Noita – roguelite where every pixel is simulated(noitagame.com)
noitagame.com
Noita – roguelite where every pixel is simulated
https://noitagame.com/
189 comments
If you're interested the dev had a cool GDC talk going over the design : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prXuyMCgbTc
Appreciate it! As a backend engineer (not game dev) but lacking in math and proper computer science backgrounds, what areas might i want to focus on learning to implement a simulation game similar to this?
The quickest path is to just start writing real time simulations of stuff and reference how other similar simulations went about implementation; terrains and erosion, cloth, fluid, etc.
It's easier if you have a bunch of random linear algebra and calculus knowledge lying around in your head, but trying to study that stuff isn't the most direct route.
It's easier if you have a bunch of random linear algebra and calculus knowledge lying around in your head, but trying to study that stuff isn't the most direct route.
I don’t have a good reference to share, but also read up on game tick loops and clock time. Processor speeds vary and thread scheduling is nondeterministic, so a stimulation code must be written carefully to produce a deterministic result.
I don't think that you even need to produce deterministic result in game
Same-machine determinism is probably not too bad, and would greatly aid debugging; cross-machine determinism is mainly really useful for lockstep multiplayer I think.
But yeah it wouldn't really matter in-game unless you're trying roll time backwards/forwards as a game mechanic.
Also of note, all games can be considered simulations, with varying complexity and rules (and players given a way to interact with the system) -- from that perspective, the only requirements to implementing a game simulation is whatever is required to implement any game.
But yeah it wouldn't really matter in-game unless you're trying roll time backwards/forwards as a game mechanic.
Also of note, all games can be considered simulations, with varying complexity and rules (and players given a way to interact with the system) -- from that perspective, the only requirements to implementing a game simulation is whatever is required to implement any game.
This is correct. If you want to create a multiplayer game, you can go about it by running the simulation on everyone's computer, and sending only the inputs to the simulation across machines (Lockstep networking). This requires the simulations to be deterministic which can be tricky to get right due to differences across architectures / compilers.
This is the approach used in a lot of RTS games. Starcraft 1 and 2 both work this way. I believe the original doom used this method as well.
You can get away with not having deterministic simulations via having the server run the simulation, and sending the data required for clients to render the state of the world that they can see. This requires a lot more bandwidth and complicates the network code quite a bit (or at least demands a certain architecture for the code). You still need to run some of the simulation on the client just for having acceptable visuals due to how long it takes for data to travel from server to client (level collision might also be simulated on client for example), but this client side simulation is just for visuals. Still though it's perhaps easier to get a reliable solution working like this due to how hard it is to get deterministic simulations.
The big downside to lockstep, beside it being hard to get deterministic simulations running across machines, is that it opens you up to certain types of hacks. Because the simulation is running on everyone's machine, this allows malicious players to hack the code to do things like let them see through walls or reveal the entire map.
Some games like (some) fighting games use an approach where they just let the simulation run on the client, predicting what they think the inputs will be, and if they get data from the server which doesn't agree with the predicted inputs, the game will revert to the last known good state, and just re-run the simulation with the correct inputs. This sounds insane but if for example a player is holding down W to move forward, it's more likely that W will continue to be held down rather than being released on any given frame.
This is the approach used in a lot of RTS games. Starcraft 1 and 2 both work this way. I believe the original doom used this method as well.
You can get away with not having deterministic simulations via having the server run the simulation, and sending the data required for clients to render the state of the world that they can see. This requires a lot more bandwidth and complicates the network code quite a bit (or at least demands a certain architecture for the code). You still need to run some of the simulation on the client just for having acceptable visuals due to how long it takes for data to travel from server to client (level collision might also be simulated on client for example), but this client side simulation is just for visuals. Still though it's perhaps easier to get a reliable solution working like this due to how hard it is to get deterministic simulations.
The big downside to lockstep, beside it being hard to get deterministic simulations running across machines, is that it opens you up to certain types of hacks. Because the simulation is running on everyone's machine, this allows malicious players to hack the code to do things like let them see through walls or reveal the entire map.
Some games like (some) fighting games use an approach where they just let the simulation run on the client, predicting what they think the inputs will be, and if they get data from the server which doesn't agree with the predicted inputs, the game will revert to the last known good state, and just re-run the simulation with the correct inputs. This sounds insane but if for example a player is holding down W to move forward, it's more likely that W will continue to be held down rather than being released on any given frame.
Regarding the fighting game approach, that would be an interesting application of machine learning. Given a player's previous performance in a fight, predict what they will do and use that as a better heuristic in the absence of additional input. The downside is that lag would be much less identifiable as such, because things that require volition (e.g. an attack) might be predicted and shown to an opponent even if they never happen.
I found the following book insightful, in understanding some of the concepts involved in simulating physics and "life-like" behaviors.
The Nature of Code: Simulating Natural Systems with Processing - Daniel Shiffman
You can read the entire book online here: https://natureofcode.com/book/
The Nature of Code: Simulating Natural Systems with Processing - Daniel Shiffman
You can read the entire book online here: https://natureofcode.com/book/
Cool looking book, thanks :)
Very interesting talk. My favorite takeaways:
1) The basic physics of sand, water and gases is quite simple. I was impressed by the fact, that he implemented most of it in Q-Basic way back. Thinking about this a bit more, Q-Basic looks like the perfect environment to play around with such pixel simulations, albeit a bit slow I guess.
2) The hard part is mixing rigidbody simulation and pixel simulation. Also updating the world using multiple threads.
3) Procedural world generation uses something called Herringbone Wang Tiles [1]. It reduces visible seams and the algorithm itself does not look too complicated.
[1] https://nothings.org/gamedev/herringbone/herringbone_tiles.h...
1) The basic physics of sand, water and gases is quite simple. I was impressed by the fact, that he implemented most of it in Q-Basic way back. Thinking about this a bit more, Q-Basic looks like the perfect environment to play around with such pixel simulations, albeit a bit slow I guess.
2) The hard part is mixing rigidbody simulation and pixel simulation. Also updating the world using multiple threads.
3) Procedural world generation uses something called Herringbone Wang Tiles [1]. It reduces visible seams and the algorithm itself does not look too complicated.
[1] https://nothings.org/gamedev/herringbone/herringbone_tiles.h...
This game seems really awesome, I've had a few looks at it at Steam so far. I am a bit curious what does it mean that each and every pixel is 'simulated'? They use the statement many times, but I'm really not sure what that statement implies.
There is a short description on another page that refers to the physics: "Pixel-based physics: Every pixel in the world is simulated. Burn, explode or melt anything. Swim in the blood of your foes!"
[deleted]
Scroll down and the answer is right there:
> Q: What does "every pixel is simulated" mean?
> A: Basically every pixel in Noita is made of some material. The different materials are simulated. E.g. Water will behave like a liquid, gasses will rise, sand will pile up, rigid bodies will rigid body... In addition to that we run simplified simulations of various chemical reactions, electricity, thermodynamics and so on.
> Q: What does "every pixel is simulated" mean?
> A: Basically every pixel in Noita is made of some material. The different materials are simulated. E.g. Water will behave like a liquid, gasses will rise, sand will pile up, rigid bodies will rigid body... In addition to that we run simplified simulations of various chemical reactions, electricity, thermodynamics and so on.
Maybe this is similar to
https://sandspiel.club/
https://sandspiel.club/
Each in-game particle ('pixel') has its own physics and interactions with other particles. There are other games which did this before Noita, but none of them have the same depth or gameplay. The other major "falling sand" games are just sandboxes.
One of the earliest games (a Java applet) was somehow made to work in HTML5: https://dan-ball.jp/en/javagame/dust2/
This is the most feature-rich falling sand sandbox game with built-in Lua scripting: https://powdertoy.co.uk (their website appears to be down)
One of the earliest games (a Java applet) was somehow made to work in HTML5: https://dan-ball.jp/en/javagame/dust2/
This is the most feature-rich falling sand sandbox game with built-in Lua scripting: https://powdertoy.co.uk (their website appears to be down)
There was actually a whole genre of action games in the Finnish indie game scene in the 90's, cave flying games (luolalentelypelit) that usually had similar physics from which Noita (Finnish for witch) clearly draws inspiration from.
