yeah, but panda life is not sustainable. bamboo is a terrible source of nutrition, and they are giant, so they have to be constantly eating it. probobly because of this, they only look after one cub, even though they usually have twins. they just leave the other one to die. yeah, sloths and koalas are bad, but they can at least take care of offspring.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Post your searing hot takes
- Thread starter Yung Dramps
- Start date
yeah because they usually only have one baby
plus, Koalas are marsupians. When you have a pouch that does a lot of your childrearing for you, raising a baby becomes a lot easier. Sloth babies also just cling at their mothers. When your baby just clings to you and drinks some milk then and again, well that becomes quite easy
I still don't get why Pandas only eat bamboo. Like I get it, you lost your sense of umami, you don't like meat, but brown bears eat grass and other plant matter that's nutritious. Some brown bears have a diet of over 90% plant matter, yet they are super active, strong and smart. Why don't Pandas do that?
Other hot take:
natural selection by sexual preference can be very beneficial to a species. Example:
Female giraffes prefering male giraffes with longer necks have lead to one of the most dominant species in Africa. The long necks wouldn't have developed otherwise, if a giraffe just has a slighter longer neck, it wouldn't have much of a difference in their lifestyle. It needed generations upon generations for giraffes to gain the neck lenght to profit from otherwise unreachable foliage, immunity to ambushes and access to a massively powerful swipe with huge range
If such traits become too disadvantegous, the species will go extinct, but if not, it could evolve in a similar path to giraffes
I don't much care for roguelikes. Deliberate level design is more satisfying than procedural generation in almost all cases, and losing because of a bad seed is horrible. Infinite replay value doesn't mean anything if the game's not worth playing in the first place.
the nature of humanity is such that every so often a smogoffite rediscovers darwin's theory of evolution
youre literally on a competitive pokemon forum
Roguelikes aren't built around their procedural generation. They're built around a certain unique game mechanic. Procedural generation is the medium by which the mechanic is enjoyed. Any given roguelike game would be an objectively worse experience if you were playing through a set map, and the skill you have through your experience in a roguelike is rarely going to reach a point where your runs are based 100% on luck. Early on, luck doesn't matter because you've bad at the game and are bound to die anyways. Once you've cleared the game a few times, you'll have the skill where you can consistently make good runs/clear the game regardless of whether the items you get are good or not.
Take for example Noita. The game features 2 prominent mechanics: The wand system and environmental interactions. If the game had been built around a set map, there would be a 100% consistent way to beat the game every single time, and it would get really boring really fast. However, because your spells/wands and the environment is random, the game will provide a slightly new experience every time you play, and due to the nature of the game being that you kill everything fast (including yourself) the only thing stopping you from winning is your own skill. You can't blame anything on luck.
I mean, there's a reason why I mostly post on the social forums. Competitive Pokémon can be fun to mess around with, but I would never take it super seriously for exactly the reason that you're alluding to.
Regarding luck and skill: This is a fair point, and something that I wish I had acknowledged in my original post. In most of the roguelikes that I've played, the game is fundamentally skill-based; that is, you can always theoretically win with sufficient skill, even if you get a relatively poor set of starting circumstances. This isn't a universal truth — in Dicey Dungeons, for example, it's possible to lose before you have a chance to do anything about it because the first enemy got insanely good dice rolls — but it's consistent enough that I'll concede the point. However, I find that being put at an automatic disadvantage due to a poor seed still feels miserable, even when it's theoretically possible for me to overcome said disadvantage through some old-fashioned getting good. Given the popularity of the genre, this is clearly not an issue that everyone has, but it massively damages the appeal for me. One of my good friends used to be really into The Binding of Isaac, and I would watch him spam the reset button on the first floor until he got a great starting item when he was trying to get deep runs. It seemed like an awful time.
I've never played Noita, so I can't speak to how much worse it would be if it wasn't a roguelike. However, I reject the implicit assertion in your post that replay value is inherently good. A game might be able to provide me with a slightly new experience on each replay, but that doesn't excite me if none of those experiences are especially enjoyable. I'd much rather play a game with one set experience that's really good, even if it doesn't quite hit the same on replay. I'm also not convinced that there are any game mechanics that absolutely cannot be explored as well through deliberate design as they can be through procedural generation, but I haven't played every video game, so this isn't something I can really argue.
Not what I said. What I said was more along the lines of "Replay value is a big part of what makes roguelikes good." I've played great games without any replay value (Portal and HL2 comes to mind) but that's because the core game mechanics would not benefit from random levels and procedural generation. The vast majority of games in the roguelike genre (Hades, TBOI, Noita, Gungeon, etc.) are going to be directly hampered by not having procedural generation because having a new experience each run makes you learn the game mechanics FIRST before you can do... really anything. It's a style that lets you put the thing that makes your game special up front.
