Classic RL yet to be discussed
Pointless
Developed in 1992, this game pits two teams against each other with
the object of capturing the opponent's flag. Characters have stats
like stealth, movement points, and attack power. If a defender moves
over an attacker, there's a percentage that the attacker is captured.
If the attacker is captured, the character goes to jail. If the
defense fails, the attacker gets another turn to run.
Has pre-built maps and a map creator to make your own. This game is
really fun, and I highly recommend it.
Some interesting ideas used in this game:
+Different stances, like crawling, standing, running, and walking.
Changing stances changes your movement speed, stealth (at what
distance a defender can see you), and sight radius.
+Good turn-based team play
+Can play multiplayer or against a computer
+Different terrain types
na...@nate879.org
How is this a roguelike?
Pointless
Is LineRogue a RL? Is Dwarf Fortress a RL? This game has a 2-
dimensional world, 8 movement directions, top-down display, turn-based
gameplay, character stats, and combat. So in a lot of ways, it's a RL.
Martin Read
>Is LineRogue a RL?
Don't know enough about it to comment.
>Is Dwarf Fortress a RL?
Sort of, in adventure mode. It has one of the most crucially important
properties: randomness of world construction.
>This game has a 2-dimensional world, 8 movement directions, top-down
>display, turn-based gameplay, character stats, and combat.
So did half the CRPGs of the 1980s. I should know, I played enough of
the damned things. (Replaying Wizard's Crown right now, in fact...)
>So in a lot of ways, it's a RL.
In one of the most crucially important ones - randomness of world
construction - it appears from your description that it isn't.
--
\_\/_/ 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"
Numeron
>>So in a lot of ways, it's a RL.
> In one of the most crucially important ones - randomness of world
> construction - it appears from your description that it isn't.
Who decided what aspects of RLs are the most important?
IMO if its in any way like rogue, its a roguelike: hense the name.
Otherwise soon as you put in the teeny tiniest addition or subraction
to you perfect rogue clone then your game is no longer a roguelike
since suddenly in this new way it has something different to offer. A
good way to stifle progression in the genre and ingenuity in new
projects is to shackle them to this list of points, some of which are
still disputed, and say that unless *every single one of them* is
fulfilled, then bedamned because you cannot fly the roguelike banner,
and your game has no place anywhere near ours.
-Numeron
na...@nate879.org
it. It's at http://www.roguetemple.com/2008/04/27/roguelike-definition/.
Jeff Lait
wrote:
> Martin Read wrote:
> >>So in a lot of ways, it's a RL.
> > In one of the most crucially important ones - randomness of world
> > construction - it appears from your description that it isn't.
>
> Who decided what aspects of RLs are the most important?
Who: A cabal of about 9 people. When: September 20th, 2008. Where:
Berlin.
> IMO if its in any way like rogue, its a roguelike: hense the name.
Not "any way". Otherwise one would claim that my text editor is a
roguelike because it shares a character interface.
This is the essential grounds of a genre inclusion, however, a
roguelike should be like-rogue.
> Otherwise soon as you put in the teeny tiniest addition or subraction
> to you perfect rogue clone then your game is no longer a roguelike
> since suddenly in this new way it has something different to offer.
When faced with two extremes, both of which are silly, the logical
conclusion is that sanity lies somewhere in the middle.
> A
> good way to stifle progression in the genre and ingenuity in new
> projects is to shackle them to this list of points, some of which are
> still disputed, and say that unless *every single one of them* is
> fulfilled, then bedamned because you cannot fly the roguelike banner,
> and your game has no place anywhere near ours.
I am certainly not trying to claim that there should be an absolute
definition of roguelike which all true believers should hold to. Many
definitions would disqualify POWDER, for example, due to the lack of
an ASCII mode. I do, however, hold that there must be *some* limits
placed on the word "roguelike" or it would cease to have any meaning.
There are, broadly, two reasons a game can be a roguelike:
1) Through convergent evolution it developed similarity to Rogue.
This can occur with no direct contact with rogue itself - a completely
isolated developer may reinvent the roguelike genre precisely because
it is a good genre.
