How to prevent unfinished projects
pau...@mbnet.fi
version.
I have a great idea how to make sure the game is finished: don't
release it until v1.0. Don't even talk about it in public. Releasing
early
can make you abandon the project, because you get a false feeling that
you achieved something.
Ido Yehieli
>
> I have a great idea how to make sure the game is finished: don't
> release it until v1.0.
That doesn't work so well in my experience, I've abandoned half a
dozen games with that method.
-Ido.
ben...@gmail.com
*lot* more able to site down and write code for hours when there's
feedback, even if it's just "keep going!" I mean, you can tape a
picture of The Little Engine That Could to your computer but it's just
not the same.
Matthew Allen
accountability" and "no encouragement" to the already long list of
reasons to quit working on it. On the up side, no one will know that
you failed to finish, which makes it more cowardly to boot.
jbenjam
don't have a girlfriend, don't get married, don't have kids, don't
look at porn, don't mow the yard, don't shave, don't play any other
games... several of these methods seemed to work for game developers
in the past.
Gelatinous Mutant Coconut
Maybe we could still make this work:
Version 1 is when you get an @ to move around the screen.
idontexist
Here's a better strategy. Start simple then work it up.
Adam Gatt
Whoa whoa whoa! One step at a time.
Version 1 is when you get an @ to _appear_ on the screen.
Or maybe it's when you buy a computer.
Mario Donick
> Many roguelikes are never finished, not even to a full playable
> version.
If a roguelike is "finished" or not is just a matter of definition. It
may be that you think of your game as finished at one point and call
it 1.0, but others might think it is still buggy, unbalanced etc. Then
you release 1.1, 1.2, ... For me, one branch of a game is finished
when I stop to update it regularly and only work on its successor
(2.x).
Gantt charts, by the way, help a lot.
pau...@mbnet.fi
> If a roguelike is "finished" or not is just a matter of definition. It
> may be that you think of your game as finished at one point and call
> it 1.0, but others might think it is still buggy, unbalanced
I think you missed the point. I don't care if the game is buggy
or unbalanced if it is a real game you can win. I really don't
know what is the point of releasing project stubs with @ walking
on screen and that's it. I think we have seen those already.
ben...@gmail.com
>
> I think you missed the point. I don't care if the game is buggy
> or unbalanced if it is a real game you can win. I really don't
> know what is the point of releasing project stubs with @ walking
> on screen and that's it. I think we have seen those already.
True, it's not very exciting for the viewer. But since a basic
labyrinth is a "teach myself _____" project for many people, feedback
and encouragement is great (for them) at any stage. My opinion as to
whether it's deserved: the poor writer has probably been looking at
that @ NOT moving for ages. If it took a few weeks for them to learn
Curses and get the @ bumping into #'s, so be it. Bring hither the
fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry. Can I get an
Amen -- Ben
Elig
As a developer, I like release early, release often. Even if I release
something that doesn't work at all, as long as the next version comes
along quickly, it's no big deal to me. I find it more fun as a
developer to release often.
Xecutor
I think there is no single receipt for everyone.
People are different.
When your good friend keep asking you about your game in dev,
this can actually encourage you to make yet another step...
Slash
This is *extremely bad advise*, unless it is a sarcastic sentence that
somehow pretends to express the complete opossite.
--
Slash
Gerry Quinn
c86b13...@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, elig...@gmail.com says...
> As a developer, I like release early, release often. Even if I release
> something that doesn't work at all, as long as the next version comes
> along quickly, it's no big deal to me. I find it more fun as a
> developer to release often.
Not much fun for your players if it doesn't work at all, though.
- Gerry Quinn
--
Lair of the Demon Ape (a coffee-break roguelike)
<http://indigo.ie/~gerryq/lair/lair.htm>
Gerry Quinn
@u10g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>, java....@gmail.com says...
I think it depends on the developer. Some work better with many
releases, and talking about them. Others are better off developing
quietly and releasing something when they are happy that it is fairly
winnable, playable and bug free.
- Gerry Quinn
Slash
> In article <5ef05239-3e6f-484f-9bd4-a18651f107d8
>
> > On Jun 4, 12:14 pm, pau...@mbnet.fi wrote:
> > > Many roguelikes are never finished, not even to a full playable
> > > version.
> > > I have a great idea how to make sure the game is finished: don't
> > > release it until v1.0. Don't even talk about it in public. Releasing
> > > early
> > > can make you abandon the project, because you get a false feeling that
> > > you achieved something.
>
> > This is *extremely bad advise*, unless it is a sarcastic sentence that
> > somehow pretends to express the complete opossite.
>
> I think it depends on the developer. Some work better with many
> releases, and talking about them. Others are better off developing
> quietly and releasing something when they are happy that it is fairly
> winnable, playable and bug free.
For roguelike deveopment in particular, I think most developers are
fuelled by user feedback; it has happened in the past and will
continue hapenning... else the project has very high risks of becoming
stale and bitter for the poor, willpower devoid, developer. (That path
leads to sad years of vapourware)
Not to say there are not exceptions, but I wouldn't label it as a
great idea.
--
Slash
Jon Mayo
> I have a great idea how to make sure the game is finished: don't
> release it until v1.0.
I disagree. You should see my dev directory. 200+ unfinished projects
in there that I never told anyone about.
I just carry them around in source control for the past dozen years.
Once in a while a project gets resurrected, but when it does it
usually it morphs into something unrecognizable from the original.
Here's how you avoid unfinished projects:
1. set the scope of your project as small as possible. You can always
improve a working program to make it better later as a separate
development effort.
2. set a timeframe when you wish to complete the project.
3. set aside time to work on it, certain time of the day, certain day
of the week, etc. If you miss the time, you must insist on making up
the time before the next time comes around.
4. commit code often, have a buddy that you show your progress to. He/
she can comment on the project, and hopefully shame you into doing
continuous updates.
20 years of programming and I never finished a game until this year.
And I wrote two simple ones (a telnetable MUD-like and a grahical
puzzle) in a 3 month period (I have a full time job) and released
them. Mostly because I finally felt the need to complete something. I
usually don't care if something is completed because it's just an
experiment I do to learn from.
pau...@mbnet.fi
> This is *extremely bad advise*, unless it is a sarcastic sentence that
> somehow pretends to express the complete opossite.
I think the vast amount of roguelike stubs proves my point.
pau...@mbnet.fi
> I disagree. You should see my dev directory. 200+ unfinished projects
> in there that I never told anyone about.
That is a different kind of problem, but I think it's also
too common for roguelike developers who first start a
project and then almost immediately abandon it and
start a new one. Releasing the project early in fact
encourages to abandon it even faster!
Mario Donick
> In article <9f4f9508-7305-421b-9357-
> c86b1399a...@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, eligz...@gmail.com says...
>
> > As a developer, I like release early, release often. Even if I release
> > something that doesn't work at all, as long as the next version comes
> > along quickly, it's no big deal to me. I find it more fun as a
> > developer to release often.
>
> Not much fun for your players if it doesn't work at all, though.
Perhaps one part of the problem is that many roguelike developers do
not develop for the average player, but for other roguelike developers
who are able to give advice. I really like to know the percentage of
RL developers who aim for players instead for their glory inside/from
the RL dev community :)
Jeff Lait
> In article <5ef05239-3e6f-484f-9bd4-a18651f107d8
>
> > On Jun 4, 12:14 pm, pau...@mbnet.fi wrote:
> > > Many roguelikes are never finished, not even to a full playable
> > > version.
> > > I have a great idea how to make sure the game is finished: don't
> > > release it until v1.0. Don't even talk about it in public. Releasing
> > > early
> > > can make you abandon the project, because you get a false feeling that
> > > you achieved something.
>
> > This is *extremely bad advise*, unless it is a sarcastic sentence that
> > somehow pretends to express the complete opossite.
