So I bought some indie games today. The Steam summer sale (where games have 50%+ discounts) gave me a final nudge to make the plunge. I've been considering this for a good few months and it's nice to have finally pulled the trigger.
I haven't bought a game in quite a few years now, and I can't imagine buying a block buster AAA title in the future (I don't even have StarCraft 2!), but there was something about indie games that I couldn't resist (the huge price cuts don't hurt either!).
The best graphics today, with all the light effects and fancy textures honestly hurts my eyes. Now I think it's amazing what the developers are now capable of (we've come a long ways since the FF7 style stubby arms), but for an old geezer like me it's just too much. I'm a bigger fan of 2d sprites or same alternative. I never thought that games needed to be realistic, and feel that oftentimes having limited information can do wonders for a storytelling experience (which is why I prefer books over manga over anime. The less sensory information I have, the more I can use my brain to fill in the holes).
I'm also a fan of clever game design over the best graphics or physics firepower. With less cost overhead to deal with, I feel that indie studios can afford to give me such experiences much more than a AAA studio. When your marketing and development budget is $N million dollars, you understandably can't afford to try now tricks as often.
While I'm not a programmer myself, I generally like programmers and want to support independent developers whenever convenient. If given the choice between buying a megacorp product and a 5 man shop's product, given similar value propositions and it's not overly mission critical for me, I like to think that I am doing good by supporting the little guy. It's good to have options in life, and game developers having a choice over who they work for and what they work on is an appealing idea. To that end I'd be doing a little bit of good for them by throwing a few bucks their way.
I've had these beliefs (especially with respect to small time dev shops) for quite some time, yet never really acted on it (like many Android phone users, I tend to be on the cheap skate side of things). But now that the perfect situation had come up, it was just time for me to put my words into action.
Oh by the way, here are the games I bought. Thanks to @bhelyer for the feedback and suggestions!
Super Hexagon Proteus Binding of Isaac McPixel Thomas Was Alone
I also bought McPixel to support Sos. That guy is a Gamejam super machine.
McPixel, while it is a parody, proves by absurdity the difficulty of designing such game. A very small amount of possibility may be almost impossible to solve, yet failing at a problem is equally rewarding. I really love the format.
If you like even a little The binding of Isaac, you should try Don't Starve. It feels like the same universe but the game is much better, borderline heroin-level addicting :D. Have to lock the computer, so my girlfriend doesn't overdose on it.
I wanted to play 1 hour, ended up playing 4 hours and still had the feeling that there was still a little bit I should do.
Thomas was alone, played few first level, very elegant game design. Actually a design lesson. Story telling is actually strange, emotions and relationships could have been told in a much subtler way.
Proteus, I didn't buy because it's not much of a game from what I've read about it.
Superhexagon I skipped from fear of motion sickness :D
Great blog, you hit the subject close to my heart at the moment - I am trying very hard to get my AAA, graphics quality-obsessed friends to give a chance to some of my favorite indies. I'll add a list of a few for people who might be interested:
- Hotline Miami (I'm echoing emanresU here, one of the best games I played, period) - Binding of Isaac (amazing roguelike for the 21st century, haven't stopped playing it since it came out) - Super Meat Boy (super hard platformer designed by the same guy who made Binding) - Braid (old one, the original indie darling, great game with the best ending I ever saw) - Bastion (also an older one, great action RPG with a voice narrating your every move, seriously tugs on ones heartstrings) - Rogue Legacy (a new one, a roguelike castlevania, great fun, I'm approaching Binding-level enthrallment with this one) - Monaco (Oceans Eleven presented as Pacman on speed. Great fun , also multiplayer) - Swapper (a puzzle platformer with a great atmosphere, inspired by classic hard sci-fi, like 2001 etc) - FTL (roguelike RTS-like spaceship simulator. A bit too random at times, but great fun nonetheless)
I disagree with 0x64, Binding of Isaac is not comparable to Don't Starve in any way and Don't Starve is definitely not a better game (though a good one). Don't Starve is like a 2D minecraft, with far less creativity but far more "actual gameplay". Some people will find it very addicting, others will find it to be a boring collect-a-thon.
Binding of Isaac is something very special, it's a roguelike mixed with shoot-em-up mixed with Zelda. It's one of the few roguelikes where it's not just about luck and knowledge/experience, but skill is also a big component, learning boss-patterns etc.
Your blogs are so infuriating to read. Every time. Instead of just telling us what games you bought and if you liked them or not you made in to a not so subtle brag about why you always support the small business man.
I really wonder what you did in the past to get you featured.
On July 15 2013 21:59 Amestir wrote: Your blogs are so infuriating to read. Every time. Instead of just telling us what games you bought and if you liked them or not you made in to a not so subtle brag about why you always support the small business man.
I really wonder what you did in the past to get you featured.
waiting years to buy games at 75% off isnt exactly supporting the small business but I kinda agree all we wanna know is if them games were good!!
I got Bastion and Hotline Miami this week. Both are pretty cool. I love the poor man's morgan freeman from Bastion and the violent puzzle style of Hotline Miami!
On July 15 2013 21:39 Tobberoth wrote: I disagree with 0x64, Binding of Isaac is not comparable to Don't Starve in any way and Don't Starve is definitely not a better game (though a good one). Don't Starve is like a 2D minecraft, with far less creativity but far more "actual gameplay". Some people will find it very addicting, others will find it to be a boring collect-a-thon.