Although most of the cave flying games were from the dos era, probably the most famous one, wings, had a "new" version [1] made that runs on windows and linux.
[1] http://www.wings2.net/
Although most of the cave flying games were from the dos era, probably the most famous one, wings, had a "new" version [1] made that runs on windows and linux.
[1] http://www.wings2.net/
And now akumusa is playing in my head, kiitti vaan.
Cortex Command also had per-pixel destructible terrain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortex_Command
Also, Liero/NiL might fit the bill, as the game involved extensive digging (more so than in eg. Worms): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liero
Also, Liero/NiL might fit the bill, as the game involved extensive digging (more so than in eg. Worms): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liero
If you want to have fun with the first one, add some sand, a vine, some fire, and then add a fan (bottom left).
I bought it on steam, played it a while, it is fun to play around with the system/environment, in the way powdergame is, but the actual game part is lacking.. I hope it is developed further it make it more of an acual fun game, rather than a tech demo(perhaps not the right term)
It does appear to be early access, so it looks like they plan on taking it further
There are mods to address some of the shortcomings of the game.
From the brief gameplay footage I saw, this seems a lot like Lemmings/Worms in that every pixel on the screen can be destroyed (but more advanced).
More like liero
That's what I had in mind as well! There's an online version now: https://www.webliero.com/
Official site with a few options including an open source version https://www.liero.be/
Official site with a few options including an open source version https://www.liero.be/
I was thinking about Clonk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clonk
It reminds me more of Cortex Command, as it also has physics simulation and similar goals, unlike Worms
Worms does have the full range of physics simulation, with ballistics, solid body physics, particle/fluid simulations (for stuff like the napalm weapons), gas simulation, wind, etc. It's just that it doesn't apply to the level environments.
I've definitely got my money's worth from this one, there are a lot of interesting emergent qualities in the game and the map has a lot of secrets scattered around it for you to discover. This game took up my evening for a few weeks when I first got it, so well worth the money in my book. I still come back to it from time to time as it's under pretty active development.
I really enjoyed testing the limits of the engine and using the wand system to craft interesting physics things.
I really enjoyed testing the limits of the engine and using the wand system to craft interesting physics things.
The secrets were my favorite part, it made it me feel like a kid again. There are parts of the game that you'll never see if you don't explore off the easy path. I kind of wish they told you ahead of time that those areas exist, though, even if they don't tell you how to get to them. I'm so accustomed to modern games having one path from start to finish, that I didn't bother exploring until I happened to read a comment talking about the secret areas. I probably doubled my amount of play time after I started exploring, and trying to access all the optional areas. Unfortunately, some areas seem to only be reachable if you are lucky enough to get certain wands, or the procedurally generated terrain is in a favorable layout.
What would be an example of such an area?
One I remember: Going off to the far right of the map of the first level, you'll hit a lava lake, followed by a deep pit. If you jump down the pit, it's a shortcut to the second level.
There's also a bunch of rewards for exploring to overworld (you start at a cave entrance and are generally expected to go underground immediately)
No, it is a shortcut to the third level, and generally I'd not recommend it as you need better wands to survive. It is more a way back up if you get good enough gear to get to the overworld.
Also I'd recommend going over the pit instead of down it.
Also I'd recommend going over the pit instead of down it.
I think these days shortcuts are often for experienced players who are happy with the difficulty ramp being a cliff.
e.g. in Bloodborne you can rush the Cleric Beast, spend the echoes to open the gate and go straight to Amelia. Something that using the standard progression route you'll do much, much, later. If you're good enough, this is great.
e.g. in Bloodborne you can rush the Cleric Beast, spend the echoes to open the gate and go straight to Amelia. Something that using the standard progression route you'll do much, much, later. If you're good enough, this is great.
most fun for me was testing the limits of the outer edges of the map.
If you go all the way to the East or West side of the map you will hit a wall. Drill into that wall far enough and the wall material changes to something that quickly damages you just for being in it, however, if you can drill through that material quick enough and don't die before you make it all the way through, you are rewarded with another complete world, randomly generated, with some slight variations on the original.
Hey, errantspark! Miss you man. :)
Windows-only.
But works on Linux too: https://www.protondb.com/app/881100
Unfortunately I have none of these platforms. I’m hopping it comes out on the switch
Works perfectly for me on Linux using Proton. I've played 36 hours and haven't experienced a single issue.
I played on Wine, but it was quite a bit more performant on Windows.
I was pretty disappointment by Noita
I had been looking forward to this game for years before it was released, but it ended up being quite a different game then I had intuited from the trailers. I expected an environmental sandbox where you would have to combine quick thinking with the manipulation of interacting environmental elements (water + electricity, or fire + coal) to survive, similar to my favorite roguelike Brogue. When the game came out, I realized it was designed more in the style of Binding of Isaac or Risk of Rain, emphasizing combining slotmachine-esque random weapon modifiers into hideously overpowered weapons that for the most part did not meaningfully interact with the environmental simulation in a meaningful way.
It is still an interesting experience, the weapon combination system is a strong source of emergent play, but that emergent weapon design does not meaningfully influence the player's strategy in how he/she approaches the game across runs.
I think there is a better game trapped inside of the pixel simulation of Noita, waiting to be unearthed.
I had been looking forward to this game for years before it was released, but it ended up being quite a different game then I had intuited from the trailers. I expected an environmental sandbox where you would have to combine quick thinking with the manipulation of interacting environmental elements (water + electricity, or fire + coal) to survive, similar to my favorite roguelike Brogue. When the game came out, I realized it was designed more in the style of Binding of Isaac or Risk of Rain, emphasizing combining slotmachine-esque random weapon modifiers into hideously overpowered weapons that for the most part did not meaningfully interact with the environmental simulation in a meaningful way.
It is still an interesting experience, the weapon combination system is a strong source of emergent play, but that emergent weapon design does not meaningfully influence the player's strategy in how he/she approaches the game across runs.
I think there is a better game trapped inside of the pixel simulation of Noita, waiting to be unearthed.
My biggest gripe is that the randomness of the weapons you find plays way too big of a role in your success. Instead of different weapons requiring different gameplay skills, you either get crazy good stuff (combo'd with perks that have synergies) and effortlessly destroy anything in your path, or end up so weak that even simple mobs give you trouble.
I think some of this could be solved, or at least mitigated, if there was "meta" progression, like in Dead Cells. That way, even bad runs could result in something worthwhile, rather than a total waste of time.
I think some of this could be solved, or at least mitigated, if there was "meta" progression, like in Dead Cells. That way, even bad runs could result in something worthwhile, rather than a total waste of time.
I think the randomness leading to overpowered rounds and weak rounds is sort of true for every rogue lite I've played.
I've played through a half dozen roguelikes to completion of the final (final) boss of whatever it offers. Off the top of my head, Dungeon Crawl, 20XX, Enter the Gungeon, Binding of Isaac, Risk of Rain 1/2, Signal Decay, Dead Cells. It's an indie friendly genre in that it enables lots of gameplay with limited content. But the design trope you've mentioned is waning on me. Most of these games have compounding benefits of good play early in the game to game state near the end, an hour later. Most of these games are easy to play for the first 80% and then quite challenging for the last 20% (BUT, it's still easy to mess up and so early penalties feel really bad). And so it's really frustrating playing them if the first half of your run just feels ok because you're inclined to think it's better to just restart.
Enter the Gungeon was the absolute worst offender. Rare health restores at every level meaning you need to play well even on easy early levels. Hugely important max hp boosts granted only for flawlessly completing each level boss. Items have no indicator for how useful they are unless you get a feel for them or look them up, then have a bunch of hidden synergies which are also unexplained; and even then you have no agency in getting other items to make your crappy loot more viable than permanent garbage. And lastly, a single rare item which doubles the length of a run but vastly increases your chances of long term success.
People love rare OP combos but they kind of suck.
I'd rate Risk of Rain 2, Dead Cells, and Dungeon crawl having the best implementations of this.
