Hey Atlus, could you make a solemn pinky swear with me?

[LordGek]

Hey Fine Folk of Atlus,

You are the risk takers and I will never forget that. You boldly ported both Izuna and Baroque when no other American publisher had the balls to do so!

This being said, you made a subtle tweak in Baroque save system that, while probably only viewed as nifty by many consumers here, I think really went against the spirit of the game. In the Japanese version of Baroque, if you saved while in a dungeon, you were automatically exited from the game. More than this, when that save was restored the file was automatically deleted so you couldn't simply jump back to it if things didn't go well. Even further still, since nothing was deleted nor the game exited by saving, the player was free to save in between every level of the dungeon. So basically you removed all sense of risk from the game's original design.

PLEASE DON'T DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT WITH SHIREN THE WANDERER, I BEG OF YOU! The main story mode of Shiren is already much more user friendly so it would be absolutely unnecessary there. Where I could see you might be tempted to have "improved" save mechanics in place is with some of the post story dungeons, but please take my word for it, this would really ruin the game. Actually, come to think of it, doing so would also break the game's rescue system so, never mind, I think I'm safe from this worry.

[dragonlife29]

Originally Posted by LordGek

This being said, you made a subtle tweak in Baroque save system that, while probably only viewed as nifty by many consumers here, I think really went against the spirit of the game. In the Japanese version of Baroque, if you saved while in a dungeon, you were automatically exited from the game. More than this, when that save was restored the file was automatically deleted so you couldn't simply jump back to it if things didn't go well. Even further still, since nothing was deleted nor the game exited by saving, the player was free to save in between every level of the dungeon. So basically you removed all sense of risk from the game's original design.

I did not know this!

Boy, am I glad they tweaked it...I would've probably left the game much sooner than I did, and for different reasons--like not liking it at all as opposed to just leaving it for other games.

[Gen Eric Gui]

Honestly, that change didn't really do much to the game. You still lost everything if you died or completed the tower, and completing a tower run didn't actually advance the story in most cases. Avoiding death or bad luck generally didn't get you anywhere, and there were instances where letting yourself die was actually beneficial. I really don't see how that change did anything to Baroque whatsoever.

Honestly, the only thing it did was make it easier to complete the voice and item logs via making it slightly easier for you to reach Consciousness Orbs, and none of that really impacted the game. Also remember that Sting themselves would have had to make that change themselves, so apparently they approved of the idea, and in fact may have been the ones to implement it all by themselves. You never know.

Now, since I don't know what all is in Shiren, I won't say it would work either way, but at least in Baroque, that change was completely inconsequential.

[LordGek]

Originally Posted by Gen Eric Gui

Honestly, that change didn't really do much to the game. You still lost everything if you died or completed the tower, and completing a tower run didn't actually advance the story in most cases. Avoiding death or bad luck generally didn't get you anywhere, and there were instances where letting yourself die was actually beneficial. I really don't see how that change did anything to Baroque whatsoever.

Honestly, the only thing it did was make it easier to complete the voice and item logs via making it slightly easier for you to reach Consciousness Orbs, and none of that really impacted the game. Also remember that Sting themselves would have had to make that change themselves, so apparently they approved of the idea, and in fact may have been the ones to implement it all by themselves. You never know.

Now, since I don't know what all is in Shiren, I won't say it would work either way, but at least in Baroque, that change was completely inconsequential.

I guess its really all a matter of perspective. When judging it as any other standard RPG where the end goal is simply to complete the story and or collect all of the log book entries, you are dead on in your appraisal. I was coming from the perspective of many of the ancient roguelikes such as Nethack, Rogue, Angband, etc. where it was all about getting a high score and seeing how far you could make it in a single run.

How about this as a weak example, what fun would Space Invaders be with endless lives? Your end score would have nothing to do with skill but simply where you got tired of playing and finally quit.

[Gen Eric Gui]

I know this excuse isn't really valid, but in this case I think it's almost justified. If you want to play that way, the game isn't preventing you from doing it. They've given you the -option- of saving your game and keeping the save; there's no requirement for you to use it. I mean, I don't think I ever reloaded my tower saves, but it was nice to have the option to. Especially with how rare Baroque orb drops are.