Binding of Isaac is something very special, it's a roguelike mixed with shoot-em-up mixed with Zelda. It's one of the few roguelikes where it's not just about luck and knowledge/experience, but skill is also a big component, learning boss-patterns etc.
You can't disagree, you don't have anything in what I said that could be worth arguing about. I was pointing at the art direction, which is the strong point of Binding of Isaac whereas Binding of Isaac weakness is in its game design and playability. That's why I am confident anyone who loves binding of Isaac will love Don't Starve.
Your description of Don't starve is accurate and I see why my comment could be misleading. Minecraft is actually just as misleading (also because there is so many different minecraft) even if both game have crafting as their core mechanics. Both in Binding and Dont starve, player's game will change very much depending on the generate map, yet in Binding, you can't really do anything about it while in don't starve, you have a reason to explore more the world.
On July 15 2013 21:39 Tobberoth wrote: I disagree with 0x64, Binding of Isaac is not comparable to Don't Starve in any way and Don't Starve is definitely not a better game (though a good one). Don't Starve is like a 2D minecraft, with far less creativity but far more "actual gameplay". Some people will find it very addicting, others will find it to be a boring collect-a-thon.
Binding of Isaac is something very special, it's a roguelike mixed with shoot-em-up mixed with Zelda. It's one of the few roguelikes where it's not just about luck and knowledge/experience, but skill is also a big component, learning boss-patterns etc.
You can't disagree, you don't have anything in what I said that could be worth arguing about. I was pointing at the art direction, which is the strong point of Binding of Isaac whereas Binding of Isaac weakness is in its game design and playability. That's why I am confident anyone who loves binding of Isaac will love Don't Starve.
Your description of Don't starve is accurate and I see why my comment could be misleading. Minecraft is actually just as misleading (also because there is so many different minecraft) even if both game have crafting as their core mechanics. Both in Binding and Dont starve, player's game will change very much depending on the generate map, yet in Binding, you can't really do anything about it while in don't starve, you have a reason to explore more the world.
I disagree 100%. In Binding Of Isaac, it doesn't matter if the map generated is a weak one, i'm confident good players can beat the game without picking up even a single upgrade (at least beat Mom). You can technically dodge anything and there's no time-limit, the upgrades and items really just make the game easier. The art direction is IMO the weakest point of Binding Of Isaac (not so much the art direction itself, which is OK, but rather that it looks like a flash game). I would have easily prefed the same game in pure pixelart.
I'm a huge fan of indie games, and played a good number on that list. although it's a bit newer, I definitely recommend Bleed. it offers easy to insanely difficulties, but I never really feel the game is cheap. if you screw up, you know it's your fault. sadly, I doubt it'll be on sale in the summer sale, but nevertheless anyone reading should check it out!
also, binding and isaac and don't starve are both great games. it's hard to really compare them. I definitely recommend/love both. in the end though, it's just personal opinion which you think is better, they can each surely make a case why they're amazing!
also, if you're a fan of binding of isaac, you should check out their esports league at http://www.boilr.org/
it's obviously nothing compared to sc2, but it's fun to watch, and any esports is good esports!
On July 15 2013 21:09 RaiKhan wrote: Great blog, you hit the subject close to my heart at the moment - I am trying very hard to get my AAA, graphics quality-obsessed friends to give a chance to some of my favorite indies. I'll add a list of a few for people who might be interested:
- Hotline Miami (I'm echoing emanresU here, one of the best games I played, period) - Binding of Isaac (amazing roguelike for the 21st century, haven't stopped playing it since it came out) - Super Meat Boy (super hard platformer designed by the same guy who made Binding) - Braid (old one, the original indie darling, great game with the best ending I ever saw) - Bastion (also an older one, great action RPG with a voice narrating your every move, seriously tugs on ones heartstrings) - Rogue Legacy (a new one, a roguelike castlevania, great fun, I'm approaching Binding-level enthrallment with this one) - Monaco (Oceans Eleven presented as Pacman on speed. Great fun , also multiplayer) - Swapper (a puzzle platformer with a great atmosphere, inspired by classic hard sci-fi, like 2001 etc) - FTL (roguelike RTS-like spaceship simulator. A bit too random at times, but great fun nonetheless)
I fully agree. Haven't made a AAA purchase since sc2 (and can't remember a AAA before that). Also I have to emphasize my love of FTL!! edit: the randomness really makes it unforgiving - like all the old games before they got "casual" :D
On July 15 2013 21:39 Tobberoth wrote: I disagree with 0x64, Binding of Isaac is not comparable to Don't Starve in any way and Don't Starve is definitely not a better game (though a good one). Don't Starve is like a 2D minecraft, with far less creativity but far more "actual gameplay". Some people will find it very addicting, others will find it to be a boring collect-a-thon.
Binding of Isaac is something very special, it's a roguelike mixed with shoot-em-up mixed with Zelda. It's one of the few roguelikes where it's not just about luck and knowledge/experience, but skill is also a big component, learning boss-patterns etc.
You can't disagree, you don't have anything in what I said that could be worth arguing about. I was pointing at the art direction, which is the strong point of Binding of Isaac whereas Binding of Isaac weakness is in its game design and playability. That's why I am confident anyone who loves binding of Isaac will love Don't Starve.
Your description of Don't starve is accurate and I see why my comment could be misleading. Minecraft is actually just as misleading (also because there is so many different minecraft) even if both game have crafting as their core mechanics. Both in Binding and Dont starve, player's game will change very much depending on the generate map, yet in Binding, you can't really do anything about it while in don't starve, you have a reason to explore more the world.