Enter the Gungeon was the absolute worst offender. Rare health restores at every level meaning you need to play well even on easy early levels. Hugely important max hp boosts granted only for flawlessly completing each level boss. Items have no indicator for how useful they are unless you get a feel for them or look them up, then have a bunch of hidden synergies which are also unexplained; and even then you have no agency in getting other items to make your crappy loot more viable than permanent garbage. And lastly, a single rare item which doubles the length of a run but vastly increases your chances of long term success.
People love rare OP combos but they kind of suck.
I'd rate Risk of Rain 2, Dead Cells, and Dungeon crawl having the best implementations of this.
Dead Cells is my favorite game of all time. I've been playing it pretty much every week since it launched. Of the games you've played, could you recommend any in particular that might be similar?
Nuclear Throne is by and far my favorite of the genre having played most of the ones listed above.
Hmm, well Dead Cells is a roguelike castlevania and fairly unique in that regard. Rogue Legacy 1 and 2 are probably a good match.
I'd put Risk of Rain down as the one of the best generic rogue action games to recommend. The first one is a 2D shooter. The second one is a 3D shooter and is especially good for online co-op. I would recommend starting with the second one.
I'd put Risk of Rain down as the one of the best generic rogue action games to recommend. The first one is a 2D shooter. The second one is a 3D shooter and is especially good for online co-op. I would recommend starting with the second one.
Oh no :( still haven’t played it but I had a lot of hopes since it seems like it was inspired by liero
I'm around 200hrs in.
I concur with pretty much everything you've said, however I wanted to add 2 things.
My mental model for playing has settled on "paying" for gold/wands with HP. As you progress though a level you will inevitably get hit by monsters and evironmental effects and there has never been a game as stingy as this one for letting you replace lost health.
The "hideously overpowered weapons" you mentioned are the best part of the game. Finding spell components and building a crazy wand give this this game a fantastic (and fantastical) power curve :)
I concur with pretty much everything you've said, however I wanted to add 2 things.
My mental model for playing has settled on "paying" for gold/wands with HP. As you progress though a level you will inevitably get hit by monsters and evironmental effects and there has never been a game as stingy as this one for letting you replace lost health.
The "hideously overpowered weapons" you mentioned are the best part of the game. Finding spell components and building a crazy wand give this this game a fantastic (and fantastical) power curve :)
Is there any progression in between rounds?
The enemies get harder the further down you go but there is no progression between runs, as a roguelike.
Same disappointment here. I've had some fun experiences - shooting out the side of a water tank to put out a fire below - but they are sadly few and far between.
Ignore the haters. I loved this game. Yes, it is very difficult, but every play is totally different, and the environmental effects are truly things you have to think through before just blasting through.
The game may be difficult, and in fact, too difficult, but I still enjoyed it. Finishing it seemed unimportant, as just making progress feels like an incredible accomplishment.
The game may be difficult, and in fact, too difficult, but I still enjoyed it. Finishing it seemed unimportant, as just making progress feels like an incredible accomplishment.
You could have simply given your opinion, but leading off with a dismissive "ignore the haters" (where haters are apparently people who didn't enjoy it) made your comment carry zero weight.
Well, didn’t you do the same thing with your last statement?
“Ignore the haters” to me isn’t dismissive as much as a way of conveying that something is rather polarizing so the reader should check it out themselves before forming an opinion. I do concede that others may have a different interpretation, though.
“Ignore the haters” to me isn’t dismissive as much as a way of conveying that something is rather polarizing so the reader should check it out themselves before forming an opinion. I do concede that others may have a different interpretation, though.
Their criticism wasn’t that it was difficult, but rather that the weapons don’t contribute much to the environmental simulation. I was also disappointed by how the game didn’t utilize its simulation very well.
If you’re going to reply to someone’s comment, at least reply to what they said.
If you’re going to reply to someone’s comment, at least reply to what they said.
I half agree on this. I agree the environmental manipulation and tactical side of the game is underdeveloped. I think a lot of that is similar monster designs. Despite a huge bestiary of cool monsters, when it comes to how you deal with those monsters it just boils down to flying/hopping, ranged/melee, and does it bleed something nasty. Not all of those 8 combinations need substantively different approaches, either.
While you absolutely can just slot machine until you get a rigged build (which seems to be a requirement for a mass appeal roguelite), it's possible to win more consistently with other play styles. Wand editing adds a lot more actual decision making compared to BoI or RoR, so you have to actually think about building a game-winning kit of items. The focus on building a kit from random components reminds me more of Shiren The Wanderer, Brogue, FTL, or my own roguelike Hero Trap. The game ends up being about how many different ways you know to build a broken wand, which is something I can respect.
The biggest problem with Noita to me is its emphasis on resource extraction. Good play involves grinding for 600+ gold in the game's first area, when a casual search for the bottom will get you under a hundred. Couple that with monsters that can usually be slowly killed without taking damage, but will deal large amounts of damage if your attention lapses, and you get a game where optimal play involves an awkward mix of long periods of focus with low interest.
While you absolutely can just slot machine until you get a rigged build (which seems to be a requirement for a mass appeal roguelite), it's possible to win more consistently with other play styles. Wand editing adds a lot more actual decision making compared to BoI or RoR, so you have to actually think about building a game-winning kit of items. The focus on building a kit from random components reminds me more of Shiren The Wanderer, Brogue, FTL, or my own roguelike Hero Trap. The game ends up being about how many different ways you know to build a broken wand, which is something I can respect.
The biggest problem with Noita to me is its emphasis on resource extraction. Good play involves grinding for 600+ gold in the game's first area, when a casual search for the bottom will get you under a hundred. Couple that with monsters that can usually be slowly killed without taking damage, but will deal large amounts of damage if your attention lapses, and you get a game where optimal play involves an awkward mix of long periods of focus with low interest.
Totally agree, optimal play is often just slow deliberate chip damage and tedious scouring for resources. It's a pretty common problem across roguelikes.
Yeah. Some games fix it by having small enough dungeons that scouring them all isn't such a big deal (Brogue comes to mind). Others use a hunger clock (I think Spelunky's ghost is actually the best hunger clock I've seen).
I think Noita would benefit from harder monsters, with much higher gold drops (or cheaper shops), and a tight hunger clock. Though that's somewhat at odds with the cool side dungeons (which are already at odds with the rest of the game).
I think Noita would benefit from harder monsters, with much higher gold drops (or cheaper shops), and a tight hunger clock. Though that's somewhat at odds with the cool side dungeons (which are already at odds with the rest of the game).
agree with need for more variation on combat mechanics but i absolutely hope the don’t add anything to rush me through this magical game.
I think something to rush the player is necessary for it to work well as a roguelite.
But I also think Noita has enough cool exploratory stuff in it doesn't necessarily have to be a roguelite. It'd also be a good game with some fast travel options and a system of respawn points.
But I also think Noita has enough cool exploratory stuff in it doesn't necessarily have to be a roguelite. It'd also be a good game with some fast travel options and a system of respawn points.
It's incredibly hard to design a game around an emergent physical system where that system not only allows the gameplay to remain fun, but actually contributes to the fun in a meaningful way. The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild did an astoundingly good job of this, but it's one of the only examples I can think of where it really worked at all. Banjo Kazooie Nuts and Bolts is the other, though most people probably haven't heard of that one.
> It's incredibly hard to design a game around an emergent physical system where that system not only allows the gameplay to remain fun, but but actually contributes to the fun in a meaningful way
Starsiege: Tribes
Starsiege: Tribes
This comment probably is referring to Tribes’ hill skiing “feature” that became a core gameplay mechanic in Tribe’s 2 - though I guess it’s fair to say this wasn’t originally by design, but a nice accident.
You mean like some kind of emergent physical system? ;)
For context: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zIAWzG-wOKY&t=4m11s (~1999, probably)
For context: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zIAWzG-wOKY&t=4m11s (~1999, probably)
That one mechanic emerged and became popular is not the same as a game whose core conceit depends on emergence occurring within each game.
I would argue they're extremely similar across successful emergent games.
The core feature of a playable, entertaining emergent game is a set of flexible gameplay rules, able to bend and tolerate the unexpected without breaking.