[Pixel]

http://www.rpgamer.com/event/rtts200...iren3-imp.html

The most obvious change is that Shiren will not restart back at level one after dying. He will still lose all items in his inventory, though if you are playing on easy mode, you can even keep those, only losing the items you gained while in the dungeon you were progressing through.

http://www.rpgamer.com/event/rtts200...iren3-imp.html

The most important element of note is the much less intimidating difficulty. On every difficulty, death will not reset your level, a huge departure from most rogue-likes. Instead, you only lose the items in your inventory. If even that seems too intense for some players, an easy mode exists, in which death will only remove items earned in the dungeon in which you died. Any items held previously will still be in tact.

Sounds like a roguelike for the rest of us.

[Manly Biceps]

Before everyone starts picking up pitchforks, let me point out that this is the way it was in the Japanese version.

[Cinder6]

Yeah, I'm really not seeing the issue here. I actually hate it when games have saves that behave the way you described, so I'm a bit biased here. But if you want to play it that way, then more power to you! You can simply simulate it--only save when you want to take a break from the game, and don't reload when you die.

I'm actually getting to the point where I'm not a huge fan of the traditional Roguelike formula. It was fun back in the day, and I still enjoy Nethack (never could get into Angband or IVAN), but I'm not as likely nowadays to pay for a game that makes itself as inaccessible as possible. Baroque actually rewarded dying, and Izuna had ways to avoid losing everything, so they were fine. The easy mode in Shiren actually puts it on my "check it out" list, so go go Atlus!

Yes, I know I just lost any "hardcore cred" I might have had, but hey--at least I've actually played Roguelikes!

Originally Posted by Manly Biceps

Before everyone starts picking up pitchforks, let me point out that this is the way it was in the Japanese version.

Can I pick up a pitchfork anyways? You know, to put it away, or something. Or to start pitching hay, maybe. I dunno.

[dungeon_man]

Traditional roguelikes are like playing an arcade game on a single credit. Using your skill (and a bit of luck) to get as far as possible on a single life/credit is the whole point. The games were made to be played for the journey, not the destination.

Now we've got the Wii where the new Mario game will play itself for the unskilled players, Fire Emblem games now have permanent mid-battle saves, and non-pokemon roguelikes are coming up with #### like "easy mode" so no player skill is necessary? These are genres that had previously been resisting the shift towards making games a more passive form of entertainment. I am very disappointed and fear what the next 10 years will bring.

[Pixel]

Originally Posted by Manly Biceps

Before everyone starts picking up pitchforks, let me point out that this is the way it was in the Japanese version.

Hey, I wasn't interested until now. Count me in!

[Gen Eric Gui]

Originally Posted by dungeon_man

Traditional roguelikes are like playing an arcade game on a single credit. Using your skill (and a bit of luck) to get as far as possible on a single life/credit is the whole point. The games were made to be played for the journey, not the destination.

Now we've got the Wii where the new Mario game will play itself for the unskilled players, Fire Emblem games now have permanent mid-battle saves, and non-pokemon roguelikes are coming up with #### like "easy mode" so no player skill is necessary? These are genres that had previously been resisting the shift towards making games a more passive form of entertainment. I am very disappointed and fear what the next 10 years will bring.

:/

Until they actively start removing your ability to play it the old way, this way of thinking is ridiculous. I can't even fathom how adding OPTIONS to make the game easier and/or more accessible is a bad thing.

[LordGek]

I don't mind the "making the game more accessible" stuff SINCE they at least still have some good ol' Shiren hardcore stuff after you clear the main story. If this English port, for some stupid reason decides to drop any of the post story dungeons I will throw a fit!

[Rednusander]

Originally Posted by LordGek

I don't mind the "making the game more accessible" stuff SINCE they at least still have some good ol' Shiren hardcore stuff after you clear the main story. If this English port, for some stupid reason decides to drop any of the post story dungeons I will throw a fit!