Specifically about Noita (Great game, you should play it), the central game mechanics I mentioned of the wand system and environmental interaction benefit so incredibly much by being part of the roguelike genre. The TL;DR of it is that wands have some number of slots you can put spells into that are then released in order once you input. Individual spells aren't anything special, mostly relegated to basic bolts and fire and whatnot, but when you can instantly make 3 bigass nuclear bomb spheres that create a chain of electricity between them that also home into enemies then set off the sulfur vein underneath your feet killing everything in the room (including you probably) you can see how boring it would be if you could get that specific combo every single time, compared to getting a variety of spells/modifiers every single run that forces you to experiment with 1. how to not die and 2. how to kill shit (also the third "how do i mine through this wall" but that's not super important).
Also about your TBOI friend he's probably just a tryhard. Tell him to stop rerolling and just do a run.
Smogoff roguelike when?
actually, those games are all roguelikelikes, or roguelites, not roguelikes
Hello! I am very new to the forums(i joined 21 minutes ago as i am typing), although I have been playing Showdown for quite a while.
That being said, I’ve got no idea where else I should ask this question, but does anyone know why Showdown isn’t working? Is it down or something?
That being said, I’ve got no idea where else I should ask this question, but does anyone know why Showdown isn’t working? Is it down or something?
I sympathize with your complaints–one of the two rougelikes I enjoy, Balatro, is pretty susceptible to seed issues and "why couldn't this be deliberately designed" at higher difficulties.
They also gave me new perspective on my favorite rougelike, ADOM. I hadn't explicitly realized this, but most of its most iconic and dangerous dungeons are deliberately designed and non-random, despite it being one of the classic rougelikes. Combined with its slow pace (my two wins took about 20 hours each), you get a dynamic I find very interesting: you're free to spend all the time you need looking for infinitely-regenerable loot to optimize your loadout for the predictable hardest levels, which makes seeds way less of an issue, but you have to jump in the hole at some point. Especially since many of these dungeons are gates to unlock large areas of the game, and sanity dictates you won't be able to find a perfectly optimal kit before jumping in. Some of the value I see in ADOM's randomness is the balance between these predictable, harder dungeons and less predictable, but usually easier generic dungeons–the former tests your static, longer-term planning, and the latter tests different skills, your quick-feet reaction / consistency / microknowledge. If you're interested in rougelikes that are less susceptible to your complaints, older, slower-paced ones like ADOM, Nethack, and Dwarf Fortress (if you count it) may be your best bet.
(if you want me talk more about adom just say the word)
and shoutout fiish for mentioning nethack
I think this give GOI an unfair shake. I don't even really think GOI is a "bad controls" game as people often say: its controls are what prevents the game from being trivially easy, they are the foundation of the game and not an unnecessary add-on to a normally functional game. I think it's closer to being, just, a difficult game, one with a tough skill curve and deceptive looks. It bodies you at first while still seeming so achievable, which is a non-trivial balance to create, and then you slowly painfully achieve mastery, and now parts that took you hours to complete take one minute instead. I think GOI's "bad game"ness is more aesthetic–in the literal and metaphorical senses of the word–then mechanical. Besides the [redacted] maybe lol
little do we know, this "technical issue" is actually game freak hacking into showdown
I've never played it because it doesn't seem like my kind of game, but I'm sure that there are people who legitimately enjoy it. It seems like a reasonably fun and clever detective romp for those who are into that sort of thing.
Your description of ADOM intrigued me, so I decided to buy it and give it a try. Unfortunately, I bounced off pretty fast, but the reasons for that seem to be mostly disconnected from the game's roguelike elements, so there's that. My main issues were with the game's approach to presenting information to the player, which I found overwhelming, and with the combat, which became stale very quickly. Granted, I was playing a melee-based character, and I assume that the magic system has more going on. I got the distinct feeling that I was missing something, but I lacked the energy and inclination to figure out what that thing was. So it goes. I could, however, see a younger version of me becoming fixated on this game for months at a time.
My take on the roguelike discourse is I prefer roguelikes to not be centered around mechanical skill
A lot of roguelikes that have deep combat end up frustrating me because I wish I could just keep playing the combat without also trying to learn how the builds and upgrades work, and often I end up saying "I wish this wasn't a roguelike at all."
Like Enter the Gungeon combat is fun to me and I can imagine an awesome well-crafted dungeon crawler, but as is I just can't get into it since I find the idea of having to restart from the beginning point and figure out the new guns I'm given randomly on top of trying to learn how to play the game to just, not be worth it.
And it's not like I'm bad at games either, I'm jusf average and prefer to play other games that are mechanical. I'll grind 3 hours of a dogshit Mario Maker level/kaizo, but make me play Spelunky's first part several times to learn the later parts and I'll not find it fun.
I also realized over time that I can enjoy mechanical roguelikes, they just have to be for games I already know how to play. Splatoon's Side Order is really fun to me because I'm already a competitive Splatoon player, and I'm not flapping about trying to learn how to play Splatoon on top of the roguelike mechanics.
