Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
arrowPress Releases
July 22, 2014
PR Newswire
View All
View All     Submit Event

If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:

FTL: Roguelikes & Freedom vs. Choice
by Eric Schwarz on 09/21/12 01:25:00 pm   Expert Blogs   Featured Blogs

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.
The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.


FTL: Faster Than Light released just a few days ago after one of the earlier successful Kickstarter campaigns, and after winning several awards at various independent game festivals.  As a space-simulation roguelike, the ideas that it explores are not entirely original - however, its stripped-down presentation sets it apart from other space-themed games, with full 3D simulation and empire colonization removed in favour of intense ship-to-ship combat and crew management as the player evades the ever-encroaching dominion of the rebel fleet.

FTL is an excellent game, though I think that goes without saying given that it's received so much positive feedback.  But the more I've played it, the more I've got to wondering why exactly why that is the case.  There are bigger, prettier, more complicated games out there, and ones with much more content.  Somehow, FTL just "works" and manages to remain fun game after game.

The more I turned the idea over, the more I realized that FTL's success stems from limitations, not ambition.  It's not that it provides freedom, but the right kind of freedom.  It's not that it has complex gameplay, but rather that the gameplay demands that I make decisions rather than reactions.  And, perhaps more than any other title I have played in some time, it is truly a videogame.  After having gone through some of the mainstream game industry's biggest titles this year, as well as one particularly massive RPG, this is extremely refreshing.

Star Trek: The Roguelike

Roguelikes are not exactly a new or even a particularly obscure genre anymore.  After successes over the last few years like Dwarf Fortress, Dungeons of Dredmor, Minecraft, Spelunky and The Binding of Isaac, roguelikes have been introduced to, relatively speaking, more mainstream gamers than in the past.  What's more, the traditional roguelike model of literally being Rogue-like has also given way to a whole new genre of games which take roguelike concepts such as permanent death and randomly-generated content, and combine them with other styles of gameplay.

Why do roguelikes work so well?  One particular reason that players are so drawn to them is the immense challenge most of them present.  By presenting gameplay which can appear, at times, nearly insurmountable, the difficulty is not so much in enduring a lengthy campaign or completing difficult scenarios, but rather mastering the raw mechanics of the gameplay itself.  What starts out as impenetrable becomes more and more predictable and tame as players continue to play over and over again - basic learning gives way to tactical and strategic decisions, which continue to become more and more complicated as the game is replayed over and over and more nuance becomes apparent.

Roguelikes: the ultimate example of gameplay over graphics.

At the core of a roguelike is choice.  In fact, that's pretty much all roguelikes are built upon.  Do I drink the potion and see what happens, or sell it for some gold?  Do I fight these enemies and take their treasure, or are they too powerful for me?  Do I go left or right?  Do I skip backtracking to get supplies or press onward?  The actual gameplay of a roguelike has less to do with reflexes and skills, and much more to do with making the right decisions.  Success in a roguelike is typically a matter both of good planning and good immediate decision-making - mechanics like limited food, currency, etc. ensure that players constantly have to make trade-offs between the short and long term.

This central choice element is what sets rougelikes apart and what gives them their staying power.  Even if the player has mastered every single mechanic that a roguelike has to offer, knows all the random components, knows what all the items and monsters are capable of, the randomness of the configuration of all these individual elements means that the player is never, ever relieved of the need to make a decision.  Whereas many games become automatic over time through rote memory work or the simple lack of expression the player has within the game systems, roguelikes positively excel in this respect.

In Space, There Are No Corridors

We tend to criticize a lot of titles, usually action-oriented ones, shooters, and so on, for not providing players with freedom in gameplay.  Often we place the blame on level design: the corridor is the symbol of a lack of freedom, and we tend to assume that the problems in many titles boil down to a lack of openness in the level design.  Conversely, we tend to praise games which provide us with lots of freedom, and currently open-ended, limitless titles are the ones which tend to get the highest Metacritic scores and often sell millions upon millions of copies.

