Shockfrost memorial day
copx
Kornel "Anubis" Kisielewicz
news:3e172ddd$0$5879$9b4e...@newsread2.arcor-online.net...
> Do we need something like that :)
###### ### ########## ######## #
## ##### ######## ### ## ### ## ##### ##
## ## ## ## ## ## #
######## ## ## ## ####### #
## ## ## ## ## ## #
## # ## ## ## ## ##
## ### ####### ## ## ########
[for the non-ASCI literate -- ROTFL]
[for the non-you-snet-literate -- Rolling On The Floor Laughing]
;-))))))))))))))))))))))))))
regards,
--
Kornel "Anubis" Kisielewicz
RLDev Code v.0.65
L:FP E+ T+ R+++ P+ D++ G++ RL-- RLA+++ F:GearHead
GenRogue Reloaded ( http://genrogue.felis7.civ.pl/ )
W:DF Q+++ AI++ !GFX !SFX RN+++ PO--- Hp-- Re+++ S+++
R Dan Henry
<inv...@dd.com> declared:
>Do we need something like that :)
No, we'll celebrate really soon when Shockfrost returns with the
promised demo. All will see the realization of SF's great plan in awe
and wonder. Then with rgrd be made right.
--
R. Dan Henry
rdan...@earthlink.net
They can have my ASCII graphics when they pry them
from my cold dead (c) and (d) slots.
Amy Wang
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 19:54:44 +0100, in a fit of madness "copx"
> <inv...@dd.com> declared:
>
> >Do we need something like that :)
>
> No, we'll celebrate really soon when Shockfrost returns with the
> promised demo. All will see the realization of SF's great plan in awe
> and wonder. Then with rgrd be made right.
Does anybody know off-hand when Shockfrost's promised release date is?
I believe that in November he said it would be three months, so
without boring people with the math, I must assume he's at least half
done. My opinion is that the only thing he'll have to show for his
efforts after three months will be a level 100 character on that MUD,
or something like that. But, he *promised* that *nothing* would stop
him from implementing this game, so I guess he's the best hope for an
upcoming All-Feature Sim/Roguelike Extravaganza.
On the same note, I'm considering creating a Yahoo account, or
something like that, and posting to RGRD about "My new roguelike
idea". It would go something like this: "I'm an idiot who knows
nothing about programming, but without actually doing any design,
here's my idea for a roguelike game". I'll go on to describe a bunch
of features that are in existing roguelike games/from AD&D/pure BS and
imply to the group that I need ways to expand them in ways that make
them less fun/more difficult to implement. I won't take any advice on
how to implement or design anything, but will gladly write novels
about how the AI and ecology of the game world will be more complex
than anything ever made. And I'll be done with it in a few months.
And I will call this fake person: rabidc... no, nevermind. I'll come
up with something when I have more time.
Kornel "Anubis" Kisielewicz
news:62acd54d.03010...@posting.google.com...
> R Dan Henry <rdan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<g9lf1vsrpa1nk3q2g...@4ax.com>...
> > On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 19:54:44 +0100, in a fit of madness "copx"
> > <inv...@dd.com> declared:
> >
> > >Do we need something like that :)
> >
> > No, we'll celebrate really soon when Shockfrost returns with the
> > promised demo. All will see the realization of SF's great plan in
awe
> > and wonder. Then with rgrd be made right.
>
> Does anybody know off-hand when Shockfrost's promised release date
is?
> I believe that in November
I think that it was October 31th :).
> On the same note, I'm considering creating a Yahoo account, or
> something like that, and posting to RGRD about "My new roguelike
> idea". It would go something like this: "I'm an idiot who knows
> nothing about programming, but without actually doing any design,
> here's my idea for a roguelike game". I'll go on to describe a bunch
> of features that are in existing roguelike games/from AD&D/pure BS
and
> imply to the group that I need ways to expand them in ways that make
> them less fun/more difficult to implement. I won't take any advice
on
> how to implement or design anything, but will gladly write novels
> about how the AI and ecology of the game world will be more complex
> than anything ever made. And I'll be done with it in a few months.
Admit it Amy! You were SchockFrost!
> And I will call this fake person: rabidc... no, nevermind. I'll come
> up with something when I have more time.
You're Cruel Amy :).