In the case of Tribes, there weren't any gameplay rules predicated on movement speed or height. Consequently, skiing only enriched gameplay. I would argue that EVE Online features the same style of emergent-tolerant rules.
In contrast would be something like Braid, where the available actions and rules, while seeming free, are in fact extremely rigid and intolerant of the unexpected.
Failed emergent games typically fail by innovating in their gameplay, but attempting to apply inflexible or overly-specific rules on top of that.
The core feature of a playable, entertaining emergent game is a set of flexible gameplay rules, able to bend and tolerate the unexpected without breaking.
In the case of Tribes, there weren't any gameplay rules predicated on movement speed or height. Consequently, skiing only enriched gameplay. I would argue that EVE Online features the same style of emergent-tolerant rules.
In contrast would be something like Braid, where the available actions and rules, while seeming free, are in fact extremely rigid and intolerant of the unexpected.
Failed emergent games typically fail by innovating in their gameplay, but attempting to apply inflexible or overly-specific rules on top of that.
Yep. I’m in your side. My comment was mostly to add context because it looked like folks were downvoting you because googling makes people mad.
Or because the comment was low effort.
I make low effort comments all the time (and I’m trying to improve). We need to work together. Ultimately I think we are all on the same side. An encouraging comment can help a low efforter see the light.
Pedantic nitpicking is a greater threat to HN than low effort comments.
Talking at, and not with each other is worse than both :)
My experience has been there's a small Venn sliver of people who are both diligent enough to continue an extended thread and sociopathic(?) enough to completely ignore what the other person is saying.
That said, HN probably beats the average on finding those folks too. ;)
Tbh, I expect most of the downvotes are from people who weren't gaming in the late 90s.
That said, HN probably beats the average on finding those folks too. ;)
Tbh, I expect most of the downvotes are from people who weren't gaming in the late 90s.
I think a huge element of it is that comment boards like this are hugely impersonal compared to forums back in the day. There's very little room for socialization, so we don't socialize on these platforms, we proselytize, and sometimes it looks like socializing :)
Nuts and Bolts is a tragically underrated game.
The physics simulation is on just the right side of fun/realism, insane contraptions work but the system is flexible enough that players jury rigged turrets.
Lots of games in a similar vein have followed, but I haven't found any to be as easy to play and as fun.
The physics simulation is on just the right side of fun/realism, insane contraptions work but the system is flexible enough that players jury rigged turrets.
Lots of games in a similar vein have followed, but I haven't found any to be as easy to play and as fun.
It still blows my mind the kinds of things I was able to make, and the kind of ingenuity that was sometimes (successfully!) required of me to solve the problems presented.
My favorite creation was the "wall-driving car". You could just make a car, and put a propeller on top pointed upward, and it would press you against whatever surface you were on so you could drive on walls or even the ceiling. That worked. And I'm almost certain the devs never imagined it.
I also made a working pod-racer by putting tiny propellers underneath a pair of jet engines (and under the seat), and connecting them to the seat using those flexible coupling-beams. And it drove like a pod-racer. It looked exactly like something out of the film, the way it moved. It was amazing.
Maybe I need to boot that game back up :)
My favorite creation was the "wall-driving car". You could just make a car, and put a propeller on top pointed upward, and it would press you against whatever surface you were on so you could drive on walls or even the ceiling. That worked. And I'm almost certain the devs never imagined it.
I also made a working pod-racer by putting tiny propellers underneath a pair of jet engines (and under the seat), and connecting them to the seat using those flexible coupling-beams. And it drove like a pod-racer. It looked exactly like something out of the film, the way it moved. It was amazing.
Maybe I need to boot that game back up :)
I still remember when Red Faction: Guerilla was hyped up as an amazing feat because it had destructible environment and they promised you could use physics and destruction to pass missions in unusual ways. Sadly, it turned out to be, as it usually is, severely limited by the technical side of things.
I would count Worms in that category. Endless fun in the 90's destroying the level and the other guys!
I'm disappointed that game called "roguelike" is absolutely nothing like "rogue"
Might as well say "Schindler's List" is an "Indylike" or a donut is a "Pizzalike"
Might as well say "Schindler's List" is an "Indylike" or a donut is a "Pizzalike"
Just to point out: it's called "roguelite", not "roguelike", which tries to be true to the fact that it's not actually "like" Rogue.
Roguelite and roguelikes have one major difference though, roguelites have some sort of progression like items or experience levels that cumulate on your several playthroughs giving you new features.
Good examples of Roguelites would be Wizards of Legend, Flinthook or Moonlighter. To my understand (having not played), Noita would fall under a roguelike as the game resets after your death and you don't carry anything over to the next playthrough except for your newly accumulated wisdom of how you died and how to avoid that :)
Good examples of Roguelites would be Wizards of Legend, Flinthook or Moonlighter. To my understand (having not played), Noita would fall under a roguelike as the game resets after your death and you don't carry anything over to the next playthrough except for your newly accumulated wisdom of how you died and how to avoid that :)
I think that's a reasonable distinction between the genres but the boundary can get a bit gray. Two examples:
Bones levels have been a staple of Roguelikes since Nethack, where you can find the area that one of your previous characters died. Usually this means a huge power boost if you can deal with the threat of your ghost and/or whatever killed you.
Angband is an ancient and classic Roguelike but it has a "monster memory" that accumulates the knowledge of the enemies you have fought, both in your current playthrough and all previous playthroughs. This represents a significant assistance as you progress through the game, both because the knowledge that "this beast has killed your ancestor" is a big caution sign, and also that you eventually "know" the stats of all the monsters.
Bones levels have been a staple of Roguelikes since Nethack, where you can find the area that one of your previous characters died. Usually this means a huge power boost if you can deal with the threat of your ghost and/or whatever killed you.
Angband is an ancient and classic Roguelike but it has a "monster memory" that accumulates the knowledge of the enemies you have fought, both in your current playthrough and all previous playthroughs. This represents a significant assistance as you progress through the game, both because the knowledge that "this beast has killed your ancestor" is a big caution sign, and also that you eventually "know" the stats of all the monsters.
It feels to me like 'roguelike' has recently come to mean something totally different than in used to. It used to be games like Nethack, Moria, Angband, and later AdoM, where you're an @ walking between walls of # fighting d and o. Now it seems they can be any game that involves dungeons and fighting.
You do carry over some things. As far as I know the orbs unlock spells you can't find in the wild before then. It's relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, admittedly.
it's not remotely rogue "lite" either. In the context of all other "lite" things a rogue"lite" would be a rougelike with less features, not a some completely unrelated game genre.
The "lite" is in terms of punishment. Death in a roguelike is usually "game over, better luck next time". Death in a roguelite still generally resets you to the beginning of the game, but there is a metagame progression between runs that means you aren't starting over from scratch.
What does it have to do with rogue though? Nethack is a roguelike. But also somehow is FTL which is a multi character top down space adventure.
I recently played a pretty decent game that was a card game in its essence. They called that one a roguelite due to essentially its bones files. But it’s a card game, not really an RPG even. Rogue is a very specific style of RPG. So what’s the definition of roguelike and roguelite?
I recently played a pretty decent game that was a card game in its essence. They called that one a roguelite due to essentially its bones files. But it’s a card game, not really an RPG even. Rogue is a very specific style of RPG. So what’s the definition of roguelike and roguelite?
The metagameplay -- rogue reset you, permanently, when you died. Similarly when you die in FTL you have to start all over.
It's both an incorrect term (because, as you mentioned, the overlap with rogue is limited) and absolutely the correct term (because people generally understand what it means, even if they've never heard of rogue).
I think it's important to remember that language evolves, it's more important to be understood than to be correct. Shouting into a hurricane isn't going to stop the storm, no matter how right you are.
It's both an incorrect term (because, as you mentioned, the overlap with rogue is limited) and absolutely the correct term (because people generally understand what it means, even if they've never heard of rogue).
I think it's important to remember that language evolves, it's more important to be understood than to be correct. Shouting into a hurricane isn't going to stop the storm, no matter how right you are.
Except its not understood whatsoever. When I read roguelike or roguelite I understand that it should be something similar to "rogue". Since I'm not actually a fan of rogue I will therefore look no further at the game since it was clearly labeled as being similar to "rogue"
What other "~lite" or "~like" in the entire language as a similar property of being nothing like the "~" part?
