Roguelikes are fun for me because they encourage you to constantly make good decisions and utilize situational awareness. Wandering or out of depth monsters and food clocks would fuck your hit and run and rest strategy in many roguelikes as you'd get pincered, so you'd really need to flee or use a teleport or blink or set yourself a good position. You have to use every means at your disposal at all times and take advantage of what you find while putting together a complete package that can face down most threats and let you escape from those you can't. They are a good way to cure you of hoarding consumables in that way. It's not for everyone and that's okay.

Skill issue.

>>3843195
It's really not. The game in OPs picture is easy but you end up spamming magic missile and resting all the time because it's far safer than facing enemies head on.

>>3843154
>Attack one guy
>Run away and rest
>repeat
your autism ruins the game for you, sorry. It's not the kind of game you should play if you want to enjoy yourself - it's for other people.

>>3843208
if you do anything else you'll die because you're playing sub optimally in a game where everything is trying to kill you. There's even a thief in the second dungeon so you're incentivized to return to town every level to drop off your copper.

>>3843194
you get new gear so slow in cotw and in nethack there's so much stupid shit that can kill you.

Everyone who plays roguelikes is like
>Omg I used the corpse of a cockatrice as a weapon so I can petrify everyone
>Now I gotta farm blink dogs so I can grind them and get teleport control
>I farmed mushrooms to make infinite lava, which is a valuable commodity in shops
This isn't roleplaying, it's using moon-logic to exploit the game's system. Yet roguelikefags think that their games are somehow better.

>>3843223
>better
Than what? What's the root of this irrational insecurity you have?

>>3843225
Better than other roleplaying games and other video games, obviously.

>>3843226
lmao, okay.

>>3843227
If you're not here for actual discussion leave the thread. It's curious that you accuse me of "irrational insecurity" because I mildly criticized roguelikes but you yourself cannot seem to coherently respond to anything I posted.

>>3843228
Way ahead of you. I'll just wait for someone to make an actual post. Don't mind me.

>>3843223
>This isn't roleplaying
Roguelikefags understand that video games are toys and the point of toys is to have fun. If you want "real roleplaying" then join a theater trope.

>>3843230
>Roguelikefags understand that video games are toys and the point of toys is to have fun.
How is having to exploit the game's systems to win "fun" exactly? I have the most fun when a roleplaying game's rules encourage roleplaying, not eating 100 corpses so you can get this or that ability.
>If you want "real roleplaying" then join a theater trope.
I want a role playing GAME that uses rules and dice rolls to simulate the experience of roleplaying a character in a fantasy setting.

>>3843194
This is the only necessary post in the thread because it perfectly describes the answer to the question. Those "cheap strategies" OP described either stop working after you advance far enough or are unreliable because they require careful preparation and good RNG for artifact or spellbook drops. Roguelikes are about the trial and error process of learning the danger levels of various enemies, learning what certain items do and when to use them, and learning the limits of how far you can push your character without dying to maximize the value of your limited resources.
>>3843223
I'd like to know what roguelike you're describing because it sounds like you're just making shit up. There are more traditional roguelikes where you can't farm at all than there are roguelikes that encourage farming, and not even the open world games like Caves of Qud are as tedious as what you're describing. TOME 4 is a well known roguelike and enemies don't respawn in that game.

>>3843245
>I'd like to know what roguelike you're describing because it sounds like you're just making shit up. There are more traditional roguelikes where you can't farm at all than there are roguelikes that encourage farming, and not even the open world games like Caves of Qud are as tedious as what you're describing. TOME 4 is a well known roguelike and enemies don't respawn in that game.
lol wow, amazing how you actually went and nitpicked anon's post rather than focusing on what he was actually stating about how traditional rpgs and roguelikes differ from one another.

>>3843245
>cockatrice
Nethack
>blink dogs
ADOM
>Lava farming
Caves of Qud

>>3843223
>>Omg I used the corpse of a cockatrice as a weapon so I can petrify everyone
>>Now I gotta farm blink dogs so I can grind them and get teleport control
How are those examples "moon logic"?