I disagree 100%. In Binding Of Isaac, it doesn't matter if the map generated is a weak one, i'm confident good players can beat the game without picking up even a single upgrade (at least beat Mom). You can technically dodge anything and there's no time-limit, the upgrades and items really just make the game easier. The art direction is IMO the weakest point of Binding Of Isaac (not so much the art direction itself, which is OK, but rather that it looks like a flash game). I would have easily prefed the same game in pure pixelart.
Of course, it does matter, it's a question of game balance. If the map doesn't matter, you, as a player will end up making less interesting choices. You have no tension structure. It does matter for many, it may even stop someone from buying it because those are design flaws that end up in reviews.
"there are also more than a few things—broad fluctuations in difficulty and enemies that shoot/jump through barriers when you can't, for instance—that undermine the fun. " -IGN
While this aspect is not brought in every review, it will still stop many players from playing long enough to discover the game. The controls are not spotless + useless stuff in levels + a randomly generated too hard map the first few time with repeating main monsters. The frustration will alienate many player but if you give the game 10 hours or so, you also will start enjoying it. Before that, it is very random in a bit bad way.
Still, the lack of controller support was a huge disappointment, but anyway, for the price, it's sure a great game.
Does anyone else always end up feeling silly after buying indie games? I buy it to support the idea in hopes that its a good game, but it never is. Its never a game I'd play a month later. So while it feels cheap and good etc, it always ends up feeling like a waste
On July 16 2013 01:35 Mohdoo wrote: Does anyone else always end up feeling silly after buying indie games? I buy it to support the idea in hopes that its a good game, but it never is. Its never a game I'd play a month later. So while it feels cheap and good etc, it always ends up feeling like a waste
Indie games may not be for you, then. Some of us buy them because we are looking for a certain kind of style/control/challenge that just isn't offered anymore mainstream - not since everything went casual.
On July 15 2013 21:39 Tobberoth wrote: I disagree with 0x64, Binding of Isaac is not comparable to Don't Starve in any way and Don't Starve is definitely not a better game (though a good one). Don't Starve is like a 2D minecraft, with far less creativity but far more "actual gameplay". Some people will find it very addicting, others will find it to be a boring collect-a-thon.
Binding of Isaac is something very special, it's a roguelike mixed with shoot-em-up mixed with Zelda. It's one of the few roguelikes where it's not just about luck and knowledge/experience, but skill is also a big component, learning boss-patterns etc.
You can't disagree, you don't have anything in what I said that could be worth arguing about. I was pointing at the art direction, which is the strong point of Binding of Isaac whereas Binding of Isaac weakness is in its game design and playability. That's why I am confident anyone who loves binding of Isaac will love Don't Starve.
Your description of Don't starve is accurate and I see why my comment could be misleading. Minecraft is actually just as misleading (also because there is so many different minecraft) even if both game have crafting as their core mechanics. Both in Binding and Dont starve, player's game will change very much depending on the generate map, yet in Binding, you can't really do anything about it while in don't starve, you have a reason to explore more the world.
I disagree 100%. In Binding Of Isaac, it doesn't matter if the map generated is a weak one, i'm confident good players can beat the game without picking up even a single upgrade (at least beat Mom). You can technically dodge anything and there's no time-limit, the upgrades and items really just make the game easier. The art direction is IMO the weakest point of Binding Of Isaac (not so much the art direction itself, which is OK, but rather that it looks like a flash game). I would have easily prefed the same game in pure pixelart.
Of course, it does matter, it's a question of game balance. If the map doesn't matter, you, as a player will end up making less interesting choices. You have no tension structure. It does matter for many, it may even stop someone from buying it because those are design flaws that end up in reviews.
"there are also more than a few things—broad fluctuations in difficulty and enemies that shoot/jump through barriers when you can't, for instance—that undermine the fun. " -IGN
While this aspect is not brought in every review, it will still stop many players from playing long enough to discover the game. The controls are not spotless + useless stuff in levels + a randomly generated too hard map the first few time with repeating main monsters. The frustration will alienate many player but if you give the game 10 hours or so, you also will start enjoying it. Before that, it is very random in a bit bad way.
Still, the lack of controller support was a huge disappointment, but anyway, for the price, it's sure a great game.
Personally, I'm one of those people who prefer games that don't dumb themselves down to people without attention spans. That's why Dark Souls is one of the best games in modern time: It doesn't care about being perfectly optimized and spoon-feeding everything to the player, it makes you fight for it, which is why it's worth playing more than once and gives ridiculous amounts of satisfaction.
The controls of the Binding of Isaac are simple and to the point. Hell, the controls are in fact so simple that the whole manual to controlling the game is written in the first room of the game, that's pretty sick. The fact that the map is "too hard" is irrelevant since it's a roguelike, it's supposed to be that way. Roguelikes are games which force the player to "enjoy the journey", you can't look for a quickfix trying to beat the game on your first try. This is a feature of the genre, not a bad aspect.
I'll give you that a lot of players will give up on the game, not giving it a chance. I, however, call that a fault of the gamers in question, not the game, and I'm glad that developers still dare to make games like that.
I wish I had more time and money to find good indie games to support. There's a lot of cool innovative stuff out there that fills a nice niche. As an added bonus, I don't hate myself for a good week as I do after buying the latest NHL or battlefield that's no different form the last four installments. Thanks EA!
Def agree about hotline and super meat boy. I gotta reinstall steam on this comp but Ill come back with some other cool ones.
