Realtime vs turn-based
Silvermiles
money from your roguelike?" the following answer:
"Of course you can (...). Real-time combat and nice looking graphics
are heavily recommend if you want to reach out for a broader (paying)
audience, though."
I agree about graphics but what about real-time combat?
In essence, shouldn't a RL be turn-based? Real-time breaks everything
(e.g. Diablo).
Silvermiles
Todd Carnes
A lot of people would say that once you add either one of those things
your game ceases being a "rogue-like". :)
Todd
Krice
> In essence, shouldn't a RL be turn-based?
Yes. So what? About that commercial stuff, it's no secret that
you can make money out of literally anything these days. Just
look at Minecraft. Well actually the game has to be dumb
enough that dumb people pay for it. If it's too complex then
it wont be a commercial success.
Silvermiles
generate money as long as it's not really a roguelike".
Has there been a realtime roguelike released (here or somewhere else)?
Zelda, Gauntlet, Diablo come to mind, but they are all commercial
products, not using the text console. I'm kinda planning to write a
game but as you can see I'm still stuck with the very basic decisions :)
Krice
> So the FAQ contradicts itself, it says in substance: "A roguelike can
> generate money as long as it's not really a roguelike".
So what? Everything contradicts itself. Well, not top-posting,
it's only stupid.
> I'm kinda planning to write a
> game but as you can see I'm still stuck with the very basic decisions
If you want money then roguelikes are possibly not the best way
to make it. You need a dumb idea like Minecraft or Angry Birds
and make it easy to play from the start. Roguelikes are the opposite
of that, they usually require lot of trying and figuring out stuff.
And that's the very same reason some people like them.
Martin Read
>So the FAQ contradicts itself, it says in substance: "A roguelike can
>generate money as long as it's not really a roguelike".
Take Krice's opinion when he holds forth on what constitutes a real
roguelike with a grain of salt :)
After all, he once came up with a set of criteria that excluded the
original _Rogue_. (I think he's got better since then, to be fair.)
Oh, and of course, whether you can make money with a real roguelike is
a diachronically variable question. Epyx managed to make money selling
the text-mode version on IBM PCs (and subsequently tile-graphics
versions on the Atari ST and Commodore Amiga) in the 1980s.
A tile-graphics roguelike for Android, pitched at a low-end price point
and designed to have a difficulty curve instead of a brick wall
_followed by_ a difficulty curve, could conceivably make the author
more money per hour of coding than the same amount of time flipping
burgers at McDonalds.
--
\_\/_/ turbulence is certainty turbulence is friction between you and me
\ / every time we try to impose order we create chaos
\/ -- Killing Joke, "Mathematics of Chaos"
Krice
> After all, he once came up with a set of criteria that excluded the
> original _Rogue_. (I think he's got better since then, to be fair.)
I think it was Rogue's lack of role-playing aspects that was the
problem. I think role-playing is really important, otherwise
you could call ascii platform game a roguelike.
> Oh, and of course, whether you can make money with a real roguelike is
> a diachronically variable question. Epyx managed to make money selling
> the text-mode version on IBM PCs (and subsequently tile-graphics
> versions on the Atari ST and Commodore Amiga) in the 1980s.
It's not 80's anymore.
Gerry Quinn
says...
It breaks *some* things, which many people would argue are important to
the classic idea of a roguelike. It doesn't break everything, and it
makes some things better.
At the end of the day games are games, and the categories we put them
in are of limited importance.
As for making money out of roguelikes, it's not very likely that anyone
will make much, but IMO the prospects may be better now than at most
times with the proliferation of mobile phones capable of playing games.
- Gerry Quinn
Silvermiles
developing a game for oneself is a bit like playing guitar in its room,
it's highly pleasurable but it's a bit of a pity when you think about
it because no one can hear it.
Even my all-time favorite game Crawl has barely dozen of thousands of
players.. I can't probably do better, but analyzing the reasons behind
this moderate success seems better be done before beginning a game,
rather than after.
So the question is rather: what about real-time roguelikes? Are there
any examples of amateur RL?
Silvermiles
room, it's highly pleasurable but it's a bit of a pity when you think
about it because no one can hear it.