>
> I think it depends on the developer. Some work better with many
> releases, and talking about them. Others are better off developing
> quietly and releasing something when they are happy that it is fairly
> winnable, playable and bug free.
My theory:
Release Early, Release Often, Tell No One.
It is vitally important to get something working early to avoid burn
out. It is equally important to have frequent checkpoints so that
when you get distracted for 3 months you can go back to it, not to a
giant mess of uncompileable code. And it is very important that the
early roguelike not be reliant on user feedback because you won't be
getting anything useful while you are an early roguelike :> The
earlier your roguelike is in development, the more feedback is "Please
change this into my ideal roguelike", which is useless as you
presumeably have your own plans.
Mind you, the real way to prevent unfinished projects is to never
start any. :>
OTOH, is it a bad thing we don't finish projects? I mean, does every
project deserve to be finished? Perhaps some projects turn out to be
bad ideas?
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
David Ploog
I do. Of course, it helps that I am not a coder :)
When I think about design, interface or balance, I have new and
honest players in mind. Interface should be smooth, spoilers should be not
needed, scumming should be useless.
David
Jon Mayo
> OTOH, is it a bad thing we don't finish projects? I mean, does every
> project deserve to be finished? Perhaps some projects turn out to be
> bad ideas?
That is want I wanted to say. I don't see the problem with having
unfinished projects. released or not.
It all depends on the individual developer's goals. What do they want
out of the project.
If you want to create the next Angband or Nethack and have a huge
player base, then obviously you must finish. But that's certainly not
my goal.
I'm not certain I fully understand Paul's point. Or his assertion that
releasing early means you're more likely to abandon a project. Your
thoughts?
Matthew Allen
> I think the vast amount of roguelike stubs proves my point.
What point? The only point you made is "if you are too cowardly to
announce that you tried. no one will know that you failed."
If you thought you made a point about how unfinished roguelikes are
somehow bad:
a) you didn't
b) it would have been a retarded and wrong anyways
pau...@mbnet.fi
> If you thought you made a point about how unfinished roguelikes are
> somehow bad:
They are poor as games. Isn't that a simple point? In fact
I don't have to explain anything. It's the people who make
stub roguelikes should explain why they are doing that and
what the fuck is the point. For a start, make real games
and then we can talk.
Jon Mayo
> They are poor as games. Isn't that a simple point? In fact
> I don't have to explain anything. It's the people who make
> stub roguelikes should explain why they are doing that and
> what the fuck is the point. For a start, make real games
> and then we can talk.
I can explain the point for everyone with a stub roguelike right now.
Common reasons for starting a roguelike, and not completing it:
1. An experiment. I wanted to get an idea of what goes into
implementing one. My intention was never to complete
2. I was bored, but not bored enough to make a whole game. Just enough
to put some character on the screen and let me move a guy around.
3. I had all these great ideas and worked out all sorts of design
notes and wanted to finish, but then real life got in the way.
(girlfriend/job/etc)
4. Writing a roguelike is too hard with too few rewards, I'll do
something else instead. In other words: I don't think anyone would
play my game even if I finished it.
5. I'd rather write some network code, so I'm going to do a MUD now.
I think you misunderstand that our purpose in life isn't to provide
you and others with free games.
Matthew Allen
>
> They are poor as games. Isn't that a simple point? In fact
> I don't have to explain anything. It's the people who make
> stub roguelikes should explain why they are doing that and
> what the fuck is the point. For a start, make real games
> and then we can talk.
Lol. No, they are in development games posted to a game development
list. That's why this point, which you never made until now btw, is
stupid. Rather than being a problem, they are in fact the entire point
of the development list!
pau...@mbnet.fi
> 1. An experiment. I wanted to get an idea of what goes into
> implementing one. My intention was never to complete
..etc. In psychology that is called a defence mechanism.
In reality you just suck as game designer and programmer.
> I think you misunderstand that our purpose in life isn't to provide
> you and others with free games.
It begins to look like that. I'm pretty sure this comminity
is a laughing stock for real game designers and some of you
guys are making it that much easier. If you are (supposed)
to be a game developer then you should make games not excuses.
pau...@mbnet.fi
> No, they are in development games posted to a game development
> list.
What the fuck is a development game? Is it something like
Duke Nukem Forever?
Jon Mayo
> On 6 kesä, 22:26, Jon Mayo <jon.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 1. An experiment. I wanted to get an idea of what goes into
> > implementing one. My intention was never to complete
>
> ..etc. In psychology that is called a defence mechanism.
> In reality you just suck as game designer and programmer.
>
>
I'm not a game designer. I'm a professional kernel developer.
Darren Grey
> Many roguelikes are never finished, not even to a full playable
> version.
> I have a great idea how to make sure the game is finished: don't
> release it until v1.0. Don't even talk about it in public. Releasing
> early
> can make you abandon the project, because you get a false feeling that
> you achieved something.
Heh, well I think I both agree and disagree. Kinda depends on your
definition of v1.0. How long did it take the big 4 to get to that
stage? Several of them wouldn't have been half the games they were
(or maybe not exist at all) if the developers had kept a lid on things
till they were up to v1.0. Releasing early helps a lot with
motivation, and can build up a fanbase which adds greatly to the game.
However I don't think a game should be released or announced until
there is at least an extremely basic version of it out. More than
just an '@' wandering around a screen (though it doesn't always take
much more than that to make a game). You need to have something that
really shows off what the game is about and actually has some fun
gameplay elements. Otherwise all you have is design plans written in
the clouds and ideas that could change from one day to the next. And
on a group like this it tends to end up with ridiculous threads about
all sorts of insane things that could be done, and inevitable
pointless debates about whether it's a roguelike or not, etc... The
developer gets little out of pie in the sky suggestions and off the
rails discussion about advanced topics when he doesn't even have a
working game in place. All it does is screw up his own plans if he's
dumb enough to pay attention to all the fluff.
So... personally I'd say don't announce or release till v0.1. Make
your v0.1 extremely small though, and preferably make it well-polished
so people will enjoy testing your concept game. Even if you end up
throwing all the code away you will still learn a lot from the general
release cycle, and you'll get more valuable feedback from something
real and tangible. In particular it'll give you feedback on things
you may not have thought properly about, like interface and cross-
compatibility. After that it becomes easier to plug away on the
release early/release often philosophy, with continuous feedback that
can really help improve your title in the short term. And if your
project ends up being choked to death by lack of time... well, at
least you got a game out at the start, and hopefully that game was fun
and individual.
--
Darren Grey
Matthew Allen
Well, I can't fault you for being inconsistently stupid. ROFL.
pau...@mbnet.fi
> Well, I can't fault you for being inconsistently stupid. ROFL.
The stupid guy is one who can't answer the question and
is using shit like ROFL or LOL. Clown.
Matthew Allen
> The stupid guy is one who can't answer the question and
> is using shit like ROFL or LOL. Clown.
Poor baby... being trolled by a half-wit in your own half-witted troll
thread. Since you need hand holding:
> What the fuck is a development game?
Its a roguelike game that is in development. Ie. incomplete. You
know... the sort of thing that completely appropriate for a roguelike
development list.
Slash
And so, Krice suceeded into rolling rgrd into another pointless
flamewar... congratulations dude!
--
Slashie
pau...@mbnet.fi
> Its a roguelike game that is in development. Ie. incomplete.
"Development game" is not a game. It's a project that has
source code. It's imaginary like Duke Nukem Forever that
was in development. Yeah, well, it doesn't make me happy.
It's pretty sad and hilarious to realize that ADOM and Nethack
were the last real and good games in roguelike genre, and
I think it's partly because we think just programming some
stub projects and 7DRLs is good enough.
pau...@mbnet.fi
> And so, Krice suceeded into rolling rgrd into another pointless
> flamewar... congratulations dude!