On July 16 2013 01:35 Mohdoo wrote: Does anyone else always end up feeling silly after buying indie games? I buy it to support the idea in hopes that its a good game, but it never is. Its never a game I'd play a month later. So while it feels cheap and good etc, it always ends up feeling like a waste
To answer your question: I can't believe that I bought Surgeon simulator in the same discount period, worst 3 Euros ever spent. To be honest it felt much worse than accidentally smashing an expensive wine bottle earlier this week.
But it's true, most Indy games are hard to appreciate. I still feel there some gems: I've had a lot of fun playing Reus. Which is also in steam discount now.
On July 15 2013 21:59 Amestir wrote: Your blogs are so infuriating to read. Every time. Instead of just telling us what games you bought and if you liked them or not you made in to a not so subtle brag about why you always support the small business man.
I really wonder what you did in the past to get you featured.
yah 30 years after release he spends 50 cents on super hexagon
On July 15 2013 21:39 Tobberoth wrote: I disagree with 0x64, Binding of Isaac is not comparable to Don't Starve in any way and Don't Starve is definitely not a better game (though a good one). Don't Starve is like a 2D minecraft, with far less creativity but far more "actual gameplay". Some people will find it very addicting, others will find it to be a boring collect-a-thon.
Binding of Isaac is something very special, it's a roguelike mixed with shoot-em-up mixed with Zelda. It's one of the few roguelikes where it's not just about luck and knowledge/experience, but skill is also a big component, learning boss-patterns etc.
You can't disagree, you don't have anything in what I said that could be worth arguing about. I was pointing at the art direction, which is the strong point of Binding of Isaac whereas Binding of Isaac weakness is in its game design and playability. That's why I am confident anyone who loves binding of Isaac will love Don't Starve.
Your description of Don't starve is accurate and I see why my comment could be misleading. Minecraft is actually just as misleading (also because there is so many different minecraft) even if both game have crafting as their core mechanics. Both in Binding and Dont starve, player's game will change very much depending on the generate map, yet in Binding, you can't really do anything about it while in don't starve, you have a reason to explore more the world.
I disagree 100%. In Binding Of Isaac, it doesn't matter if the map generated is a weak one, i'm confident good players can beat the game without picking up even a single upgrade (at least beat Mom). You can technically dodge anything and there's no time-limit, the upgrades and items really just make the game easier. The art direction is IMO the weakest point of Binding Of Isaac (not so much the art direction itself, which is OK, but rather that it looks like a flash game). I would have easily prefed the same game in pure pixelart.
Of course, it does matter, it's a question of game balance. If the map doesn't matter, you, as a player will end up making less interesting choices. You have no tension structure. It does matter for many, it may even stop someone from buying it because those are design flaws that end up in reviews.
"there are also more than a few things—broad fluctuations in difficulty and enemies that shoot/jump through barriers when you can't, for instance—that undermine the fun. " -IGN
While this aspect is not brought in every review, it will still stop many players from playing long enough to discover the game. The controls are not spotless + useless stuff in levels + a randomly generated too hard map the first few time with repeating main monsters. The frustration will alienate many player but if you give the game 10 hours or so, you also will start enjoying it. Before that, it is very random in a bit bad way.
Still, the lack of controller support was a huge disappointment, but anyway, for the price, it's sure a great game.
Personally, I'm one of those people who prefer games that don't dumb themselves down to people without attention spans. That's why Dark Souls is one of the best games in modern time: It doesn't care about being perfectly optimized and spoon-feeding everything to the player, it makes you fight for it, which is why it's worth playing more than once and gives ridiculous amounts of satisfaction.
The controls of the Binding of Isaac are simple and to the point. Hell, the controls are in fact so simple that the whole manual to controlling the game is written in the first room of the game, that's pretty sick. The fact that the map is "too hard" is irrelevant since it's a roguelike, it's supposed to be that way. Roguelikes are games which force the player to "enjoy the journey", you can't look for a quickfix trying to beat the game on your first try. This is a feature of the genre, not a bad aspect.
I'll give you that a lot of players will give up on the game, not giving it a chance. I, however, call that a fault of the gamers in question, not the game, and I'm glad that developers still dare to make games like that.
It may be irrelevant to you, but in the context of what he is saying (ie suggesting games for other people to try out) it's very relevant.
Some people just don't want to be challenged, or at least not challenged too much when they play games. Some people will just quit if they find something too hard straight away. So even if Roguelikes are supposed to be like that, it doesn't mean they will appeal to everyone.
On July 15 2013 21:39 Tobberoth wrote: I disagree with 0x64, Binding of Isaac is not comparable to Don't Starve in any way and Don't Starve is definitely not a better game (though a good one). Don't Starve is like a 2D minecraft, with far less creativity but far more "actual gameplay". Some people will find it very addicting, others will find it to be a boring collect-a-thon.
Binding of Isaac is something very special, it's a roguelike mixed with shoot-em-up mixed with Zelda. It's one of the few roguelikes where it's not just about luck and knowledge/experience, but skill is also a big component, learning boss-patterns etc.
You can't disagree, you don't have anything in what I said that could be worth arguing about. I was pointing at the art direction, which is the strong point of Binding of Isaac whereas Binding of Isaac weakness is in its game design and playability. That's why I am confident anyone who loves binding of Isaac will love Don't Starve.
Your description of Don't starve is accurate and I see why my comment could be misleading. Minecraft is actually just as misleading (also because there is so many different minecraft) even if both game have crafting as their core mechanics. Both in Binding and Dont starve, player's game will change very much depending on the generate map, yet in Binding, you can't really do anything about it while in don't starve, you have a reason to explore more the world.