Even my all-time favorite game Crawl has barely dozen of thousands of
players.. I can't probably do better, but analyzing the reasons behind
this moderate success seems better be done before beginning a game,
rather than after.
So the question is rather: what about real-time roguelikes? Are there
any examples of amateur RL?
On 2011-05-07 17:37:50 +0800, Martin Read <mpr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> said:
Jeff Lait
> Money is not really the point behind my question.
What question?
On USENET, please place your responses after the quote, not before.
> It's just that just
> developing a game for oneself is a bit like playing guitar in its room,
> it's highly pleasurable but it's a bit of a pity when you think about
> it because no one can hear it.
Very true. But does anyone want to hear it?
I mean, if it is pleasurable, why should you forsake it?
> Even my all-time favorite game Crawl has barely dozen of thousands of
> players.. I can't probably do better, but analyzing the reasons behind
> this moderate success seems better be done before beginning a game,
> rather than after.
First, I'd dispute your numbers. I'm pretty sure Crawl has had more
players than POWDER.
Second, I really don't at all understand your point even if they were
correct.
Have you seen a hundred people gathered in one spot? A hundred people
is a lot of people! If you, as one person, can make something a
hundred people enjoy, is that not an amazing achievement in itself?
Especially, as often in roguelikes, that the hundred people aren't
just friends and relations pressured into "enjoying it", but instead
random individuals with theoretically better things to do.
> So the question is rather: what about real-time roguelikes? Are there
> any examples of amateur RL?
Most (all successful?) amateur roguelikes are single player. When
making a single player roguelike, there is little reason to make it
real time. You really don't gain anything.
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
Jeff Lait
>
> A tile-graphics roguelike for Android, pitched at a low-end price point
> and designed to have a difficulty curve instead of a brick wall
> _followed by_ a difficulty curve, could conceivably make the author
> more money per hour of coding than the same amount of time flipping
> burgers at McDonalds.
I would argue you need to pitch at a higher-end price point.
This genre is niche. Game players need to learn that if your
interests are niche, you can't pay mass market prices anymore.
I would also argue it is essential the base game is free, since you
need to have a low entrance cost for players to discover if they enjoy
it or not.
Jeff Lait
Ah, three interesting topics! We touched on these at IRDC, actually.
And spent an entire session talking about monetization of roguelikes.
So it is a bit fresh on my mind.
Firstly, graphics. It certainly is from the view of outsiders that
Roguelike == ASCII. This is the same strange view that results in the
"Art in Games" exhibit to be looking at the visuals of the games,
rather than where the real art in games is: the gameplay!
When looking for a definition of a "roguelike" the first question is
why we want a definition anyways. It's not to set up some exclusive
club with membership privileges. And it's not to protect the brand
from dilution from people trying to buy into the coolness of
roguelikes. There are two legitimate reasons I can think of off the
top of my head:
1) Ludological: When studying games, we need terminology to describe
our topic. Genres are a useful tool for categorization. If we know
what a roguelike is, we can then with intention design things that
are, or are not, roguelikes, rather than just haphazardly building
things.
2) Gamers: Those who play games want to know what similar games are so
they can find games that are also to their taste.
Both of these requirements are independent of the ascii vs tiles
debate. My general sense over the last 10 years has been that the
ASCII==roguelike meme has been waning. I know when I first released
POWDER I was worried about people rejecting it as it was tile only.
Now it feels like my worries were laughable.
Secondly, we have real-time. Real time vs what? Turn based? Are
roguelikes even turnbased at all? I know, they certainly auto-pause
after every step. But does that really mean turn-based?
Thinking of more turnbased games like most board games, Civilization,
etc, you have very strong explicit turns with many decisions within
each turn. This is why these turn based games can go multiplayer and
remain turn based! A roguelike, however, clearly trips over itself
when we naively make it multiplayer - when walking through a dungeon
we get hung up on someone shopping or trying to decide which spell to
cast. The feel of a roguelike is much more real time - watching
someone play they often play quite a while at a fairly high speed -
indeed, often exceeding real time! Walk commands are just that sort
of faster-than-realtime thing roguelike players love.