2) It could descend from a project derived from Rogue. (I do not mean
"descend from source code" in the Angband Variant sense, but "descend
from inspiration" in the much harder to define manner)
Reason #1 has a high bar of entry. A game that started as a RTS
Warcraft clone has to really change to cross the genre barrier from
RTS to roguelike. This is why people a reluctant to canonify Capture
the Flag. Just because something has tiles, random map, etc, doesn't
mean it belongs as a roguelike! To turn the tables on your concern,
just because a game can check off every entry on a checklist shouldn't
mean it *must* be a roguelike!
Reason #2 has a much lower bar of entry. This is where some of the
supposed counter examples show up - dwarf fortress for one. A very
large percentage of 7DRLs also deviate far from the safe realm of the
roguelike genre. One could ask why Fatherhood could be classed as a
Roguelike yet Capture the Flag not. The answer is simply one of
heridatary - the whale, despite having fins, swimming in the water,
etc, ends up classed as a Mammal rather than Fish.
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
Martin Read
>Who decided what aspects of RLs are the most important?
I did. You're free to disagree with me (and clearly do)...
>IMO if its in any way like rogue, its a roguelike: hense the name.
... but I happen to think that the particular way in which you disagree
with me is both misguided and badly argued.
>Otherwise soon as you put in the teeny tiniest addition or subraction
>to you perfect rogue clone then your game is no longer a roguelike
>since suddenly in this new way it has something different to offer.
For example, here you're (a) succumbing to the fallacy of the excluded
middle and (b) knocking down straw men. I don't think anyone on this
group has ever propounded the position that roguelikes must be exactly
like rogue in every way.
>A good way to stifle progression in the genre and ingenuity in new
>projects is to shackle them to this list of points, some of which are
>still disputed, and say that unless *every single one of them* is
>fulfilled, then bedamned because you cannot fly the roguelike banner,
>and your game has no place anywhere near ours.
My criteria for "roguelikeness" admit Seven Weeks, Fatherhood, Dwarf
Fortress (at a slight stretch), Gearhead, and Diablo II.
Yours *as you stated them above* might at a stretch admit Infocom's
rather curious work of interactive fiction "Trinity", and certainly
admit Zork, ADVENT (the Colossal Cave), Final Fantasy VI, and (dare I
say it) Space Invaders.
Numeron
*enough* like rogue, and that seems to be the point of this argument.
Well how do you define what is enough? You cant, because its different
for different people.
The point I was trying to put forth is that evaluating a game with a
ticklist, or defining what it is with hardset lines is not necessarily
a valid way to approach defining it, since there will always be
dispute over which points are more important than others or whether
points matter at all.
I in no way intended to convey that my definition of a roguelike is as
lax as it is, perhaps instead of saying "in any way like rogue" I
should have said "like rogue". Like rogue means to me that if player
is playing a game and thinks "Hey, this is quite like that rogue game
I once played" or since rogue is a game which many have not played
"Hey, this game kind of fits in with other games that Ive discovered
through this newsgroup" then it is roguelike.
That player doesnt have to back up that thought with evidence and
bulletpoints because in the end it doesnt matter that much to them. As
a result of the thought however, the game is, as far as that player is
concerned, a roguelike.
-Numeron
Slash
wrote:
> Martin Read wrote:
> >>So in a lot of ways, it's a RL.
> > In one of the most crucially important ones - randomness of world
> > construction - it appears from your description that it isn't.
>
> Who decided what aspects of RLs are the most important?
As nate879 said, you can use roguetemple's roguelike definition to
define the "roguelikeness" of a game. It evolved from many such
discussions.
According to this, there is no such thing as an absolute roguelike
(with some little exceptions), but a game rather has a roguelikeness
value.
My suggestion goes for something like 3 points for high valued
factors, 2 and 1 for middle and low. Thus DF would get some
respectable 19/27 roguelike points, GearHead gets 22/27, and so on
(Aquaria gets 7/27, for instance :) )
This is a more direct URL: http://www.roguetemple.com/roguelike-definition/
SNIP
>
> -Numeron
--
Slashie
Pointless
> As nate879 said, you can use roguetemple's roguelike definition to
> define the "roguelikeness" of a game. It evolved from many such
> discussions.