RabidCow
> up with something when I have more time.
That was funny until you mentioned my name. Unlike the infamous SF, I
really _AM_ working on my roguelike - I'm actually implementing a good
portion of the features I've been babbling about for the past week or
so, and will have a game that could be at least considered 'playable',
even if it doesn't have all the features I want, in a month or so (no
promises on the date - it might take six months and it might be done
next week - that's just what I'm shooting for). In fact, I just
finished putting together a bad-looking demo (which will be posted in
another thread) about 15 minutes before reading your post.
Ok, I'm done ranting. Off to start a new thread to stick my demo in.
-RabidCow
Rick C
> And I will call this fake person: rabidc... no, nevermind. I'll come
> up with something when I have more time.
How 'bout "great flaming asshole"? Oh, wait, you're already using that one.
Amy Wang
Maybe it's not *as* funny now that you have your demo out, but I don't
think I was too unfair with my interpretation of "Here's my rambling
idea for a dream roguelike that has more features than theme, and by
the way, I'm writing it in Java". A tiny bit of design posted to the
group would have prevented any ridicule.
On the other hand, I see a couple of demos on your site. Recursive
shadowcasting is nice (shows you know something about code). A 3D
demo, however, just makes me think "one month, lol".
RabidCow
> think I was too unfair with my interpretation of "Here's my rambling
> idea for a dream roguelike that has more features than theme, and by
> the way, I'm writing it in Java". A tiny bit of design posted to the
> group would have prevented any ridicule.
I do see your point, but that doesn't make it any less offensive.
And a note on the way I work: I don't design much beforehand. I come
up with a list of things I want to implement, and start implementing.
Sure, I have to stop in the middle of things to rethink large portions
of the program, but it's more fun that way.
> On the other hand, I see a couple of demos on your site. Recursive
> shadowcasting is nice (shows you know something about code). A 3D
> demo, however, just makes me think "one month, lol".
When I said one month, I meant one month till I had something playable
- like a really simple dungeon crawl. Only about 10% of the feature I
want will be in that version, and 3D may or may not be one of them.
-RabidCow
Amy Wang
I don't know what kind of response you're expecting to get, but it's
good that you're sticking up for your friend ShockFrost. I hope you
have a good time playing his game when it's released next month.
Rick C
news:62acd54d.03010...@posting.google.com...
Actually, I'll be surprised if he ever appears with working code, too. As
for response, I don't really care what your response is--I calls 'em like I
sees 'em, and I think I pegged your recent behavior pretty accurately.
R Dan Henry
(RabidCow) declared:
>> And I will call this fake person: rabidc... no, nevermind. I'll come
>> up with something when I have more time.
>
>That was funny until you mentioned my name.
Don't mind Amy Wang, she's just the Great Demon of Negativity, hanging
out in hopes she'll be a unique in somebody's game.
"Amy Wang breathes sarcasm. Amy Wang breathes negativity. -more-"
"Amy Wang looks smug. You die. -more-"
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
> On 5 Jan 2003 21:02:25 -0800, in a fit of madness rabid...@yahoo.com
> (RabidCow) declared:
>>> And I will call this fake person: rabidc... no, nevermind. I'll come
>>> up with something when I have more time.
>>That was funny until you mentioned my name.
> Don't mind Amy Wang, she's just the Great Demon of Negativity, hanging
> out in hopes she'll be a unique in somebody's game.
Don't get her hopes up, she's not that great.
> "Amy Wang breathes sarcasm. Amy Wang breathes negativity. -more-"
> "Amy Wang looks smug.
"You completely ignore her feeble attacks."
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"We remain convinced that this is the best defensive posture to adopt in
order to minimize casualties when the Great Old Ones return from beyond
the stars to eat our brains." -Charlie Stross, _The Concrete Jungle_
Oliver Richman
Amy, with your permission? :)
-frl
"R Dan Henry" <rdan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8ook1vsaq6s69715m...@4ax.com...
DarkGod
wrote:
>"Rick C" <pixe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<avb3r1$cuadl$1...@ID-80100.news.dfncis.de>...
>> "Amy Wang" <blueme...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>> > And I will call this fake person: rabidc... no, nevermind. I'll come
>> > up with something when I have more time.