Programming roguelike stubs, 7DRLs and libraries is pointless.
Jon Mayo
> Programming roguelike stubs, 7DRLs and libraries is pointless.
And that's coming from the king of pointless discussion.
I'm going to finish my roguelike when people start paying for them.
Patric Mueller
> [...]
> It's pretty sad and hilarious to realize that ADOM and Nethack
> were the last real and good games in roguelike genre, and
> I think it's partly because we think just programming some
> stub projects and 7DRLs is good enough.
The refactored Angband and Crawl don't count as good games in your
opinion?
Bye
Patric
--
NetHack-De: NetHack auf Deutsch - http://nethack-de.sourceforge.net/
NetHack for AROS: http://sourceforge.net/projects/nethack-aros/
UnNetHack: http://apps.sourceforge.net/trac/unnethack-12312/
Gelatinous Mutant Coconut
> pau...@mbnet.fi wrote:
> > [...]
> > It's pretty sad and hilarious to realize that ADOM and Nethack
> > were the last real and good games in roguelike genre, and
> > I think it's partly because we think just programming some
> > stub projects and 7DRLs is good enough.
>
> The refactored Angband and Crawl don't count as good games in your
> opinion?
Not to mention all the (fairly successful) commercial roguelikes for
the DS and friends.
Billy Bissette
@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com:
> On 7 kes�, 17:55, Matthew Allen <msal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Its a roguelike game that is in development. Ie. incomplete.
>
> "Development game" is not a game. It's a project that has
> source code. It's imaginary like Duke Nukem Forever that
> was in development.
A game in development is not imaginary, it is just a game that is
still supposedly being advanced towards a finalized state. Not all
games make it past the development stage, but plenty do. Some games
are even finalized before they are really finished, while some others
can stay in development for years after their "full" playable release.
pau...@mbnet.fi
> I'm going to finish my roguelike when people start paying for them.
If you make 10x better game than Nethack, then maybe someone
is willing to pay for that. If you ever had a roguelike, which
you don't.
Ido Yehieli
>
> It's pretty sad and hilarious to realize that ADOM and Nethack
> were the last real and good games in roguelike genre
Or angband, crawl, POWDER, tome, Gearhead[1/2], DoomRL, Spelunky,
Elona...
pau...@mbnet.fi
> Or angband, crawl, POWDER, tome, Gearhead[1/2], DoomRL, Spelunky,
> Elona...
Crawl is a roguelike, but I don't like it. It's not a
good game. DoomRL and Spelunky are action games with minor
roguelike features. It's revealing how some people still
call them roguelikes..
Derek Ray
> On 8 kes�, 12:12, Ido Yehieli <Ido.Yehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Or angband, crawl, POWDER, tome, Gearhead[1/2], DoomRL, Spelunky,
>> Elona...
> Crawl is a roguelike, but I don't like it. It's not a
> good game.
Thirty years from now, you're going to be sitting in front of that same
computer bitching about how nobody ever saw your genius and hired you to
do game development.
In all that time, I wonder if you'll ever have stopped and said "You
know... maybe it's -me- with the problem?"
--
Derek
Game info and change log: http://sporkhack.com
Beta Server: telnet://sporkhack.com
IRC: irc.freenode.net, #sporkhack
Jeff Lait
It must be frustrating looking for True Scotsmen among all the
imitators! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman)
David Ploog
> On 2009-06-08, pau...@mbnet.fi <pau...@mbnet.fi> wrote:
>> On 8 kes�, 12:12, Ido Yehieli <Ido.Yehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Or angband, crawl, POWDER, tome, Gearhead[1/2], DoomRL, Spelunky,
>>> Elona...
>> Crawl is a roguelike, but I don't like it. It's not a
>> good game.
>
> Thirty years from now, you're going to be sitting in front of that same
> computer bitching about how nobody ever saw your genius and hired you to
> do game development.
>
> In all that time, I wonder if you'll ever have stopped and said "You
> know... maybe it's -me- with the problem?"
I think that paulkp (Krice) should be ignored. It's not because I mind him
rejecting Crawl -- that is fine and there are enough (working!) roguelikes
out there which are really different. The problem is that he is attached
to the games he grew up with and obviously unable to go beyond these two
pinnacles of computer gaming. I guess it is a case of stagnation by
nostalgia.
Derek: And no, he will never, not even in thirty years, search the problem
with himself. The frequent alterations between whining and complaining
(often close to trolling) show that there's something wrong at a deeper
level.
David
Jeff Lait
When you claim 7DRLs are not roguelikes, I can understand where you
come from, since you have a rather rarified definition of roguelike.
But, when you are complaining about people releasing stuff and not
finishing it, I think you are mistaken to lump in 7DRLs. The entire
point of 7DRLs is for them to be finished products. (Of course, as
finished products, they may fail your aesthetic demands) To move away
from endless stub projects or unfinished grandiosities into the realm
of concrete, complete, games that are fun and playable.
So, even from the view that all game programming must be directed at
pleasing others (a view I do not partake in), 7DRLs are not pointless.
Stubs and libraries, of course, by themselves are "pointless", the
trick is that they become extremely useful. Were those who wrote
Curses engaged in pointless effort? SDL? libtcod?
Jeff Lait
> On 6 kesä, 22:26, Jon Mayo <jon.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 1. An experiment. I wanted to get an idea of what goes into
> > implementing one. My intention was never to complete
>
> ..etc. In psychology that is called a defence mechanism.
> In reality you just suck as game designer and programmer.
So what if, perchance, one does suck? Why can't people who suck as
game designers and programmers try and write games to better
understand them? It is a quiet world where only the best birds sing.
As for being a bad programmer, I have the sinking feeling that being a
good programmer is antithetical to being a good game designer. I've
seen way too many amazing games by people whose code is hard to
describe in polite terms.
> If you are (supposed)
> to be a game developer then you should make games not excuses.
Which is why I'm a big fan of the 7DRLs as they cause people to step
up and make games rather than just pontificate endlessly about
imaginary game concepts.
So, stop trolling, back to writing! I want to play Kaduria some day.
Derek Ray
> As for being a bad programmer, I have the sinking feeling that being a
> good programmer is antithetical to being a good game designer. I've
> seen way too many amazing games by people whose code is hard to
> describe in polite terms.
I think there's a curious split here. Bad programmers may be good game
designers, but they can't actually generate games (because bad
programmers' code doesn't even work). Some of the best games have come
from "good enough" programmers -- they got the code working and stopped
there. I think the problem comes in when "good-to-expert" programmers
start deciding they want to write games; they spend all their time
making the code perfect, and none of the time focusing on the game, and
so they either produce nothing, or a shaky game that does bad things
well.
(Interestingly, I would expect the _best_ programmers to focus on the
big picture and know that in the end, the code only has to be
"good enough", so they spend much more time worrying about the game
itself than the code.)
An example: Assume the task is monster-to-player pathfinding.
- A bad programmer will implement A* and do it wrong.
- A "good enough" programmer will implement A* clumsily, but correctly.
- A good programmer will create an elaborate framework and
interface to his A* routine, making it multi-use and flexible.
- An expert programmer will spend some time enhancing A* for performance
and ensuring the shortest-possible path in unusual circumstances.
- The best programmer will copy-and-paste someone else's A*
implementation, tweak it for 10 minutes to match his codebase, and move on.
It's pretty easy to see which two coders here are likely to be the best
game designers; the ones who spent more time worrying about the game
itself than about trivial crud like the actual code.
> So, stop trolling, back to writing! I want to play Kaduria some day.
I hope you are not holding your breath on this. :D
Jon Mayo
> On 7 kesä, 22:06, Jon Mayo <jon.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm going to finish my roguelike when people start paying for them.
>
> If you make 10x better game than Nethack, then maybe someone
> is willing to pay for that.