Boy, you guys just can't WAIT to find a reason to pick up those pitchforks and light the torches. I think we may have to invest in some livestock to throw at you guys from the Atlus ramparts.

Perhaps you should give those RPGamer impressions another look.

Originally Posted by RPGamer

Steeped in Japanese mythology, Shiren is looking to offer more of a story experience than lots of other rogue-likes, if anyone plays these games for story. Most people, especially fans of Atlus titles, play games like Shiren for the hardcore gameplay experience. While this offering might be more forgiving than prior titles in the series, it still has a lot to offer the hardcore crowd. The game tracks your stats, from how many times you've died to how often you've swung your sword. On top of that, Shiren features an achievement tracker. Die of hunger, gain an achievement. It's an interesting system that will keep those looking for a challenge busy despite the fact they don't restart all over upon dying. Oh, there's also an optional 1000 (yes, one thousand) floor dungeon if the achievements aren't enough.

[Cinder6]

Originally Posted by dungeon_man

Traditional roguelikes are like playing an arcade game on a single credit. Using your skill (and a bit of luck) to get as far as possible on a single life/credit is the whole point. The games were made to be played for the journey, not the destination.

I wouldn't mind if it was only about skill. But when rotten luck comes into play, it diminishes the achievements of people who do beat the game. When I hear of somebody 1CCing Perfect Cherry Blossom, for instance, I'm impressed. When I hear somebody say they beat Nethack, I go "oh, cool, must have gotten pretty lucky". Sure there's skill involved, but there's a ton of luck involved. I can't count the number of times I went down a level in the dungeon, only to be torn apart by a bunch of giant ants before I could even do anything.

Originally Posted by Rednusander

Boy, you guys just can't WAIT to find a reason to pick up those pitchforks and light the torches. I think we may have to invest in some livestock to throw at you guys from the Atlus ramparts.

Hey, this is the Internet. Pitchforks and anger are what it was made for!

[Manly Biceps]

Investing in livestock? Bah. I'm putting my money into Pitchforks, Inc.

[SickleCellAnemia]

Livestock and pitchforks...BAH! I'm putting my money into manure.

[dungeon_man]

Originally Posted by Gen Eric Gui

:/

Until they actively start removing your ability to play it the old way, this way of thinking is ridiculous. I can't even fathom how adding OPTIONS to make the game easier and/or more accessible is a bad thing.

Until! Not reaching until is objective here! They are heading in that direction. We have to complain on internet forums now because that is the only way to stop them!

It's only a matter of time before well-balanced difficulty and deliberately challenging game designs are considered superfluous features that aren't worth the development time to implement. (Fire Emblem Shadow Dragon, for example) In most of the industry, this is already the case. The few remaining sanctuaries of serious gameplay are opening the floodgates to hordes of non-gamers who want to press buttons while watching television. When they outnumber the gamers, the market will adapt to please them.

Originally Posted by cinder6

I wouldn't mind if it was only about skill. But when rotten luck comes into play, it diminishes the achievements of people who do beat the game. When I hear of somebody 1CCing Perfect Cherry Blossom, for instance, I'm impressed. When I hear somebody say they beat Nethack, I go "oh, cool, must have gotten pretty lucky". Sure there's skill involved, but there's a ton of luck involved. I can't count the number of times I went down a level in the dungeon, only to be torn apart by a bunch of giant ants before I could even do anything.

A game with random elements is always going to have some luck, and that's what keeps the gameplay interesting. The two main skills in a roguelike are: 1. avoiding awful situations before you are in the middle of them. 2. improvising your way out of awful situations when you do get into one. To remain interesting, a roguelike must always fill the player with the fear of death and always present the possibility of death, thus forcing the player to use the two skills I mentioned above. Otherwise you're just mindlessly whacking monsters and going down staircases.

[Cinder6]

Originally Posted by dungeon_man

Until! Not reaching until is objective here! They are heading in that direction. We have to complain on internet forums now because that is the only way to stop them!

