Your video game hot take(s) thread

[Piscian]

I'm still a little confused on the roguelike genre that gets tagged on everything. I was told it meant every run was unique and when you die all progress is lost, but then you have stuff like slay the spire where you do make progress. As you get further with each run you unlock better cards. I believe technically impossible to even beat the game in the run because you have to beat the boss a couple times to unlock the mode needed to beat the real boss.

Then I hear roguelite all the time. I'm still not sure what the difference is because I see reviewers use the two interchangeably. I wish they'd stick to a standard.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I'm still a little confused on the roguelike genre that gets tagged on everything. I was told it meant every run was unique and when you die all progress is lost, but then you have stuff like slay the spire where you do make progress. As you get further with each run you unlock better cards. I believe technically impossible to even beat the game in the run because you have to beat the boss a couple times to unlock the mode needed to beat the real boss.

Then I hear roguelite all the time. I'm still not sure what the difference is because I see reviewers use the two interchangeably. I wish they'd stick to a standard.

In order to unlock the bonus final boss you have to beat a run as Ironclad, Silent, and Defect first, three of the four characters you can play as in the game. It's also not that you're unlocking better cards per se, but more cards. It's entirely possible to beat the game on a clean run without unlocking anything. It's still considered a win if you don't go after the bonus boss and not all decks are capable of beating that particular boss on the higher difficulties. It's more of a bonus challenge than what you should consider properly completing the game.

I too am still confused about what the difference between a Roguelike and a Roguelite is supposed to be.

 

[Dalisclock]

I too am still confused about what the difference between a Roguelike and a Roguelite is supposed to be.

To the best of my knowledge, as someone who doesn't particularly care for either(and I'ved tried. Hades came the closest to winning me over) it's basically:

Roguelike:Everything is lost upon death but you getting better at playing so presumably the next run is easier because of skill.

Rogue-lite: There's some carryover or you can unlock things to make the next run easier. So like Into The Breach you can start at Island 2 if you beat Island 1 and any mechs you unlock are available on later runs.

If I'm incorrect, I'm happy to be educated.

 

[EvilRoy]

In order to unlock the bonus final boss you have to beat a run as Ironclad, Silent, and Defect first, three of the four characters you can play as in the game. It's also not that you're unlocking better cards per se, but more cards. It's entirely possible to beat the game on a clean run without unlocking anything. It's still considered a win if you don't go after the bonus boss and not all decks are capable of beating that particular boss on the higher difficulties. It's more of a bonus challenge than what you should consider properly completing the game.

I too am still confused about what the difference between a Roguelike and a Roguelite is supposed to be.

I looked into this the other day so I could explain something to a non gaming friend and it's actually kind of interesting. A Rougelite is a game where you play, die, restart over and over and in the process you unlock stuff or otherwise progress the game. A Rougelike is the same thing except there is no progression whatever.

Where it gets interesting is that "lite" is so much more popular than "like" that it becomes hard to name contemporary examples. We can all crack off a dozen rougelites without issue, and some of those will be recognizable to those only tangentially interested in gaming. But the number of recent rougelikes is quite slim, and the well known ones are even fewer. The example presented in the article I read was actually playing chess against a computer - you really aren't ever going to play the same game twice, and beyond getting better at chess there is no progression.

Consider that example and all the sudden it's kind of obvious why few people worry about the distinction. "Like" is enough of an outlier that chances are you'll just figure out what is meant in context or the distinction will be otherwise explained.

 

[MrCalavera]

The importance of voiced protagonist have been vastly overstated.
I don't remember playing a game with a silent protag, and thinking "man, it would be a GREAT improvement to actually hear my guy talk", but i know a game where chasingMass Effect clout have only contributed to decrease of dialogue variety.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I looked into this the other day so I could explain something to a non gaming friend and it's actually kind of interesting. A Rougelite is a game where you play, die, restart over and over and in the process you unlock stuff or otherwise progress the game. A Rougelike is the same thing except there is no progression whatever.

Where it gets interesting is that "lite" is so much more popular than "like" that it becomes hard to name contemporary examples. We can all crack off a dozen rougelites without issue, and some of those will be recognizable to those only tangentially interested in gaming. But the number of recent rougelikes is quite slim, and the well known ones are even fewer. The example presented in the article I read was actually playing chess against a computer - you really aren't ever going to play the same game twice, and beyond getting better at chess there is no progression.