There is a tendency when trying to go from a lot of specifics to the
general to make false inferences based on secondary attributes. When
defining what a "car" is, we may conclude a car is something with an
internal combustion engine. 10 years ago, every car had one. Is this
because internal combustion engines are essential to being a car? Or
is it because when you put down the constraints for a "car", the best
solution to those constraints at the moment is an internal combustion
engine?
Likewise with turnbased roguelikes. The tile-based hack-and-slash
dungeon crawler nature that is a roguelike, when you try to implement
it, naturally leads to a turn based combat. Indeed, it seems silly
not to make a single player version turn based - we want people to
walk quickly through empty areas, and to spend some thought on tricky
bits! But, when like in Diablo, we go multiplayer, we have to make a
sacrifice. So we end up with a Nissan Leaf, lacking the internal
combustion engine, and sacrificing total range, but still very much a
car!
Finally, as for money in roguelikes. Yes, you can. Many existing
roguelikes, and roguelike things, are making money as we speak.
iPhone and Android have seen an many such offerings.
Ido is working on Cardinal Quest,
http://www.8bitfunding.com/project_details.php?p_id=65
and already got $4815 in funding prior to completion. (Of course, is
it a roguelike?)
Elsethread I mentioned going for a higher price point. Look at the
funding amounts for Cardinal Quest and you'll see what I mean. Twice
as many people paid $10 as $5. Most of the total money came from
$500+ pledges.
Christophe Cavalaria
The commercial games on Nintendo DS called Shiren the Wanderer, Izuna
and Pokemon Mystery Dungeon are both comercial games AND roguelikes, of
the turn based kind.
So no, you don't need to make it real time to sell but graphics do seem
like a must indeed :p
Silvermiles
> On May 7, 9:28 am, Silvermiles <silvermi...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Money is not really the point behind my question.
>
> What question?
>
> On USENET, please place your responses after the quote, not before.
Thank you, I'll do that.
>
>> It's just that just
>> developing a game for oneself is a bit like playing guitar in its room,
>> it's highly pleasurable but it's a bit of a pity when you think about
>> it because no one can hear it.
>
> Very true. But does anyone want to hear it?
>
> I mean, if it is pleasurable, why should you forsake it?
Well, if you know what styles exist, and you choose a style you think
people will like... At the same time you try to be creative... Probably
some people will like your music, then?
Whether you want to share with them is another question. The same for a
game, I think.
And nobody should forsake anything, I didn't mean that. Some Roguelikes
I know are terrific.
>
>> Even my all-time favorite game Crawl has barely dozen of thousands of
>> players.. I can't probably do better, but analyzing the reasons behind
>> this moderate success seems better be done before beginning a game,
>> rather than after.
>
> First, I'd dispute your numbers. I'm pretty sure Crawl has had more
> players than POWDER.
I meant active players. It's just a number from their website, if I
remember correctly. If you count everyone having played the game, of
course it's much bigger.
>
> Second, I really don't at all understand your point even if they were
> correct.
>
> Have you seen a hundred people gathered in one spot? A hundred people
> is a lot of people! If you, as one person, can make something a
> hundred people enjoy, is that not an amazing achievement in itself?
> Especially, as often in roguelikes, that the hundred people aren't
> just friends and relations pressured into "enjoying it", but instead
> random individuals with theoretically better things to do.
One person happy, is already some achievement! But hey...
Why stop there. Two people happy is better, Three people happy is even
better etc.
>
>> So the question is rather: what about real-time roguelikes? Are there
>> any examples of amateur RL?
>
> Most (all successful?) amateur roguelikes are single player. When
> making a single player roguelike, there is little reason to make it
> real time. You really don't gain anything.
Zelda is some kind of a real-time roguelike, isn't it? At least, it was
probably inspired from the original Rogue.
Silvermiles
>
> The commercial games on Nintendo DS called Shiren the Wanderer, Izuna
> and Pokemon Mystery Dungeon are both comercial games AND roguelikes, of
> the turn based kind.
>
> So no, you don't need to make it real time to sell but graphics do seem
> like a must indeed :p
Pokemon -___-
Shame on them..
But they haven't random levels have they? :P
Have you played the game? Is it good?
