DS Daily: Like a rogue

by Alisha Karabinus { Jul 25th 2008 at 9:00AM }

Yesterday, we spent a little time talking about roguelike games, with the review of Izuna 2: The Unemployed Ninja Returns. This particular brand of dungeon crawl has been pretty popular on the DS of late, which means, of course, that we've got to ask you if you're into it. Do you enjoy the occasional roguelike experience, or do you find them frustrating? Perhaps uninteresting? Inquiring minds and all.

Tags: dungeon, roguelike

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

tamriel @ Jul 25th 2008 9:21AM

I tried the first Izuna and did not find it to my liking. Actually, I was hoping for an experience more like Diablo, and besides the random dungeon layouts, it is not quite that.

OtakuReborn @ Jul 25th 2008 9:44AM

I thoroughly enjoyed the first Izuna game. Waiting for the second to appear in my mailbox right now.

Truth be told, Izuna's a unique kind of Dungeon Crawler. Most of the elements of dungeon crawlers are intact, but the gameplay is closer to a turn-based game, so it'd be a Turn-Based Dungeon Crawler. It's certainly unique, and if you were a fan of the Pokemon Mystery Dungeon series, it plays a hell of a lot like that.

It's more than Diablo. Much of the strategy in Diablo lies in customizing skills you have. When you're actually doing battle, it's pretty much just "click-on-everything-that-moves" (or in the case of a Sorceress, _RIGHT_click on everything that moves. Izuna doesn't have any skill customization, so to speak, but instead, you have to think your moves carefully. You want to launch a physical attack? Are you ready to get beat from 3 more enemies afterwards before your next turn? Surrounded? Try to run away, or use some SP to blow enemies away? There's a lot more strategy during gameplay in Izuna than there is in Diablo, and that's the biggest difference I see between the two games.

Maybecca @ Jul 25th 2008 11:54AM

I like them. They're a bit different to "normal" games, and I prefer PC roguelikes to console/handheld ones, but I really do like them. Bought Shiren a while back, and it's pretty good.

Speaking of roguelikes, a glance at rec.games.roguelike.announce is suggesting to me that I should free up some time this weekend...

1p5v @ Jul 25th 2008 10:08AM

The only Rogue-like I really enjoy is Rogue.

stalepie @ Jul 25th 2008 10:21AM

I like the idea of rogues, but usually the game world / characters don't really interest me. I think it's because the dungeons are random. That means only so much characterization can take place.

Will try to get working Nethack on R4DS though. Last time I tried it just flashed some colors and then went to white.

stalepie @ Jul 25th 2008 10:32AM

I think if the dungeon layout is going to be random, then the music and graphics should be random too. Your character's sprite could be randomly assembled from various sprite-pieces and sprite-clothes at the start of the game. Graphics could be randomly downloaded using the DS WiFi. Music could be randomly downloaded, too! And the mood of the music would affect the layout of the dungeon and its difficulty, like Audiosurf! Britney Spears would affect the level design differently than Bach! The colors would then be affected as well, and if you're listening to Mexican music your character will be wearing a sombrero.

chibi_wings @ Jul 25th 2008 2:40PM

that actually sounds interesting, I would play a game like that =D

miruki @ Jul 25th 2008 2:41PM

That sounds kind of awesome to me.. :3

But generally I'm not very fond of the genre. Basically because I just suck at it and die like all the time.. *sigh*

Jason @ Jul 25th 2008 10:43AM

I played Izuna 1 recently, and its alright.
I much prefer nethack for pc. I tried the ds version of nethack, but it was impossible to read the text sadly.

Feba @ Jul 25th 2008 10:40AM

As with every genre, it's all in execution. I find most racing games boring, but I love Burnout; and though I wouldn't buy it myself, I have no problem sitting down to play Mario Kart when I can.

Mr Khan @ Jul 25th 2008 1:24PM

I agree with this. As a rule, fighting games bore me to tears, but Smash Bros, Power Stone, and Soul Calibur don't. Puzzle games usually frustrate me to no end, but i'm continuously in love with Wrecking Crew

Symytry @ Jul 25th 2008 10:51AM

Loved Shiren. The first Izuna was pretty good although short. The second has yet to arrive, but I'm sure I'll have a good enough time with that also.