I don't think the market is ready for a real roguelike. Maybe it can
be one of those $5 games on Xbox Live or WiiWare, but I'm skeptical.
I'm quite certain you couldn't get away with a commercial roguelike
that used text tiles, but I suppose that isn't essential for a
roguelike. But I don't count Diablo II as a roguelike either (unlike
some people I've talked to).
What sort of rogue do you think needs to be designed and completely
implemented. Ignoring that you believe people here are incapable of
doing it.
* I'll left behind the trolly bits of your message because they are
irrelevant. Perhaps you're just projecting your own problems on the
rest of us.
Darren Grey
I think it's fairly sad if you can't enjoy a game because you're too
busy arguing over how to classify it. Roguelikes are of course the
best games ever (well, in my opinion at least), but one does not need
to stick to the exact scripture to make a fun game. Besides, how many
more Nethack clones do we need?
--
Darren Grey
Radomir Dopieralski
> On Jun 8, 1:26 am, pau...@mbnet.fi wrote:
>> On 7 kesä, 22:06, Jon Mayo <jon.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm going to finish my roguelike when people start paying for them.
>>
>> If you make 10x better game than Nethack, then maybe someone
>> is willing to pay for that.
>
> I don't think the market is ready for a real roguelike. Maybe it can
> be one of those $5 games on Xbox Live or WiiWare, but I'm skeptical.
There are actually quite a few of them, not $5 games, but pretty large
titles, like Chocobo Dungeon and such. Lots of them on the DS and PSP too!
I suppose the nature of roguelike games fits handhelds better than
stationary consoles.
Of course they are all graphical, but that's an implementation detail.
--
Radomir Dopieralski, http://sheep.art.pl
Gerry Quinn
@o18g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, pau...@mbnet.fi says...
> On 8 kesä, 12:12, Ido Yehieli <Ido.Yehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Or angband, crawl, POWDER, tome, Gearhead[1/2], DoomRL, Spelunky,
> > Elona...
>
> Crawl is a roguelike, but I don't like it. It's not a
> good game.
The first sentence is fine - everyone has a right to his own tastes.
The second does not follow. Many people (including me) reckon Crawl as
the best roguelike.
- Gerry Quinn
Jon Mayo
> There are actually quite a few of them, not $5 games, but pretty large
> titles, like Chocobo Dungeon and such. Lots of them on the DS and PSP too!
> I suppose the nature of roguelike games fits handhelds better than
> stationary consoles.
>
> Of course they are all graphical, but that's an implementation detail.
>
Azure Dreams was better and more Rogue-like than Chocobo Dungeon (also
the Playstation 1). But If you're paying more than $5 for these games
you're paying too much. They are very old, and were only moderately
successful. Chocobo Dungeon was fun, but most people bought it because
it had Chocobos, not because it was a turn based dungeon crawl. Dying
in Azure Dreams was more like a roguelike, you lost all your items,
your character's level was reset and you had to start back at the
bottom of the tower.
The market for games that are not earth shattering in terms of
graphics, concept, franchise or gameplay tends to be around $5 to $10.
Don't get me wrong, if I could sell a few thousand copies on XBox Live
for $5-$10 I would be thrilled. But such titles aren't of interest to
a big studio, for them it's too much risk and too little gain. Perhaps
as the whole indy scene takes off we'll see some quality roguelikes go
mainstream.
How can my roguelike compete with World of Goo, Braid, I wanna be the
guy, Alien Hominid, Geneforge, Penumbra, etc. What sacrifices to
"retro appeal" must I make to be mainstream, or will there be so many
that a retro roguelike can never be mainstream?
Darren Grey
> On Jun 8, 1:42 pm, Radomir Dopieralski <n...@sheep.art.pl> wrote:
>
> > There are actually quite a few of them, not $5 games, but pretty large
> > titles, like Chocobo Dungeon and such. Lots of them on the DS and PSP too!
> > I suppose the nature of roguelike games fits handhelds better than
> > stationary consoles.
>
> > Of course they are all graphical, but that's an implementation detail.
>
> Azure Dreams was better and more Rogue-like than Chocobo Dungeon (also
> the Playstation 1). But If you're paying more than $5 for these games
> you're paying too much. They are very old, and were only moderately
> successful. Chocobo Dungeon was fun, but most people bought it because
> it had Chocobos, not because it was a turn based dungeon crawl. Dying
> in Azure Dreams was more like a roguelike, you lost all your items,
> your character's level was reset and you had to start back at the
> bottom of the tower.
Er, have you not heard of the likes of Shiren the Wanderer or Izuna?
Successful roguelike titles on the DS made by professional studios. I
make no claims to their quality, but it's clear that console
roguelikes are most certainly feasible.
--
Darren Grey
Billy Bissette
news:3b4bd19f-ebcb-4caa...@z19g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
>> There are actually quite a few of them, not $5 games, but pretty
>> large titles, like Chocobo Dungeon and such. Lots of them on the DS
>> and PSP too
> !
>> I suppose the nature of roguelike games fits handhelds better than
>> stationary consoles.
>>
>> Of course they are all graphical, but that's an implementation
>> detail.
>
> Azure Dreams was better and more Rogue-like than Chocobo Dungeon (also
> the Playstation 1). But If you're paying more than $5 for these games
> you're paying too much. They are very old, and were only moderately
> successful.
I paid full price for it when it came out, and found it worth that
price.
I've played more popular games that I didn't feel worth full price.
Most people can presumably say such a think, though they'll disagree
over what games are and aren't worth it. You seem to not think highly
of console Roguelikes, and thus don't value them for much. Some other
people do, as happens to be the case with most games.
> Chocobo Dungeon was fun, but most people bought it because
> it had Chocobos, not because it was a turn based dungeon crawl. Dying
> in Azure Dreams was more like a roguelike, you lost all your items,
> your character's level was reset and you had to start back at the
> bottom of the tower.
That is pretty much the standard for console Roguelikes, dying
boots you out of the dungeon without items and your level is reset
before you re-enter the dungeon. Successful escapes also reset
your level, after all. It is also something of a standard to have
methods of carrying at least a limited number of items across
multiple dungeon trips.
Though there are also the easier console Roguelikes that do things
like let you carry levels across multiple plays.
> The market for games that are not earth shattering in terms of
> graphics, concept, franchise or gameplay tends to be around $5 to $10.
Some console Roguelikes are quite pretty. Shiren looks fairly good
compared to other SNES games, for example. But then again, companies
that release console Roguelikes know that people aren't going to pay
$30-50 for ASCII.
> Don't get me wrong, if I could sell a few thousand copies on XBox Live
> for $5-$10 I would be thrilled. But such titles aren't of interest to
> a big studio, for them it's too much risk and too little gain. Perhaps
> as the whole indy scene takes off we'll see some quality roguelikes go
> mainstream.
The various Shiren and Torneko games of the Mysterious Dungeon
franchise have seen release on the SNES, Dreamcast, Nintendo 64,
Playstation 1, Playstation 2, PC, Wii, Gameboy, and DS. While not all
of these games saw a US release, the enhanced port of Shiren to the DS
had its US release last year, and the Wii's Shiren 3 will see US
release next year.
Izuna on the DS somehow managed a sequel.
Sega, Atlus, Enix, and others have published console Roguelikes at
one time or another.
Japan also sometimes mixes some Roguelike elements into other genres.
The Quest modes of the fighters that Dream Factory made for Square
drew from Roguelikes. Capcom tried implementing what some called
Roguelike mechanics into Breath of Fire Dragon Quarter, but the result
was an ill-conceived half-breed that managed to disappoint nearly
everyone. (It isn't that the idea wouldn't work. It was that the
game was poorly designed.)
> How can my roguelike compete with World of Goo, Braid, I wanna be the
> guy, Alien Hominid, Geneforge, Penumbra, etc. What sacrifices to
> "retro appeal" must I make to be mainstream, or will there be so many
> that a retro roguelike can never be mainstream?