>>
>> How 'bout "great flaming asshole"? Oh, wait, you're already using that one.
>
>I don't know what kind of response you're expecting to get, but it's
And what kind of response were YOU expecting when you posted your
flame?
Yes they may be dreamers that wont produce code, or maybe they will.
But why are you so harsh with them ? Are you feeling superior to them
? Well where is your game then as it seems to be the only thing that
matters for you...
You dont seem stupid and if you could simply be a bit more friendly it
would be great ...
PS: Dont bother saying I should go write a game, I already did, and it
is played by many, thank you
RabidCow
> On 5 Jan 2003 21:02:25 -0800, in a fit of madness rabid...@yahoo.com
> (RabidCow) declared:
>
> >> And I will call this fake person: rabidc... no, nevermind. I'll come
> >> up with something when I have more time.
> >
> >That was funny until you mentioned my name.
>
> Don't mind Amy Wang, she's just the Great Demon of Negativity, hanging
> out in hopes she'll be a unique in somebody's game.
>
> "Amy Wang breathes sarcasm. Amy Wang breathes negativity. -more-"
> "Amy Wang looks smug. You die. -more-"
Hahahahaha.
Now I've got a final boss for my game (well, maybe the first few
releases anyway, before I start writing all that complex story/quest
code).
-RabidCow
RabidCow
First off, I'm NOT ShockFrost. If I was SF, either I would be quoting
large portions of the D&D books, or I would be to busy playing that
MUD to post here.
Second, that 'one month' thing wasn't definite, though every time you
talk like it's not gonna happen, it makes me want to get it out even
more, just to prove you wrong. There's just something about people
saying 'it can't be done' that makes me want to do it.
-RabidCow
Amy Wang
> On 6 Jan 2003 20:50:26 -0800, blueme...@hotmail.com (Amy Wang)
> wrote:
>
> >"Rick C" <pixe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<avb3r1$cuadl$1...@ID-80100.news.dfncis.de>...
> >> "Amy Wang" <blueme...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>
> >> > And I will call this fake person: rabidc... no, nevermind. I'll come
> >> > up with something when I have more time.
> >>
> >> How 'bout "great flaming asshole"? Oh, wait, you're already using that one.
> >
> >I don't know what kind of response you're expecting to get, but it's
>
> And what kind of response were YOU expecting when you posted your
> flame?
> Yes they may be dreamers that wont produce code, or maybe they will.
> But why are you so harsh with them ? Are you feeling superior to them
I guess I might as well give you a list:
They're egotistical, and won't work together because of their need for
"creative control". If a few people here started a group, we'd see a
lot more roguelike games.
They think that roguelike games are so easy to implement that doing so
is a good first project for a first year CS student.
When they know how to code at all, they think that design is below
their code hacking abilities.
They fail to realize that their pipe dream ideas would constitute one
of the most complicated games ever. And yet, they think that a single
novice programmer should be able to implement a series of vague ideas.
These dreamers think that their ideas are so original and
avante-garde, but most of them are found in AD&D (always AD&D- I'd
love to see a ripoff of something else, even DUDE), existing games, or
the natural world (in other words, common sense). The few that are
original are so poorly thought out that it should be obvious that any
implementation would detract from the fun of the game.
Despite having all of these features, they can't see any theme beyond
simple dungeon crawling. They desperately try and try to add features
and realism to turn a dungeon crawl into a sim, even though a simple
theme is all that's needed.
> ? Well where is your game then as it seems to be the only thing that
> matters for you...
As far as RGRD is concerned, it "matters to me" that repeated failures
by developers serve to reduce the number of roguelike games available
to play. If there were more roguelike games in existence, there would
probably be more people playing them, so theoretically, there would be
more people developing more games. That would be a good thing.
My game? I have an early-alpha roguelike that's not in development,
and a text-based non-roguelike that's nearing beta. Neither of them
will be released to a group of dungeon crawling MUD/RPG burn-outs that
are already rabidly hostile to my honesty.
>
> You dont seem stupid and if you could simply be a bit more friendly it
> would be great ...