Silvermiles
Gave "Cardinal Quest" a try the other day. But chiptune music and
arcade design are not the mood I like for a thinking/survival game, so
I stopped playing after a few minutes. $4815 is not bad though.
Have to play POWDER some day, I'll try it this week :)
Martin Read
>On 2011-05-09 17:59:34 +0800, Christophe Cavalaria
><chris.c...@free.fr> said:
>> The commercial games on Nintendo DS called Shiren the Wanderer, Izuna
>> and Pokemon Mystery Dungeon are both comercial games AND roguelikes, of
>> the turn based kind.
>
>Shame on them..
>
>But they haven't random levels have they? :P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_Dungeon
They do, actually - all of Chunsoft's _Fushigi no Dungeon_ (Mystery
Dungeon) games are graphical turn-based roguelikes. Chunsoft released
the first _Fushigi no Dungeon_ game in 1993, and are still at it today.
(Note: the "Pokemon Mystery Dungeon" games are not the _main_ games of
the Pokemon franchise; they are a spinoff line, developed by Chunsoft
rather than Game Freak.)
Darren Grey
> Ido is working on Cardinal Quest,http://www.8bitfunding.com/project_details.php?p_id=65
> and already got $4815 in funding prior to completion. (Of course, is
> it a roguelike?)
>
> Elsethread I mentioned going for a higher price point. Look at the
> funding amounts for Cardinal Quest and you'll see what I mean. Twice
> as many people paid $10 as $5. Most of the total money came from
> $500+ pledges.
As a contrasting example, look at ToME4. It has made zero serious
donation drives, having only a Paypal link on the web-site since
Christmas, and has received ~$1000 in that time. From what I've seen
the vast majority is in small donations. I'm not sure how much more
it could get with a serious attempt at crowd-sourcing.
--
Darren Grey
Jeff Lait
> On 2011-05-07 23:26:11 +0800, Jeff Lait <torespondisfut...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> > Have you seen a hundred people gathered in one spot? A hundred people
> > is a lot of people! If you, as one person, can make something a
> > hundred people enjoy, is that not an amazing achievement in itself?
> > Especially, as often in roguelikes, that the hundred people aren't
> > just friends and relations pressured into "enjoying it", but instead
> > random individuals with theoretically better things to do.
>
> One person happy, is already some achievement! But hey...
> Why stop there. Two people happy is better, Three people happy is even
> better etc.
I would never advocate intentionally limiting your audience. You had
expressed dismay that a game had only reached 10,000 people, however.
While we can all likely agree it would be better to reach 100,000, it
isn't necessary. And one shouldn't feel dismay.
Turn it around - there are only so many games *you* can play in your
life. So how many people can expect to have you be a player of their
game? In some ways it would be tragic if all games hit 1 million
players, for that would mean there would only be a few thousand
games! Us humans are way too diverse to limit ourselves that way.
> Zelda is some kind of a real-time roguelike, isn't it? At least, it was
> probably inspired from the original Rogue.
I know of no evidence that it was inspired from Rogue. I also don't
see any roguelike nature to it. It's an action-puzzle game. The
tactical combat that exists is all scripted by hand designed rooms,
rather being emergent from the RNG and player actions. The way you
beat battles is by learning a script, not by learning techniques.
Silvermiles
>
>> Zelda is some kind of a real-time roguelike, isn't it? At least, it was
>> probably inspired from the original Rogue.
>
> I know of no evidence that it was inspired from Rogue. I also don't
> see any roguelike nature to it. It's an action-puzzle game. The
> tactical combat that exists is all scripted by hand designed rooms,
> rather being emergent from the RNG and player actions. The way you
> beat battles is by learning a script, not by learning techniques.
Well I know it certainly isn't the concensus, but I feel the original
Rogue spirit, more in Zelda rather than in the permanently quoted
Diablo. The reason why Diablo is quoted is because the developers have
admitted the inspiration.
Zelda was released in 1986 on the NES. Rogue was released in something
like 1980. Rogue was already a phenomenon at the time. And Nintendo was
releasing their first 8bit console, and was looking for blockbusters.
You find items, rings, there are dungeons, even dark rooms like in the
original Rogue...