What other "~lite" or "~like" in the entire language as a similar property of being nothing like the "~" part?
You might not understand it, but the term is well understood in the gaming community. Just like Metroidvania, the genre description has evolved from previous games.
Another common genre is Souls-like, stemming from the mechanics of Dark Souls. It's a term for a game that has bonfire like mechanics, high difficulty, punishments on death, etc. There are many games that are souls likes that share none of the visual themes or moment to moment combat mechanics of Dark Souls.
And as several other people have commented, the games are similar to rogue, just at a higher level of abstraction than you are looking at them.
Another common genre is Souls-like, stemming from the mechanics of Dark Souls. It's a term for a game that has bonfire like mechanics, high difficulty, punishments on death, etc. There are many games that are souls likes that share none of the visual themes or moment to moment combat mechanics of Dark Souls.
And as several other people have commented, the games are similar to rogue, just at a higher level of abstraction than you are looking at them.
MetroidVanias though actually make sense. The game play is similar to Metroid or Castlevania. So taking that same direction a roguelike should be similar to rogue. I've seen zero MetroidVanias where the similarities to Metroid and Castlevania aren't 100% clear.
I think the following characteristics define "roguelike" games:
* Permadeath / "ironman mode", generally enforced by the game
* Procedural generation of game levels/encounters
* "Progression" elements, where the encounters get more difficult but the player is gaining resources to allow them to overcome those challenges (as opposed to simply gaining mechanical skill at the game)
These three elements combine to make a game where you lose early and often, but starting over gives you the opportunity to experience the game differently, due to the procedural nature as well as because you have the opportunity to invest your resources differently, hopefully making better decisions.
I don't think they need to be strictly RPGs, but the progression elements are key. Those elements are present in FTL, for example, if you consider that the ship itself is the main character.
* Permadeath / "ironman mode", generally enforced by the game
* Procedural generation of game levels/encounters
* "Progression" elements, where the encounters get more difficult but the player is gaining resources to allow them to overcome those challenges (as opposed to simply gaining mechanical skill at the game)
These three elements combine to make a game where you lose early and often, but starting over gives you the opportunity to experience the game differently, due to the procedural nature as well as because you have the opportunity to invest your resources differently, hopefully making better decisions.
I don't think they need to be strictly RPGs, but the progression elements are key. Those elements are present in FTL, for example, if you consider that the ship itself is the main character.
I would use that definition for "roguelite", precisely because because they are not top-down RPG.
The distinction I make is that roguelites are designed around metagame progression rather than / in addition to the in-game progression used by roguelikes.
For example, Rogue Legacy is almost entirely focused on metagame progression between runs, whereas your character barely develops at all mid-run. Classic rogue-lite.
For example, Rogue Legacy is almost entirely focused on metagame progression between runs, whereas your character barely develops at all mid-run. Classic rogue-lite.
The problem is that roguelike is a very old and established genre, and it is topdown RPG with permadeath. I don't see why meta progression is a feature worth of its own genre - you could easily add it to a roguelike like nethack without any change of genre.
There's the so-called Berlin Interpretation[0] which attempts to codify exactly what a roguelike is, basically, according to that definition, if it isn't a turn based gridlike hack and slash in randomly generated dungeons with permadeath, it isn't a roguelike. Of course, /r/roguelikedev will point out that the most popular roguelikes all deviate from that in one way or another, and people do seem to disagree[1] with the definition.
I personally don't think the distinction matters that much, except to pedants and purists.
[0]http://www.roguebasin.com/index.php?title=Berlin_Interpretat...
[1]http://www.gamesofgrey.com/blog/?p=403
I personally don't think the distinction matters that much, except to pedants and purists.
[0]http://www.roguebasin.com/index.php?title=Berlin_Interpretat...
[1]http://www.gamesofgrey.com/blog/?p=403
Careful calling it an RPG, because to fans of actual RPGs, roguelikes don't involve any actual roleplaying. It's just the hack & slash and level progression elements.
Just like there are people who care about the definition of 'roguelike', there are people who care about the definition of 'rpg'.
Just like there are people who care about the definition of 'roguelike', there are people who care about the definition of 'rpg'.
Rogue as a gametype is defined by having a randomized world with complexe rules, which will disappear after each gaming-session. Lite and like then say whether there is progress saved between the sessions, influencing way you tackle and maybe randomize the next session, or whether every run is as fresh and original as the run before and the only progress is in the player himself.
Whether the genre is RPG, action or economical simulation doesn't matter nowadays. The only relevance is whether there is a complex gameworld, to tell apart from the simple randomized game-boards which solitair or bejewled offer.
Whether the genre is RPG, action or economical simulation doesn't matter nowadays. The only relevance is whether there is a complex gameworld, to tell apart from the simple randomized game-boards which solitair or bejewled offer.
I can't wait for the computer generated content trend to end. I understand why it's attractive to indies, because they can focus on the engine - and a game emerges from the effort on its own. But hand generated content is always superior. Turns out Shakespeare writes better stories than even a million monkeys.
There was an era of gaming where it was reasonable to think your game could become a hobby for tens of thousands of players, with all the requisite fame that comes from creating it. Spelunky opened the door here, and a lot of high profile indies like Vlambeer and Spryfox led the surge.
What I think actually happened is that so many games started coming out, that there's more content than any one player can consume. The hand generated stuff floats to the top and a new class of indies now sits the throne. Anyone distracted by procedural gen lost their spot.
For another parallel where players choose hand generated content over procedural, look to the prevalence of multiplayer where humans generate challenge for each other on the fly - versus AI baddies that can be cheesed by easily shared internet guides.
There was an era of gaming where it was reasonable to think your game could become a hobby for tens of thousands of players, with all the requisite fame that comes from creating it. Spelunky opened the door here, and a lot of high profile indies like Vlambeer and Spryfox led the surge.
What I think actually happened is that so many games started coming out, that there's more content than any one player can consume. The hand generated stuff floats to the top and a new class of indies now sits the throne. Anyone distracted by procedural gen lost their spot.
For another parallel where players choose hand generated content over procedural, look to the prevalence of multiplayer where humans generate challenge for each other on the fly - versus AI baddies that can be cheesed by easily shared internet guides.
I wait for this trend to grow further. Procedural generation offers higher replayability, requires players to adapt their strategy every time, and shifts the focus from map design to core gameplay, which distinguishes games from books.
Procedural generation has nothing to do with multiplayer. There are games that have competitive multiplayer and procedural generation, e.g., Heroes of Might and Magic III: Horn of the Abyss. Interestingly, this game offers both human-created and procedurally-generated maps, but players compete nearly exclusively on procedurally-generated maps.
Procedural generation has nothing to do with multiplayer. There are games that have competitive multiplayer and procedural generation, e.g., Heroes of Might and Magic III: Horn of the Abyss. Interestingly, this game offers both human-created and procedurally-generated maps, but players compete nearly exclusively on procedurally-generated maps.
> But hand generated content is always superior
It's very much not a binary choice between procedural vs handcrafted. Procedural content creation is truly great at some stuff, while the same is true for handcrafted creations. The real trick is to blend handcrafted and procedurally generated in such a way that both tools get maximal utilization in the domain they excel in.
It's very much not a binary choice between procedural vs handcrafted. Procedural content creation is truly great at some stuff, while the same is true for handcrafted creations. The real trick is to blend handcrafted and procedurally generated in such a way that both tools get maximal utilization in the domain they excel in.
I fundamentally disagree - games are simulations, and games that limit the simulation in favor of a planned “story” lose a lot of interesting nature of games, especially as they try to get closer to the hardcoded mediums - film, lit, etc. Procedural generation naturally ties into that simulation — though a lot of procgen games misunderstand its purpose, using procgen to “make the game for them”, rather than to produce various environments to interact with the simulation (they end up focusing on the procgen rules as an end to itself, rather than the simulation rules which is actually of interest). Borderlands is probably the most obvious failure in this — they entirely misunderstood the appeal of procgen/sim reducing it almost entirely to loot-gambling for % modifiers, with little to no real impact on the gameplay itself, except by accident (eg the difference between 1-shot and 2-shotting enemies). No man’s sky is another recent game in the same boat — they essentially had no rules to the simulation, and bet almost entirely on sufficient amount of “content” to be generated in an almost purely aesthetic fashion. Spore was also a failure in many, many ways, but the lack of real “rules” to its systems is one of them. It is the simulation rules that one wants to explore, not the visual rendering of it.