I'll be extremely friendly to anyone whose "My roguelike idea" post
goes something like this: "I'm an experienced programmer who has an
idea for a roguelike game that has a definite theme other than
medieval fantasy dungeon crawling. My idea has at most a couple of
features that aren't in existing roguelikes.... I'm not a UNIX code
hacker, and my younger brother doesn't have a 386 that I'm trying to
get my game to run on..... [and most importantly] I'm posting to this
group for [some reason other than 'make my idea more complicated']".
This also works: "I'm an inexperienced/non-programmer who has a
well-thought out idea for a roguelike game. I've already done much of
the design, and I'd like to form a group to help me implement it.
Here's a rough idea of what the game would be like.... but for more
details, I'd prefer having a group of programmers being set up first."
>
> PS: Dont bother saying I should go write a game, I already did, and it
> is played by many, thank you
In case you haven't noticed, I'm the only person here who doesn't use
that tactic in order to defuse someone's argument. Thank you, though,
for using it on me.
DarkGod
wrote:
>They're egotistical, and won't work together because of their need for
>"creative control". If a few people here started a group, we'd see a
>lot more roguelike games.
>They think that roguelike games are so easy to implement that doing so
>is a good first project for a first year CS student.
So what ? They will fail, or succeed, why does it bothers you?
If it fails it will be their failure, not yours.
>When they know how to code at all, they think that design is below
>their code hacking abilities.
This might be true yes. But people need to start somewhere. And while
they're at it they'd better get ambitious, it helps progressing.
When I started I had no idea of designs, or whatever. I just got in
and coded, and yes I made many errors. But they helped me learn, they
helped me code better, they helped me think of design.
>They fail to realize that their pipe dream ideas would constitute one
>of the most complicated games ever. And yet, they think that a single
>novice programmer should be able to implement a series of vague ideas.
Dreaming is what put humanity in the place it stands. Dreaming often
fails, but I cant see how that bothers you.
>These dreamers think that their ideas are so original and
>avante-garde, but most of them are found in AD&D (always AD&D- I'd
>love to see a ripoff of something else, even DUDE), existing games, or
>the natural world (in other words, common sense). The few that are
>original are so poorly thought out that it should be obvious that any
>implementation would detract from the fun of the game.
Maybe so. but if you dont let people discuss old ideas over and over
you reduce the chances of them getting a new idea. kinda like genetic
evolution, with old genes and some luck you get something new.
>Despite having all of these features, they can't see any theme beyond
>simple dungeon crawling. They desperately try and try to add features
>and realism to turn a dungeon crawl into a sim, even though a simple
>theme is all that's needed.
To that I agree, a theme is(sometimes) needed.
>As far as RGRD is concerned, it "matters to me" that repeated failures
>by developers serve to reduce the number of roguelike games available
>to play. If there were more roguelike games in existence, there would
>probably be more people playing them, so theoretically, there would be
>more people developing more games. That would be a good thing.
More games doesnt mean more players.
>My game? I have an early-alpha roguelike that's not in development,
>and a text-based non-roguelike that's nearing beta. Neither of them
>will be released to a group of dungeon crawling MUD/RPG burn-outs that
>are already rabidly hostile to my honesty.
Why not? You must obviously have better ideas than the rest of the
group, and that combined with a better design too. So it would be
superior, no? So why not release it there to provide enlightenment ?
>I'll be extremely friendly to anyone whose "My roguelike idea" post
>goes something like this: "I'm an experienced programmer who has an
>idea for a roguelike game that has a definite theme other than
>medieval fantasy dungeon crawling. My idea has at most a couple of
>features that aren't in existing roguelikes.... I'm not a UNIX code
>hacker, and my younger brother doesn't have a 386 that I'm trying to
>get my game to run on..... [and most importantly] I'm posting to this
What do you have against unix hackers ? Or people running old
hardware? Sometimes flowers raise from the dirt(not that I would call
unix dirt tho)
>group for [some reason other than 'make my idea more complicated']".
The question being asked to the group usualy have little connection
with the answer given anyway. It jsut serves to start an exchange of
ideas.
>This also works: "I'm an inexperienced/non-programmer who has a
>well-thought out idea for a roguelike game. I've already done much of
>the design, and I'd like to form a group to help me implement it.
>Here's a rough idea of what the game would be like.... but for more
>details, I'd prefer having a group of programmers being set up first."
What is it this thing you have with groups ?
