That's because Tetris and chess and Monopoly are fun to play at all points in the game. Okay, a roguelike doesn't change that much from earlier in the game to later, but playing only the early parts over and over without getting to the later parts would get boring after a while.

But maybe you're right and we just need to look at roguelikes like we do chess or Tetris. An enjoyable pastime once in a while, but not something to play longer than a half hour at a time.

The way you talk about the genre is a little vague. Tetris is a nice comparison, and I like chess too, but I think Monopoly makes a closer one. Most people either like Monopoly or don't. They'll either play it or they won't. Roguelikes are really the same way. In the beginning, I wouldn't have it. Trying to play ASCII Nethack was way too much for me. Little text nothings everywhere, oh hey, I found a backslash, neato! You make it sound like the playstyle of the roguelike is made for short bursts of play, and it really isn't. Izuna is, but Shiren isn't. Diablo is, but Nethack isn't.

And the idea that playing through a roguelike is mostly the same thing is the most ignorant thing I've read lately. The whole idea behind making you start over completely every time and randomly generating every tile, enemy, and item is so that the game is *never the same*. And it never is. Have you ever been rescuing someone in Shiren, and you step into the monster house with your friend in it, and he's right next to the door, but you can see items all over the floor, so you decide you're going to fight every monster in the room using only what you have on you and loot the hell out of the place before you go rouse your unconscious friend? And then you proceed to block off the passage from one side by hitting a spike bomb until it becomes immobile so you can just take out the enemies that come around to fight you, and eventually work your way around? That's the kind of risky play-by-the-seat-of-your-pants moment that the game is made for.

Chess IS a terrible game. Just as Greg Kasavin, who years ago reviewed it for Gamespot:

http://www.gamespot.com/strategy/chess/review.html

------
CHESS
By Greg Kasavin

The latest offering in the rapidly overflowing strategy genre is hard evidence that strategy games need a real overhaul, and fast. Chess, a small-scale tactical turn-based strategy game, attempts to adopt the age-old "easy to learn, difficult to master" parameter made popular by Tetris. But the game's cumbersome play mechanics and superficial depth and detail all add up to a game that won't keep you busy for long.

Chess casts you as king of a small country at war with a rival country of equivalent military power. There is little background story to speak of, and by and large the units in the game are utterly lacking any character whatsoever. The faceless, nondescript units are dubbed arbitrarily such labels as "Knight" and "Bishop" while their appearance reveals nothing to suggest these roles. To make matters worse, the units on both playable sides are entirely identical aside from a simple color palette swap. The setting of the conflict is equally uninspiring and consists merely of a two-color grid so as to represent the two warring factions. Adding insult to injury, there is only one available map- and it's pathetically small, an 8x8 matrix (Red Alert maps are up to 128x128 in size). The lack of more expansive battlefields makes Chess feel like little more than an over-glorified Minesweeper.

In a definite nod to Tetris, Chess eschews any kind of personality and styling in order to emphasize its supposedly addictive gameplay. Unfortunately, that gameplay is severely lacking. For one thing, there are only six units in the game. Of those six, two are practically worthless while one is an overpowered "god" unit, the Queen. She's your typical Lara Croft-esque 1990s "me, too" attempt to attract the fabled gaming girl audience from out of the woodwork to help solidify a customer base for a game that simply cannot sell itself on its own merits. The Queen can attack in any direction and she is balanced solely by the fact that both sides are equally equipped with only one. Otherwise, the functions of the six Chess units feel entirely arbitrary. For instance, Rooks can only move in horizontal lines, unable to attack enemies at diagonal angles; yet Bishops can move diagonally, but not horizontally. The result is a frustratingly unrealistic effort at creating balance and strategy where there is, in fact, very little of either element to be found.

Inexplicable pathing problems also plague Chess - the irritating Pawns can only move straight ahead, but for some reason or other they attack diagonally. Worst of all, your units are always deployed in exactly the same fashion. While there might have been some strategic element involved in cleverly deploying one's troops around the undeniably constricted map, the designers saw fit to enforce a "rule" about how the game should be set up. In the end, Chess matches may often go on for a great length of time because your Pawns always begin in front of your more useful forces, thereby blocking them off.

Only two players can compete simultaneously, thus severely limiting any play life to be found. There is only one gameplay mode- no capture the flag or team play - and that involves the two playerstaking turns moving their units one by one. The moment a player's King is threatened, that player is placed in a state of "check." At this point, the player must defend his King with whatever means are available. If he cannot defend his King, he is defeated. Yawn. All units are killed by a single hit, so even a lowly Pawn can be instrumental in defeating an opponent if you plan accordingly. While the artificial balance of forcing equivalent deployment for both sides turns Chess into something of a battle of wits, the turn-based play is poorly paced and never really picks up speed until halfway through a game, if then. And half the time, because of the limited troops available (and no resources with which to purchase more), matches end in disappointing stalemates.

This game attempts to accredit itself by virtue of its tactical play mechanics. Yet those mechanics are tedious and difficult to grasp and exacerbate Chess's other numerous failings. In fact, should you actually memorize all the infuriating little rules governing how the game is played, you'll find yourself growing weary of it all in short order. There's just no payoff to a properly executed game, because the restrictions on the units mean there's a "right" way to play. Thus no real variety can exist between competent players. The sluggish turn-based nature of Chess bogs the package still further and renders this strategy game an irreverent exercise in wasted time for all but the most die-hard turn-based strategy enthusiasts.

It's more than likely that Chess, due to its self-conscious though not entirely elegant simplicity, will garner a small handful of fans. But in light of this game's boundless oversights and limitations, there is no chance it could ever enjoy the sort of success that makes games like Westwood's C&C: Red Alert and Blizzard's Warcraft II the classics they are to this day.
------

CoM got you into dungeon crawling? Wow. It almost got me out of it, because it was so much the same over and over. By the time I finished the game I didn't want to see it anymore for a good long time.
It's also really not a good introduction to the great Mana series.

Oh, I know it's not that good, but I would play it for about 20 minutes at a time, and it was really addictive despite how samey and dull it was.

But if you do it every day in 20 minute bursts, it's awesome.