Consider that example and all the sudden it's kind of obvious why few people worry about the distinction. "Like" is enough of an outlier that chances are you'll just figure out what is meant in context or the distinction will be otherwise explained.

So to be clear, there is no simply “rogue” category either correct? Rogue-like or lite implies an extension of a root game type, but it seems in this case it means nothing by itself.

 

[Piscian]

Giving the IGN Hades review as an example they mostly refer to it as a Roguelite, but then call it a Roguelike later on and then in the game description its called a roguelike. I just consistent definitions. Slay the Spire is listed as a Roguelike on steam. I get that games can cross genres, but as a player I'm significantly put off by the strict idea of a RogueLike in my mind like D&D Hillsfar is an OG roguelike because when you die thats it game over. I may have tolerated those games as a kid, but I'm too old and grey for that shit now. I'd hate to accidently buy a game thinking its a Roguelite when its really a Roguelike and I'm sure others feel the opposite.

 

[Chimpzy]

So to be clear, there is no simply “rogue” category either correct? Rogue-like or lite implies an extension of a root game type, but it seems in this case it means nothing by itself.

Roguelike/lite is named for Rogue, a 1980 dungeon crawler rpg with procedural generation, turn-based gameplay, grid-based movement, and perma-death. Technically not the first traditional roguelike (that would be Beneath Apple Manor), but Rogue was the first to gain popularity and would go on to inspire copycats and derivatives.

It's kind of like Dark Souls and the Soulslike subgenre.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Roguelike/lite is named for Rogue, a 1980 dungeon crawler rpg with procedural generation, turn-based gameplay, grid-based movement, and perma-death. Technically not the first traditional roguelike (that would be Beneath Apple Manor), but Rogue was the first to gain popularity and would go on to inspire copycats and derivatives.

It's kind of like Dark Souls and the Soulslike subgenre.

Ah, that makes sense. Also I suppose “Beneath Apple Manor”-like/lite wouldn’t have the same ring to it.

Although “BAM”-like/lite OTOH kinda seems like a missed opportunity.

 

[EvilRoy]

Ah, that makes sense. Also I suppose “Beneath Apple Manor”-like/lite wouldn’t have the same ring to it.

Although “BAM”-like/lite OTOH kinda seems like a missed opportunity.

Yeah that's the other funny thing about the name. It's in honour of a game from 1980 that was reasonably popular at the time but has been overshadowed since and is so old most gamers under 25 have never even seen it. I'm in my thirties and my first Rougelike was Nethack, released 7 years after Rouge and already considered old by the time I played it in the 90s.

I wonder if it is going to be one of those odd names where the original meaning is completely lost to all but etymology buffs. "That thing on the house is called a silcock. Nobody knows why and stop giggling."

 

[Gyrobot]

Modern Warfare 2019 is a game that depicted the trauma of the failed war on terror without being overly accusatory towards the US government since doing so will mean the franchise being pulled from rec rooms for being critical towards the US government's actions that led to Bataclan and other terror attacks in Europe

 

[Gordon_4]

The importance of voiced protagonist have been vastly overstated.
I don't remember playing a game with a silent protag, and thinking "man, it would be a GREAT improvement to actually hear my guy talk", but i know a game where chasingMass Effect clout have only contributed to decrease of dialogue variety.

Except, most of the variety in dialogue are responses to what the protagonist says. And it really does stand out as weird in a game where every single other person has a voice. Like, if you wanna go down that kind of insane rabbit hole, don't give anyone a voice.

 

[Dalisclock]

Modern Warfare 2019 is a game that depicted the trauma of the failed war on terror without being overly accusatory towards the US government since doing so will mean the franchise being pulled from rec rooms for being critical towards the US government's actions that led to Bataclan and other terror attacks in Europe

IIRC, they had a level that alluded to the Highway of death from the Gulf War(1991) but had the Russians responsible(whereas in real life it was the US and allies responsible), which comes across as fairly disingenuous. It does really suck because COD4 actually does come across as a bit more cynical of US military actions then a lot of the games that came after it.

