items, which I think is better for keeping you on your toes and feels less “grindy” than traditional roguelite meta-currency.
bin.pol.social
Najstarsze