>>3843287
They're things that would never happen in a serious fantasy story or in real life but happen in roguelikes because of the game's obtuse, adventure game-esque subsystems.

And don't even bring up Perseus, making a shield with Medusa's head is totally different from swinging around the corpse of a chicken.

>>3843295
>they're things that would never happen in a serious fantasy story or in real life
I'm glad we have established that blink dogs and cockatrices do not exist in real life.

>and don't even bring up Perseus, making a shield with Medusa's head is totally different from swinging around the corpse of a chicken
Please, elaborate.

>>3843201
>spam ability and resting isn't fun
So you just don't like vidya? In every game you've ever played you spam the same moves over and over again. In CotW, magic missile is OP at the beginning. Once you get to CotW 2, MM ceases to be very good. It's pretty easy to get some really good gear once you hit CotW 2 and then you can mess around with the other spells or you can be a melee machine. If you don't understand character growth, exploration, finding treasures and fighting monsters, then I would have to say you're in the wrong forum.

>>3843309
The point isn't that they're not real the point is the way you use them in game is silly.

Silliness and creativity in a video game? How horrible. This is such a lame shtick.

OP, tell us where did the roguelike touched you.

>>3843154
Because they're infinitely replayable. Traditional RPGs can be cheesed with meta knowledge because you'll eventually memorize the map and item locations. Experienced roguelike players can still get raped in a fresh run because everything is random and you have to adapt to the enemy and item spawns on the fly.

>>3843309
>I'm glad we have established that blink dogs and cockatrices do not exist in real life.
literally *holds up spork* tier logic applied to fantasy as a whole i.e. conflating the immaterial with incoherence like a bugman.

>>3843444
Roguelikes are silly, but certainly not creative. Creativity requires effort and passion.

>>3843405
You shouldn't have to slog through two dungeons of bullshit just for the game to get "good"

>>3843596
>So you just don't like vidya.
Ahh, yes. Typical vidya hater come to the proverbial vidya trough to vent their jealous frustrations out on those who enjoy vidya.

>>3843598
I like games just not boring ones

>>3843606
Apparently you have bad taste and even worse sense to be crying to strangers on the internet about it.

>>3843154
Because they are unpredictable, at least the well made ones are

>>3843223
>Noooo don’t use the game mechanics to have fun that’s bad or something!
Could you be more of a fag?

>>3843663
He's one of those "muh realism muh immersion" fags that want every game to be Planescape Torment or something. Don't bother.

The pro-roguelike gaslighting and deflection going on in this thread is crazy.

>>3843668
Nobody mentioned planescape except you. It's fine if some games have silly mechanics but it's definitely problematic when almost every single popular roguelike focuses on wacky shit over good gameplay and opportunities for players to interact with the world.

>>3843673
Why did you come into a thread about something you don’t like and then get mad that the thread is full of people that like something that you don’t like? How dumb are you, seriously?
>t. doesn’t care for roguelikes

>>3843673
>gaslighting
Stop using trendy words that don’t apply retsrded zoom zoom. Someone disagreeing with you isn’t because they are trying to gaslight you

>>3843689
>muh zoom zoom
cuh, most zoomeers are in their 20s. Stop capping on fleek.

>>3843223
>roguelikes
>farming
which roguelikes have you played, anon?

>>3843154
Why do you see effective strategies as cheap strategies?

>>3843405
Castle of the winds really is an easy, shallow, and repetitive game and magic is a win button the whole way through.

>>3843223
It's not roleplaying, it's gameplay. Most RPGs have gameplay so shallow it's hardly worth thinking about, roguelikes tend to be exceptions to that rule

>>3843713
CotW is a really fun game all the way through.

>>3843692
Roguelikes and Roguelites are millennial coded

>>3843432
>the point is the way you use them in game is silly
How so? Nethack is rightly lauded for the internal consistency of its mechanics, it would make less sense for you not to be able to use rubber chickens like that, not more.

