So the Internet is on fire because Blizzard has finally announced Diablo III
Go check out the gameplay videos, it looks quite impressive. I’m looking forward to multiplayer.
No announcement of a new Diablo game goes without a look back at the games that Diablo descends from - Rogue and Nethack in particular. The discussions have already begun, is Diablo even a Roguelike? Is it just a click-fest with great eye candy? Is Nethack a better game because of the depth and strategy involved?
I’m not really interested in debating the point, it’s obvious that even though Nethack and Diablo have a common ancestory they have diverged enough to the point where they’re completely different games.
As I’m working on a new roguelike game myself - I thought I’d share how I think permadeath should work in roguelikes.
Make it optional!
It’s that simple really. A normal mode, and a hardcore mode.
In normal mode a single save anywhere is allowed and when you die you are automatically resurrected in the closest town with a xp loss penalty and all gold on hand is lost* No big deal, a small set back but you can still recover and death still has a penalty.
In hardcore mode, a single save is also allowed (to allow you to restore games still in progress) but when you die thats it, game over. No resurrection and no restoring the save.
Seperate highscore tables will be kept for each game mode.
Let the players choose how they want to play the game. That’s also why I’ll be implementing difficulty levels. Let the player choose the right challenge for them, you’ll end up with a better game in the end.
*A bank or vault will be avalible to store gear in all the major towns.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Mario Donick // Jun 30, 2008 at 5:37 am
Ah, Diablo III, yeah. Was somehow exciting, some of my colleagues at work speculated Friday what the game Blizzard would announce could be — and then it finally was Diablo III. I love D2 …
Anyway, Permadeath … My game, LambdaRogue, has hospitals which not only offer healing, but also “life insurances”, which is saving. The first time it costs only 25 Credits, but it gets more and more expensive after every safe. Additionally, finding hospitals is not easy, because they are just random tiles in a big dungeon. I discovered that I don’t continue a game saved in a hospital, because I tend to safe not very often. So, I have the option to safe, but use it rarely. Perhaps its only useful before a fight against a unique enemy or such.
2 admin // Jul 2, 2008 at 4:58 am
Thats a pretty good way of doing it. Caverns of Underkeep uses a somewhat similar idea, by purchasing ‘resurrection’ amulets. But for the new project I decided to go without creating a fiction around the save mechanic.
3 John H. // Jul 5, 2008 at 4:53 am
I disagree.
If you design a game like that, 95% of players will ignore the hardcore mode and only play “normally.” The traditionally-offered problem with this is that it makes the game “less exciting” not knowing that death is permanent for his character, but it’s really a deeper matter than that. If you allow players to reload the game upon death, then their play pattern will change from many little games to one long, endlessly-reloaded game. The result is that most players really only end up playing -once-, and the tremendous richness that roguelike games are capable of, throwing huge numbers of possible situations at the player in the form of unique intersections of possessions, level layouts, monsters and dungeon features, in short the reason to HAVE a randomly-generated game in the first place, lies fallow.
Also, it is often forgotten that many of the core mechanics of roguelike games depend on permadeath. Item identification by use, exploration and level generation each depend on not allowing the player to go back to old saves.
4 admin // Jul 5, 2008 at 4:03 pm
You bring up some good points John and I do think that 95% will probably play on normal mode.
I’m not allowing full saves in my version ‘normal mode’ - A save is only avalible when you quit the game (automatic) and go do something else.
If you die in normal mode its not all over as you will be resurrected with a penalty. (Can’t restore the save.) This is similar to many online RPGs, death is only temporary but its still a pain and you want to avoid it.
I personally never liked Item identification by use or any mechanics that punish the player by simply trying things.
I think that there are lots Diablo clones out there and there are lots of games that try to be like Nethack. I want to develop a game that is somewhere in the middle of these two camps.
5 Gerald H. // Jul 8, 2008 at 12:40 pm
In hardcore mode, a single save is also allowed (to allow you to restore games still in progress) but when you die thats it, game over. No resurrection and no restoring the save.
WHAT?! No resurrection when you die in hardcore mode? I played the game at the earliest stages, and it was a little frustrating to go all the way up to lvl 3 and die and have to start over again, but I was hooked and needed my fix. So I would start again, from the begining. Perhaps going back one level along with an XP penalty, or making a “checkpoint” every 3 levels or so would allow for a good hard mode. But to face harder enemies, get one save, and when you die, that’s it? No continue? Just start over from the begining? That’s harsh. That’s not just hard, that’s . . . hardcore. Wait.
Leave a Comment