Sega will hopefully announce Shiren 2 before not too long.

ninjasan8 @ Jul 25th 2008 10:55AM

I both like them, and find them frustrating. But that's what really draws me to it. It's the difficulty that I really like. I enjoy punishment :)

As for Izuna, I really liked the first game, but I'm really looking forward to getting Shiren. A little more manly for me...

nil @ Jul 25th 2008 11:01AM

I enjoy roguelikes and the Izuna games are especially good. Playing Shiren is an intense experience and I prefer that sort of experience at home, where it's quiet and I can become absorbed in the game. With Izuna there's no real penalty for dying in a dungeon and that makes the game more portable-friendly. I really enjoy feeling like I can easily take on ridiculous risks just for the hell of it. In Shiren, every step is carefully thought out.

Ng0zT @ Jul 28th 2008 3:14PM

sry guys but dungeon crawlers are just not appealing to me regardless of good they are...
i dont seem to know anyone who is an uber fan of the genre too.

by the way...pokemon games should not be goin towards puzzle/dungeon/other genres they should try something like megaman starforce or battle network but with attacks instead of chips/cards.

LordGek @ Jul 25th 2008 11:17AM

I'm ALL ABOUT the Roguelikes! Rogue and Nethack were among my all time favorite PC games. While there have been many console attempts at this genre, I think the Shiren and Torneko series of Mystery Dungeon games have the balance right. The original Izuna had me hooked but then left me kind of cold once I finally cleared it. I seriously think my BIGGEST gripe with the game was the lack of a high score board (plus the fact that the majority of the game was played with persistent character levels). When I saw they added one in Izuna 2 it was enough for me to give the series another chance (I just want to hurry up through the main story to get to the level resetting 99 floor dungeon at the end).

In games like Shiren or Torneko my favorite dungeons are the big 99 floor level resetting dungeons in which you can't bring in any equipment. While very luck dependent, they just feel like the ultimate game of solitaire where you have to make the best out of EVERYTHING you find. While the "Uber Gear Dungeons" (you don't have a chance unless you bring along all of your most buffed equipment) are entertaining, I found all of the needed preparation to make a viable run tedious. Added to that, there is nothing more "Inductive to DS Tossing" than preparing 8 hours for a run to then lose everything after one wrong move 15 minutes into your run.

Kimiko @ Jul 25th 2008 11:21AM

I'm rather enjoying Izuna 1 at the moment. I've already ordered Izuna 2, but I'm worried the childish jokes will eclipse the rest of the fun for me.

It's my first roguelike. From what I've heard, Shiren &co. are much harder because you don't keep your experience/level when dying. That seems like it means you'll be playing the first few levels over and over and over. Not exactly fun I think. At least with Izuna you can make some progress even when dying all the time.

Danny F. @ Jul 25th 2008 11:50AM

I was thinking of possibly getting Shiren later today, but the whole die and start again at lvl1 is a big turn off. This can easily break a game and turn off hundred of potential buyers.

I think if they revamped that whole idea into something waaay less punishing they would have a much better game going on. From what everyone tells me, despite its nice gameplay (minus the death) and alright graphics it would be a dissappointment for someone like me whos use to old school RPG formula :-\

Vayne Solidous @ Jul 25th 2008 11:56AM

I have tried to get into Rouge-like games, but the random elements have always bothered me. Maybe I just suck, and didn't give them a chance, but I have been trying to like them since chocobo's dungeon on ps1. I really can't see why they are so popular. Well, to each their own.

Patrick @ Jul 25th 2008 12:01PM

I tried a roguelike game on the PC. I enjoyed it pretty well, and it's still on my system, but I'm afraid to get back to it now because I got a character up to a higher level than I'd achieved before, then saved -- and I dread loading up the game only to see that character get killed.