That is, Dwarf Fortress is the one true video game.
Multiplayer games on the other hand are like a game dev cheat code — you really don’t need to do much at all to produce a “fun” multiplayer game, because the player-interaction will bring all of the complexity and emergence facilities you need. All you need for multiplayer to work really is to not stop players from doing interesting things with the system, apparently a herculean difficulty for most companies.
That is, Dwarf Fortress is the one true video game.
Multiplayer games on the other hand are like a game dev cheat code — you really don’t need to do much at all to produce a “fun” multiplayer game, because the player-interaction will bring all of the complexity and emergence facilities you need. All you need for multiplayer to work really is to not stop players from doing interesting things with the system, apparently a herculean difficulty for most companies.
I'm hard on story-driven games as well, I don't think games are very good at telling narratives because the narrator's desire to control what happens next is at odds with the player's freedom to choose what happens next.
The ideal game is somewhere in the middle where the designer focuses on mechanics which combine to produce more than their sum, and then anchor it in handcrafted content meant to show the best angle of the mechanical emergence.
One way to split the hair would be to say the mechanics are procedural (I would rather reach for the programming metaphor of composition, however) while the environments are hand crafted.
Nintendo is the king of this, but I also mentioned multiplayer games because they intentionally focus the designer on the mechanics and the levels while leaving the challenge generation to the players (and a whole conversation about how best to matchmake them.)
The ideal game is somewhere in the middle where the designer focuses on mechanics which combine to produce more than their sum, and then anchor it in handcrafted content meant to show the best angle of the mechanical emergence.
One way to split the hair would be to say the mechanics are procedural (I would rather reach for the programming metaphor of composition, however) while the environments are hand crafted.
Nintendo is the king of this, but I also mentioned multiplayer games because they intentionally focus the designer on the mechanics and the levels while leaving the challenge generation to the players (and a whole conversation about how best to matchmake them.)
The key point I had meant to make is that procgen allows wide exploration of the simulation space -- which ofc is only interesting if the simulation is itself interesting. There's nothing wrong with that, but it only works with a sufficiently enabled sim -- Dwarf Fortress is the target here.
In a more shallow simulation, procgen falls on its face, and mostly wastes time as it fails to note any interesting aspects of the sim (or repeats itself, or only points it out once every so often). Hardcoded levels wins out here: its more concise.
That is, as simulation complexity increases, the amount of procgen can be increased. The scaling between megaman (weak sim, all hardcoded) to roguelikes (decent sim, mixture of hardcoded/procgen) to DF (sim porn, procgen porn).
Of course, you can also have a complex sim with hardcoded levels, but this is unsatisfying as it leaves a lot on the table -- you don't play a grand strategy for the campaign mode.
Nintendo games are intentionally fairly weak sims (few general behaviors, usually explored throughout the full game), and thus hardcoded levels works well -- there's little of the simspace remaining to explore when you finish a title -- so procgen would just be a noisy, verbose explanation by comparison
In a more shallow simulation, procgen falls on its face, and mostly wastes time as it fails to note any interesting aspects of the sim (or repeats itself, or only points it out once every so often). Hardcoded levels wins out here: its more concise.
That is, as simulation complexity increases, the amount of procgen can be increased. The scaling between megaman (weak sim, all hardcoded) to roguelikes (decent sim, mixture of hardcoded/procgen) to DF (sim porn, procgen porn).
Of course, you can also have a complex sim with hardcoded levels, but this is unsatisfying as it leaves a lot on the table -- you don't play a grand strategy for the campaign mode.
Nintendo games are intentionally fairly weak sims (few general behaviors, usually explored throughout the full game), and thus hardcoded levels works well -- there's little of the simspace remaining to explore when you finish a title -- so procgen would just be a noisy, verbose explanation by comparison
I had a lot of fun modding this game. The files were in LUA (I think) and you could easily give your character whatever starting equipment you want. Oil wand + fire was a good time.
This editing extended my gameplay by weeks.
Can't remember how, but I went through and manually found all the variables for powerups using the default mods so I could have a mega wand on game start.
Can't remember how, but I went through and manually found all the variables for powerups using the default mods so I could have a mega wand on game start.
When the trailers to this came out, I was impressed, but remembered that I'd played a small game, maybe even a prototype, of similar tech about a decade beforehand called Bloody Zombies[1] by Petri Purho. Turns out, Nolla Games has Petri on the team, and they must've been as impressed by Bloody Zombies as I was at the time.
[1]https://www.kloonigames.com/blog/games/bloody
[1]https://www.kloonigames.com/blog/games/bloody
Yeah, he talks about the progression from Bloody Zombies to Noita in the GDC talk linked in the sibling comment.
It's a true indie studio btw with just three guys who all had some independent success with their previous solo efforts.
It's a true indie studio btw with just three guys who all had some independent success with their previous solo efforts.
You know I'm old cuz it still annoys me that (almost) all game nowadays come via Steam.
It's also available at several other stores
You're right. My rant was about the fact that I need to use a 3rd party store in order to have a game.
As opposed to buying directly from the developer?
or a publisher I suppose
I've been burned way too many times by developers selling direct, e.g. giving out download links that only work for very limited amounts of time, with no re-downloads after that period.
Yes, or an Internet store that would let me download the game instead of installing a piece of software on my computer.
I'm super spoiled:-)
I'm super spoiled:-)
You can purchase the game on https://www.gog.com/game/noita, and download a DRM free installer for Noita. Their own launcher (GOG Galaxy) is purely optional. All games purchased on GOG can be downloaded that way.
Thanks! I didn't know that! :)
There are actually many releases on HumbleStore and GOG without DRM protection.
I have written two effects that does "pixel simulation".
https://github.com/victorqribeiro/fireEffect
https://github.com/victorqribeiro/rippleEffect
Noita was yet another tech-demo/game-engine looking for a gameplay idea. The outcome is usually a good-enough but unremarkable game.
That may be true for you, but every game like this goes down with me as one of my favorite games ever.
Cortex Command is another perfect example of this kind of effect.
Any game that makes cool physics possible is a win for me.
Others interested in this topic should check out Teardown
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWfeWtv7Iww
Cortex Command is another perfect example of this kind of effect.
Any game that makes cool physics possible is a win for me.
Others interested in this topic should check out Teardown
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWfeWtv7Iww
This game is fun but more table flipping and swear inducing than almost anything I can think of, including Nethack.
I love the game, but mods are a hard requirement. The base game has some balancing issues that unquestionably needs ironing out. Like health regeneration (vampirism), health refresh and a playthrough without the ability to edit wands on the fly is a recipe for failure.
Which mods do you suggest?
I figured that editing wands outside of the Holy Mountain was what the game designer intended. I can agree that maybe the game designers conception of an acceptable difficultly level doesn't mesh with what many (including myself) think is acceptable difficulty.
I figured that editing wands outside of the Holy Mountain was what the game designer intended. I can agree that maybe the game designers conception of an acceptable difficultly level doesn't mesh with what many (including myself) think is acceptable difficulty.
"Vampirism+" to buff regen rate from drinking blood and "Hearts Heal You" to start with anyway.
If in the first section, for example, you get hit with a shotgun blast, taking the health damage is fine. But there should be an opportunity to heal and get back up to a safe level, even if it requires careful, patient searching and back tracing to do so. At the moment, a few early game missteps spells probable disaster for that entire playthrough way more than midgame mistakes. Difficulty should ramp up rather than down in my book
I also made myself a custom mod that enables a few extra quality of life tweaks such as editing wands everywhere, starting with vampirism enabled, poly-morph potion immunity (in mid to late game it's basically the most deadly thing and frustratingly uncounterable in events where if you're holding an electric charged item in my book) and an extra flask of water starting off to deal with early game toxicity and fire but I haven't figured how to get it up to the workshop yet.
