That's quite interesting. I've heard of the game, but never checked it out. Sounds like something I'd really enjoy, but alas, too many good games already in process/waiting :(

The aging naturally also reminds one of Crusader Kings 2, which is also good for these kind of stories. Like my first chief that used underhanded tactics to lay claim to a petty kingdom in Ireland and start a dynasty, only to turn senile in old age and execute his new born son, so that the more capable son would inherit (which was my excuse at least). Or that very son at the end of his reign managing to change the succession laws in the nick of time so that the younger son could inherit, instead of the dim witted older son.
Unfortunately Steam only though, and as it's Paradox, arguably predatory DLC practices here and there.

Extremly hard disagree there. Rather than just looking at the tendencies of growth itself, the game is all about anticipating the results rather than the height or overall value of the incremental increase. The meaning of the value is simply that the higher that number becomes, the more you can unlock. If the game has enogh hooks such as "post game unlocks", unlocks of new "factories" that makes the number go higher early game and other mid/late game features so the player can't just ignore the game such as the increase golden cookie unlocks and also the grandmapocalypse. These are some of the reasons why the player may keep being interested for quite a while. If you only look at the number itself Cookie Clicker becomes a meaningless game. What matters are the features linked to the incremental increase.

I also must meantion that these features however aren't fully related to the increase in numbers alone, because without active playtime (looking at the PC to click golden cookies and to restart the game hundreds of times) this increase becomes much slower to a point where not playing it is similar to playing it, there really are no incentives for the player to keep playing without at least some player involvement related to the features outside the "number go up high" aspects.

The player also doesn't know the extend what they're getting after they've "grown" to a certain extend which dom serves as a hook so people do keep playing. You can consider closure once the game "stops having features and initiatives towards the player to keep themselves occupied with the game" so to speak even if the game is open ended.

Perhaps its easier to understand what I mean if I paraphrase. I do call these games "garden games", because like a real garden you don't know the results of your gardening beforehand. You can only anticipate it without knowing exactly how things will turn out if you're gardening for the first (or second/third/etc) time on a bigger project. Similar rules can be apllied with games such as Sim City or any games with a lot of unlocks and at least some open ended depths (during mid-game, there are lots of options for the player to consider once you're into the loop of resetting the game often, the game is not really linear in this aspect).

On the other hand I really must agree on this. Cheating can be a lot of fun in a singleplayer game, especially in those that do not wholly encurage it, yet leave it out as an option.

I think this entire discussion boils down into having options available to the players disposal. In very restrictive games where there really are just a few ways to experience a win or lose states a game can be seen as predictable and one dimensional, while the more options to win or lose exist, the more interesting the player involvement becomes due to unrestricted incentives (people swear on games such as Minecraft/Terraria/Dwarf Fortress because of stuff like this).

lol!

well yea i belief this habit of a moral control started to emerge somewhere mid 30's

No worries, I also played the garden minigame (and the other "minigames" such as the temple one). The rant about "garden games" was just me talking about meta. I thought it was important to talk about this because Cookie Clicker is also a very meta (the other games where you "grow" anything like all those Sim games or even Open World games also kinda fit the descriptor) so that shoe fits.

In Rock'n'Roll Racing if you lose Championship on a planet, you'll have to try it again. Though even if you lose, you still have all upgrades that you bought. So eventually, you'll able to upgrade the car so you'll probably win. Just not with the first try. Does that count?

reminds me of everspace.. should install that one again and get frustrated with stubbornly thinking this should work oke with a controller

I don't care about winning (or losing) at all. Maybe because I'm not part of the "us, gamers" club?

Even when I don't play a "narrative driven" game, it's all about the experience (and winning/losing is irrelevant to it).

Xcom 93', I can afford to lose soldiers, rookies with stats I don't like and I could field 14, maybe 26 of them.

Battletech allows you to recover from a lot of losses. Mechs with limbs blown off, in one case I had to hobble a mech out, what takes 1 turn took me maybe 4 when you're missing one leg. I also lost some gause++ on that mission. Oh well.

I think I'd abuse reloading in fallout 2. If you lose a companion there are spares, but they're so unique you'd try to keep them alive. And I think I do that in Baldurs Gate too.

I wish more games with growth systems (of some form) would be like that.

This way, you could still have your grueling dungeons with lots of dangers and treasure, die towards the end of it because you ran out of resources (or failed to predict the enemy's turn, or got really unlucky), and still feel like you've made some progress.

One thing that I think RPGs lost after the early days is the idea that dungeons back then weren't all meant to be cleared in one go, and allowing the player to keep everything gained on the failed attempt would allow this tension without making players quit if they die near the end.

(Dragon Quest games come pretty close; you do lose half your gold. Final Fantasy games (at least the ones I've played) just dump you back to the title screen except for FF6 that lets you keep XP and levels (but not esper stat boosts gained from those level ups, but esper stat boosts in that game is a terrible mechanic).

Baldur's Gate 2 makes it very easy to revive characters, but I still tend to reload when that happens due to the fact that such characters drop all their items on death, so you have to re-equip the character after reviving them, which is a real pain.

Some games, like many SaGa games (starting with SaGa 2), Final Fantasy Mystic Quest, and Paladin's Quest and its sequel, make death a temporary ailment; after each battle, dead characters come back to life with 1 HP. (Rarely, there's even games with free revive effects that can be used any time; I've seen this twice, in Dragon Quest 5 (though you can't get that item until the last town, and it's expensive), and in Phantasy Star 3.)

I could also mention that games could make the revive item cheap, as Final Fantasy 4 did. Note that, with revive mechanics, you sometimes have a situation where it's easy to restore a dead character to full HP than a living character. (This last situation actually comes up in tabletop D&D; in 3.5, Heal and Mass Heal now only restore finite amount of HP, but True Resurrection still restores all HP, and if using the Epic Level Handbook (whose rules are in the d20 3.5 SRD, so I'd consider them valid in this edition), there's a feat to remove material components from spells; hence, you actually get to the point where it's fastest to kill and then revive a high HP character than to just heal them unless you're willing to use an epic spell (which some DM's might not allow, or might not allow creating).)