I'd argue that Nethack could have competed with some of those
games, if its developers had wanted to charge for it.
Jeff Lait
>
> The market for games that are not earth shattering in terms of
> graphics, concept, franchise or gameplay tends to be around $5 to $10.
> Don't get me wrong, if I could sell a few thousand copies on XBox Live
> for $5-$10 I would be thrilled.
Why are you fixated on fixed price-per unit? That is a hold over from
the mass market. To some people your roguelike is worth nothing. Let
them play for free. For others, $50. Let them pay $50.
> How can my roguelike compete with World of Goo, Braid, I wanna be the
> guy, Alien Hominid, Geneforge, Penumbra, etc.
What do you mean by compete? Units shipped? Hours played? Or do you
mean "compete in the mind of a single player?" The latter is easy -
some people much prefer what roguelikes bring. Stuff like World of
Goo and Braid are easy to compete with. Roguelikes live in an
entirely different space. It is like asking how you are going to
compete with Ice Cream.
Diablo III - how are you going to compete with THAT? Nethack, Crawl,
Angband, how are you going to compete with THOSE? World of Goo, for
all its polish and character, is not a threat to your roguelike. You
should be more worried that you are facing off directly with games
that have had 20 years of polish put into them.
> What sacrifices to
> "retro appeal" must I make to be mainstream, or will there be so many
> that a retro roguelike can never be mainstream?
I don't personally think roguelikes have to use retro-appeal. We
forget that Rogue was ahead of the curve for graphics. By using the
characters as tiles, it was a good step forward from the likes of
Adventure.
pau...@mbnet.fi
> Besides, how many more Nethack clones do we need?
How about one? Variants don't count, they all have failed
badly compared to original, because the authors of variants
are usually not very good game designers. They just break
everything.
pau...@mbnet.fi
> How can my roguelike compete with World of Goo, Braid, I wanna be the
> guy, Alien Hominid, Geneforge, Penumbra, etc.
It can't in commercial way if that's all you can think.
If you want money I can tell that you are in wrong place.
Jon Mayo
> I don't personally think roguelikes have to use retro-appeal. We
> forget that Rogue was ahead of the curve for graphics. By using the
> characters as tiles, it was a good step forward from the likes of
> Adventure.
They don't have to, but mine would. Just because my ideas are
unmarketable doesn't mean I should abandon them.
Jon Mayo
> It can't in commercial way if that's all you can think.
> If you want money I can tell that you are in wrong place.
I already make money.
Billy Bissette
4140-8003-3...@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
If you want to compete with other commercial games, I can think of
two "sacrifices" that probably should be made. I'm not sure I'd
really call them sacrifices though, as neither are integral to
Roguelikes.
The first is expected view range. You are going to want good
graphics to compete, with an easy to view screen as well. This
means you likely aren't going to be able to squeeze as many map
tiles onscreen as you can manage with an ASCII term display. So
you might want to double think having monsters that see you and
start attacking from 20 or 40 squares away. Even so, not even
all Roguelikes expect the player to have a 60+ character wide
map display. (Plus, the Mysterious Dungeon games get away with
enemies that attack from offscreen, and even has some deadly
enemies that fire projectiles through intervening walls.)
The second is the obsession with (sometimes pointlessly)
overcomplicated control schemes. If you want to compete against
console games on a console system, you aren't going to get away
with the typical Roguelike design pattern of having 50+ different
key commands. (Mind, such design is so ingrained that many people
would probably choke on this idea. I don't recall how many years
it took for Angband to just combine the functionality of the "m"
and "p" keys, and even then both key-bindings were left in the
game. And topics about combining or removing command functions
pretty much will start a flamewar.)
I wouldn't count the expectation of decent graphics itself to
be a sacrifice. Besides, if you really adore ASCII, then you
could add ASCII display as an extra mode.
Ido Yehieli
>
> How can my roguelike compete with World of Goo, Braid, I wanna be the
> guy, Alien Hominid, Geneforge, Penumbra, etc.
I don't see why it can't. A roguelike with nice graphics & sounds, a
default difficulty level that's comparable to mainstream games (call
your levels "normal", "hard" & "iron-man" - with the latter being
normal RL difficulty) & an interface that's simple enough (think
Diablo, or DoomRL) can have as much mainstream appeal as the games
you've mentioned.
While we're at it, I don't think Geneforge has much mass -market
appeal.
-Idoido.
Ido Yehieli
Just out of curiosity - do you make that money from selling games?
Paul Donnelly
> The second is the obsession with (sometimes pointlessly)
> overcomplicated control schemes. If you want to compete against
> console games on a console system, you aren't going to get away
> with the typical Roguelike design pattern of having 50+ different
> key commands. (Mind, such design is so ingrained that many people
> would probably choke on this idea. I don't recall how many years
> it took for Angband to just combine the functionality of the "m"
> and "p" keys, and even then both key-bindings were left in the
> game. And topics about combining or removing command functions
> pretty much will start a flamewar.)
My favorite is < to go up stairs and > to go down stairs. I don't think
I've ever seen a game with two-way staircases. One stair key would be
fine. Yet these keys are amazingly common. I like memorizing keys as
much as the next guy, but this is especially silly.
Paul Donnelly
Nor IWBtG. That's got to be the least competitive game I've ever
played.
Gerry Quinn
@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, pau...@mbnet.fi says...
> On 7 kesä, 22:06, Jon Mayo <jon.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm going to finish my roguelike when people start paying for them.
>
> If you make 10x better game than Nethack, then maybe someone
> is willing to pay for that.
Well, it worked for Blizzard :-)
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
d6a1b4...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, jon....@gmail.com says...
> On Jun 8, 1:26 am, pau...@mbnet.fi wrote:
> > On 7 kesä, 22:06, Jon Mayo <jon.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm going to finish my roguelike when people start paying for them.
> >
> > If you make 10x better game than Nethack, then maybe someone
> > is willing to pay for that.
>
> I don't think the market is ready for a real roguelike. Maybe it can
> be one of those $5 games on Xbox Live or WiiWare, but I'm skeptical.
I agree, 'pure' roguelikes are an acquired and very niche taste in
games. And their development direction takes them further away from
commerciality, rather than closer to it.
I wouldn't be surprised if a cross-genre game with roguelike components
was successful, though. Diablo is arguably an example of this.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, torespon...@hotmail.com says...
> On Jun 8, 5:30 pm, Jon Mayo <jon.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The market for games that are not earth shattering in terms of
> > graphics, concept, franchise or gameplay tends to be around $5 to $10.
> > Don't get me wrong, if I could sell a few thousand copies on XBox Live
> > for $5-$10 I would be thrilled.
>
> Why are you fixated on fixed price-per unit? That is a hold over from
> the mass market. To some people your roguelike is worth nothing. Let
> them play for free. For others, $50. Let them pay $50.
If you can charge everybody the maximum they are willing to pay, you
maximise your profits, certainly. But this is not easy to organise.
What if somebody (who would pay $50 for a game if they had to) pretends
that they would not pay anything?
> > How can my roguelike compete with World of Goo, Braid, I wanna be the
> > guy, Alien Hominid, Geneforge, Penumbra, etc.
>
> What do you mean by compete? Units shipped? Hours played? Or do you
> mean "compete in the mind of a single player?" The latter is easy -
> some people much prefer what roguelikes bring. Stuff like World of
> Goo and Braid are easy to compete with. Roguelikes live in an
> entirely different space. It is like asking how you are going to
> compete with Ice Cream.
>
> Diablo III - how are you going to compete with THAT? Nethack, Crawl,
> Angband, how are you going to compete with THOSE? World of Goo, for
> all its polish and character, is not a threat to your roguelike. You
> should be more worried that you are facing off directly with games
> that have had 20 years of polish put into them.