I disagree 100%. In Binding Of Isaac, it doesn't matter if the map generated is a weak one, i'm confident good players can beat the game without picking up even a single upgrade (at least beat Mom). You can technically dodge anything and there's no time-limit, the upgrades and items really just make the game easier. The art direction is IMO the weakest point of Binding Of Isaac (not so much the art direction itself, which is OK, but rather that it looks like a flash game). I would have easily prefed the same game in pure pixelart.
Of course, it does matter, it's a question of game balance. If the map doesn't matter, you, as a player will end up making less interesting choices. You have no tension structure. It does matter for many, it may even stop someone from buying it because those are design flaws that end up in reviews.
"there are also more than a few things—broad fluctuations in difficulty and enemies that shoot/jump through barriers when you can't, for instance—that undermine the fun. " -IGN
While this aspect is not brought in every review, it will still stop many players from playing long enough to discover the game. The controls are not spotless + useless stuff in levels + a randomly generated too hard map the first few time with repeating main monsters. The frustration will alienate many player but if you give the game 10 hours or so, you also will start enjoying it. Before that, it is very random in a bit bad way.
Still, the lack of controller support was a huge disappointment, but anyway, for the price, it's sure a great game.
Personally, I'm one of those people who prefer games that don't dumb themselves down to people without attention spans. That's why Dark Souls is one of the best games in modern time: It doesn't care about being perfectly optimized and spoon-feeding everything to the player, it makes you fight for it, which is why it's worth playing more than once and gives ridiculous amounts of satisfaction.
The controls of the Binding of Isaac are simple and to the point. Hell, the controls are in fact so simple that the whole manual to controlling the game is written in the first room of the game, that's pretty sick. The fact that the map is "too hard" is irrelevant since it's a roguelike, it's supposed to be that way. Roguelikes are games which force the player to "enjoy the journey", you can't look for a quickfix trying to beat the game on your first try. This is a feature of the genre, not a bad aspect.
I'll give you that a lot of players will give up on the game, not giving it a chance. I, however, call that a fault of the gamers in question, not the game, and I'm glad that developers still dare to make games like that.
It may be irrelevant to you, but in the context of what he is saying (ie suggesting games for other people to try out) it's very relevant.
Some people just don't want to be challenged, or at least not challenged too much when they play games. Some people will just quit if they find something too hard straight away. So even if Roguelikes are supposed to be like that, it doesn't mean they will appeal to everyone.
Again, I acknowledge that, but it's not like his post was "Binding of Isaac is quite difficult, if you prefer something more casual Just Starve might be a nice game", it was more along the lines of "If you like Binding of Isaac, Just Starve is a superior game you can try out" which I just don't find possible to agree with.
On July 16 2013 01:35 Mohdoo wrote: Does anyone else always end up feeling silly after buying indie games? I buy it to support the idea in hopes that its a good game, but it never is. Its never a game I'd play a month later. So while it feels cheap and good etc, it always ends up feeling like a waste
How many games do you really end up playing a month later in general?
Usually it's only going to be the kind of muitiplayer competitive-ish games you play with your friends and have some sort of regular connection with (SC2, Dota, and the similar) or MMOs. Most other games are really a one-off experience.
Even so, I think I played Minecraft and FTL longer than most single-player games I can think of.
On July 15 2013 21:39 Tobberoth wrote: I disagree with 0x64, Binding of Isaac is not comparable to Don't Starve in any way and Don't Starve is definitely not a better game (though a good one). Don't Starve is like a 2D minecraft, with far less creativity but far more "actual gameplay". Some people will find it very addicting, others will find it to be a boring collect-a-thon.
Binding of Isaac is something very special, it's a roguelike mixed with shoot-em-up mixed with Zelda. It's one of the few roguelikes where it's not just about luck and knowledge/experience, but skill is also a big component, learning boss-patterns etc.
You can't disagree, you don't have anything in what I said that could be worth arguing about. I was pointing at the art direction, which is the strong point of Binding of Isaac whereas Binding of Isaac weakness is in its game design and playability. That's why I am confident anyone who loves binding of Isaac will love Don't Starve.
Your description of Don't starve is accurate and I see why my comment could be misleading. Minecraft is actually just as misleading (also because there is so many different minecraft) even if both game have crafting as their core mechanics. Both in Binding and Dont starve, player's game will change very much depending on the generate map, yet in Binding, you can't really do anything about it while in don't starve, you have a reason to explore more the world.
I disagree 100%. In Binding Of Isaac, it doesn't matter if the map generated is a weak one, i'm confident good players can beat the game without picking up even a single upgrade (at least beat Mom). You can technically dodge anything and there's no time-limit, the upgrades and items really just make the game easier. The art direction is IMO the weakest point of Binding Of Isaac (not so much the art direction itself, which is OK, but rather that it looks like a flash game). I would have easily prefed the same game in pure pixelart.
Of course, it does matter, it's a question of game balance. If the map doesn't matter, you, as a player will end up making less interesting choices. You have no tension structure. It does matter for many, it may even stop someone from buying it because those are design flaws that end up in reviews.
"there are also more than a few things—broad fluctuations in difficulty and enemies that shoot/jump through barriers when you can't, for instance—that undermine the fun. " -IGN
While this aspect is not brought in every review, it will still stop many players from playing long enough to discover the game. The controls are not spotless + useless stuff in levels + a randomly generated too hard map the first few time with repeating main monsters. The frustration will alienate many player but if you give the game 10 hours or so, you also will start enjoying it. Before that, it is very random in a bit bad way.