My wife tried the game and thought it was great (in spite of the ASCII controls and lack of graphics), but she couldn't stand "permadeath" either. She says it'd be more fun for her if the character could periodically go home and heal, then transport to where he left off in his adventure. (I guess that can happen in some roguelike games).

Overall, I do greatly prefer the single-player gaming experience. I don't do multiplayer. So, roguelike games are well within my area of interest.

Deja @ Jul 25th 2008 1:00PM

I've always been a huge fan of Nethack. Even though I've never been fanatical about it and never Ascended in all the years I've been playing it, I've had it on every computer I've owned. Nethack keeps you coming back because of its simplicity, humour and depth. What happens if you use this potion on that statue? How far can you get playing a Tourist? Will the ghost of your L20 samurai be waiting for you on the fourteenth floor? Can a vegetarian really survive the game? It has the just-one-more-try factor AND the what-if-i-did-this-instead factor - and every game is different, of course.

I bought Izuna and had some fun with it, but I didn't really get that same feeling. The depth didn't seem to be there. No character classes, for one thing, and all the weapons seemed to be minor variations on a single theme. The sticker system was interesting, but in the end I spent more time working on my weapons than dungeon crawling. Also, while it was certainly humourous, it was fanboy humour instead of Nethack's geek humour. I found Nethack to be a much more "grownup" game.

I keep hearing how good Shiren is, so maybe I'll give that a shot. I'm not sad that I bought Izuna 1, but it didn't really make me want to buy the sequel.

Puddles @ Jul 25th 2008 12:55PM

Izuna was my first roguelike, and I really enjoyed it. I just got Izuna 2, and plan to try some more roguelikes when I get the chance.

aparrish @ Jul 25th 2008 1:09PM

Man, I don't get these complaints about having to start over from level 1 when you die. No one's ever like, "I hate Tetris because you have to start the game over from the beginning when you die!" It's not like you start a game of Monopoly with all the hotels you had in your last game.

After you win (or lose) a game of chess, you have to return to your opponent all of the pieces that you captured from them during the game. When you start a new game, all the pieces go back to where they started! Man, chess is an awful game.

Kimiko @ Jul 25th 2008 1:25PM

That's because Tetris and chess and Monopoly are fun to play at all points in the game. Okay, a roguelike doesn't change that much from earlier in the game to later, but playing only the early parts over and over without getting to the later parts would get boring after a while.

But maybe you're right and we just need to look at roguelikes like we do chess or Tetris. An enjoyable pastime once in a while, but not something to play longer than a half hour at a time.

nixy @ Jul 25th 2008 2:20PM

The way you talk about the genre is a little vague. Tetris is a nice comparison, and I like chess too, but I think Monopoly makes a closer one. Most people either like Monopoly or don't. They'll either play it or they won't. Roguelikes are really the same way. In the beginning, I wouldn't have it. Trying to play ASCII Nethack was way too much for me. Little text nothings everywhere, oh hey, I found a backslash, neato! You make it sound like the playstyle of the roguelike is made for short bursts of play, and it really isn't. Izuna is, but Shiren isn't. Diablo is, but Nethack isn't.

And the idea that playing through a roguelike is mostly the same thing is the most ignorant thing I've read lately. The whole idea behind making you start over completely every time and randomly generating every tile, enemy, and item is so that the game is *never the same*. And it never is. Have you ever been rescuing someone in Shiren, and you step into the monster house with your friend in it, and he's right next to the door, but you can see items all over the floor, so you decide you're going to fight every monster in the room using only what you have on you and loot the hell out of the place before you go rouse your unconscious friend? And then you proceed to block off the passage from one side by hitting a spike bomb until it becomes immobile so you can just take out the enemies that come around to fight you, and eventually work your way around? That's the kind of risky play-by-the-seat-of-your-pants moment that the game is made for.