Why shold everybody work in groups ?
What if they just want to have FUN on their own without having to
comply with the will of other people. If it latter turns out that
their game survives and becomes played, it is still time to let a
group gather, if it is the will of the maintainer.
>> PS: Dont bother saying I should go write a game, I already did, and it
>> is played by many, thank you
>In case you haven't noticed, I'm the only person here who doesn't use
>that tactic in order to defuse someone's argument. Thank you, though,
>for using it on me.
Then you should not flame people beacuse they dont (yet or not) have a
game to show to the world.
Amy Wang
> large portions of the D&D books, or I would be to busy playing that
> MUD to post here.
I'm not saying that you're ShockFrost (me and Anubis know the truth
:)). I'm saying that you have the same design principles as him.
>
> Second, that 'one month' thing wasn't definite, though every time you
> talk like it's not gonna happen, it makes me want to get it out even
> more, just to prove you wrong. There's just something about people
> saying 'it can't be done' that makes me want to do it.
So basically, I win either way. If I'm right, I can sit here and
insult you all I want and be proven right when you realize that
software development is something that only grown-ups do. If you
continue to write your game and somehow succeed (despite lacking the
design, talent, or patience without people pushing you), then I get to
play a new roguelike game. In other words, I'm happy, and even if you
will never create anything in your whole life, you have still
entertained me. Thank you, RabidCow.
Gerry Quinn
>They're egotistical, and won't work together because of their need for
>"creative control". If a few people here started a group, we'd see a
>lot more roguelike games.
It's very questionable. When nobody's getting paid, people lose
interest. Depends on the group, of course, but there's a lot to be said
for working alone.
>They think that roguelike games are so easy to implement that doing so
>is a good first project for a first year CS student.
It's a good third year project. Good for learning, ambitious enough to
give scope to the talented, modular enough for a complex system to be
successfully developed by the relatively unskilled, tolerant of the
graphically inept...
>My game? I have an early-alpha roguelike that's not in development,
>and a text-based non-roguelike that's nearing beta. Neither of them
>will be released to a group of dungeon crawling MUD/RPG burn-outs that
>are already rabidly hostile to my honesty.
You'll be keeping your games secret from us? That speaks volumes.
>> You dont seem stupid and if you could simply be a bit more friendly it
>> would be great ...
>
>I'll be extremely friendly to anyone whose "My roguelike idea" post
>goes something like this: "I'm an experienced programmer who has an
>idea for a roguelike game that has a definite theme other than
>medieval fantasy dungeon crawling. My idea has at most a couple of
>features that aren't in existing roguelikes.... I'm not a UNIX code
>hacker, and my younger brother doesn't have a 386 that I'm trying to
>get my game to run on..... [and most importantly] I'm posting to this
>group for [some reason other than 'make my idea more complicated']".
>
>This also works: "I'm an inexperienced/non-programmer who has a
>well-thought out idea for a roguelike game. I've already done much of
>the design, and I'd like to form a group to help me implement it.
>Here's a rough idea of what the game would be like.... but for more
>details, I'd prefer having a group of programmers being set up first."
We won't demand friendliness, but you could consider being at least
civil to those who don't slavishly follow your agenda.
>> PS: Dont bother saying I should go write a game, I already did, and it
>> is played by many, thank you
>
>In case you haven't noticed, I'm the only person here who doesn't use
>that tactic in order to defuse someone's argument. Thank you, though,
>for using it on me.
It's a tactic you are somewhat vulnerable to (see above).
Gerry Quinn
--
http://bindweed.com
Entertainment software for Windows
Puzzles, Strategy Games, Kaleidoscope Screensaver
Download evaluation versions free - no time limits
Kornel "Anubis" Kisielewicz
news:3e1ada1c...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> On 6 Jan 2003 20:50:26 -0800, blueme...@hotmail.com (Amy Wang)
> wrote:
>
> >"Rick C" <pixe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<avb3r1$cuadl$1...@ID-80100.news.dfncis.de>...
using that one.
> >
> >I don't know what kind of response you're expecting to get, but
it's
>
> And what kind of response were YOU expecting when you posted your
> flame?
Note that the first person to flame somebody, per se, was Rick. Of
course we all know that Amy's position is quite radical, still she
doesn't produce flames. Why? Because all of her argument's are actualy
rational...