Still, the lack of controller support was a huge disappointment, but anyway, for the price, it's sure a great game.
Personally, I'm one of those people who prefer games that don't dumb themselves down to people without attention spans. That's why Dark Souls is one of the best games in modern time: It doesn't care about being perfectly optimized and spoon-feeding everything to the player, it makes you fight for it, which is why it's worth playing more than once and gives ridiculous amounts of satisfaction.
The controls of the Binding of Isaac are simple and to the point. Hell, the controls are in fact so simple that the whole manual to controlling the game is written in the first room of the game, that's pretty sick. The fact that the map is "too hard" is irrelevant since it's a roguelike, it's supposed to be that way. Roguelikes are games which force the player to "enjoy the journey", you can't look for a quickfix trying to beat the game on your first try. This is a feature of the genre, not a bad aspect.
I'll give you that a lot of players will give up on the game, not giving it a chance. I, however, call that a fault of the gamers in question, not the game, and I'm glad that developers still dare to make games like that.
It may be irrelevant to you, but in the context of what he is saying (ie suggesting games for other people to try out) it's very relevant.
Some people just don't want to be challenged, or at least not challenged too much when they play games. Some people will just quit if they find something too hard straight away. So even if Roguelikes are supposed to be like that, it doesn't mean they will appeal to everyone.
Again, I acknowledge that, but it's not like his post was "Binding of Isaac is quite difficult, if you prefer something more casual Just Starve might be a nice game", it was more along the lines of "If you like Binding of Isaac, Just Starve is a superior game you can try out" which I just don't find possible to agree with.
You got provoked because I freely gave a quite bold statement, which the important part was the if thedeadhaji like Binding of Isaac, he will totally love Don't Starve.
Both game are permadeath games. Both have twisted humor. Both have a dark esthetic. Both have an awesome original soundtrack.
Sure they are from different genre and might be that thedeadhaji hates minecraft from the bottom of his heart and I am very wrong.
When I play a roguelike and I get very little joy from loot, I feel cheated. There are antipatterns used on purpose in the design of the game and I don't buy in that. I really love the guys that made it, I know they master many aspect of game design, and they actually told this was not something they'd expect to be a success, yet it was and the reason for that comes from two big things, 1. They have a cult status in the indie community, 2. The great things I listed in my list of similarities with Dont Starve.
McPixel is an amazing game. The humor and brief format make it one of the best "adventure" games I've played in years. I think the length was part of the reason why I can't get into point-and-click adventure games anymore, but McPixel is so short that it takes seconds to finish a screen. And you can come back multiple times to see all the gags.
Too bad i have never heard of any of these games before, but i guess i am not in the indie game in-crowd. But hearing that you got those games for only $12 makes me interested.
On July 17 2013 04:14 0x64 wrote: You got provoked because I freely gave a quite bold statement, which the important part was the if thedeadhaji like Binding of Isaac, he will totally love Don't Starve.
Both game are permadeath games. Both have twisted humor. Both have a dark esthetic. Both have an awesome original soundtrack.
Sure they are from different genre and might be that thedeadhaji hates minecraft from the bottom of his heart and I am very wrong.
When I play a roguelike and I get very little joy from loot, I feel cheated. There are antipatterns used on purpose in the design of the game and I don't buy in that. I really love the guys that made it, I know they master many aspect of game design, and they actually told this was not something they'd expect to be a success, yet it was and the reason for that comes from two big things, 1. They have a cult status in the indie community, 2. The great things I listed in my list of similarities with Dont Starve.
I fail to see the problems in game design, and I've studied it myself. Feel free to enlighten me on these anti-patterns. The fact that you get very little joy from loot in The Binding of Isaac must be a problem on your end, I get very happy when I get good loot like quadshot, book of belial etc. I mean sure, some of the drops are quite mediocre, but then again, that's true for all roguelikes... like when you find a nice axe, equip it, and realize it has slightly worse damage than your previous weapon, and is cursed.
Personally, I find Don't Starve way weaker from a game-design point of view since the game doesn't really have much of a goal, it's more of a chore. "Find wood, click click, find wood, click click".
Safe to say, your reasons for why the game is popular is wrong. There's no way Northernlion would have over 560 Binding Of Isaac videos on his youtube if he only played it for the aesthetics and the developers.
Some other good indie games that haven't been mentioned here:
Nimbus, which is basically super monkey ball rotated 90 degrees. Aquaria, if you like the idea of metroidvania meets Ecco the Dolphin. Very polished game, and it has my personal favorite video game soundtrack of all time. Derek Yu did the art (you may have heard of him). Out There Somewhere, which isn't on steam yet (it's on greenlight or Desura). 2D platformer with a teleport gun, which should be all you need to know.
Unfortunately the latter two aren't on sale and don't seem terribly likely to be on sale any time soon. Nimbus is $2.50 right now though.
I'd also agree with the Hotline Miami and FTL recommendations. Hotline Miami is unfortunately coded like garbage but it is tremendously fun. FTL is great except for one super gimmicky bit at the end but it's fun getting there anyway.
I have quite a few other indie games I've enjoyed in my steam and desura libraries, possibly I should talk about those in my own blog sometime.
On July 17 2013 04:14 0x64 wrote: You got provoked because I freely gave a quite bold statement, which the important part was the if thedeadhaji like Binding of Isaac, he will totally love Don't Starve.
Both game are permadeath games. Both have twisted humor. Both have a dark esthetic. Both have an awesome original soundtrack.