While it certainly is more than a Roguelike (as you say it adds puzzle,
real-time and a solid background), I would not be surprised if the
designers of Zelda actually had some of their inspiration playing the
original Rogue, and making it simple and easy to learn. The original
Rogue was already very simple, and reminded me of Zelda's underground
levels. Not like Crawl or Angband, it was much more simple to learn.
Jeff Lait
> On 2011-05-11 01:49:05 +0800, Jeff Lait <torespondisfut...@hotmail.com> said:
> >> Zelda is some kind of a real-time roguelike, isn't it? At least, it was
> >> probably inspired from the original Rogue.
>
> > I know of no evidence that it was inspired from Rogue. I also don't
> > see any roguelike nature to it. It's an action-puzzle game. The
> > tactical combat that exists is all scripted by hand designed rooms,
> > rather being emergent from the RNG and player actions. The way you
> > beat battles is by learning a script, not by learning techniques.
>
> Well I know it certainly isn't the concensus, but I feel the original
> Rogue spirit, more in Zelda rather than in the permanently quoted
> Diablo. The reason why Diablo is quoted is because the developers have
> admitted the inspiration.
I'd argue Diablo and Zelda can be considered independently of each
other. Diablo gets quoted more because it is less ambiguous. Not
only does it look and play like a roguelike, but it was explicitly
inspired from Angband.
> Zelda was released in 1986 on the NES. Rogue was released in something
> like 1980. Rogue was already a phenomenon at the time. And Nintendo was
> releasing their first 8bit console, and was looking for blockbusters.
> You find items, rings, there are dungeons, even dark rooms like in the
> original Rogue...
Items, rings, dungeons do not make a roguelike. The key aspect of
roguelikes is the dungeon crawl. Not the story, not the puzzle, not
the stats juggling. Because this is key, roguelikes go with
permaconsequences and random dungeons. Without random dungeons, you
don't have a dungeon crawl - you have a "follow the scripted path
perfectly" where you save and restore until you get the right path.
Without permaconsequences, you don't have a dungeon crawl, as you just
rewind time till you succeed.
> While it certainly is more than a Roguelike (as you say it adds puzzle,
> real-time and a solid background),
It is not about what it adds, it is about what it takes away.
Admittedly, I only briefly played the original zelda - most of my
zelda play hours are from the later GBC, GBA, and DS versions. But a
key component they took away was the randomized dungeon. And this is
not blindly following a checklist - randomized dungeons aren't what
makes it a roguelike, but randomized dungeons are something you feel
compelled to add in if you are trying to make a roguelike.
> I would not be surprised if the
> designers of Zelda actually had some of their inspiration playing the
> original Rogue, and making it simple and easy to learn.
I see no reason to invoke Rogue as a source. Shamus would be closer
(1983), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamus_(computer_game)
Or if they went from turnbased, it could equally be from the CRPG
line, such as Ultima (1980)
More likely, it is just convergent evolution. (Beneath Apple Manor,
for example, is a roguelike that predates Rogue!)
> The original
> Rogue was already very simple, and reminded me of Zelda's underground
> levels. Not like Crawl or Angband, it was much more simple to learn.
I think we all agree that hard to learn is an accidental convergent
misfeature of the roguelike genre, not something needs to be kept to
stay a roguelike.
Silvermiles
> On May 11, 4:07 pm, Silvermiles <silvermi...@nospam.com> wrote:\
>> Zelda was released in 1986 on the NES. Rogue was released in something
>> like 1980. Rogue was already a phenomenon at the time. And Nintendo was
>> releasing their first 8bit console, and was looking for blockbusters.
>> You find items, rings, there are dungeons, even dark rooms like in the
>> original Rogue...
>
> Items, rings, dungeons do not make a roguelike. The key aspect of
> roguelikes is the dungeon crawl. Not the story, not the puzzle, not
> the stats juggling.
No no, that's the your a posteriori definition of Roguelike. If we're
talking about Rogue and Zelda, we should replace ourself in the context
of the time, that's to say in 84 or 85 (I don't know how many time it
took to develop Zelda).
What Rogue was about was exploring levels and rooms, grabbing items and
slasing monsters. There was almost nothing about stats in Rogue. And
the story in Zelda is just very simple. The puzzle are rather the
result of not having random dungeons, and that's the real feature that
separates Rogue and Zelda (apart from the real-time thing).
