Are Roguelikes the only game genre with actual risk and reward...

Are Roguelikes the only game genre with actual risk and reward? Being able to save and load with no repercussions pretty much ruins videogames

Attached: 1904389211.jpg (400x400, 30.52K)

Arcade Games?

>Being able to save and load with no repercussions pretty much ruins videogames
so just dont do it then lol retard

Where can I find a McDonald gf?

Zoomers dont know arcade games user
And if the do, they despise them irrationally
Despite roguelites being a sidegrade of arcade

At McDonald's.

I saved and unloaded into your mom last night

start by killing yourself

Many games nowadays autosave and also being able to save is in itself the problem. The reason why roguelikes make the player so focused and fear dying, is because there are stakes upon death. It feels more satisfying to discover items and win, it makes you play extra careful and genuinely improve. When games let you save and load infinitely, there are no stakes.

>Are Roguelikes the only game genre with actual risk and reward?
well, other genres also have this. rhythm games, for example. online competitive games too, like fighting games or rocket league, you can't save in those games either. I understand your sentiment though. a game like Portal, while it is a masterpiece, doesn't have any element of risk or reward, but that's because it's a puzzle game. it's not supposed to.

Attached: cotnd.gif (155x155, 5.15K)

clussy

>actual risk and reward
no video games have this

try the gathering of juggalos

You never played any game with those
Deal x more damage but you 5x damage?
Or fucking puyo puyo

I don't think fighting games have any risk at all, if anything it's all reward. Because you learn and get better with every loss. You don't really risk items or waste a 2 hour run when you lose in a fighting game, nothing like that.

>die
>put money in
>revive
there is no risk/reward, they are just p2w

God damnit, now I have COTND music stuck in my head.

Emulate them then

Some strategy games have iron man modes, like xcom.

You still lose your score, which is all that matters.

Is this some avant garde trolling to look like Joseph Anderson?

zoom zoom. games without quicksaves are just wasting your time.

You could also just play pvp games

Assuming OP isn't a fag for two seconds, the question of "Risk vs Reward" is inherently retarded to the conversation about many games, because it's essentially assuming a Risk only comes in the form of "permanently lost progress." For example, dying and being forced to reload your save is somehow not risk, even though the risk itself was whatever action you took just before dying in and of itself. There are other risk/reward scenarios that are on a much smaller scale, such as making choice A instead of B, like taking a machine gun over a shotgun, or going with the magician instead of the cleric.
>But you could just reload to before you made the choice!
You could also just restart the game and go back through the choice in a different section.

It's even funnier that OP is associating Risk/Reward with Roguelikes, which are a genre that punishes making risky choices the most. Roguelikes are all about finding an algorithm to make your way through the game and sticking to it. Action Roguelike/lites are just about muscle memory to the 10-20 different enemy types. I genuinely associate roguelikes with risk/reward mechanics the least.

>Roguelikes, which are a genre that punishes making risky choices the most
That's literally the meaning of risk vs reward.
The higher the risk, the higher the reward.