FSK405K @ Jul 26th 2008 4:16AM

Chess IS a terrible game. Just as Greg Kasavin, who years ago reviewed it for Gamespot:

http://www.gamespot.com/strategy/chess/review.html

------
CHESS
By Greg Kasavin

The latest offering in the rapidly overflowing strategy genre is hard evidence that strategy games need a real overhaul, and fast. Chess, a small-scale tactical turn-based strategy game, attempts to adopt the age-old "easy to learn, difficult to master" parameter made popular by Tetris. But the game's cumbersome play mechanics and superficial depth and detail all add up to a game that won't keep you busy for long.

Chess casts you as king of a small country at war with a rival country of equivalent military power. There is little background story to speak of, and by and large the units in the game are utterly lacking any character whatsoever. The faceless, nondescript units are dubbed arbitrarily such labels as "Knight" and "Bishop" while their appearance reveals nothing to suggest these roles. To make matters worse, the units on both playable sides are entirely identical aside from a simple color palette swap. The setting of the conflict is equally uninspiring and consists merely of a two-color grid so as to represent the two warring factions. Adding insult to injury, there is only one available map- and it's pathetically small, an 8x8 matrix (Red Alert maps are up to 128x128 in size). The lack of more expansive battlefields makes Chess feel like little more than an over-glorified Minesweeper.

In a definite nod to Tetris, Chess eschews any kind of personality and styling in order to emphasize its supposedly addictive gameplay. Unfortunately, that gameplay is severely lacking. For one thing, there are only six units in the game. Of those six, two are practically worthless while one is an overpowered "god" unit, the Queen. She's your typical Lara Croft-esque 1990s "me, too" attempt to attract the fabled gaming girl audience from out of the woodwork to help solidify a customer base for a game that simply cannot sell itself on its own merits. The Queen can attack in any direction and she is balanced solely by the fact that both sides are equally equipped with only one. Otherwise, the functions of the six Chess units feel entirely arbitrary. For instance, Rooks can only move in horizontal lines, unable to attack enemies at diagonal angles; yet Bishops can move diagonally, but not horizontally. The result is a frustratingly unrealistic effort at creating balance and strategy where there is, in fact, very little of either element to be found.

Inexplicable pathing problems also plague Chess - the irritating Pawns can only move straight ahead, but for some reason or other they attack diagonally. Worst of all, your units are always deployed in exactly the same fashion. While there might have been some strategic element involved in cleverly deploying one's troops around the undeniably constricted map, the designers saw fit to enforce a "rule" about how the game should be set up. In the end, Chess matches may often go on for a great length of time because your Pawns always begin in front of your more useful forces, thereby blocking them off.

Only two players can compete simultaneously, thus severely limiting any play life to be found. There is only one gameplay mode- no capture the flag or team play - and that involves the two playerstaking turns moving their units one by one. The moment a player's King is threatened, that player is placed in a state of "check." At this point, the player must defend his King with whatever means are available. If he cannot defend his King, he is defeated. Yawn. All units are killed by a single hit, so even a lowly Pawn can be instrumental in defeating an opponent if you plan accordingly. While the artificial balance of forcing equivalent deployment for both sides turns Chess into something of a battle of wits, the turn-based play is poorly paced and never really picks up speed until halfway through a game, if then. And half the time, because of the limited troops available (and no resources with which to purchase more), matches end in disappointing stalemates.

This game attempts to accredit itself by virtue of its tactical play mechanics. Yet those mechanics are tedious and difficult to grasp and exacerbate Chess's other numerous failings. In fact, should you actually memorize all the infuriating little rules governing how the game is played, you'll find yourself growing weary of it all in short order. There's just no payoff to a properly executed game, because the restrictions on the units mean there's a "right" way to play. Thus no real variety can exist between competent players. The sluggish turn-based nature of Chess bogs the package still further and renders this strategy game an irreverent exercise in wasted time for all but the most die-hard turn-based strategy enthusiasts.

It's more than likely that Chess, due to its self-conscious though not entirely elegant simplicity, will garner a small handful of fans. But in light of this game's boundless oversights and limitations, there is no chance it could ever enjoy the sort of success that makes games like Westwood's C&C: Red Alert and Blizzard's Warcraft II the classics they are to this day.
------

neaux @ Jul 25th 2008 1:25PM

Shiren was brutal but an extremely fun game (believe it or not). Looking forward to the sequel.

nixy @ Jul 25th 2008 1:46PM

Izuna is good times. I like how it plays as sort of a Shiren-lite. I also REALLY like how they balanced the tag mechanic in Izuna 2 by forcing you to level multiple characters. Functionally, Izuna and Shiren play completely differently, though. They're like checkers and chess.