Sure they are from different genre and might be that thedeadhaji hates minecraft from the bottom of his heart and I am very wrong.
When I play a roguelike and I get very little joy from loot, I feel cheated. There are antipatterns used on purpose in the design of the game and I don't buy in that. I really love the guys that made it, I know they master many aspect of game design, and they actually told this was not something they'd expect to be a success, yet it was and the reason for that comes from two big things, 1. They have a cult status in the indie community, 2. The great things I listed in my list of similarities with Dont Starve.
I fail to see the problems in game design, and I've studied it myself. Feel free to enlighten me on these anti-patterns. The fact that you get very little joy from loot in The Binding of Isaac must be a problem on your end, I get very happy when I get good loot like quadshot, book of belial etc. I mean sure, some of the drops are quite mediocre, but then again, that's true for all roguelikes... like when you find a nice axe, equip it, and realize it has slightly worse damage than your previous weapon, and is cursed.
Personally, I find Don't Starve way weaker from a game-design point of view since the game doesn't really have much of a goal, it's more of a chore. "Find wood, click click, find wood, click click".
Safe to say, your reasons for why the game is popular is wrong. There's no way Northernlion would have over 560 Binding Of Isaac videos on his YouTube if he only played it for the aesthetics and the developers.
Look, this discussion is going nowhere. Anti-patterns you can find in binding of Isaac or combination of pattern that may raise conflict in the design. Randomness is conflicting with game mastery. The random generation creates Illusionary Rewards. Imperfect information modulates predictable consequences. This will create a gain knowledge pattern but without the strategic consequences. It all result in the lack of meaningful choices. You have to play some leap of faith, build a knowledge of the distribution of positive/negative consequences for actions. Do you go through the teeth door? What influences your decision on that case? There are plenty more, but I don't have all the evening to go though this.
The issue I have when arguing with fanatics of a game genre is that in the end, I wont get any argumentation back. "Oh this guy made 500 video on YouTube, your argument is wrong", this all in the end make it sound like I don't like the game, when I actually love it. Some critical thinking is the first aspect of a good game designer, if you are unable to find flaws in the design, you are biased.
On July 17 2013 04:14 0x64 wrote: You got provoked because I freely gave a quite bold statement, which the important part was the if thedeadhaji like Binding of Isaac, he will totally love Don't Starve.
Both game are permadeath games. Both have twisted humor. Both have a dark esthetic. Both have an awesome original soundtrack.
Sure they are from different genre and might be that thedeadhaji hates minecraft from the bottom of his heart and I am very wrong.
When I play a roguelike and I get very little joy from loot, I feel cheated. There are antipatterns used on purpose in the design of the game and I don't buy in that. I really love the guys that made it, I know they master many aspect of game design, and they actually told this was not something they'd expect to be a success, yet it was and the reason for that comes from two big things, 1. They have a cult status in the indie community, 2. The great things I listed in my list of similarities with Dont Starve.
I fail to see the problems in game design, and I've studied it myself. Feel free to enlighten me on these anti-patterns. The fact that you get very little joy from loot in The Binding of Isaac must be a problem on your end, I get very happy when I get good loot like quadshot, book of belial etc. I mean sure, some of the drops are quite mediocre, but then again, that's true for all roguelikes... like when you find a nice axe, equip it, and realize it has slightly worse damage than your previous weapon, and is cursed.
Personally, I find Don't Starve way weaker from a game-design point of view since the game doesn't really have much of a goal, it's more of a chore. "Find wood, click click, find wood, click click".
Safe to say, your reasons for why the game is popular is wrong. There's no way Northernlion would have over 560 Binding Of Isaac videos on his YouTube if he only played it for the aesthetics and the developers.
Look, this discussion is going nowhere. Anti-patterns you can find in binding of Isaac or combination of pattern that may raise conflict in the design. Randomness is conflicting with game mastery. The random generation creates Illusionary Rewards. Imperfect information modulates predictable consequences. This will create a gain knowledge pattern but without the strategic consequences. It all result in the lack of meaningful choices. You have to play some leap of faith, build a knowledge of the distribution of positive/negative consequences for actions. Do you go through the teeth door? What influences your decision on that case? There are plenty more, but I don't have all the evening to go though this.
The issue I have when arguing with fanatics of a game genre is that in the end, I wont get any argumentation back. "Oh this guy made 500 video on YouTube, your argument is wrong", this all in the end make it sound like I don't like the game, when I actually love it. Some critical thinking is the first aspect of a good game designer, if you are unable to find flaws in the design, you are biased.
Northernlion having tons of videos of the game is a great argument. He aren't going to keep playing a game in that amount if your reason for liking it stems from the art direction and the name of the developer, and you're sure as hell not going to pull the number of viewers he has if that's the case. You wouldn't have www.boilr.com, competitive racing of the game, if people played it because of art direction and the status of the developers. All of this is based on deep gameplay, a game which is rewarding to play over and over and improve at.
Randomness does indeed conflict with game mastery, which is why Binding of Isaac is so different from the majority of Roguelikes, because the game has such a huge skill component. In a standard roguelike, there's a big chance that pure RNG will decide if you beat the game or not, Binding of Isaac lets you compensate with skill, so the randomness makes the game varied instead of becoming prohibitive. Randomness is part of all games to some degree (except chess obviously), the question is all about how much it prohibits the player.