I agree, Crawl or <insert preferred roguelike> is the major competitor
if you are doing something similar. The answer becomes obvious: YOUR
game must have some Unique Selling Point that makes it a contender even
against similar games. Because it would be hard, as you say, to defeat
the 'development time' factor that is gone into the major roguelikes.
> > What sacrifices to
> > "retro appeal" must I make to be mainstream, or will there be so many
> > that a retro roguelike can never be mainstream?
>
> I don't personally think roguelikes have to use retro-appeal. We
> forget that Rogue was ahead of the curve for graphics. By using the
> characters as tiles, it was a good step forward from the likes of
> Adventure.
Indeed.
- Gerry Quinn
--
Lair of the Demon Ape (a coffee-break roguelike)
<http://indigo.ie/~gerryq/lair/lair.htm>
Gelatinous Mutant Coconut
> My favorite is < to go up stairs and > to go down stairs. I don't think
> I've ever seen a game with two-way staircases. One stair key would be
> fine. Yet these keys are amazingly common. I like memorizing keys as
> much as the next guy, but this is especially silly.
In Dwarf Fortress, "X" represents an up-down staircase (">" plus "<",
see?); they're used pretty commonly in player-made forts.
David Damerell
>Billy Bissette <bai...@coastalnet.com> writes:
>>The second is the obsession with (sometimes pointlessly)
>>overcomplicated control schemes. If you want to compete against
>>console games on a console system, you aren't going to get away
>>with the typical Roguelike design pattern of having 50+ different
>>key commands.
But if you're going to compete with other niche PC games, why not?
Space-opera flight sims are happy to have 20+keys; bona fide flight sims
generally regret that you have only one keyboard.
Many of these complicated schemes are obviously wrong but also subtly
right. For example:
>My favorite is < to go up stairs and > to go down stairs. I don't think
>I've ever seen a game with two-way staircases.
Where do you want to zap your wand of digging?
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Oil is for sissies
Today is First Gouday, June.
David Ploog
This is one of the most funny messages I've read in a long time.
David
PS: Isn't Kaduria supposed to be Nethack-done-right? More of everything,
breaking finally the bits that actually worked in Nethack?
pau...@mbnet.fi
> PS: Isn't Kaduria supposed to be Nethack-done-right? More of
> everything, breaking finally the bits that actually worked
> in Nethack?
Nethack is one of my biggest influences, but Kaduria is not
like Nethack.
Jon Mayo
No, something far more obscure. I make money programming Linux device
drivers and bootloaders (either as an employee or contractor).
The games are just a hobby of mine. Which is why I was irritated when
unhelpful insults against hobbyists starting flying around. There are
easier ways to make money, but I'm considering just making a little
money on the side on my next project just to see how it goes. It's
been over a decade since I did any sort of shareware development.
Jon Mayo
> Nor IWBtG. That's got to be the least competitive game I've ever
> played.
I wouldn't mind for my roguelike to have the same sort of cult
following though, which is why I listed it.
Patric Mueller
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 pau...@mbnet.fi wrote:
>
>> On 8 kes�, 20:32, Darren Grey <darrenjohng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Besides, how many more Nethack clones do we need?
>>
>> How about one? Variants don't count, they all have failed
>> badly compared to original, because the authors of variants
>> are usually not very good game designers. They just break
>> everything.
>
> This is one of the most funny messages I've read in a long time.
But, if you're expecting to play the "Real Thing" than Variants *are
breaking everything*. ;-)
But NetHack did have some problems with its variants. Slash'Em
and PatchHack did more or less just incorporate everything they could.
Of course with PatchHack that was the only reason for doing the
variant at all. :)
The rest didn't get a lot of attention because they were only
distributed as patches. I'm thinking of the biodiversity and lethe
patch.
> PS: Isn't Kaduria supposed to be Nethack-done-right? More of
> everything, breaking finally the bits that actually worked in Nethack?
[1] Kaduria is of course the one NetHack clone we need.
Bye
Patric
--
NetHack-De: NetHack auf Deutsch - http://nethack-de.sourceforge.net/
NetHack for AROS: http://sourceforge.net/projects/nethack-aros/
UnNetHack: http://apps.sourceforge.net/trac/unnethack-12312/
David Ploog
> David Ploog <pl...@mi.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 pau...@mbnet.fi wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 kes�, 20:32, Darren Grey <darrenjohng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Besides, how many more Nethack clones do we need?
>>>
>>> How about one? Variants don't count, they all have failed
>>> are usually not very good game designers. They just break
>>> everything.
>>
>> This is one of the most funny messages I've read in a long time.
>
> But, if you're expecting to play the "Real Thing" than Variants *are
> breaking everything*. ;-)
>
> But NetHack did have some problems with its variants. Slash'Em
> and PatchHack did more or less just incorporate everything they could.
I agree that Slash'Em and PatchHack are ill-designed (from a balance POV)
variants. But that does not mean that "they all failed". Brass, Spork and
Un all care about nerfing as much as about adding stuff.
David
Martin Read
>My favorite is < to go up stairs and > to go down stairs. I don't think
>I've ever seen a game with two-way staircases.
Rogue.
If you didn't have the trinket, you could only go down; if you did have
it, you could go either direction (but, no reason to go down).
--
\_\/_/ 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"
ben...@gmail.com
roguelike itch:
I have been really impressed by the public response to Wayfarer. I
lucked out; it was written up in the indie game roundup Offworld, and
over 1000 people "rolled up" a character that day. Now things have
calmed down somewhat and only about 40-50 of the 5500 characters on
the server are played on a given day (80 on Fridays), but this is in
an alpha game with only 5 samey monsters and very few features. Why
are people putting up with it?
-- it's playable online (downloading from Sourceforge may be scarier
than is realized)
-- it has crude graphics (barely one step from ascii) <-- read: "retro
appeal"
-- every attempt is being made to lob this thing beyond the FOV of the
roguelike community (simplified interface, lots of "bump" interaction
(e.g. with stairs), willingness to field comments like "walls don't
show up until I get close to them, is that a bug?")
And, I can't prove this beyond a hunch, but Wayfarer looks the way it
does partly because fine-grained graphics make my eyes bleed. I just
can't focus for any length of time on a sea of constantly moving
pixels like Diablo II. Diablo II gives me aneurisms on many levels,
actually, and all of them are considered "features." Maybe roguelikes
can compete by NOT attempting the excesses of major games, and win
players who are looking for a respite. --Ben
Derek Ray
>>> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 pau...@mbnet.fi wrote:
>>>> How about one? Variants don't count, they all have failed
>>>> badly compared to original
> variants. But that does not mean that "they all failed". Brass, Spork and
> Un all care about nerfing as much as about adding stuff.
Comparing Spork to Nethack is apples and oranges anyway. One has been
around for 20 years and has had 15 years' worth of development; one is a
variant that's only had about nine months' worth, is fixing the broken
parts, and is widely regarded as 'harder'. Of course the two won't be
the same, no matter which metric you choose, and it's silly to even try.
Krice mostly just spends his time making unsupported assertions and
hoping people will respond to them. Again, 30 years from now he'll be
sitting there saying the same things and wondering why nobody ever
noticed his greatness... and still promising that Kaduria will come out
and be the best thing ever.
--
Derek
Game info and change log: http://sporkhack.com
Beta Server: telnet://sporkhack.com
IRC: irc.freenode.net, #sporkhack
Patric Mueller
Oh, I didn't want to imply that "they all failed".
Rather that in the olden days the variants were able to compete with
NetHack at eye level. Be it that they were only distributed as patch
and not as binary or complete source tree. Or that they only were
played by very few people and so didn't have a strong enough lobby
that would demand loud enough that features from the variant would be
introduced into NetHack.
Slash'Em did for a while have a relationship with NetHack like Fooband
does with Angband. But Slash'Em did have other fundamental problems.
As everybody knows.