Homebrew is where it's at, though. The DS versions of Nethack and Crawl are a little wonky. Crawl is the one I'd rather be playing, but it's the hardest to get to work, but Nethack is pretty easy to set up. There's just this feeling of helplessness that comes with starting another roguelike. I also personally recommend POWDER for anyone who is willing to play it. It's amazing and wonderful and I've ascended only twice.

Also, DoomRL represent.

thesimplicity @ Jul 25th 2008 2:42PM

I will *kill* for Shiren 2 DS / Shiren 3 in english.

You hear me Sega? I'm serious. Give me an 8 x 10 in a manila envelope and the job is as good as done.

aj @ Jul 25th 2008 4:05PM

I used to hate the idea of the roguelike, and in fact, my first experience with the genre was Time Stalkers for the Dreamcast. I thought the "random dungeon" thing and having to constantly start at level 1 was really stupid, but to be fair, that was a pretty awful game.

I'm rather enjoying what I see of Izuna and Shiren, and after beating "Children of Mana", I can't get enough of dungeon crawling. I'm probably going to start getting addicted as soon as Izuna 2 comes in (it still hasn't, stupid living in Canada, 5,000 km from the rest of civilization....)

Kimiko @ Jul 25th 2008 4:52PM

CoM got you into dungeon crawling? Wow. It almost got me out of it, because it was so much the same over and over. By the time I finished the game I didn't want to see it anymore for a good long time.
It's also really not a good introduction to the great Mana series.

aj @ Jul 25th 2008 7:30PM

Oh, I know it's not that good, but I would play it for about 20 minutes at a time, and it was really addictive despite how samey and dull it was.

But if you do it every day in 20 minute bursts, it's awesome.

Kai Wong @ Jul 25th 2008 4:46PM

Okay, here's a basic explanation of all of the DS rogues.

Izuna is a level-based rogue-like. You lose all your items & money (except the ones you put a Kikan talisman on), but keep your level. This is a novel approach, but it's rogue-lite-lite: after a a while, there's no need for you to play any of the older dungeons except for kicks.

Shiren, along with most console rogue-likes, is a gear-based rogue-like. You lose everything and return to level 1 when you die, but there are exceptions (using a storehouse jar, and more importantly RESCUES. You can go online (or input a password for people who can't go online with their DS), and someone can come rescue you with ALL of your equipment intact. This can only be done 3 times per dungeon). Shiren forces people to interact with one another to survive, and that's why even though it's sort of rogue-lite, it's probably the best iteration out there.

The TRUE experience of a rogue-like, the ones that PC gamers have played and that are at the end of all rogue-likes, is the 99 level reset dungeon where you have to survive on only the items you pick up. It's ridiculously hard at times, but it's also incredibly fun if you're good at it.

My time spent playing Izuna: 4 hours? or so
My time spent playing Shiren: 80 hours
My time spent with homebrew rogues (nethack, adom, etc.): 3 hours

You can tell which one I like :)

Oh, btw, Tao's adventure would be better if it wasn't 3D, and PMD is Rogue-lite-lite-lite...and sucks -_-.

aj @ Jul 25th 2008 9:35PM

So, after reading about nothing but Shiren The Wanderer, I just went out and picked it up. Just from the first couple of levels in the game I get the feeling I'm going to absolutely love this game.

LordGek @ Jul 26th 2008 8:11AM

Something worth noting in Shiren DS, yes your levels are reset every time you re-enter the dungeon, the gameplay and leveling are very streamlined and quick paced. You'll be gaining a new level every couple of minutes if not faster so it is not like many other RPGs where each level is something hard won after hours of effort.

More From Joystiq[Nintendo]

Related Articles From Our Partners