It's only a matter of time before well-balanced difficulty and deliberately challenging game designs are considered superfluous features that aren't worth the development time to implement. (Fire Emblem Shadow Dragon, for example) In most of the industry, this is already the case. The few remaining sanctuaries of serious gameplay are opening the floodgates to hordes of non-gamers who want to press buttons while watching television. When they outnumber the gamers, the market will adapt to please them.

A game with random elements is always going to have some luck, and that's what keeps the gameplay interesting. The two main skills in a roguelike are: 1. avoiding awful situations before you are in the middle of them. 2. improvising your way out of awful situations when you do get into one. To remain interesting, a roguelike must always fill the player with the fear of death and always present the possibility of death, thus forcing the player to use the two skills I mentioned above. Otherwise you're just mindlessly whacking monsters and going down staircases.

Though it may seem like I didn't need to quote your entire message, I felt it was important to get my point across. You accuse the Fire Emblem developers of getting lazy and not caring about balancing gameplay, but I move that having randomness solve your difficulty problems is equally bad. There are limitless ways to make a game challenging, but it should be done deliberately, and not left up to the random number generator. I'm all for challenging gameplay, but when a game, due to randomness, makes a literally impossible situation for you, then it simply isn't fun.

Maybe I'm blowing this out of proportion, though, and Shiren won't be this bad. I wouldn't know; I've not played the first one.

[dungeon_man]

Originally Posted by Cinder6

Though it may seem like I didn't need to quote your entire message, I felt it was important to get my point across. You accuse the Fire Emblem developers of getting lazy and not caring about balancing gameplay, but I move that having randomness solve your difficulty problems is equally bad. There are limitless ways to make a game challenging, but it should be done deliberately, and not left up to the random number generator. I'm all for challenging gameplay, but when a game, due to randomness, makes a literally impossible situation for you, then it simply isn't fun.

Maybe I'm blowing this out of proportion, though, and Shiren won't be this bad. I wouldn't know; I've not played the first one.

My comment about FE:SD was primarily related to how the developers were very lazy in adding the five hard difficulties. They didn't change enemy placements like in some previous Fire Emblem games, they just upped the enemy stats in a fairly generic way.

The game balance in a roguelike is done by determining what levels items and monsters appear on. The randomness in roguelikes is to create variety, something that is central to the roguelike experience. If you can't handle the random aspect, you are failing at skill #1.

Criticizing a game for using design elements that are central to that genre's gameplay experience is foolish. It's clear you do not like said genre. Play something else.

[Gen Eric Gui]

My comment about FE:SD was primarily related to how the developers were very lazy in adding the five hard difficulties. They didn't change enemy placements like in some previous Fire Emblem games, they just upped the enemy stats in a fairly generic way.

Well, I dunno why you'd expect much different. That's basically what they did in -most- of the FE hard modes. I think 9 and 10 were the only different ones.

And I, for one, don't think we will ever reach the point that developers are going to make games into "watching TV while hitting buttons". There is ALWAYS going to be a large enough group of people who want crazy-hard games that at least some companies will continue to make them.

There's also the point that a lot of the crazy-hard genres and games of yesteryear were made that way not on purpose, but because they just couldn't make them any better then that. A lot of genres of games are easier nowadays simply because developers know how to actually balance the difficulty in their games.

[Cinder6]

Originally Posted by dungeon_man

The game balance in a roguelike is done by determining what levels items and monsters appear on. The randomness in roguelikes is to create variety, something that is central to the roguelike experience. If you can't handle the random aspect, you are failing at skill #1.

Criticizing a game for using design elements that are central to that genre's gameplay experience is foolish. It's clear you do not like said genre. Play something else.

Oh, yeah, I don't like the genre, that's why I play games from it. In a good rouguelike, yes, the balance will usually be fine (I say "usually" because nothing will be perfect). I'm talking about the more rare cases where you encounter something totally ridiculous, and even the most skilled players get killed off. If I thought getting killed off due to random chance was fun, I'd go play Russian roulette

And you can criticize fundamental designs all you want. Just because something's a core attribute, it isn't necessarily perfect or even good. There's room for improvement in everything.