> Yes they may be dreamers that wont produce code, or maybe they will.
> But why are you so harsh with them ?
True. Sometimes too much is too much. I also went on SchockFrost for
vaporwaring, but stopped when I realised that it wont have any chance
of success. When somebody attacks someone without believing that she
can make him change his opinion, that *could* be called a flame.
> Are you feeling superior to them
> ? Well where is your game then as it seems to be the only thing that
> matters for you...
That's an unfair argument, DarkGod :).
> PS: Dont bother saying I should go write a game, I already did, and
it
> is played by many, thank you
Oh yes you did... ;)
But don't be SOOO proud, you made a _variant_, not a game :). Making a
variant is easier. Especialy that you didn't have the problems that
most of the people that unconsciously spam vapourware have -- those
people can show nothing. You could show a whole game even after
changing a couple lines of code... So from Amy's point of view, it
doesn't care wether you made ToME, or not. You never were on the first
damned steps...
Still, ToME is the best variant of a roguelike ever created :).
regards,
DarkGod
<anu...@felis7.civ.pl> wrote:
>> And what kind of response were YOU expecting when you posted your
>> flame?
>Note that the first person to flame somebody, per se, was Rick. Of
>course we all know that Amy's position is quite radical, still she
>doesn't produce flames. Why? Because all of her argument's are actualy
>rational...
Rational arguments thrown harsly at everything that moves sounds like
flaming to me..
>> Are you feeling superior to them
>> ? Well where is your game then as it seems to be the only thing that
>> matters for you...
>That's an unfair argument, DarkGod :).
Why so? She do seem to think she is superior, see she doesnt even want
to show us her great game... wait maybe she doesvaporware too ? mhh
naaa ;)
>> PS: Dont bother saying I should go write a game, I already did, and
>it
>> is played by many, thank you
>Oh yes you did... ;)
>But don't be SOOO proud, you made a _variant_, not a game :). Making a
Actually quite a few people would tell you it started as a variant and
turned into a game. As for my opinion on the matter, well it shall
remain hidden :)
As for being SOOO pround, I wasnt, I was just pointing out a fact to
cut off grass under her feet :)
>variant is easier. Especialy that you didn't have the problems that
>most of the people that unconsciously spam vapourware have -- those
>people can show nothing. You could show a whole game even after
>changing a couple lines of code... So from Amy's point of view, it
Not really, changing a few line of code doesnt make a new game. It is
called a small patch :)
>doesn't care wether you made ToME, or not. You never were on the first
>damned steps...
Well I made quite a few other games from scrath before ToME. But they
dont exactly work on modern computers anymore :(
They werent RL either but still quite complex :) But this is beside
the point anyway
>Still, ToME is the best variant of a roguelike ever created :).
Heh
DarkGod
wrote:
>So basically, I win either way. If I'm right, I can sit here and
>insult you all I want and be proven right when you realize that
>software development is something that only grown-ups do. If you
>continue to write your game and somehow succeed (despite lacking the
>design, talent, or patience without people pushing you), then I get to
>play a new roguelike game. In other words, I'm happy, and even if you
>will never create anything in your whole life, you have still
>entertained me. Thank you, RabidCow.
Let me sum it up:
* If he succeeds you'll be happy to play a new game. that's fair and
sane.
* If he fails you'll be happy to have had the possibility to insult
him. This is unsane and wicked, and if you have this kind of
personnality you should not tell people they are not "grown-up" ..
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
> On 7 Jan 2003 12:52:20 -0800, blueme...@hotmail.com (Amy Wang)
> wrote:
>>These dreamers think that their ideas are so original and
>>avante-garde, but most of them are found in AD&D (always AD&D- I'd
>>love to see a ripoff of something else, even DUDE), existing games, or
While I love seeing my games mentioned, DUDE would be an
extraordinarily bad basis for a computer game. It uses cards for task
resolution, and it's super-freeform. It might be fun to make a social
MUD that used DUDE for conflict resolution, but even that would be
weird. Yet another AD&D ripoff *would* be a better choice for a
roguelike, and I despise AD&D.