Of course, this is a fallacy.  Gears of War would not necessarily be made a better game if the level design changed and the corridors were dispensed with.  Dead Space's primary gameplay hook, tense action in dimly-lit corridors, may not be to everyone's taste, but suddenly transforming the game into an open-ended affair would not improve things.  More broadly, this critique speaks to linearity in games, wherein certain objectives are predefined and must be completed in a particular order.  Similarly, linearity, as we tend to understand it, is not really a problem in game design either.  Not having the option to pick which story objective to go after does not make for a worse game.

What should be put under the magnifying glass more often is freedom with respect to the systems the player operates within.  A game like Gears features a hundred different guns and the action is fast and intense - the player is rarely standing still and has to make split-second reactions.  Except, these are not really choices.  While superficially the player has the option of either ducking behind cover or aiming and shooting, the systems that regulate this behaviour are nearly binary: do you have health?  If no, hide.  If yes, shoot.  Do you have ammo?  If no, reload.  If yes, shoot.  In almost every instance there is only one correct response, and this response has a lot less to do with the player's ability to devise strategies and think critically as it does with the ability to recognize patterns and provide the correct response.  This is the real problem with the pervasive lack of freedom in many modern titles, not the linearity in story and level design in and of itself.

FTL is nothing but corridors and menus, and aside from cosmetic backgrounds the game screen never changes.  Yet I feel I have more interesting and significant decisions to make in this environment than many bigger, more expansive games.

This is where FTL really shines and gets its staying power.  The game revolves around a central conflict - the player must balance the short-term needs of personnel and resources in combat, medium-term needs like upgrades and repairs, and long-term needs like the ability to beat tough enemies much later on.  Planning is essential, but adaptability is also crucial, and success depends upon making a combination of the right decisions at the right times.  The random element to gameplay (scenarios visited on a minute-by-minute basis, supplies and missions available, etc.) constantly forces players to reconsider and revise decisions, and all of these elements themselves tend to have interesting choices contained with.  Do you board a derelict vessel to search for supplies, knowing there may be pirates ready to ambush you aboard?  Do you help a civilian ship in hopes of reward, or take a bribe from the brutes harassing it to look the other way?  And more broadly, decisions on where to travel are augmented both by the available destinations and by the ever-creeping time limit.

Like the roguelikes discussed above, FTL is predicated on choice.  The game mechanics interact with each other in enough ways that decisions are both constant and constantly interesting.  There is never one "right" decision to make, only shades of grey with different upsides and downsides as the rest of the gameplay situation changes.  When a fire breaks out on-board the player's ship, is it a better idea to send crew to deal with it, abandoning their stations, or does it make sense to open the outer doors and suck the fire out of the ship, but also deprive the area of oxygen for a time?  As the game goes on, the player gains more and more ways to augment the decisions being made.  With the Blast Doors upgrade, fire aboard the ship is incapable of spreading far, which means that the player can make other decisions differently.  There is immense freedom in navigating the gameplay FTL offers, even though the game never actually leaves the corridors of the player's own vessel.

Yet it's equally important that this freedom is not too great.  Some titles offer huge open worlds to explore and such as wealth of content and gameplay at the player's disposal that it can be downright paralyzing.  The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim gives the player an endless theme park to explore every nook and cranny of, yet this freedom to do anything, any time comes at the expense of compelling decision-making, because every decision is ultimately the same: since the game never pushes back at the player, the answer to the player's questions is always "yes."  I recently played through Inquisitor, a similarly massive RPG - but even then, its "freedom" largely amounted to the order in which I completed a set of objectives, not how I did it.  Without any chance of failure, any barriers to overcome, any risk of denial, there can be no struggle, no rules to follow, no victory - no gameplay.

Closing Thoughts

This is why FTL, for me, has been such a refreshing experience.  After playing so many titles which discourage experimentation and which simply treat the player as a passive observer to the mayhem and majesty playing out, it gives me an opportunity to inhabit tightly-controlled systems and do my best to regulate them.  Without the binary win/lose mechanics of so many other titles, FTL has been a crucial reminder that the most compelling games are those which are built upon the choices players make, and construct their goals, scenarios and rules not to limit what the player can do, but to provide more of those choices within the systems.