If in the first section, for example, you get hit with a shotgun blast, taking the health damage is fine. But there should be an opportunity to heal and get back up to a safe level, even if it requires careful, patient searching and back tracing to do so. At the moment, a few early game missteps spells probable disaster for that entire playthrough way more than midgame mistakes. Difficulty should ramp up rather than down in my book
I also made myself a custom mod that enables a few extra quality of life tweaks such as editing wands everywhere, starting with vampirism enabled, poly-morph potion immunity (in mid to late game it's basically the most deadly thing and frustratingly uncounterable in events where if you're holding an electric charged item in my book) and an extra flask of water starting off to deal with early game toxicity and fire but I haven't figured how to get it up to the workshop yet.
I’m not a gamer. Can someone take the trouble to tl;dr me the significance of this?
It’s a wonderful video game to play a quick few minutes or hours!
It has mod support, excellent music, and is still an early-access labor of love by the developers with new things added often (I just discovered a ’Moon Stone’ for the first time which is a little moon with a gravitational field that you can throw and see how it affects the environment!)
Here is a stream of a recent version played last week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geRWwycLCO8
It has mod support, excellent music, and is still an early-access labor of love by the developers with new things added often (I just discovered a ’Moon Stone’ for the first time which is a little moon with a gravitational field that you can throw and see how it affects the environment!)
Here is a stream of a recent version played last week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geRWwycLCO8
Looks really neat, shame it’s windows only though, hopefully a macOS, Linux or PS release at some point?
Consoles seems likely after early access.
macOS and Linux represent less that 1% of lifetime revenue most games. They unfortunately aren’t worth the opportunity cost or support tickets.
macOS and Linux represent less that 1% of lifetime revenue most games. They unfortunately aren’t worth the opportunity cost or support tickets.
Maybe iPad? The premium game market seems viable on iPads.
Can you find any (recent) sources on that?
What makes you think that? Honestly Apple has done nothing in years to try and help any of their platforms to be a better place for game developers.
Premium iOS for mobile-first / mobile-only titles is deader than dead.
Some really good games do get ported. I think premium mobile is probably a distant 5th after PC / PS4 / Switch / Xbox for most games. But it’s probably a nice revenue bonus for multi-million unit sellers.
Some really good games do get ported. I think premium mobile is probably a distant 5th after PC / PS4 / Switch / Xbox for most games. But it’s probably a nice revenue bonus for multi-million unit sellers.
it would need lots of performance finetuning, the current game lags on big explosions on my i7 7700 CPU. Simulating lots of pixels at once is very CPU heavy.
Source? The only ones who seem to publicly release these numbers are Humble Bundle Inc. And in the sales that offer Linux games (mostly the indie bundles), Linux sales account for 5-25% of revenue.
https://cheesetalks.net/humble/
https://cheesetalks.net/humble/
True in general, but I think linux users are often over-represented in indie games.
The game works well in proton, I've played on Linux.
Weird, I quit playing it after a couple of minutes because it was getting really laggy at the entrance of the Coal Pits on an i7 gen 8 processor. Unplayable laggy.
I once hit an unplayable slowdown (on Windows, though), where the devs told me I somehow managed to break the physics (NaNs everywhere). May have been a similar issue, as otherwise minor slowdowns are usually accompanied by excessive things happening (and unless you have an auto-cast Nuke wand, they're infrequent).
The game is incredibly CPU sensitive. Ensure that nothing else is using your CPU.
The game plays pretty well with Lutris. I would also really love a Linux native release though.
Linux/Proton player chiming in, no problems here.
Honestly, I get really tired of seeing games that aren't like Rogue calling themselves Roguelikes in the effort to make money
That word was well defined long before the people who will soon inevitably whine at me were born
That word was well defined long before the people who will soon inevitably whine at me were born
Reminds me of the game Clonk, a german Indie game before there even was the term "Indie game". It also had a pixel based engine, explosions, liquid etc. You could dig tunnels, mine for ressources and have you (or your enemies) tunnels flodded by rain or oil (which in turn could be ignited).
Sadly the developers never had a real breaktrhrough and stopped working on new versions some time before the whole indie game craze (Minecraft, Terraria, Steam Greenlight, etc.) started.
If you want to have a look: http://clonk.de/?lng=en
Sadly the developers never had a real breaktrhrough and stopped working on new versions some time before the whole indie game craze (Minecraft, Terraria, Steam Greenlight, etc.) started.
If you want to have a look: http://clonk.de/?lng=en
Some further development happened on it in the project called OpenClonk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenClonk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenClonk
There is also LegacyClonk project which improves the original Clonk Rage. I myself don't enjoy OpenClonk at all even though I've spent probably over thousand hours with clonk starting from Clonk Planet
I spent hundreds of hours with this game back in the 90s. I even went to a local internet shop to download mods, vehicles, maps and other stuff to floppy disks. Good times.
Yees we had a "modding community" in our small village exchanging mods via floppy disc, the "clonk script" language was my first programming experience.
Playing this game in local coop was probably the best way to use your family pc.
Am still impressed by how well the voxel based physics are performing (water flowing, earthquakes, sand) compared to modern 2d games, which often can't handle stuff like that even on multicore systems.
Always felt a little sad for this legendary shareware dev to have missed the era of the early indie-games boom on steam.
Playing this game in local coop was probably the best way to use your family pc.
Am still impressed by how well the voxel based physics are performing (water flowing, earthquakes, sand) compared to modern 2d games, which often can't handle stuff like that even on multicore systems.
Always felt a little sad for this legendary shareware dev to have missed the era of the early indie-games boom on steam.
I didn’t have many friends who played this game. Sometimes, my brother would play with me, but he wasn’t into it like me.
Yeah the physics were pretty interesting, although a tiny speck of concrete was super annoying :)
Have a look at the indie game King Arthur’s Gold. Played this a few years ago for 500 hours or so. Online, faster, more interesting gameplay. But might be addictive for a former Clonk player.
Yeah the physics were pretty interesting, although a tiny speck of concrete was super annoying :)
Have a look at the indie game King Arthur’s Gold. Played this a few years ago for 500 hours or so. Online, faster, more interesting gameplay. But might be addictive for a former Clonk player.
I think minecraft got succesful because of youtibe videos explaining it.
I still dont quite understand how Minecraft is played.... Isn't it Lego in a Virtual Digital World?
And somehow there are hundred million people who love it.
And somehow there are hundred million people who love it.
You won't really get the appeal until you try it yourself. It's $20, easy target for a lazy Saturday afternoon.
There's RPG-ish & enchantment mechanics to build up better tools & armor, different biomes to get different resources from, NPC villages to trade/upgrade/protect, and various enemies with varying drops, including in bases/dungeons/strongholds.
The common game loops are "I want to build X, so I need to find area Y to defeat mob Z to get the resources", and "I need to mine resource X, so I need to get resource Y to build tool Z to be able to do so", as well as building resource farms and some rudimentary automation.
So there is enough structured activity to drive actual gameplay beyond just having a pile of virtual blocks to stack, but it contains an additional unrestricted sandbox mode as well.
The common game loops are "I want to build X, so I need to find area Y to defeat mob Z to get the resources", and "I need to mine resource X, so I need to get resource Y to build tool Z to be able to do so", as well as building resource farms and some rudimentary automation.
So there is enough structured activity to drive actual gameplay beyond just having a pile of virtual blocks to stack, but it contains an additional unrestricted sandbox mode as well.
For some people, the sandbox mode is where the fun is. They ditch entirely the survival part of the game and simply like to build things in creative mode. Some people build houses and voxel art, others create complex mechanisms up to functionnal logic gates and computers, and others just like to explore the fractal world.
I think if there was one game you could single out as the best computer game ever, it would be Minecraft. Out of the box, there are several ways to play it: creative mode where you cannot die and have all the resources you need to build whatever you can imagine, and survival where you need to mine and gather your resources before you can build anything and at night monsters come out to kill you. Then in survival you can just keep collecting resources and build whatever you can imagine, or you can try to finish the game by killing the Ender Dragon, which involves travelling to two different worlds and surviving some pretty tough challenges. Speedrunners can do it in 20 minutes, I cannot do it at all.
