I think you missed the part where I said don't argue about it, which is something I do.
However, you were tricky here and assumed a context (incidentally, upon me) to justify this game, so I will address it..
I was having fun, not intentionally trying to provoke you into a grim serious debate with "
tricky" comments... I guess I would describe it as trying to provoke people into having fun with FTL. I have no axe to grind other than a kind of enthusiastic evangalism taken from my own huge enjoyment of FTL.
I likewise hate prefab non-challenges of modern games. I am fine with ultimate death. When videogames started, everything was a roguelike. The difference is that better games incorporate at least one of two major elements, either what I call dynamic reactive challenge, or offer a far greater range of viable strategic options that will lead you to success.
This game lacks both. The overall pathway and strategy is decided for you, whether you realize it or not. If not, you will die. Likewise, the way you react to those "random events" is reactive, yet not dynamic. If you do not know and do precisely what you need to do, you will die. This is like the difference between a boss with a movement pattern and a boss with quality AI. The latter keeps you on your toes, creative, surviving on skill and adaptive intuition that can work in different ways.
You speak of a "
difference between a boss with a movement pattern and a boss with quality AI. The latter keeps you on your toes, creative, surviving on skill and adaptive intuition that can work in different ways." things which supposedly aren't also applicable to FTL as you are required to juggle your energy, weapons, weapons timing, and subsystems while controlling your crew members as they deal with intruders/fires/repairs/oxygen/health? Those sound precisely like dynamic RTS elements to me...
The "
overall pathway and strategy" is decided BY YOU, not for you, as you claim. There is no single "right" choice you are making, each has its pros and cons. I have survived battles after deciding to open my doors to suffocate intruders along with various members of my crew. I could have easily decided to do something different and still survived. You ignore the power of the choices that you make in a dice rolled randomly generated world in a game system with a distinct intentional lack of total freedom. You seem to think that having defined limits to game strategy in a tightly controlled system within the game makes it inferior in some way. It doesn't. It only ADDS to the freedom and importance of my choices within that system.
You claim to be fine with ultimate death while complaining about how it is applied within a genre that has ultimate death as a major game mechanic. You claim exact precision is required to avoid death, when I avoid death in literally every run because of the choices I have already made before those random encounters, or my adaptability when I do meet challenges. That I came to that knowledge over a period of time as I understood and grew to appreciate its complexities more, doesn't make it merely an effort of trial and error.
It is possible to have this design in turn-based strategy, although obviously you will see such dynamism far more often in RTS games. Similarly, the difference between a good and bad fighting game is made in the extent to which the gameplay system and movesets are conducive of this dynamic, creative, reactive freedom of options. I would also say the best platform and adventure games are those that encourage and reward freedom and personal expression in how one interacts with and searches out the environments.
So the dynamic reactive challenge is what makes an experience feel alive and like success is from your skill, and then a range of viable options you can successfully take gives that skill a context to make the entire thing feel both adventurous and personally expressive. I believe the combination of these two is the foundation of good gameplay in the tastes of many people, and both are to some extent automatically created in a multiplayer setting, which is one reason why many people like playing against others so much.
Beyond the obvious RTS elements in FTL, is this not comparing apples and oranges? You are giving me examples using genres and gameplay aspects that are not roguelike or roguelikes with a specific Battlestar Galactica/Red November boardgame Spelunky/Weird Worlds video game influence. How exactly do these expansive multiplayer/adventure/fighting game examples of what you apparently consider more legitimate or worthwhile "dynamism" come into play in a roguelike? Are there any examples of this that meets your standard of good worthwhile "
dynamic reactive challenge" gameplay? Why should I assume anything but that you just don't "get" the roguelike mechanics and genre and that your somewhat vague standard/theory of "
dynamic reactive challenge" in this case, which I don't believe is applicable to roguelikes to begin with, doesn't have much actual merit beyond promoting a style, mechanic, and genre of game that you personally appreciate more than roguelikes or FTL?
Because FTL so sorely lacks both, if the illusion is not effective on you, then it really comes off more as a puzzle game. The difference is that in a puzzle game once your mind has figured out the answers you solve it right there and move on. In FTL you have to continue on slogging through the same stale patterns of encounters and salvage. And that is after you are robbed of the joy of actual puzzle solving, since there are so many hidden details that pop up the keys to success are far more effectively found by trial and error rather than cognitive effort..
If you enjoy it, good for you. Also, if you find an experience of this nature fun, you should probably be a lab scientist. I have no intention with arguing with you about hypothetical objective merits of this game. I am only explaining my perspective on its gameplay design since you seemed to have no clue what I meant by my prior statements.
This seems to fly in the face of anything that I have experienced. You describe the gameplay as some restricted stale puzzle-like experience where one is only REACTING to preplanned events, how trial and error are supposedly a bigger key to success than cognitive effort, and how you desire a "
a far greater range of viable strategic options that will lead you to success." as one of the two elements of your "
dynamic reactive challenge" standard. This ignores how FTL absolutely demands hard non-reactive decisions and choices that define each run through the game, how FTL pointedly limits the wideness of strategy, providing not limitless freedom within the world against the challenges in the game, but the right kind of limited freedom which demands time and effort to go from basic levels of play to increasingly complex and demanding strategic and tactical decisions.
Again, you seem to desire a different style of game instead of a roguelike, which you don't seem to understand or appreciate as a genre. I view the roguelike mechanic of a neverending array of constant hard choices combined with randomness as having FAR more freedom within the system it is designed in than you give it credit for. Why is it that so many of those who love FTL find that the decisions they make within its environment are FAR more refreshing, interesting, and significant than in most other typical modern games today?
In the end, I hope people have as much fun with FTL that I have had. If you aren't having fun with it, then maybe it just isn't for you.
EDIT: Oh my. This post looks far bigger than I thought it was going to look. Sorry.