Of course nowadays being developed is enough to compete with NetHack.
Or so I hope. :)
David Ploog
> On 2009-06-09, David Ploog <pl...@mi.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 pau...@mbnet.fi wrote:
>>>>> How about one? Variants don't count, they all have failed
>>>>> badly compared to original
>> I agree that Slash'Em and PatchHack are ill-designed (from a balance POV)
>> variants. But that does not mean that "they all failed". Brass, Spork and
>> Un all care about nerfing as much as about adding stuff.
>
> Comparing Spork to Nethack is apples and oranges anyway. One has been
> around for 20 years and has had 15 years' worth of development; one is a
> variant that's only had about nine months' worth, is fixing the broken
> parts, and is widely regarded as 'harder'. Of course the two won't be
> the same, no matter which metric you choose, and it's silly to even try.
I don't see what's wrong in comparing them. They're clearly related (by a
parent and child relationship, if you want). For a Nethack player, it
makes a lot of sense to ask which is one is better, i.e. more fun.
(Whereas a priori it makes less sense to ask them to compare Nethack and
Angband, say.)
And I wouldn't compare their durations of existence. From a purely player
point of view, Sporkhack has been developed over 15 years + 9 months.
As I see it, every variant of a given game should be definition be
comparable to the players of the vanilla thing.
David
Derek Ray
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Derek Ray wrote:
>> Comparing Spork to Nethack is apples and oranges anyway. One has been
>> around for 20 years and has had 15 years' worth of development; one is a
>> variant that's only had about nine months' worth, is fixing the broken
>> parts, and is widely regarded as 'harder'. Of course the two won't be
>> the same, no matter which metric you choose, and it's silly to even try.
> I don't see what's wrong in comparing them. They're clearly related (by a
> parent and child relationship, if you want).
They are, but do you typically compare a parent to its child directly?
> For a Nethack player, it
> makes a lot of sense to ask which is one is better, i.e. more fun.
The problem is inertia in this case. Nethack players these days are (witness
Krice and Janis) devoted to their sacred cow, by and large, and as such
it doesn't matter whether Spork is actually "more fun"; they reject it
out of hand as violating their Holy Object.
Players just starting Nethack, or who are not already reasonably skilled
at it, regard Spork as "more difficult" and resolve to themselves become
more skilled at vanilla first. This isn't based on facts, as there was an
explicit design decision made to ensure that the early game _doesn't_
become more harder -- but this doesn't change the perception, and
doesn't overcome the inertia.
What it really comes down to is brand recognition. Spork does not have
the brand recognition of SLASH'EM or Nethack yet (though there's a case
to be made that far more Spork is being played right now than Slash'EM),
and that only comes with time or a direct transfer of the crown. The
latter isn't going to happen, so any realistic comparison between Spork
and Nethack will have to happen solely on the merits of the changes
themselves _or_ will have to wait 'til Spork has built up that brand
recognition. Same with UnNethack; brand recognition and inertia (and
lack of a telnet server illustrates the 'inertia' quite well, though
Patric will be changing that so I don't consider it a problem.)
Jeff Lait
Well, the mainstream Ultima 3 did insist on K to climb up vs D to
descend :>
Personally I usually just accept either > or < on stairs for
climbing. The more I play roguelikes, the more I'm convinced one
should either just auto-climb stairs or prompt-to-climb.
I think POWDER was helped a lot by being forced to work with only two
buttons (plus two shoulder buttons, plus start/select) in addition to
the arrow keys. Lots of keys are useful and there is no reason you
shouldn't have a lot. But you should also be completely playable with
only absolute minimum. Further, those keys should be "obvious", ie,
the sort of key people expect to uses. Enter should select things
from menus, escape should cancel selections, arrow keys should move
selections, etc.
And whereever the default action is obvious, take it. Let keys be
used for obscure things, like closing doors, and leave common things,
like opening doors, to bump-to-open.
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
Jeff Lait
> In article <c4239d26-e6fc-4140-8003-3c363fec15b1
>
> > On Jun 8, 5:30 pm, Jon Mayo <jon.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The market for games that are not earth shattering in terms of
> > > graphics, concept, franchise or gameplay tends to be around $5 to $10.
> > > Don't get me wrong, if I could sell a few thousand copies on XBox Live
> > > for $5-$10 I would be thrilled.
>
> > Why are you fixated on fixed price-per unit? That is a hold over from
> > the mass market. To some people your roguelike is worth nothing. Let
> > them play for free. For others, $50. Let them pay $50.
>
> If you can charge everybody the maximum they are willing to pay, you
> maximise your profits, certainly. But this is not easy to organise.
> What if somebody (who would pay $50 for a game if they had to) pretends
> that they would not pay anything?
I didn't say it was easy. I say that it is a better way to approach
the problem. The $50 person will be receiving the same free game as
the free person. Indeed, this is how they learned it was worth $50.
If it were $50 at the gate they likely would never have picked it up.
So the question becomes: How do we make a value add so that those who
want to pay more, can?
Traditional shareware answers are to use additional levels - you hit a
certain wall in the free version and get more content with $$.
Roguelikes make this a bit more difficult since, after a fashion, all
the content is in level 1. With POWDER I do it by providing the
Wizard password to those who donate. Dwarf Fortress has a hall of
fame for donators to put their messages. Legerdmain sells (at I hope
a profit) their hint book.
Billy Bissette
309728...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> Re: ways to compete with more established games that scratch the
> roguelike itch:
> I have been really impressed by the public response to Wayfarer. I
> lucked out; it was written up in the indie game roundup Offworld, and
> over 1000 people "rolled up" a character that day. Now things have
> calmed down somewhat and only about 40-50 of the 5500 characters on
> the server are played on a given day (80 on Fridays), but this is in
> an alpha game with only 5 samey monsters and very few features. Why
> are people putting up with it?
>
> -- it's playable online (downloading from Sourceforge may be scarier
> than is realized)
I've never played Wayfarer. Is it browser-based or something?
If so, I could see that being an appeal to people who might play it
on a machine where downloading programs is discouraged, like
library or work computers.
And honestly, yes, Sourceforge is scary to some people. Or more
appropriately, there are PC users that find installations more
complex than a direct web link to an installer program to be to much
for them to handle. No navigating pages to find which package to
download. No unzipping (even though windows now has built in zip
support) and certainly no other compression formats.
However, going to a page that automatically loads the game for
you in a browser window is the same as simply surfing the web.
Anyone can do it.
David Ploog
[money from roguelikes?]
> With POWDER I do it by providing the Wizard password to those who
> donate.
If someone builds their own POWDER, they cannot deduce that password from
the source? That's nifty!
For Crawl, we have never contemplated asking for donations. Is it worth
it? There are some costs, mainly for the servers, but I always thought
that a call for donations would yield yearly revenues of about 50 cent. :)
David
Jon Mayo
> I didn't say it was easy. I say that it is a better way to approach
> the problem. The $50 person will be receiving the same free game as
> the free person. Indeed, this is how they learned it was worth $50.
> If it were $50 at the gate they likely would never have picked it up.
>
I'd rather release a limited number of licenses every week/month and
auction them off for charity for a model designed to have some people
pay more than others.
David Ploog
That's an interesting idea. You might want to auction off 'personal'
versions. For example, they could come with actual paper stuff, or with
some easy but cool additions (an artefact or unique of "playername").
Another idea, more modelled on real life marketing, would use online
tournaments. (At least Nethack and Crawl have these.) The first half of
the tournament is free. You have to pay a fee to play in the second half.
That said, I want Crawl to be strictly free. To me, it is part of the DIY
(counter) approach to commercial gaming. I am not sure if I would accept
or reject donations. :)
David
ben...@gmail.com
> I've never played Wayfarer. Is it browser-based or something?
> If so, I could see that being an appeal to people who might play it
> on a machine where downloading programs is discouraged, like
> library or work computers.