>
> According to this, there is no such thing as an absolute roguelike
> (with some little exceptions), but a game rather has a roguelikeness
> value.
>
> My suggestion goes for something like 3 points for high valued
> factors, 2 and 1 for middle and low. Thus DF would get some
> respectable 19/27 roguelike points, GearHead gets 22/27, and so on
> (Aquaria gets 7/27, for instance :) )
>
> This is a more direct URL:http://www.roguetemple.com/roguelike-definition/
>
> SNIP
>
>
>
>
> --
> Slashie
But all such games have valuable ideas for new roguelikes
Pointless
Krice
> As nate879 said, you can use roguetemple's roguelike definition to
> define the "roguelikeness" of a game.
I always thought roguelikes were role-playing games with
random world generation, but in that definition there is
no mention of role-playing. What the fucking fuck?
Jakub Debski
> But all such games have valuable ideas for new roguelikes
every game have valuable ideas for new roguelikes :)
Look at my:
http://www.alamak0ta.republika.pl/roguedash.html
http://www.alamak0ta.republika.pl/bomberogue.html
or
http://groups.google.pl/group/rec.games.roguelike.development/msg/2aa1e4b99228f3dd
regards,
Jakub
uschkinre...@gmx.de
>
> regards,
> Jakub
just one cent:
ASCII should not classify a game for a roguelike - ASCII, no sound, no
animation, no music, tilebases movement (maybe even realtime) were
just limitations of hardware.
second cent:
capture the flag is not what i would classify as a roguelike, either.
Otherwise the tactical x-com battles were a roguelike.
Brog
The definition of "role-playing" is considerably more contentious than
that of "roguelike", Mr. Expletive Expletive. Again it's a problem of
heredity - games that borrow mechanics from rpgs, but don't themselves
contain any actual roleplaying, get called rpgs (like Rogue for
example). This makes for a considerably muddy definition.
"Roguelike" isn't nearly so problematic because you can point at Rogue
and say "kind of like this".
And don't get me started on "puzzle game". Basically we need a
language reset.
Soyweiser
> I always thought roguelikes were role-playing games with
> random world generation, but in that definition there is
Sorry to say this, but you thought wrong. Role-playing never has been
a large part of roguelikes. Sure they have some role-playing elements
such as stats, skills, levels, experience and the like. But this does
not mean they are role-playing games. In fact most computer role-
playing games are not role-playing games. In role-playing games you
pick a role and create a narrative using this role, all the gameplay
elements such as stats, etc are only secondary. You can have role-
playing games without the stats, you can't have roleplaying games
without creating a story.
In computer games you do not really create a story. You follow the
story the creators of the game made for you. And in roguelikes you
perhaps think that there is a story, but this story does not really
follow from the game. (In most roguelikes you can't swing from the
chandelier to kick the evil king in the face, you can only bump into
him). You create the story yourself in your head, but it does not
really follow from the game. Sure you pick a class in nethack, but
does this mean you roleplay? I think not.
Nowadays if a game has stats or levels it is called a game with rpg
influences. I think that is horrible, stats and levels aren't role-
playing, they are just a way of showing the game mechanics to the
player. In fact showing stats and levels is even bad for role-playing
as it empowers the min-max players. Not that there is anything wrong
with min-maxers. It is just a different way of playing a game.
Roguelikes are tactical games with random world generation. Not role-
playing games with random world generation.
--
Soyweiser
Krice
> In fact most computer role-
> playing games are not role-playing games.
I was referring to COMPUTER role-playing games, obviously.
Rogue is a role-playing game, no question about that, but
what is enough to qualify as a role-playing game is another
story. At least we can quite easily say what is NOT a
role-playing game if the game has no role-playing
elements at all or it's so minimal that it's actually
more like action/adventure game.
dominik...@gmail.com
<uschkinredsunsh...@gmx.de> wrote:
> second cent:
> capture the flag is not what i would classify as a roguelike, either.
> Otherwise the tactical x-com battles were a roguelike.
Shh!!! Don't reveal my top secret XCOMRL project!!! Oops, revealed it
myself... ;)
Mingos
Soyweiser
Yeah, and computer role-playing games should not be called role-
playing games. (There are of course exceptions).
