Post of the thread right here. I agree with this 100%
I'll also add that I really appreciate the fact that there are layers that are not immediately obvious but once it all begins to come together it really is pretty incredible what the game accomplishes: random level generation without poor design
It's why once you are good enough you can beat the entire game in 10 minutes. Getting that good though... I'm not sure how many hours it will take me to get to this skill level
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fooVdqf7ZZM
This game is the opposite of the bullshit platformers like super meat boy that force you down one linear path that you have to be of the utmost reflex precision to succeed. In Spelunky you have the freedom to carve your own path and be as slow and methodical as you wish.
Super Meat Boy isn't a bullshit platformer either though. Does it require a higher amount of dexterity than your average platformer? Sure, but Meat Boy gradually teaches you how to deal with future challenges you aren't aware of just yet and rarely (if at all) do its levels include anything akin to gimmicky trial-and-error surprises that serve as invisible "HA, YOU FELL FOR IT!" obstacles, like what you'd constantly see in I Wanna Be The Guy. Super Meat Boy never pulls the rug from under your feet like those games do.
Both it and Spelunky are both testaments of incredible design in their respective genre, and their near-perfect controls (despite simple premise) make them increasingly enjoyable the more time you put into honing your individual skill.
That's my experience with both games :lol
I like the randomness of RL more and how there's a lot more options, both good and bad, that could be waiting in each new room. It's sort of exciting in a way to see what is going to happen. With Spelunky it seems like everything is just currency or points. The upgrade tree in RL offers some versatility to the game as well.
Also re: Spelunky. I didn't mean to imply with my earlier oft-repeated statements that it makes it an awful game, it just isn't one I care for. Despite what a multitude of people have stated, I feel that the game was brutally unfair in it's dungeon creation during my hour-long tour. Maybe it gets better - I understand the meaning of "random" and sometimes that means that these things happen. I'll admit I died a large number of times from not knowing what I was doing or understanding the controls, too. Overall this just isn't my cup of tea.
Derrick, given your dislike of games like Tomb Raider and what is known thus far about the next Thief, I'm surprised you're preferring a game that follows the same style of design principles as the aforementioned titles (though not as blatantly) to a certain degree.
Rogue Legacy is a very... artificial game in its perception of difficulty and it ultimately felt quite shallow as a result to me. It heavily relies on XP / Gold grinding as you pointed out, much more so than Binding of Isaac for example (which for me was already pushing it), and its hardships are largely designed around the fact that you simply haven't spent enough time with their carrot-on-a-stick elements. Not because you aren't
good yet. Once you get past this hard-coded (and IMO misguided) hurdle, the area's and monsters that were previously cutting you no slack no longer are as daunting as they initially seemed. Granted, Rogue Legacy has a sense of personality with the unique traits and curveballs it throws at you after your previous hero died, but a lot of them are quirky one-offs that you'll quickly start ignoring in favor of a gameplay hook that actually affects your character's abilities. It's not a
bad game, but Rogue Legacy unabashedly utilizes some of the cheap tricks that are so common now in the big-budget type of games you aren't fond of.
Maybe the devs can get it right with the inevitable sequel, but overall I found it very unrefined conceptually.
Spelunky on the other hand is very methodical and deliberate in the way it presents its underlying mechanics. There is randomness, there are predicaments that
appear nigh-on impossible to overcome, it's constantly busting your chops, but seldomly is it due to the game taking things too far or by blindsiding you. Dying is natural for better or for worse like most rogue-likes, but it's not unfair nor does it lack options that you could've taken into consideration if you were more experienced with or more aware of them. Spelunky doesn't really tell you anything; it only alludes to x or y if you look for it in-game, but once you discover them it opens up the possibilities of how to solve a given problem. You nor jshackles know these things (which is only logical) and it'd be a shame if this was spoiled for either of you (especially how to unlock crucial stage secrets), but once it "clicks" you'll start noticing the flexibility / versatility that you feel is missing when compared to Rogue Legacy (albeit handled differently) through various gameplay nuances. It also matters that you manage your resources wisely and your time effectively; another skill-related component that isn't immediatedly obvious and can lead to initial frustration, truth to be told. And to top it off: Spelunky is indiscriminate its ways, meaning that whatever kills you can usually affect the enemy too.
I've spent approximately 100+ hours with Spelunky on-and-off ever since its release on PC, and to this day I still run into situations where the pressure consistently exists; be it due to time restriction the ghost embodies, me barely hanging on by the skin of my teeth due to personal recklessness or due to the level generation being particularly mean-spirited. It's often a tense experience for numerous reasons (even for veterans), but the satisfaction you get out of conquering the game on a well-planned run is why I still keep playing Spelunky and why Rogue Legacy only enjoyed a fraction of my time, comparatively speaking.
If in the end Spelunky still isn't your cup of tea (for either of you), then fair enough. However, give it a second chance if these type of games appeal to (both of) you in the first place.
