Structure breakdown.
Roadwarden. Play through the game once. Many plot threads overlap, separated by distance. Some events happen very late in the game, unavoidably. They all occupy the same space in my memory. I played Roadwarden once and quite enjoyed myself across multiple sessions. I could not play it again. I regard this as a negative, to some degree; I cannot say whether I would enjoy it upon replay. (Similar issue with Fallout 3, and Disco Elysium.)
Slay the Princess. I can open this game up and play it again and still enjoy it, even experiencing nothing new. This is an unambiguous positive, I love it. The structure is a highly branching narrative. There is another deeper aspect that comes out after multiple replays; I think it is 'inaccessible' to me in the way late-game Roadwarden is inaccessible to me. Mixed feelings but I have experienced it more than once as a result of enjoying the replaying of the core branching game so very much and wanting to see more branches. Love. Games with similar structure: Save the Date (Paperdino); interestingly, Cobalt Core and other roguelites; however I will make a separate point (below); I do not generally play many games of this sort... ah, Detroit: Become Human. I enjoyed exploring the branches of that game as well but I would not play it again. Slay the Princess is quite unique in this respect. It is well-crafted and inexpensive, portable. Powerful, high emotions. It would wear on me still if I were to review the same branch a few times. Roguelites do not afford me the ability to . . . I digress. See next point. Oh, The Stanley Parable fits here too! I loved that game.
BREAKOUT TOPIC: Roguelites - say: Spelunky, Cobalt Core, Noita, Into the Breach. Similar in structure to a branching story game-- however, as a player my ability to control which branch I end up on is significantly diminished. There are three factors to this diminishment;
1. The branches are less distinct. Rather than specific story branches, the 'branch' I end up on is in fact a collection of many different variables, such that control over 'which branch' as well as the difference between branches (these are related topics) are more complex and therefore I have, in practice, less agency. (There is an argument to be made that 'more variables' means I may have reduced agency but more 'power' in some sense as a result of being able to affect more things, however, I do not see it that way; this is the same argument made by proponents of AI, who suggest that democratizing creativity involves granting a person more 'power' rather than more specific personal expression. I could speak more on this at some point, I'll call it creative precision versus creative excellence.)
2. Switching branches requires replay to overcome randomness. Randomness is a defining feature of roguelites and roguelikes. Although I may always be able to choose certain branches or variables according to good play (see 3) or even from a menu (e.g. selecting a starting character, which I do so love), some branches/variables will always be subject to random results. In practice, randomness amounts to coming back for another pull at the slot machine, assuming that I have some particular desired result.
3. Switching branches requires me to perform a task well. I don't think I mind this. Actually, upon further inspection, this is no different a category than one finds in Slay the Princess or other branching narratives, it is only that in a branching narrative game the 'task' is usually 'knowing what leads to what' (a puzzle of sorts), while in a roguelite the 'task' generally involves more systemic gameplay; perhaps mastery over platformer combat, or manipulation of items, or understanding of problem-solving techniques.
Roadwarden. Play through the game once. Many plot threads overlap, separated by distance. Some events happen very late in the game, unavoidably. They all occupy the same space in my memory. I played Roadwarden once and quite enjoyed myself across multiple sessions. I could not play it again. I regard this as a negative, to some degree; I cannot say whether I would enjoy it upon replay. (Similar issue with Fallout 3, and Disco Elysium.)
Slay the Princess. I can open this game up and play it again and still enjoy it, even experiencing nothing new. This is an unambiguous positive, I love it. The structure is a highly branching narrative. There is another deeper aspect that comes out after multiple replays; I think it is 'inaccessible' to me in the way late-game Roadwarden is inaccessible to me. Mixed feelings but I have experienced it more than once as a result of enjoying the replaying of the core branching game so very much and wanting to see more branches. Love. Games with similar structure: Save the Date (Paperdino); interestingly, Cobalt Core and other roguelites; however I will make a separate point (below); I do not generally play many games of this sort... ah, Detroit: Become Human. I enjoyed exploring the branches of that game as well but I would not play it again. Slay the Princess is quite unique in this respect. It is well-crafted and inexpensive, portable. Powerful, high emotions. It would wear on me still if I were to review the same branch a few times. Roguelites do not afford me the ability to . . . I digress. See next point. Oh, The Stanley Parable fits here too! I loved that game.
BREAKOUT TOPIC: Roguelites - say: Spelunky, Cobalt Core, Noita, Into the Breach. Similar in structure to a branching story game-- however, as a player my ability to control which branch I end up on is significantly diminished. There are three factors to this diminishment;
1. The branches are less distinct. Rather than specific story branches, the 'branch' I end up on is in fact a collection of many different variables, such that control over 'which branch' as well as the difference between branches (these are related topics) are more complex and therefore I have, in practice, less agency. (There is an argument to be made that 'more variables' means I may have reduced agency but more 'power' in some sense as a result of being able to affect more things, however, I do not see it that way; this is the same argument made by proponents of AI, who suggest that democratizing creativity involves granting a person more 'power' rather than more specific personal expression. I could speak more on this at some point, I'll call it creative precision versus creative excellence.)
2. Switching branches requires replay to overcome randomness. Randomness is a defining feature of roguelites and roguelikes. Although I may always be able to choose certain branches or variables according to good play (see 3) or even from a menu (e.g. selecting a starting character, which I do so love), some branches/variables will always be subject to random results. In practice, randomness amounts to coming back for another pull at the slot machine, assuming that I have some particular desired result.
3. Switching branches requires me to perform a task well. I don't think I mind this. Actually, upon further inspection, this is no different a category than one finds in Slay the Princess or other branching narratives, it is only that in a branching narrative game the 'task' is usually 'knowing what leads to what' (a puzzle of sorts), while in a roguelite the 'task' generally involves more systemic gameplay; perhaps mastery over platformer combat, or manipulation of items, or understanding of problem-solving techniques.