If someone does want to base a roguelike on one of my pencil & paper
RPGs, I'd recommend Phobos
<http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/Phobos/>. Phobos will never be
"out of beta", I've taken the best parts and moved on to new game
designs, but it's a complete and playable game system, and it's some of
my best game design work. I use a variant of the Phobos system in both
of my roguelike CRPGs: Umbra
<http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/Umbra/> and Hephaestus
<http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/Hephaestus/>.
My new P+P RPG, _Arcadia: a role-playing game of fairyland_, should be
even more suitable as a CRPG system (I'm quite deliberately designing it
that way), but it's 1-3 months from a beta release and at least 3-6
months from completion, depending on inspiration. I'll be using my
Arcadia system in "An Interactive Environment Engine" (Aiee!), which is
a story-generating adventure game system I've recently started
development on; I plan to put up an early beta of the Aiee! interpreter
in a few weeks, just to get some feedback. The story-generator won't be
done for some time, 6-12 months minimum.
>>My game? I have an early-alpha roguelike that's not in development,
>>and a text-based non-roguelike that's nearing beta. Neither of them
>>will be released to a group of dungeon crawling MUD/RPG burn-outs that
>>are already rabidly hostile to my honesty.
> Why not? You must obviously have better ideas than the rest of the
> group, and that combined with a better design too. So it would be
> superior, no? So why not release it there to provide enlightenment ?
[...]
>>> PS: Dont bother saying I should go write a game, I already did, and it
>>> is played by many, thank you
>>In case you haven't noticed, I'm the only person here who doesn't use
>>that tactic in order to defuse someone's argument. Thank you, though,
>>for using it on me.
Of course you don't use that argument--you've never written a game.
> Then you should not flame people beacuse they dont (yet or not) have a
> game to show to the world.
Wang's a troll. She'll never release a game of any kind. She's just
here to stir up trouble and piss people off by telling them "don't
bother developing a game".
I'm going to challenge you, Wang. Put up your beta game, or your
alpha roguelike, or whatever you have. If you don't, you're admitting
that you're a troll, a loser, and completely without value in life.
If I'm wrong, and it's even vaguely competent, I'll admit that you're
a great game designer who is really concerned for other people.
RabidCow
> >
> > First off, I'm NOT ShockFrost. If I was SF, either I would be quoting
> > large portions of the D&D books, or I would be to busy playing that
> > MUD to post here.
>
> I'm not saying that you're ShockFrost (me and Anubis know the truth
> :)). I'm saying that you have the same design principles as him.
I do? I wrote out everything I was going to put in my game in my first
post, and that's what's going in the game, nothing more, nothing less.
I discuss these ideas to get a clearer picture of the details before
jumping in and implementing them, not to come up with more and more
ideas that end up leading to dropping the project.
>
> >
> > Second, that 'one month' thing wasn't definite, though every time you
> > talk like it's not gonna happen, it makes me want to get it out even
> > more, just to prove you wrong. There's just something about people
> > saying 'it can't be done' that makes me want to do it.
>
> So basically, I win either way. If I'm right, I can sit here and
> insult you all I want and be proven right when you realize that
> software development is something that only grown-ups do. If you
> continue to write your game and somehow succeed (despite lacking the
> design, talent, or patience without people pushing you),
I have the design, talent, AND patience (in fact people pushing me
tends to make me less patient). None of these things, however is
absolutely necessary to create a roguelike. What one needs is
perserverance - something mysteriously absent from your list of things
I don't have.
> then I get to
> play a new roguelike game. In other words, I'm happy, and even if you
> will never create anything in your whole life, you have still
> entertained me. Thank you, RabidCow.
So your idea of entertainment is insulting people and watching them
fail? That's sad.
-RabidCow
Amy Wang
> Let me sum it up:
> * If he succeeds you'll be happy to play a new game. that's fair and
> sane.
> * If he fails you'll be happy to have had the possibility to insult
> him. This is unsane and wicked, and if you have this kind of
> personnality you should not tell people they are not "grown-up" ..
On the other hand, if he fails, it will be people like you who get
caught with your blind and meaningless support. While a handful of
people criticized ShockFrost for the obvious (to us) fact that he
would never produce anything, others were moving right along giving
him new ideas that would make his game more complex. That may not be
insane, but it's certainly irrational, and it doesn't help produce
more games.