I don't want this to turn into anymore of a stupid debate than it already is, so I'm gonna stop right here. Clearly, you enjoy roguelikes more than I do, but I think you should be a little more open-minded to change. If it's a choice between some catering to less "hardcore" players (while still retaining the old challenge) and losing the genre entirely, isn't it preferable to keep a slightly "corrupted" form alive?

[Rednusander]

Originally Posted by dungeon_man

It's only a matter of time before well-balanced difficulty and deliberately challenging game designs are considered superfluous features that aren't worth the development time to implement. (Fire Emblem Shadow Dragon, for example) In most of the industry, this is already the case. The few remaining sanctuaries of serious gameplay are opening the floodgates to hordes of non-gamers who want to press buttons while watching television. When they outnumber the gamers, the market will adapt to please them.

The bottom line is this. The "market" (you really mean, the developers) will never adapt entirely to "please the masses" as long as you and your kind continue to show the "market" that you want hardcore games. And how do you do that? You purchase them, that's how.

[Cinder6]

Originally Posted by Rednusander

The bottom line is this. The "market" (you really mean, the developers) will never adapt entirely to "please the masses" as long as you and your kind continue to show the "market" that you want hardcore games. And how do you do that? You purchase them, that's how.

Well said!

[Manly Biceps]

Thy Dungeon Man is pretty much correct, so I can see why he's getting kinda irked. As someone who's seen 4 of my favorite franchises get retooled for mass consumption in the last few years, it seems like as soon as someone starts to bail on a genre, everyone bails on it.

And Red's right in the sense that, not buying the game doesn't convince people go back to the formula, it only makes the developers think that the genre's commercially not viable.

I will say that I think the reason for this one being made a bit easier is because this one's a much longer game. There's quite a bit of story in this one, and if it was as difficult as the prior games, it'd take quite some time to actually get to see everything...

[PainKilleR-[CE]]

Yes, let's just jump on FE: Shadow Dragon, because, you know, as a remake of the first game in the series, it's the best possible example of balance and game design in the genre, and, of course, the fact that FE is in a completely different sub-genre of RPGs.

Then again, if the logic held that developers are getting worse at balance and difficulty, Shadow Dragon should be better at those things than the GameCube, Wii, and GBA games.

[dungeon_man]

Originally Posted by Rednusander

The bottom line is this. The "market" (you really mean, the developers) will never adapt entirely to "please the masses" as long as you and your kind continue to show the "market" that you want hardcore games. And how do you do that? You purchase them, that's how.

Yes, but when the masses grossly outnumber the serious gamers, the serious gamers become a statistical anomaly and get ignored. Roguelikes were one of the genres that the masses didn't care for, so anybody making a roguelike made it challenging (or wrote pokemon on the box). If, in some twisted version of the future, the current roguelike fanbase is only 1% of the roguelike market, the wishes of the other 99% will influence the developer's design decisions.

Also, I never implied or suggested at any point that I will not buy this game. I just fear that it could be the harbinger of doom. Once the majority is into roguelikes for the story, the genre is dead.

Originally Posted by cinder6

And you can criticize fundamental designs all you want. Just because something's a core attribute, it isn't necessarily perfect or even good. There's room for improvement in everything.

No. You aren't trying to suggest ways to improve roguelikes. You want roguelikes to change into something more appealing to your tastes. It would be like if I said, "John Madden Football is okay, but they gotta stop playing on grass with that funny ball. They should play on ice and use sticks to smack around a puck." That is not a suggestion to improve football. That is a desire to play hockey.

Originally Posted by painkiller

Yes, let's just jump on FE: Shadow Dragon, because, you know, as a remake of the first game in the series, it's the best possible example of balance and game design in the genre, and, of course, the fact that FE is in a completely different sub-genre of RPGs.

