Discussion: Roguelikes Are Better Than Most AAA Titles

Yes, you did in fact read that title correctly.  And I know what you're already thinking so let's get a few things out of the way now: Yes I do know I am basically comparing apples with oranges BUT there is a reason for it.  I'm going to be putting up some well loved franchises on the chopping block today but bear in mind, I do think that most of these are fantastic games despite what I'm going to say about them.  That being said, please keep an open mind and read through to the end.  Now off we go.

So I bet you're wondering what I meant by that title.  Or you've already interpreted it a specific way and are heatedly typing away at your keyboard to give me angry, hate spewing comments.  So allow me to clarify in both cases: roguelikes do some things far better than AAA titles and are a better genre of games to invest in.  I'm going to break this down into a few main points and discuss each of them in turn while using general roguelike examples or specific titles compared against AAA titles.  So let's dig in shall we?

The first point I'd like to bring up is that roguelikes are fresh every time you boot them up while AAA titles can easily get stale after the first playthrough.  Perfect example to start with; Bioshock Infinite.  Bioshock infinite is critically acclaimed.  Fans and reviewers alike love and adore this game to death.  But you know what they love it for?  The story,  which is great.  I love a game with a great story.  However once you've played that story, there's really not much left going for the game.  Once you've gone through the game the first time you're left with a very "meh" first person shooter.  Let's compare that against a roguelike which is different every time you boot it up.  Maps are random, item drops are random, enemy spawns are random, everything about these games are random.  Heck, in Rogue Legacy, one of the more recent roguelikes, even your character is random.  Every time you play these games it will be different.  There's always something new and wonderous to look forward to and that is something that many AAA games just do not have going for them.

This ties in nicely with my next point: roguelikes have a staggering amount of game time to them.  You pick up a new AAA title and you have, what, maybe 6-8 hours?  Maybe a bit more if you go for a second time through?  That's not a lot in the long run.  What about roguelikes?  Well let's take a look at my Binding of Isaac play time on steam: 36 hours.  And there is still TONS of content that I haven't even touched yet.  Wow.  See the difference here?  Because of the random nature of roguelikes, you get tons and tons and tons more mileage out of them than you would many AAA titles. I'm sure you could easily get into the hundreds of hours on these.  "But dude, what about games like Borderlands 2?  Or GTA V?  I have hundreds of hours logged on those!"  Yes I do know that there are AAA titles that you can get tons of hours out of.  But that brings me back to that point of roguelikes staying fresh.  Don't get me wrong, I love Borderlands 2.  But after awhile it just starts feeling like you're pointlessly shooting tons of dudes with the same guns. There is no variety to the experience.  It gets stale.  Roguelikes keep from going stale by actually having significantly different experiences through differing enemies, maps, and items to help you along the way.

The next point I have to bring up is that in addition to staying fresh longer, roguelikes provide a more challenging and satisfying experience overall than most AAA titles.  Now hold on, hear me out.  I do in fact know that AAA titles can be very challenging indeed.  Dark Souls is a good example, being extremely hard and requiring a great amount of skill to play.  But then again, is death in that game really all that bad?  You lose your collected souls, money for those of you who haven't played, but you can get them back without too much of a fuss.  And how about other games?  Checkpoints are liberally distributed throughout most AAA games nowadays, death is hardly more than a minor inconvenience, and many games practically hold your hand through the entire experience.  It's a bit pathetic really.  Roguelikes on the other hand are not nearly as forgiving.  When you die in a roguelike, that really is game over.  Back to start, no checkpoints no nothing.  You died, you're done.  Start over from scratch.  This may seem like a horrible thing to most gamers.  Why would you want to play a game that is so unforgiving?  But see that's the whole point.  Death is actually meaningful.  When you overcome the challenges it is WAY more satisfying.  The game was unforgiving but you were even better.  But even if you do die, it's not too horrible either.  Which brings me to my next point.

Roguelikes are built to be shorter yet more brutal experiences.  You could probably get through an entire game in 5-30 minutes or less.  But of course you'll probably play more than that, just because of the factor of "Just one more try, I know I'll get farther this time...".  How does that compare with AAA titles?  Well most AAA games you really need to sit down for a bit with it to really get engaged with the game.  The worst offenders are RPGs.  Final Fantasy, Mass Effect, Fallout 3 and New Vegas, Skyrim, all really require you as a player to set aside a good few hours to just sit down and play for awhile.  Now this is not an inherently bad thing, but let's face it we have lives too.  Sometimes we just don't have that much time to commit to a game.  On the flipside there's always time for a bite sized adventure or 3 with a roguelike.

My final point that I want to bring up is that roguelikes are more cost effective than AAA games.  For both the customer AND the developer.  Let's go back to those previous AAA examples, how much did you spend on those?  About $60?  And how much time did you get out of the majority of them?  6-8 hours?  Maybe more?  Maybe WAY more in the case of something like Mass Effect or Fallout or Skyrim.  And how much did the developers spend?  Millions of dollars you say?  Now go to the flipside.  Roguelikes will maybe run you up $5-$20 at most.  They can last for hundreds of hours.  And on top of that they're cheap enough that indie developers can make them.  INDIE DEVELOPERS GUYS.  It doesn't take much to make a decent roguelike.

So I bet you're all wondering now "Well man if roguelikes are so awesome like you say then why don't more developers make them?".  That is indeed the question of the hour: why don't more developers make them?  The only people who do it nowadays are indie devs.  Could you imagine what we could have if a developer were to make a roguelike with AAA levels of quality?  It would still be much cheaper than AAA titles nowadays and would have plenty of polish and shine on the current formula for roguelikes.  On top of that there's so much room for possibility in roguelikes.  Rogue Legacy is a 2D hack and slash platformer, Binding of Isaac is a top down pseudo twin stick shooter, Risk of Rain is a cooperative 2D exploration shooter, and Eldritch is a first person action game with an incredible variety of styles of combat and a wonderful mobility system.  Those were just 4 games and already we have a wide variety of different gameplay styles.  Imagine what else you could do with this formula.  The possibilities are staggering.  Thing is we as consumers need to direct the market.  We need to show what we want by what we buy and what we support.

Until next time, keep leaving comments and suggestions for more things for me to review and topics to discuss!  Thank you all for your continued support!

Gamer out.