A lot of roguelikes that have deep combat end up frustrating me because I wish I could just keep playing the combat without also trying to learn how the builds and upgrades work, and often I end up saying "I wish this wasn't a roguelike at all."
Like Enter the Gungeon combat is fun to me and I can imagine an awesome well-crafted dungeon crawler, but as is I just can't get into it since I find the idea of having to restart from the beginning point and figure out the new guns I'm given randomly on top of trying to learn how to play the game to just, not be worth it.
And it's not like I'm bad at games either, I'm jusf average and prefer to play other games that are mechanical. I'll grind 3 hours of a dogshit Mario Maker level/kaizo, but make me play Spelunky's first part several times to learn the later parts and I'll not find it fun.
I also realized over time that I can enjoy mechanical roguelikes, they just have to be for games I already know how to play. Splatoon's Side Order is really fun to me because I'm already a competitive Splatoon player, and I'm not flapping about trying to learn how to play Splatoon on top of the roguelike mechanics.
All totally reasonable reasons. I have theoretical answers to these points (tldr: magic is indeed deeper but melee also has depth), but they all require taking in a lot of information, so all I’ll note is that there’s a very good and helpful wiki if you ever decide to come back, which could help with the information. I appreciate you giving it a try!
TV shows getting movies can often be a lil weird
TV shows look different from movies. They usually have less music, more limited camera movement, have different lighting, the color palettes of scenes are different, it goes from 16:9 to 21:9, the cinematography is more elaborate in movies... It often doesn't feel like part of the show
Prime example would be El Camino. It looks nothing like Breaking Bad. Feels nothing like it. Sounds nothing like it. It's a fine movie but it feels weird
A perfect counter example is Twin Peaks. Fire walk with me is sooooo different from the show, but fits in perfectly with the darker scenes of the series and the disturbing ending of season 2. It feels like a continuation in cinematography and feel, in a way. It's an amazing movie that, despite being technically a prequel (albeit, that is debatable), feels like such a proper continuation to the show
TV shows look different from movies. They usually have less music, more limited camera movement, have different lighting, the color palettes of scenes are different, it goes from 16:9 to 21:9, the cinematography is more elaborate in movies... It often doesn't feel like part of the show
Prime example would be El Camino. It looks nothing like Breaking Bad. Feels nothing like it. Sounds nothing like it. It's a fine movie but it feels weird
A perfect counter example is Twin Peaks. Fire walk with me is sooooo different from the show, but fits in perfectly with the darker scenes of the series and the disturbing ending of season 2. It feels like a continuation in cinematography and feel, in a way. It's an amazing movie that, despite being technically a prequel (albeit, that is debatable), feels like such a proper continuation to the show
Classic Sonic is poorly designed not just for the obvious reasons, but because even as a speed platformer it is literally worse than its competitor.
Classic Sonic fans talk about how you replay the same level again and again and learn how to go fast on it, but that causes the casual experience to suffer with it often being pretty tedious or even kinda boring. The average casual experience is dipping out by the halfway point, which is why only like the first few zones of each game is iconic + maybe the final boss.
In your average 2D platformer Mario game you can still go really fast but if you're good at the game you can also freestyle it because it's more open, with it being harder to go fast just because it's more of a precision platformer. The levels are also more interesting for casual players.
Classic Sonic fans talk about how you replay the same level again and again and learn how to go fast on it, but that causes the casual experience to suffer with it often being pretty tedious or even kinda boring. The average casual experience is dipping out by the halfway point, which is why only like the first few zones of each game is iconic + maybe the final boss.
In your average 2D platformer Mario game you can still go really fast but if you're good at the game you can also freestyle it because it's more open, with it being harder to go fast just because it's more of a precision platformer. The levels are also more interesting for casual players.
As a fan of the classic Sonic games, I'm curious to know what you think "the obvious reasons" are.
Tbh originally I wrote that line with,it being generally about the Sonic series (mainly newer ones are the most flawed), and later added Classic because that is what I was moreso talking about.
Most 3D boost Sonic games are just corridor sim so a lot of these don't apply, they are glorified racing games.
Sonic 3 and Mania are p good imo I think 1 and 2 and CD are p ass, mostly due to level design, lives structure, how emeralds work and I personally think things like the Rings system is perhaps the worst designed health system in history
tv shows are better off with weekly episodes than the binge model thing where they release the whole season at once.
It is so fun to tune into a show every week and when something exciting happens everyone is all talking about it at once, same if the episode was kinda shitty then people will be talking about that, just gives time for the community to discuss every episode and also gives you time to digest and think about each episode before immediately watching the next one.
It is so fun to tune into a show every week and when something exciting happens everyone is all talking about it at once, same if the episode was kinda shitty then people will be talking about that, just gives time for the community to discuss every episode and also gives you time to digest and think about each episode before immediately watching the next one.