Related Jobs

Big Fish Games
Big Fish Games — Seattle, Washington, United States

Game Engineer
Treyarch / Activision
Treyarch / Activision — Santa Monica, California, United States

Associate Cinematic Animator (temporary) - Treyarch
Treyarch / Activision
Treyarch / Activision — Santa Monica, California, United States

Senior Environment Concept Artist - Treyarch (temporary)
Skullcandy — San Francisco, California, United States

Graphic Designer


raigan burns
profile image
"What's more, the traditional roguelike model of literally being Rogue-like has sort of disappeared in favor of the term referring to games with permanent player death, randomly-generated content, and usually simple presentation that lets the gameplay take full command of the experience."

Please don't perpetuate this confusing conflation of terms; games like FTL and Spelunky are more accurately described as "roguelike-likes" because they borrow some of the genre tropes of roguelikes and apply them to completely different genres of games (platformers in the case of Spelunky, I'm not really sure what in the case of FTL... RTS maybe?).

They borrow the higher-level genre tropes (permadeath) while eschewing the more fundamental aspects like grid-based, turn-based, ascii, etc. So they aren't actually roguelikes!

They're only similar to roguelikes in some ways; hence they are better understood as roguelike-likes rather than roguelikes proper.

(the article is really interesting/insightful, sorry for being so nit-picky)

Eric Schwarz
profile image
That's more or less what I was trying to say there, I think I actually had "roguelike-like" in the first draft or something. Still, thanks for the clarification. :p I'll give it a quick edit.

Joe Wreschnig
profile image
I'm actually not convinced FTL is a roguelikelike yet - it's very possibly just a roguelike. If anything disqualifies it, I would say it's the fixed final boss. It requires basically one fixed strategy and that means all viable playthroughs converge at the end, even though they'll diverge due to player choice and randomness at the start.

FTL *is* grid-based (except for a tiny number of interactions like missiles shooting down other missiles - and even those might be), and since you can pause and issues orders I wouldn't call it real-time, rather analog-time.

Eric Schwarz
profile image
@Joe Wreschnig

That is possibly my biggest issue with the game. For the record the point of this article isn't to necessarily say FTL is perfect or anything, I actually have a few complaints with respect to balance, limited amounts of random content, lack of diplomacy options, etc. And I agree that the final boss basically forces you into a certain strategy, although to be honest by that point you will probably have upgraded close to everything anyway. I'm sure people have devised multiple strategies to finish it off as well.

Joe Wreschnig
profile image
"I agree that the final boss basically forces you into a certain strategy, although to be honest by that point you will probably have upgraded close to everything anyway."

This is exactly my complaint. I assume that's because they balanced the economy so that you could beat the boss (which is good) - but in doing so, you just end up with everything, no matter your play style, what opportunities came up in your game, or which ship you use.

"I'm sure people have devised multiple strategies to finish it off as well."

Not as far as I know. There's some minor variations - do you use missiles or beams + ion cannons? - but the basic approach is the same for everyone. And if you've been very unlucky and not gotten e.g. shields, it's absolutely impossible.

I was talking about this with my wife this morning and I think what I want to see is, instead of three fixed events, you get to choose three events from some pool (e.g. six) picked randomly from some larger pool (e.g. ten). Which adds both some unexpectedness and gives the player more leeway in exploring different builds and tactics.

"I actually have a few complaints with respect to balance, limited amounts of random content, lack of diplomacy options, etc."

I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of ways to handle some situations - subsystem and medical bay upgrades, sometimes of questionable combat use, often have event resolutions attached to them. I have heard a lot of people complaining about the madman event, for example, which has two completely safe resolutions if you're outfitted correctly.

I do agree there's a lack of events, and probably a lack of galaxy layouts / sector options, which I'm hoping modding and future updates can fix.

raigan burns
profile image
@Joe: it's not really grid-based, it's node-based (a graph); moreover there isn't really much strategy to positioning/movement like there are in roguelikes. Position really doesn't matter, there's just a random event when you move into an unknown node.

The way the combat is "analogue-time" as you say means that it's DPS-based like an RTS; most of the time you're waiting for animations/events to happen, which is sort of the opposite "feel" of most roguelikes (where your actions advance time).