Then there is a whole community of online servers which can run a variety of plugins that completely change the game, from a wide variety of minigames that may not involve any mining or crafting at all, to a game where you're resource-starved on a floating island, to a game where the resources available are totally different.
I rarely play it, but I can totally see why my son, nephew and all their friends are addicted.
Then there is a whole community of online servers which can run a variety of plugins that completely change the game, from a wide variety of minigames that may not involve any mining or crafting at all, to a game where you're resource-starved on a floating island, to a game where the resources available are totally different.
I rarely play it, but I can totally see why my son, nephew and all their friends are addicted.
Oh wow, I have completely forgotten about Clonk until I read your comments. Thanks for the pleasant memories!
If you have fond memories of Clonk give this a quick try: http://webclonk.flgr.me/ (WASD + Mouse)
Sadly I never got around to implementing more of it though.
Sadly I never got around to implementing more of it though.
This is great, thank you for sharing. I really treasure this game.
> every pixel is simulated
That statement, on its own, is meaningless buzzzwords to me. What would it mean for it not to be true: where does one find _unsimulated_ pixels? Surely all pixels are digital simulations by their nature?
What is seems to mean is that the pixels are the output of some physics engine rather than being hand-drawn art.
That statement, on its own, is meaningless buzzzwords to me. What would it mean for it not to be true: where does one find _unsimulated_ pixels? Surely all pixels are digital simulations by their nature?
What is seems to mean is that the pixels are the output of some physics engine rather than being hand-drawn art.
I understood from the get-go what they meant.
> What is seems to mean is that the pixels are the output of some physics engine rather than being hand-drawn art.
... whereas I wouldn't understand your description if I didn't knew what you were trying to say already.
> What is seems to mean is that the pixels are the output of some physics engine rather than being hand-drawn art.
... whereas I wouldn't understand your description if I didn't knew what you were trying to say already.
Ok, so what to you differentiates, in general, a "real" pixel from a "simulated" pixel? It's not clear.
Is this a term of art that games industry insiders know?
I understand what weather forecasters mean when they talk about "hurricanes" vs. "simulated hurricanes" . So how does that apply to pixels?
I apologize if I came across as dismissive of the headline, but there is a genuine comprehension gap here. OK, you understand it just fine, but that reply doesn't help me close the gap.
Is this a term of art that games industry insiders know?
I understand what weather forecasters mean when they talk about "hurricanes" vs. "simulated hurricanes" . So how does that apply to pixels?
I apologize if I came across as dismissive of the headline, but there is a genuine comprehension gap here. OK, you understand it just fine, but that reply doesn't help me close the gap.
In regular 2D games most pixels are simply drawn, based on a sprite or texture. Think Super Mario, each block of ground is a sprite, each coin box is a sprite.
The sprites might be drawn based on more or less involved simulation, think the mushrooms that move and change direction when they hit an obstacle. But the pixels making up the mushroom is just drawn based on the mushrooms location, same as always.
In Noita you can think of each pixel on screen as being a 1x1 sprite. Each one simulated.
The sprites might be drawn based on more or less involved simulation, think the mushrooms that move and change direction when they hit an obstacle. But the pixels making up the mushroom is just drawn based on the mushrooms location, same as always.
In Noita you can think of each pixel on screen as being a 1x1 sprite. Each one simulated.
> In Noita you can think of each pixel on screen as being a 1x1 sprite. Each one simulated.
So we're talking about "every pixel is _individually_ simulated", as opposed to "pixels simulated in groups"?
So we're talking about "every pixel is _individually_ simulated", as opposed to "pixels simulated in groups"?
Well in say Super Mario, most of the sprites aren't simulated at all. They're sitting at fixed locations in the world. The viewpoint changes, but the sprites (tiles) stay where they are.
In this respect Noita is like Minecraft, in that each pixel (block) can change. However in Minecraft the state of each block in the world changes while its position is fixed. In Noita each 1x1 sprite (pixel) can move around on its own.
In this respect Noita is like Minecraft, in that each pixel (block) can change. However in Minecraft the state of each block in the world changes while its position is fixed. In Noita each 1x1 sprite (pixel) can move around on its own.
> in say Super Mario, most of the sprites aren't simulated at all
That's not a statement that I find a lot of meaning in. The sprites are not imitation sprites? The sprites are not fake? ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/simulated ) Do you use a different definition? What words would you use as synonyms of "simulated" here? "Animated" ? "Interactive" ? "run through the physics engine" ? it does seem to be a term of art here.
That's not a statement that I find a lot of meaning in. The sprites are not imitation sprites? The sprites are not fake? ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/simulated ) Do you use a different definition? What words would you use as synonyms of "simulated" here? "Animated" ? "Interactive" ? "run through the physics engine" ? it does seem to be a term of art here.
I think the key behind simulation is that it's dynamic. The way the coin box bounces up and down in Super Mario doesn't change in a dynamic way. Once triggered it goes through a predetermined motion.
This is unlike say the turtle shells which bounce around depending on what it hits. Its motion is dynamic and dictated by what the player did and the environment it's in.
The distinction between animation and simulation can be a bit fuzzy, but for me an animation is typically a predetermined motion while simulation is dynamic and reactive. However, especially in modern games, animation is blended with simulation to increase realism making this distinction less clear, see for example https://youtu.be/yTniZCOCY7o
So coming back to Noita, think of every 1x1 sprite in the game world as a Super Mario turtle. They can change state and motion in a dynamic and reactive way.
This is unlike say the turtle shells which bounce around depending on what it hits. Its motion is dynamic and dictated by what the player did and the environment it's in.
The distinction between animation and simulation can be a bit fuzzy, but for me an animation is typically a predetermined motion while simulation is dynamic and reactive. However, especially in modern games, animation is blended with simulation to increase realism making this distinction less clear, see for example https://youtu.be/yTniZCOCY7o
So coming back to Noita, think of every 1x1 sprite in the game world as a Super Mario turtle. They can change state and motion in a dynamic and reactive way.
I also think that it's a poor description of what's going on.
Judging by the videos, they means that the everything in the level has physics capability. In one preview clip, they show weapons destroying part of the ceiling, and then a large chunk comes down and lands on the ground. It's pretty obviously using physics to do it. There's also water and sand shown.
So I think what they really mean is that every single pixel can move, unlike most games where the background tiles are locked in place and the player can never affect them.
In 3D games, they usually say something like "Fully destructible environment".
Judging by the videos, they means that the everything in the level has physics capability. In one preview clip, they show weapons destroying part of the ceiling, and then a large chunk comes down and lands on the ground. It's pretty obviously using physics to do it. There's also water and sand shown.
So I think what they really mean is that every single pixel can move, unlike most games where the background tiles are locked in place and the player can never affect them.
In 3D games, they usually say something like "Fully destructible environment".
I am speculating now, because these terms are either vague, or specific to a domain that I don't know, but it seems like the "pixel simulation" doesn't just mean that there is "physics capability" / "fully destructible environment" that is then rendered as pixels,
but also that the pixel is the unit of the physics engine? i.e. the visible square is the input to and output of the simulation? Is that correct?
Really love the game, i did have to install a respawn mod to get anywhere however.
A side-scrolling game with accurate physics simulation where you fly around in a cave system fighting alien monsters, finding secrets and solving puzzles? Reminds me of Exile (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6rbjU8sCP0), a sadly overlooked Amiga classic which I enjoyed very much back in the day. Of course, Exile didn't have every pixel simulated (not doable at the time) and had more of a science fiction look, but I think I'll still try Noita out when I have some time... one big difference however is that while in Noita "death is permanent", in Exile death simply was not possible - each time your energy got low enough, you were simply teleported to a spot you had marked previously or, if you forgot to do that, back to your spaceship. Which did make things less frustrating, because the game was pretty tough...
This game is everything. I played about 90 minutes during 'lunch' (yay WFH), and it's so good. That soundtrack is so much better than it needs to be, the art looks insane. One slight thing is the combat is a little clunky (it feels like the same blind panic of Terraria), anyone else suffered? Maybe I just need to get in the game more.