>
>> While it certainly is more than a Roguelike (as you say it adds puzzle,
>> real-time and a solid background),
>
> It is not about what it adds, it is about what it takes away.
> Admittedly, I only briefly played the original zelda - most of my
> zelda play hours are from the later GBC, GBA, and DS versions. But a
> key component they took away was the randomized dungeon. And this is
> not blindly following a checklist - randomized dungeons aren't what
> makes it a roguelike, but randomized dungeons are something you feel
> compelled to add in if you are trying to make a roguelike.
I'd just say that this changes the game perspective, a lot. So is real-time.
>> I would not be surprised if the
>> designers of Zelda actually had some of their inspiration playing the
>> original Rogue, and making it simple and easy to learn.
>
> I see no reason to invoke Rogue as a source. Shamus would be closer
> (1983), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamus_(computer_game)
> Or if they went from turnbased, it could equally be from the CRPG
> line, such as Ultima (1980)
Hopefully the japonese people at Nintendo were creative enough not to
rip previous game. I assume they transcended some gaming experience
they had before. Shamus might be close in term of game mechanics but
lacks the spirit of Rogue (adventuring). I hadn't the chance to play
Ultima before Ultima IV, but Ultima spirit, in all the versions I
tried, is tainted with a characteristic atmosphere.
> More likely, it is just convergent evolution. (Beneath Apple Manor,
> for example, is a roguelike that predates Rogue!)
Zelda was more than a convergent evolution, it was a revolution. If you
merely reason in terms of game mechanics you will not see my point. And
following Zelda versions are not the same as the original Zelda.
They're much more about puzzles and the outside world.
Anyway you can try to replay Legend of Zelda, and next time you descend
to stairs to go in level 1, and have to light a dark room, and try to
slay bats, collect gems, and have your life level go down, and try to
figure out the map ; and then try to replay Rogue. If you really don't
feel a similitude in terms of mood, then I'll conceed you've won the
debate.
>> The original
>> Rogue was already very simple, and reminded me of Zelda's underground
>> levels. Not like Crawl or Angband, it was much more simple to learn.
>
> I think we all agree that hard to learn is an accidental convergent
> misfeature of the roguelike genre, not something needs to be kept to
> stay a roguelike.
Hum. I wonder if the keyboard, console and complexity beast is not what
we people find fascinating in the first place ;). But yes, this,
probably more than everything, condemn a game to remain a niche game,
and probably should have replaced the answer in the FAQ:
can I make game with my roguelike game? -> can my roguelike attract people?
it must have nice graphics & real-time -> it should be easy to learn
for everyone
Silvermiles
On 2011-05-12 14:08:21 +0800, Silvermiles <silve...@nospam.com> said:
> probably should have replaced (...) in the FAQ:
>
> can I make game with my roguelike game? -> can my roguelike attract people?
> it must have nice graphics & real-time -> it should be easy to learn
> for everyone
*can I make *money with my roguelike game? -> can my roguelike attract people?
*it must have nice graphics & be real-time -> it should be easy to
learn for everyone
Krice
> While it certainly is more than a Roguelike (as you say it adds puzzle,
> real-time and a solid background), I would not be surprised if the
> designers of Zelda actually had some of their inspiration playing the
> original Rogue
Obviously you don't know anything about Zelda. It was designed by
one man, mr. Shigeru Miyamoto. You might have heard of the guy,
he's the one who created also Super Mario. Ring a bell?
So, Shigeru took the idea of caves and exploring from the real
actual world, where he used to adventure himself. He probably
also took wrong kind of mushroom while there, but that's in the
another game, that Super Mario, also previously unknown to you.
Silvermiles
Everybody knows Miyamoto. I think you should see a doctor Krice ; I'm
concerned about your behaviour those days.
As for him being the sole designer (every game gets refined while being
made) and now one in Nintendo ever having played Rogue, I seriously
doubt it.
Exploring the real actual world, come on...
Martin Read
>On 2011-05-13 03:24:06 +0800, Krice <pau...@mbnet.fi> said:
>> So, Shigeru took the idea of caves and exploring from the real
>> actual world, where he used to adventure himself.