Point me to the role-playing elements of rogue please. Tactical game
elements do not count. Better yet, define role-playing.
--
Soyweiser
Soyweiser
> myself... ;)
>
> Mingos
XCOMRL, that would be interesting :). But didn't somebody already do
that? And call it laser squad?
--
Soyweiser
Krice
> Yeah, and computer role-playing games should not be called role-
> playing games.
What do you like to call them then?
> Better yet, define role-playing.
I'm going to in my next roguelike article. You all know
and love my "Crash Course to Roguelike Development", so
why not write another one that contains correct and true
information.
Soyweiser
> On 4 syys, 15:20, Soyweiser <soywei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, and computer role-playing games should not be called role-
> > playing games.
>
> What do you like to call them then?
>
Computer role-playing games. Because there is no better word for it
(wikipedia uses electronic role-playing games). Crpgs for short. And
normal rpg's I like to call pen and paper role-playing games. Just so
the distinction is clear. It is a minor point to most people, I know
that. But we are all allowed to have our pet peeves don't we? And in
fact how you call them isn't that important as long as you see that
crpg's and pnprpg's don't have the same types of features. Crpg is
just a nice to say that a game has tactical (stats, lvls, different
attack modes), and adventure (look a story) elements (Sure there are
more, but not all of them apply to roguelikes, I think that when you
look at it, the definition of crpgs is probably just as bad as the
definition of roguelikes). And we could define the genre of roguelikes
a lot better if we split up the crpg definition in its elements.
> > Better yet, define role-playing.
>
> I'm going to in my next roguelike article. You all know
> and love my "Crash Course to Roguelike Development", so
> why not write another one that contains correct and true
> information.
Great, do that :). Do you have an eta for this article, or just before
duke nukem forever is released? (If they are really going to release
duke nukem forever, it is going to be a problem for a lot of people
who made those kinds of promises).
--
Soyweiser
Brog
> On 4 syys, 15:20, Soyweiser <soywei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, and computer role-playing games should not be called role-
> > playing games.
>
> What do you like to call them then?
Grindfests?
Jakub Debski
> Yeah, and computer role-playing games should not be called role-
> playing games. (There are of course exceptions).
On the second hand almost every computer game is a role-playing :)
In Civilization you play role of a national leader, in Red Baron you
are fighter pilot, in Another World teleported scientist and in Mario
acrobatic plumber ;)
regards,
Jakub
Darren Grey
> On Sep 4, 3:07 pm, Krice <pau...@mbnet.fi> wrote:
>
> > What do you like to call them then?
>
> Computer role-playing games. Because there is no better word for it
> (wikipedia uses electronic role-playing games). Crpgs for short. And
> normal rpg's I like to call pen and paper role-playing games.
One problem with that definition is that many use the terms "computer
rpg" and "console rpg" to distinguish between the very different
styles of games produced for both (also sometimes termed Western and
Japanese RPGs). Generally it should be obvious enough from context
what people mean when they say role-playing game - in this case very
clearly the electronic sort as opposed to the traditional pen and
paper. Though it should be noted that almost every computer rpg has
its roots somewhere in the real pnp, Rogue included. In general I
find most roguelike developers have some experience of DnD too.
On the topic of what "role-playing" means in the computer game sense,
I would personally define this as giving you a character whose skills,
strengths and powers develop through player actions, especially
defeating enemies. Game skill in these then comes from player choices
rather than any skill with controls. Roguelikes tend to meet this
criteria, but not all of them - some of the 7DRLs for instance don't
involve any character stats or development. I'm surprised this item
isn't on Slash's list though - I can only assume because of the sort
of fuss it kicks up from pedants defining what an RPG is ;)
--
Darren Grey
David Damerell
>That player doesnt have to back up that thought with evidence and
>bulletpoints because in the end it doesnt matter that much to them. As
>a result of the thought however, the game is, as far as that player is
>concerned, a roguelike.
How did I know you'd get to the Humpty Dumpty argument after a while?