 

[Dalisclock]

The importance of voiced protagonist have been vastly overstated.
I don't remember playing a game with a silent protag, and thinking "man, it would be a GREAT improvement to actually hear my guy talk", but i know a game where chasingMass Effect clout have only contributed to decrease of dialogue variety.

While in general I agree, playing BOTW and it's spin off Age of Calamity it really kinda stuck out that everyone would talk AT Link but since Link can't talk it feels really weird and awkward, especially in the latter game where there are conversations with numerous character where Link is just kinda there despite being the main character. I mean, I don't need him to be pontificating on whether love can bloom on the battlefield Metal Gear style but just a couple words here and there would be fine. Just don't pull a Metroid Other M(or even Ace Combat) and dose the VA with valium before giving her some shitty lines to read. Go DaNcE wItH tHe AnGeLs.

 

[Gyrobot]

IIRC, they had a level that alluded to the Highway of death from the Gulf War(1991) but had the Russians responsible(whereas in real life it was the US and allies responsible), which comes across as fairly disingenuous. It does really suck because COD4 actually does come across as a bit more cynical of US military actions then a lot of the games that came after it.

That's the point, they are using Russians as a Stand in for America since IW can't directly criticize the military, but everything from the prison level, the Picadily attack and how Barkov mention how he oppressed Farah's people for 20 years is a reference to the US war in the middle east with all the consequences of fighting such wars, including the rise of ultra nationalist elements in the country in the wake of the failure

 

[BrawlMan]

That's the point, they are using Russians as a Stand in for America since IW can't directly criticize the military, but everything from the prison level, the Picadily attack and how Barkov mention how he oppressed Farah's people for 20 years is a reference to the US war in the middle east with all the consequences of fighting such wars, including the rise of ultra nationalist elements in the country in the wake of the failure

So much for the first amendment, if you can't criticize the military. Even though movies, TV shows, certain other games, and plenty of content on the internet does that already. Shows how cowardly and hypocritical some people (especially from the Western AAA side) can be and how the system is.

 

[Gyrobot]

So much for the first amendment, if you can't criticize the military. Even though movies, TV shows, certain other games, and plenty of content on the internet does that already. Shows how cowardly and hypocritical some people (especially from the Western AAA side) can be and how the system is.

You can but don't expect them to be friendly with you from now on for saying such things. It's like the nuclear scare during the Cold War and how Japan used Godzilla as an analogy for nuclear warfare. Your game won't get banned by the government but the military will stop being a consumer

 

[BrawlMan]

Your game won't get banned by the government but the military will stop being a consumer

So it's a case of won't over can't. It's still a cowardly action. All it boils down to is they're not getting all the money in the entire world. They are expecting people to be mindless slaves and only enforcing that the military can do no wrong. This is why I'm glad we have other outlets and media that don't fall for this bull crap and call it out when they see it. It's just another version of bottom line, nothing more. Dirty cowards hiding behind patriotism. At this point, Call Of Duty' just glorified propaganda. I care and respect the military (within reason), but I'm not going to always turn a blind eye, not see them as infallible superhumans, nor (demi-)gods like some people choose to always do.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

So much for the first amendment, if you can't criticize the military. Even though movies, TV shows, certain other games, and plenty of content on the internet does that already. Shows how cowardly and hypocritical some people (especially from the Western AAA side) can be and how the system is.

Can’t criticize our elitist government (at least not beyond whoever’s the current White House-occupying puppet leader figure). Military is just taking orders.

 

[Gyrobot]

So it's a case of won't over can't. It's still a cowardly action. All it boils down to is they're not getting all the money in the entire world. They are expecting people to be mindless slaves and only enforcing that the military can do no wrong. This is why I'm glad we have other outlets and media that don't fall for this bull crap and call it out when they see it. It's just another version of bottom line, nothing more. Dirty cowards hiding behind patriotism. At this point, Call Of Duty' just glorified propaganda. I care and respect the military (within reason), but I'm not going to always turn a blind eye, not see them as infallible superhumans, nor (demi-)gods like some people choose to always do.

If the press was gonna call it out, they would have made comparisons of Russian atrocities in CoD 2019 to the war on Terror and how Infinity Ward could have a made a direct stance against the US government but didnt