Yeah, it's a Java applet -- link:
http://benhem.com/games/wayfarer
and it does seem to be popular at work, judging by the comments.
> And honestly, yes, Sourceforge is scary to some people. Or more
> appropriately, there are PC users that find installations more
> complex than a direct web link to an installer program to be to much
> for them to handle. No navigating pages to find which package to
> download. No unzipping (even though windows now has built in zip
> support) and certainly no other compression formats.
Right -- no sarcasm or aspersion-casting intended -- even
downloading and unzipping is just outside of some casual gamers'
experience.
But then, writing in Java has a lot of drawbacks, and not too many
existing roguelikes use it. There's another host of issues (har har)
with an applet game, like where to put savefiles.
The more universal point might be: many people, especially
non-"roguelikers," may not be getting to the point of experiencing the
meat of your game. Dwarf Fortress is a good example: it gets as much
publicity as any (current) roguelike ever has, but it seems like most
people end up trying it for an hour and posting "I don't like Dwarf
Fortress" in gaming forums thereafter. It can be tough to playtest
your own game from the casual-gamer POV. And, this is obvious, but
emphasizing ease of installation on various platforms, and throwing up
some screenshots of your game working in graphic/tile mode (or even
something like Vulture's Eye), could expand your player base.
Of course the diehard ASCII-devotees will literally be "throwing up"
those screencaps... -- Ben
Gelatinous Mutant Coconut
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Jeff Lait wrote:
> > With POWDER I do it by providing the Wizard password to those who
> > donate.
>
> If someone builds their own POWDER, they cannot deduce that password from
> the source? That's nifty!
You'll always be able to figure out any password eventually, even
without the source code; if you're not the type to reverse-engineer
the password by examining the binary, you can always brute-force guess
it.
I think that what is more important is that some token of gratitude is
given back to donors. Sure you can get the password from the source
code, but for donors the password will be associated with that smug
feeling you get from supporting a game you enjoy; that's value added
to the game, I think.
Gelatinous Mutant Coconut
> it? There are some costs, mainly for the servers, but I always thought
> that a call for donations would yield yearly revenues of about 50 cent. :)
Well, I think it depends a lot on the game and its fanbase. Dwarf
Fortress isn't at all a typical in this regard (in most regards), but
its coder seems to have found a way to use donations to make working
on DF into his full-time job. (I imagine that he has to lead a pretty
austere life to make that work; given the amount of time he spends
working on that game I can't imagine that he ends up making anything
near minimum wage.)
As far as donation incentives go, in addition getting added to the
list of Champions (http://www.bay12games.com/champions.html),
donations through PayPal are rewarded with a thank-you email
containing a paragraph-long fantasy story (complete with an ASCII
depiction of the scene!), while snail-mail donators get DF-themed
crayon drawings. As far as rewards for game development donations, I
think things like these are ideal: quick, personal, and game-related
but not gameplay-altering.
Jeff Lait
>
> [money from roguelikes?]
>
> > With POWDER I do it by providing the Wizard password to those who
> > donate.
>
> If someone builds their own POWDER, they cannot deduce that password from
> the source? That's nifty!
At least one person has reverse engineered the password from the
source. And then donated anyways :>
Interesting trivia: Even when POWDER was closed source, the password
wasn't in plain text in the source code. Indeed, the password has
never entered the source repository at all.
> For Crawl, we have never contemplated asking for donations. Is it worth
> it? There are some costs, mainly for the servers, but I always thought
> that a call for donations would yield yearly revenues of about 50 cent. :)
I would be surprised if Crawl's player base wouldn't donate
sufficiently to keep a few servers lit. A danger with Crawl would be
getting too much money. There would be political issues opening Crawl
for donations, however, since there have been so many contributors,
often no longer involved. It would be important to make it clear
donations are directed at the Crawl Live Team, not Crawl itself. It
would be important to be clear about where the money is going up
front.
In addition to keeping servers lit, there is other things Crawl
donations could be used for. What about advertising, for example? I
had a lot of fun using Project Wonderful to push POWDER at the 100
version mark. More extreme ideas are to advertise in print mags or
"real" gaming sites.
Radomir Dopieralski
> If you want to compete with other commercial games, I can think of
> two "sacrifices" that probably should be made. I'm not sure I'd
> really call them sacrifices though, as neither are integral to
> Roguelikes.
>
> The first is expected view range.
[snip]
> The second is the obsession with (sometimes pointlessly)
> overcomplicated control schemes.
[snip]
I think there is a third, more important sacrifice: text. Your average
game-playing kid doesn't like to read, even if you are limiting yourself
to the English-speaking part of the world. So forget about elaborate names
for items and monsters, forget about messages describing what is happening
in the game: if you can't show it with a 32x32 pixel animation, it doesn't
exists in your game.
--
Radomir Dopieralski, http://sheep.art.pl
Radomir Dopieralski
> For Crawl, we have never contemplated asking for donations. Is it worth
> it? There are some costs, mainly for the servers, but I always thought
> that a call for donations would yield yearly revenues of about 50 cent. :)
You would be surprised. I would pay, if it was easy enough.
Shame I don't trust PayPal :(
Radomir Dopieralski
>> I'd rather release a limited number of licenses every week/month and
>> auction them off for charity for a model designed to have some people
>> pay more than others.
>
> That's an interesting idea. You might want to auction off 'personal'
> versions. For example, they could come with actual paper stuff, or with
> some easy but cool additions (an artefact or unique of "playername").
How about auctioning only a limited number of copies every month, and
that's it? That would surely make a very niche game ;)
I mean no free version or any other way of getting it outside of
auction...
Billy Bissette
news:slrnh2u37...@atos.wmid.amu.edu.pl:
Is it really a sacrifice?
If your graphics have enough resolution to show what is happening,
then you don't actually need to write "You miss the newt. The newt
hits you for 10 damage." Instead, you can just show the player
attack, pasting a "Miss" over the enemy, then show the newt
attacking and paste a "10" over the player character. With such a
system you even get an advantage over the average ASCII Roguelike
as the player can easily tell which of identical enemies is
attacking. Similar goes for things like bumping into locked doors
or walls.
Elaborate names for monsters? How many players really pay
attention to the names in ASCII Roguelikes anyway? You mostly
just learn what the symbols are and play by those symbols. It
doesn't really matter if the enemy is called a "newt" or a "feral
rabid newt of the demon dimensions". You don't actually have to
give up the names though, as you can still display them. Put
them in a beastiary along with the graphic and monster info for
example. Or keep a "detailed look" ability, where the player can
move a cursor around to get details on anything onscreen.
Same goes for item names. Have you looked at some of the item
names that appear in some games with randomized equipment, where
there is a desire to reflect the item's various effects in its
name?
And there really isn't anything stopping you from displaying a
scrolling line of text describing the action anyway. Or you can
just overlay the bottom of the screen with any relevant text, or
overlay the related screen area. (Like talking enemies.) You
could even keep at standard action log, just in case a player
really wanted to look back and see just how many hits and misses
that last round of combat had, or to double check what that NPC
just said.
Billy Bissette
news:cbf35eed-6dfd-427a...@j20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
> I would be surprised if Crawl's player base wouldn't donate
> sufficiently to keep a few servers lit. A danger with Crawl would be
> getting too much money. There would be political issues opening Crawl
> for donations, however, since there have been so many contributors,
> often no longer involved. It would be important to make it clear
> donations are directed at the Crawl Live Team, not Crawl itself. It
> would be important to be clear about where the money is going up
> front.
It would also be important to keep updating. If people feel their
donations are actually contributing to the continuation of the game,
then they'll probably be a bit happier about that contribution. Let
them see results for their interest.
Dwarf Fortress, for example, is known for updating. But donating
to something like the Nethack dev team might feel like throwing
money into a black hole.