reaver wrote:joellercoaster wrote:So the 15-rune game is, at least to me, not fun. It takes too long, and involves too many tests of mental endurance. But the postgame areas are individually cool (even Tomb and the Hells), and I like to visit them. Don't get me started on Ziggurats.
How do people deal with it? Lately I've realised that there is no need to do all 15, and just picking one or two extra runes arbitrarily before going for the win. I have seen references to developers finding the postgame problematic and am interested to see if they do things about it, but in the meantime, what do players think?
Well apparently most of the really good players (most notably crate and mikee) eventually decide that even a 3-rune game is too long and start making their own win conditions. So I'm not sure there really is a solution.
This is really interesting, yeah. If I ever make a Roguelike, one of my goals will be for it to be completable in a pretty short time period. Very few of our kickass roguelikes have reasonable completion times... Nethack always takes me like 30 hours to beat, Crawl my last win took 20 hours (with only 3 runes). I know you can win faster, but it's not easy.
EDIT: Actually, my last Nethack Ascension took LESS time (17:41) than my last Crawl one (21:08). For shame, Crawl!
I know Spelunky is a weird case because it was a platformer, but I think it was exemplary in terms of timing. A session can last as long as 30 minutes (or even an hour) if you play slowly, but you can also beat the game in 10 minutes if you move quickly.
In my ideal world, I think DCSS would be less than half as long as it currently is.
Dungeon Sprint SHOULD fit the niche of being a short version of Crawl. It's certainly action-packed and intense, full of tough decisions. I don't know why it doesn't scratch the same itch.
Someday I'm going to make a coffeebreak roguelike, and I hope it will be even a tenth as good as Crawl.