>>3843573
>literally *holds up spork* tier logic
Ah, you're just an illiterate retard using terms you don't understand to complain about games you don't understand.

>>3843723
>How so?
Typically in fantasy games you kill enemies with weapons like swords, spears, axes, crossbows, etc. Not chickens. Therefore, using a chicken could be considered "silly"
>it would make less sense for you not to be able to use rubber chickens like that, not more.
just have it crumble to dust when it dies or something, idk.

>>3843693
farming has been a thing in roguelikes for ages
https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Farming

>>3843770
The body of a cockatrice being magical and turning things to stone is perfectly logical and intended behaviour in magical fantasy setting. There's absolutely nothing silly or exploitative about it, it's perfectly internally consistent. You're whole argumentation is built on a your own arbitrary expectations and assignation of variables outside of that narrow framework to be considered anathema with no real rationale.

>>3843771
Note that none of this is required to ascend.

>>3843771
The punishment for pudding farming is pudding farming.

>>3843773
It is silly and nethack is a silly game inspired by zork and discworld. How are things like keystone kops not silly? The problem is roguelikefags act like it's the deepest shit ever and every roguelike is now a nethack clone.

>>3843775
moved the goalpost award

>>3843777
It's not silly though. It's perfectly logical.
>keystone kops
Now that is a joke monster. You should've led with that.
>The problem is roguelikefags act like it's the deepest shit ever
>every roguelike is now a nethack clone.
These are both false statements. The first is a mischaracterization where "depth" is usually the quality that Nethack is praised for, as in depth of content and interactions, not any gravitas of presentation. The second is just complete nonsense.

>>3843778
It's called an "addendum" not a rebuttal, anon. You're too used to conversation as a battle.

>>3843770
A cockatrice is an inherently magical creature that turns things to stone on contact. What's wrong with then making the logical connection that the body of a cockatrice would be an effective weapon? What's the difference between that and using a whip or a ball and chain, or tricking your enemies into being caught in a dragon's breath or being blasted by divine power? Indeed, what's the difference between using a cockatrice as a weapon and cutting off Medusa's head?
Using a cockatrice corpse is the same as using any other tool, with its attendant risks and benefits. There's nothing illogical about it.

>>3843777
>It is silly and nethack is a silly game inspired by zork and discworld. How are things like keystone kops not silly?
Now you're making a mistake by conflating "silly (tone)" and "silly (illogical/stupid)". There's nothing illogical about using rubber chickens, or many of the other mechanics you could've mentioned, like sinks.

>The problem is roguelikefags act like it's the deepest shit ever and every roguelike is now a nethack clone.
Both completely wrong on their face.

>>3843782
Do you need protection against petrification to use cockatrice's corpse?

>>3843771
It's generally discouraged by them, though it exists. I asked for a list specifically because I'd say *most* of them actively discourage it, not because I think it literally does not exist

>>3843843
Nethack doesn't have protection from petrification in the sense of, say, poison resistance (technically it does, but it's a monster-only ability that can't be transferred) but you can't touch a cockatrice or its corpse with your bare skin without getting petrified. You can wield a cockatrice corpse as long as you're wearing gloves, but even then there are so many ways for it to kill you it's usually not worth the risk. Among other things, tripping or falling for any reason such as pit traps or falling down the stairs while wielding one, losing your gloves for any reason, taking your gloves off without remembering to unwield the corpse, etc. will all instantly petrify you. The safest way of using one as a weapon is to make sure you never move at all while wielding one, and even then it isn't completely safe. For added fun, intelligent monsters know how deadly cockatrice corpses are and ones with stoning resistance will happily pick them up and use them as weapons against you.

Cockatrice corpses being dangerous is completely consistent, too. Normally you can tell what is on a particular square by looking at it; if you're blind, whenever you move on to a square you "feel" the items and identify them that way. When the game says that, it means it - if you're blind and move onto a square with a cockatrice corpse on it, and you're not wearing gloves, you touch the corpse and are instantly petrified.

Well, I think it's settled now.
Roguelikes are fun.