The Perfect Grind

In theory, I should be improving myself in order to beat the bosses in Rogue Legacy, but the grind is so much fun that I don't really want it to end.

Grinding is supposed to be annoying. It is supposed to force the player to perform a menial task over and over again in order to afford some arbitrarily expensive thing. Sometimes we grind for experience to level up, sometimes we grind for gold to buy stuff, sometimes we grind for rare items, or sometimes we grind out side quests for that 100% completion statistic. The time that it takes to grind out these dubious achievements isn’t really a factor in why grinding is annoying. Even random battles in Half Minute Hero get boring and they only last a few seconds each. It’s the repetition that gets to you. Grinding isn’t supposed to be fun. That’s why it’s called “grinding,” a word that evokes a sense of slow, eroding destruction. If it was fun, could it still be considered grinding?

I’ve been grinding for 18 hours in Rogue Legacy, a procedurally-generated, side-scrolling, action-platformer. I’m supposed to be hunting down four bosses, defeating them in order to open a golden gate to the final boss. These bosses can be hard to find and even harder to kill, and every time that I die I have to start the hunt over again in a new castle. However, I get to keep any gold that I find, buying upgrades and thus bettering my character, making my next attempt to kill the bosses a little bit easier. This is the grind of Rogue Legacy: get gold to get stronger, all in the name of killing those bosses. That’s the whole point of this game. That’s how I am supposed to beat it.

Yet I’ve been ignoring the bosses for the past several hours of play. If I find a boss room during my exploration, I just walk right past it. My goals have changed. I’m no longer playing in preparation for an eventual boss fight, I’m just playing to upgrade my character. The grind has become the game.

Rogue Legacy is smartly balanced to ease you into this grind. In the beginning, buying upgrades is easy. Things are cheap. When you go into the castle, you’re almost guaranteed to come out with enough gold to improve yourself. But that ease doesn’t last. Every time that you buy something, everything else goes up in price. This means that as you better yourself, you also have to learn how to play the game better in order to keep upgrading. This adds a skill requirement to the grind. I’m not performing a menial task over and over again, I’m performing an increasingly complex task over and over again.

That increasing complexity makes the act of upgrading satisfying in and of itself because the upgrade isn’t just a reward for time spent playing, but a testament to how well I played. The further you get into the game, the more each upgrade becomes a badge of honor and skill.

Adding to the complexity of the grind, eventually you’ll gather enough equipment and runes that there’s actual strategy in how you outfit yourself. Do you outfit for power, for maneuverability, for gold gathering? I’m making a plan, and each grind session is an execution of that plan. Thus, grinding becomes a satisfying gameplay loop capable of sustaining an entire game.

But can this still be considered grinding? In theory, I’m supposed to be upgrading my character with the end goal of fighting bosses, so in theory, all this playtime is supposed to be in preparation for something else. In theory this is all still a grind, since that’s just how the game is structured. However, in practice the grind is better defined by the player than the developer. In this case, player intention matters more than developer intention, and I have no intention of fighting those bosses -- at least not anytime soon. So yes, Rogue Legacy is technically still a grind, but it’s a perfect grind.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.