>Exploring the real actual world, come on...
Yes, really. Shigeru Miyamoto has said as much in interviews; ten
minutes actually reading about him and the Legeend of Zelda would
have told you this.
Darren Grey
> On 2011-05-13 03:24:06 +0800, Krice <pau...@mbnet.fi> said:
>
> > On 11 touko, 23:07, Silvermiles <silvermi...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> While it certainly is more than a Roguelike (as you say it adds puzzle,
> >> real-time and a solid background), I would not be surprised if the
> >> designers of Zelda actually had some of their inspiration playing the
> >> original Rogue
>
> > Obviously you don't know anything about Zelda. It was designed by
> > one man, mr. Shigeru Miyamoto. You might have heard of the guy,
> > he's the one who created also Super Mario. Ring a bell?
> > So, Shigeru took the idea of caves and exploring from the real
> > actual world, where he used to adventure himself. He probably
> > also took wrong kind of mushroom while there, but that's in the
> > another game, that Super Mario, also previously unknown to you.
>
> Everybody knows Miyamoto. I think you should see a doctor Krice ; I'm
> concerned about your behaviour those days.
This is actually rather polite for Krice :)
> As for him being the sole designer (every game gets refined while being
> made) and now one in Nintendo ever having played Rogue, I seriously
> doubt it.
>
> Exploring the real actual world, come on...
You are working on rather immense conjecture, comparing games with
some extremely generic similarities. Remember that Rogue is not the
first dungeon crawler, and there is plenty of history before and after
it. A lot of games produced in that era and since have used very
similar themes. They may well share some common influences, but to
say they are directly linked is a huge jump in logic without any
supportive evidence. You are essentially just guessing that some
console game devs in Japan played a game that was popular with some
college students in the States 6 years prior. There is zero real
evidence of this, and indeed all material about the inspirations
behind the first Zelda (which are many, as it is hugely popular and
well studied) show no evidence of influence from Rogue, and indeed
show many themes behind it which are very different from Rogue's (such
as non-linearity, freedom to explore an open and varied world and
puzzle-based gameplay).
You are welcome to your hypothesis, but it's silly to tell other
people to get in the "real actual world" when you have no real actual
world evidence.
--
Darren Grey
Darren Grey
> On May 13, 11:57 am, Silvermiles <silvermi...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > As for him being the sole designer (every game gets refined while being
> > made) and now one in Nintendo ever having played Rogue, I seriously
> > doubt it.
>
> > Exploring the real actual world, come on...
>
> people to get in the "real actual world" when you have no real actual
> world evidence.
Just realised I misread your post rather stupidly - I thought you were
telling Krice to "get real" essentially.
Yes, Miyamoto created Zelda to have a game that gave a sense of
adventure and exploration. He said in interviews that he based it on
his childhood activities of going wandering around the countryside and
finding lakes and forests etc. He wanted to give the player the same
open experience and joy of discovery. This is of course very
different from the more claustrophic and linear feel of Rogue, where
the emphasis is entirely on hack and slash.
--
Darren Grey
Gerry Quinn
8b0e7e...@f11g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, jml...@gmail.com says...
> Items, rings, dungeons do not make a roguelike. The key aspect of
> roguelikes is the dungeon crawl. Not the story, not the puzzle, not
> the stats juggling. Because this is key, roguelikes go with
> permaconsequences and random dungeons. Without random dungeons, you
> don't have a dungeon crawl - you have a "follow the scripted path
> perfectly" where you save and restore until you get the right path.
> Without permaconsequences, you don't have a dungeon crawl, as you just
> rewind time till you succeed.
While these things traditionally go well together, I don't think they
are completely joined at the hip. A game can be forgiving enough that
it is viable to play ironman (i.e. no saving or loading), even if it is
scripted. Also, today the technology exists to offer games in which
saving and reloading is not permitted or possible. (All MMORPGs work
that way, although currently dungeons are usually repeatable.)
Significant procedural generation of dungeons seems to be almost
unknown in MMORPGs, I'm not sure why. It would surely be possible to
deliver a unique procedurally-generated dungeon once only to each
character in a MMORPG though. Of course such a concept does not fit
well with the typical tropes of currently popular MMORPGs. But one can
dream.