I just used it as an example of how laziness in balancing difficulty is infecting other genres. Being a remake, it should be a great example of balance in the genre because they had a chance to improve upon their original work. Unfortunately, they put in no effort at all. They used the original difficulty, and bumped stats in a fairly linear fashion for the other 5 difficulties. Doing a few rounds of intelligent design and playtesting for 2 additional difficulty modes would have made for a far superior experience. Instead, we got this:

for(i=0; i<5; i++) difficulty++;

Anyway, FE is off-topic. Either you get what I'm trying to say or you don't. I'm done talking about that.

[grrouchie]

Originally Posted by dungeon_man

Traditional roguelikes are like playing an arcade game on a single credit. Using your skill (and a bit of luck) to get as far as possible on a single life/credit is the whole point. The games were made to be played for the journey, not the destination.

Now we've got the Wii where the new Mario game will play itself for the unskilled players, Fire Emblem games now have permanent mid-battle saves, and non-pokemon roguelikes are coming up with #### like "easy mode" so no player skill is necessary? These are genres that had previously been resisting the shift towards making games a more passive form of entertainment. I am very disappointed and fear what the next 10 years will bring.

While Easy Modes and the such are horrible to people like us, These are the things that are bringing in new gamers and allowing us to get the games we want.
The majority of people spending the money play games because of the graphics and the story.
My woman is that way. She wants to beable to play the game, not die too many times, get the story, look at the cool pictures and beat it.
She doesn't want to have to struggle and barely progress for hours on end.

It's annoying, but thats the way it is. As long as they give us options to make the game the way we want and more difficult, then I'm cool with the crapy easy settings

[dungeon_man]

Originally Posted by grrouchie

The majority of people spending the money play games because of the graphics and the story.

I know the score. I'm clinging to the last remnants of of a dying breed. You don't need to explain to me what people are buying. Though, in all honesty, I've been happy to see somewhat of a gaming renaissance on the Nintendo DS. Similar efforts on the Wii don't seem to be reaching critical mass. I wish Atlus and Chunsoft the best of luck with this game, and I hope the game manages to bring new gamers upstream rather than taking the genre downstream.

[grrouchie]

Originally Posted by dungeon_man

I know the score. I'm clinging to the last remnants of of a dying breed. You don't need to explain to me what people are buying. Though, in all honesty, I've been happy to see somewhat of a gaming renaissance on the Nintendo DS. Similar efforts on the Wii don't seem to be reaching critical mass. I wish Atlus and Chunsoft the best of luck with this game, and I hope the game manages to bring new gamers upstream rather than taking the genre downstream.

This is why I will have it pre-ordered and will be buying it as soon as it comes out. I hate having to play most of my RPG's on the DS

[Zoltor]

Originally Posted by Cinder6

Yeah, I'm really not seeing the issue here. I actually hate it when games have saves that behave the way you described, so I'm a bit biased here. But if you want to play it that way, then more power to you! You can simply simulate it--only save when you want to take a break from the game, and don't reload when you die.

I'm actually getting to the point where I'm not a huge fan of the traditional Roguelike formula. It was fun back in the day, and I still enjoy Nethack (never could get into Angband or IVAN), but I'm not as likely nowadays to pay for a game that makes itself as inaccessible as possible. Baroque actually rewarded dying, and Izuna had ways to avoid losing everything, so they were fine. The easy mode in Shiren actually puts it on my "check it out" list, so go go Atlus!

Yes, I know I just lost any "hardcore cred" I might have had, but hey--at least I've actually played Roguelikes!

Can I pick up a pitchfork anyways? You know, to put it away, or something. Or to start pitching hay, maybe. I dunno.

See I would rather things be like the old school days, lol remember games like Wizardry 1-5, dyeing in those games actually was scarry as hell(First you had to take a 2nd party back down to retrieve the dead char, then you better hope they don't turn into ashes when you attempt to revive them lol).

On the main topic though, yea I hate when a game freely allows you to save in a dungeon. Actual save points is one thing, but you should never be allowed to save wherever you please in a dungeon, and infinitely reload/cheat.

I despise the FF remakes because of that crap, makes the games insanely easy, and the sad thing is, for a old school player they weren't hard originally to begin with sigh.