I really do think it's a roguelike-like, since it has less than half the traits by any definition:

Robert Boyd
profile image
I'm not a big Gears of War fan but there's a lot more to it than "Shoot or not shoot?" When to use the various guns, when to use grenades & melee attacks, which enemies do you prioritize taking down, whether it's better to stay where you are or whether it would be advantageous to move to a different position, how to best coordinate things with the rest of your team, etc.

Eric Schwarz
profile image
I'm not so sure. While those games are fun and the melee itself probably does add a bit to the gameplay (go around corner -> see enemy -> shoot or melee?) the scenarios are built to encourage very specific sorts of decisions which are of a very limited scope. The tools themselves are fun to use, no question, but I don't think the game design works to encourage their use in creative ways or in ways which have any interesting ramifications.

You basically end up with a game which has no long-term consequences for decisions, no interesting choices to make beyond very simple ones on a very immediate level, and the frequent checkpointing and regenerating health means that bad decisions only ever amount to either a quick "suck your thumb in the corner" session, or death and a reload + 2 minutes of lost progress.

To use an analogy, gameplay in Gears of War is generally two-dimensional. The choices you make only matter in an extremely short time-span and they very rarely interact with each other. For instance, using weapon X over weapon Y does not matter in the least - all that happens is either you die or the enemy does. Any attempts made at getting the player to make interesting choices are usually undermined by the core mechanics themselves (regenerating health) or by giving the player tons of resources (ammo and guns every couple of minutes).

A game like FTL has layers of different resources and different effects decisions have that extend in three dimensions - long-term, medium-term and immediate choices all affect each other in appreciable ways, using X crew member over Y crew member to do Z task can cause outcomes A, B, or C, all of which are affected by the terms that your X or Y decisions set up, and whose resolutions are now particularly contingent upon them.

To make that more readable: if I have Bob and Jim repair the shield system, I can defend against an enemy - but by not allocating Bob to weapons, I can't fire as fast, and the enemy ultimately may do more damage to me. This in turn will affect my decisions in navigating the galaxy (low life = avoid potential combat spots, seek out repairs) and will in turn affect the long-term choices (spend resources repairing the ship = less resources to spend on upgrades = problems with dealing with stronger enemies later on).

Note that this is not a statement about quality (at least not directly). Gears of War is a fine game at what it intends to be, and I had fun with it (can't speak for the sequels). I certainly do not mean to directly compare Gears to FTL or any other roguelike-ish game out there, except with respect to the depth of mechanics. I do posit, however, that a game like FTL does have objectively deeper and richer gameplay on a mechanical level - and if that makes it a better game under someone's definition, so be it.

Stephen Chin
profile image
It sounds like you two are discussing two different things. Mr. Boyd seems to be talking about tactics in context of a firefight. Mr. Schwarz seems to be talking about overarcing decisions ie strategic decisions. In this context, yes, GoW lacks a lot of strategic choices - but it's also more narrative based than FTL; not having a lot of strategic decision making works for what it's trying to accomplish. Conversely, FTL lacks a lot of tactical choices - but it's designed for strategic gameplay so having simplified tactical decisions works for what it's trying to accomplish. If in FTL you had a bajillion different decisions you could choose from to solve any one problem, this would create instances where the player's ability to understand and learn from the actions they took becomes obscured - should they have picked choice #124 instead? Was it even that particular choice?

Christer Kaitila
profile image
Great post... But how red a game is has nothing to do with it. Just kidding, but quick fix the typo (rougelike vs roguelike) in the title. Great work in all other aspects: you've made me want to buy FTL.

Eric Schwarz
profile image
Sorry about that, fixed it!

Aleksander Adamkiewicz
profile image
its well worth its money.
If this would be released on mobile it would break all sorts of records. its more addictive than angry birds.

Jonathan Jennings
profile image
this game does such a great job of making each scenario valuable. when i defeated slavers to get a new crew member or wandered upon a damaged ship i was truly happy. when i fought over a solar flaring planet i truly felt panicked it does such a great job of pulling me into the moment

Roger Tober
profile image
Haven't played the game, but good argument.