- Gerry Quinn
paul-d...@sbcglobal.net
> Significant procedural generation of dungeons seems to be almost
> unknown in MMORPGs, I'm not sure why. It would surely be possible to
> deliver a unique procedurally-generated dungeon once only to each
> character in a MMORPG
I wonder if it would be. It doesn't seem like you'd want to push
everything to the client, so you'd have to keep your dungeons on the
server. Generating a dungeon for a 3d game seems like more work for the
computer than generating one for an ASCII game, and of course you'd need
to store unique levels for each player while in use. It seems like
there's a potential there for a lot of extra power and memory to be
needed.
Gerry Quinn
says...
Not a lot IMO. The dungeon would be made by assembling pre-generated
parts, which would reside on the client. So all the server has to do
is generate a map from a collection of these parts, and populate it
with monsters and loot (which have to be tracked, but the same applies
to any dungeon).
There's not really a whole lot involved. And anyway if they had 1000+
possible dungeons, it might be enough for many purposes. Say for
example a class quest at Level 50 for a game like WoW - 1000 different
dungeons would be enough, though an occasional person would see the
same dungeon on two alts.
Of course, WoW is not in the business of giving characters unique
dungeons; it would be totally against their current principles in fact.
Heaven forfend that anyone couldn't grind the designated best-in-slot
loot item. But a game could certainly be made that way.
Come to think of it, doesn't Diablo II have a lot of the elements of
this?
- Gerry Quinn
Jeff Lait
> In article <c3a8dd47-3321-4282-ae77-
> 8b0e7e917...@f11g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, jml...@gmail.com says...
>
> > Items, rings, dungeons do not make a roguelike. The key aspect of
> > roguelikes is the dungeon crawl. Not the story, not the puzzle, not
> > the stats juggling. Because this is key, roguelikes go with
> > permaconsequences and random dungeons. Without random dungeons, you
> > don't have a dungeon crawl - you have a "follow the scripted path
> > perfectly" where you save and restore until you get the right path.
> > Without permaconsequences, you don't have a dungeon crawl, as you just
> > rewind time till you succeed.
>
> While these things traditionally go well together, I don't think they
> are completely joined at the hip. A game can be forgiving enough that
> it is viable to play ironman (i.e. no saving or loading), even if it is
> scripted. Also, today the technology exists to offer games in which
> saving and reloading is not permitted or possible. (All MMORPGs work
> that way, although currently dungeons are usually repeatable.)
Yes, and you can also go the Zelda or Ultima route. You don't need to
save & restore in Zelda since death isn't that punitive - just chop
some bushes and get back where you left off.
If you care about the script, you want all your players to get through
all of the script, and don't care if they play again. If you care
about the combat, you don't care how far they get in the dungeon
(indeed, always dying in the mid game is likely optimal) and you
certainly do want them to replay from the start many times. Not to
punish them, but to reward them with more exciting combat.
I'd put that down as a key differentiator of Zelda/Ultima from
Roguelikes. In Zelda and Ultima the combat is a joke, a light layer
of icing to hold together the cake. In roguelikes, it is the story
that is the icing. This is why Diablo is close to roguelikes - people
are playing for the fight/loot cycle, not for the advancement of the
plot!
> Significant procedural generation of dungeons seems to be almost
> unknown in MMORPGs, I'm not sure why. It would surely be possible to
> deliver a unique procedurally-generated dungeon once only to each
> character in a MMORPG though. Of course such a concept does not fit
> well with the typical tropes of currently popular MMORPGs. But one can
> dream.
Well, MMORPGs originally sought to be virtual worlds. A procedural
dungeon where everyone gets a different experience destroys the shared
world effect. Of course, due to players not actually wanting to play
with each other, they've moved towards heavy instancing where
procedural generation starts to make sense. But they've also moved to
highly crafted dungeons which are not just hard to generate
generically, but hard to QA. Pathing, itemization, etc, is all crazy
tweaked stuff rather than being properly procedural - you have to
rethink the whole thing from the start to go that way. Which is what
Diablo did.