I don't see how the random generation produces illusionary rewards, when you kill a boss you get a reward, when you get to an item room, you get a reward. Sure, how good the loot turns out to be is decided by randomness, but you always get a positive reward. The point of roguelikes isn't to reward you with loot anyway in the sense that many other games do, the reward of roguelikes is to get farther and unlock new parts of the game.
I agree that the amount of meaningful choice is limited and you have to go by knowledge of statistical outcomes, but there's no lack of it because it's known that certain choices affect the RNG.. for example, entering shops often raises the probability of Greed, entering devil room lowers the probability of angel rooms... getting devil room items is also a meaningful choice since it's a question of risk reward, do you pay with health to get better damage, etc.
I don't really care if you like the game or not, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing your perspective on the game design and why it's popular because your arguments are downright wrong. I wouldn't have even commented on it if you wrote from the get go that you personally find Don't Starve a more enjoyable indie game, but using your incorrect views on why the game is popular to justify your comment begs the argument.
On July 17 2013 04:14 0x64 wrote: You got provoked because I freely gave a quite bold statement, which the important part was the if thedeadhaji like Binding of Isaac, he will totally love Don't Starve.
Both game are permadeath games. Both have twisted humor. Both have a dark esthetic. Both have an awesome original soundtrack.
Sure they are from different genre and might be that thedeadhaji hates minecraft from the bottom of his heart and I am very wrong.
When I play a roguelike and I get very little joy from loot, I feel cheated. There are antipatterns used on purpose in the design of the game and I don't buy in that. I really love the guys that made it, I know they master many aspect of game design, and they actually told this was not something they'd expect to be a success, yet it was and the reason for that comes from two big things, 1. They have a cult status in the indie community, 2. The great things I listed in my list of similarities with Dont Starve.
I fail to see the problems in game design, and I've studied it myself. Feel free to enlighten me on these anti-patterns. The fact that you get very little joy from loot in The Binding of Isaac must be a problem on your end, I get very happy when I get good loot like quadshot, book of belial etc. I mean sure, some of the drops are quite mediocre, but then again, that's true for all roguelikes... like when you find a nice axe, equip it, and realize it has slightly worse damage than your previous weapon, and is cursed.
Personally, I find Don't Starve way weaker from a game-design point of view since the game doesn't really have much of a goal, it's more of a chore. "Find wood, click click, find wood, click click".
Safe to say, your reasons for why the game is popular is wrong. There's no way Northernlion would have over 560 Binding Of Isaac videos on his YouTube if he only played it for the aesthetics and the developers.
Look, this discussion is going nowhere. Anti-patterns you can find in binding of Isaac or combination of pattern that may raise conflict in the design. Randomness is conflicting with game mastery. The random generation creates Illusionary Rewards. Imperfect information modulates predictable consequences. This will create a gain knowledge pattern but without the strategic consequences. It all result in the lack of meaningful choices. You have to play some leap of faith, build a knowledge of the distribution of positive/negative consequences for actions. Do you go through the teeth door? What influences your decision on that case? There are plenty more, but I don't have all the evening to go though this.
The issue I have when arguing with fanatics of a game genre is that in the end, I wont get any argumentation back. "Oh this guy made 500 video on YouTube, your argument is wrong", this all in the end make it sound like I don't like the game, when I actually love it. Some critical thinking is the first aspect of a good game designer, if you are unable to find flaws in the design, you are biased.
Northernlion having tons of videos of the game is a great argument. He aren't going to keep playing a game in that amount if your reason for liking it stems from the art direction and the name of the developer, and you're sure as hell not going to pull the number of viewers he has if that's the case. You wouldn't have www.boilr.com, competitive racing of the game, if people played it because of art direction and the status of the developers. All of this is based on deep gameplay, a game which is rewarding to play over and over and improve at.
Randomness does indeed conflict with game mastery, which is why Binding of Isaac is so different from the majority of Roguelikes, because the game has such a huge skill component. In a standard roguelike, there's a big chance that pure RNG will decide if you beat the game or not, Binding of Isaac lets you compensate with skill, so the randomness makes the game varied instead of becoming prohibitive. Randomness is part of all games to some degree (except chess obviously), the question is all about how much it prohibits the player.
I don't see how the random generation produces illusionary rewards, when you kill a boss you get a reward, when you get to an item room, you get a reward. Sure, how good the loot turns out to be is decided by randomness, but you always get a positive reward. The point of roguelikes isn't to reward you with loot anyway in the sense that many other games do, the reward of roguelikes is to get farther and unlock new parts of the game.
I agree that the amount of meaningful choice is limited and you have to go by knowledge of statistical outcomes, but there's no lack of it because it's known that certain choices affect the RNG.. for example, entering shops often raises the probability of Greed, entering devil room lowers the probability of angel rooms... getting devil room items is also a meaningful choice since it's a question of risk reward, do you pay with health to get better damage, etc.
I don't really care if you like the game or not, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing your perspective on the game design and why it's popular because your arguments are downright wrong. I wouldn't have even commented on it if you wrote from the get go that you personally find Don't Starve a more enjoyable indie game, but using your incorrect views on why the game is popular to justify your comment begs the argument.
And yet, you are still short of a analyze on the flaws of Binding of Isaac.
there's a game that is still in beta. its called "Papers Please". its a very fun puzzle game. you can even download it for free. (its kinda limited now but its actually worth the try). i hope you guys buy it when it gets released (i am not affiliated with them in any way).
Just bought super hexagon myself, for 67p. Fuck yeah steam, great addictive puzzleactionarcaderhythm game? I've hit the wall on hexagoner, but I just out some coffee on, so this bitch is going down :D
EPT