When talking to other people, however, it's useful to have some consensus
on what words mean; and I suspect you will find that - particularly on
rgr.dev, where people actually think about what it is that makes
roguelikes fun, that if you contend that a game which doesn't try to
derive replay value from random setups is a "roguelike" you are going to
find you are not using the word in a way people understand.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Oil is for sissies
Today is Second Saturday, August - a weekend.
David Damerell
>Sorry to say this, but you thought wrong. Role-playing never has been
>a large part of roguelikes. Sure they have some role-playing elements
>such as stats, skills, levels, experience and the like.
Here you are using "roleplaying" in the CRPG sense: sub-D&D mechanics.
>not mean they are role-playing games. In fact most computer role-
>playing games are not role-playing games. In role-playing games you
>pick a role and create a narrative using this role,
Here you are using it in the tabletop sense: playing a role.
Recommend you pick one and stick to it. The latter, for preference.
Martin Read
>One problem with that definition is that many use the terms "computer
>rpg" and "console rpg" to distinguish between the very different
>styles of games produced for both (also sometimes termed Western and
>Japanese RPGs).
Having played a few, I feel quite safe in saying that Console/Japanese
"RPGs" are basically 80s-style Western CRPGs with more angst, hair gel,
and latent homoeroticism.
(I do, incidentally, like all three of those things in appropriate doses
:)
Jon Mayo
> Richard Carr's Capture the Flag!
>
> Developed in 1992, this game pits two teams against each other with
> the object of capturing the opponent's flag. Characters have stats
> like stealth, movement points, and attack power. If a defender moves
> over an attacker, there's a percentage that the attacker is captured.
> If the attacker is captured, the character goes to jail. If the
> defense fails, the attacker gets another turn to run.
>
> Has pre-built maps and a map creator to make your own. This game is
> really fun, and I highly recommend it.
>
> Some interesting ideas used in this game:
>
> +Different stances, like crawling, standing, running, and walking.
> Changing stances changes your movement speed, stealth (at what
> distance a defender can see you), and sight radius.
>
> +Good turn-based team play
>
> +Can play multiplayer or against a computer
>
> +Different terrain types
>
> http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?id=170
As much as I liked this game (yes I played it long ago, even had it on
my BBS for download). I don't think it is a RL. It is much more of a
tactical game. It's not a RL because you don't play it as an adventure
to explore, you play it to position multiple pieces/characters/player
in an attempt to outflank your opponent(s).
Certainly the turn-based movement and tile-based terrain makes the
implementation of tactical games and RL similar. And I think from an
engine-implementer's point of view, there are ideas that could be
exchanged from both sides to improve both types of games. But from a
player's point of view, CTF, X-Com, FFTA, Fire Emblem and Vandal
Hearts not a RL..
Azure Dreams (Playstation1) is a rogue-like in both implementation and
in operation. Randomly generated dungeons, adventuring centered around
a single character, tile based maps(all dungeons), turn based
movements, lots of items to collect, and weird monsters all make it
far more RL than your Capture the Flag example.
Radomir 'The Sheep' Dopieralski
Martin Read wrote:
> Darren Grey <darrenj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>One problem with that definition is that many use the terms "computer
>>rpg" and "console rpg" to distinguish between the very different
>>styles of games produced for both (also sometimes termed Western and
>>Japanese RPGs).
>
> Having played a few, I feel quite safe in saying that Console/Japanese
> "RPGs" are basically 80s-style Western CRPGs with more angst, hair gel,
> and latent homoeroticism.
They, however, seem to have evolved in entirely different directions,
borrowing from each other on ocassion. Especially when you compare
series like Might and Magic or Wizardry with series like Final Fantasy
or Seiken Densetsu. It's not just the setting and characters, as you
suggest. You still have the "talk to everyone", "bring that item",
"optimize equipment and party memebers", "kill innocent random creatures"
and, last but not least, "grind for exp" mini-games, but they are
delivered in different flavors and doses -- so different, that it
justifies in my opinion classyfying them into different subgenres, just
alongside the roguelikes (yes, I know the Chunsoft games) and "ancient
imaginary rpg" from which they all descend.
--
Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski <http://sheep.art.pl>
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority,
it's time to pause and reflect." -- Mark Twain