Amy Wang
> On 7 Jan 2003 12:52:20 -0800, blueme...@hotmail.com (Amy Wang)
> wrote:
>
> >They're egotistical, and won't work together because of their need for
> >"creative control". If a few people here started a group, we'd see a
> >lot more roguelike games.
>
> >They think that roguelike games are so easy to implement that doing so
> >is a good first project for a first year CS student.
> So what ? They will fail, or succeed, why does it bothers you?
> If it fails it will be their failure, not yours.
How it bothers me personally: if they succeed, I get more games to
play. If they fail, they've wasted their own time, which may not
directly affect me, but at least I *don't* have a new game to play.
>
> >When they know how to code at all, they think that design is below
> >their code hacking abilities.
> This might be true yes. But people need to start somewhere. And while
> they're at it they'd better get ambitious, it helps progressing.
> When I started I had no idea of designs, or whatever. I just got in
> and coded, and yes I made many errors. But they helped me learn, they
> helped me code better, they helped me think of design.
So why is it necessary for them to post their insane ideas to RGRD?
Why don't they just try to implement them on their own and ask
legitimate coding questions to the group?
>
> >They fail to realize that their pipe dream ideas would constitute one
> >of the most complicated games ever. And yet, they think that a single
> >novice programmer should be able to implement a series of vague ideas.
> Dreaming is what put humanity in the place it stands. Dreaming often
> fails, but I cant see how that bothers you.
Dreaming is good, but it doesn't create games. When someone comes to a
development group, passing himself off as a game developer, I expect
him to do something along the lines of developing something. Caveat:
endless brainstorming about unrelated features does not constitute
development.
>
> >These dreamers think that their ideas are so original and
> >avante-garde, but most of them are found in AD&D (always AD&D- I'd
> >love to see a ripoff of something else, even DUDE), existing games, or
> >the natural world (in other words, common sense). The few that are
> >original are so poorly thought out that it should be obvious that any
> >implementation would detract from the fun of the game.
> Maybe so. but if you dont let people discuss old ideas over and over
> you reduce the chances of them getting a new idea. kinda like genetic
> evolution, with old genes and some luck you get something new.
Even if I think that these ideas are so terrible or unoriginal, I'd
like to see someone implement them in a roguelike game. That way, we'd
be able to tell what works and what doesn't, according to your
genetics analogy. What bothers me at this point is people saying that
they've created something new when 1: there's no implementation, so I
don't call it 'creation', and 2: it's not original to begin with.
>
> >As far as RGRD is concerned, it "matters to me" that repeated failures
> >by developers serve to reduce the number of roguelike games available
> >to play. If there were more roguelike games in existence, there would
> >probably be more people playing them, so theoretically, there would be
> >more people developing more games. That would be a good thing.
> More games doesnt mean more players.
I'll relate my logic. If there were *less* games, there'd certainly be
less players. Certainly, if Rogue were the only roguelike game, fewer
people would be playing it. On the other extreme, if there were an
unlimited number of roguelike games available, there would be wider
appeal for roguelike games. It turns out that ShockFrost wasn't the
next Thomas Biskup, but let's pretend for a moment that he was.
Somewhere, this game would appeal to someone, and thus increase the
popularity of the roguelike genre.
I shouldn't have to explain how more players means more developers.
>
> >My game? I have an early-alpha roguelike that's not in development,
> >and a text-based non-roguelike that's nearing beta. Neither of them
> >will be released to a group of dungeon crawling MUD/RPG burn-outs that
> >are already rabidly hostile to my honesty.
> Why not? You must obviously have better ideas than the rest of the
> group, and that combined with a better design too. So it would be
> superior, no? So why not release it there to provide enlightenment ?
1. If you think my ideas are so superior, why do you show so much
resistance to them? (my thesis has always been that design and
creativity are more important than portability and security)
2. Of course it has a better design, since it's a design that could
actually be implemented. ShockFrost's 'design' was nothing more than a
bunch of usenet posts.
3. I don't expect any honest criticism from this group, since I seem
to be your most hated enemy. While there are mature individuals in
this group, any advice they have to give will unfortunately be ways to
make the game more fun for them but less fun for me.
4. It's not a roguelike game. This is a roguelike game development
group.
5. I don't have anything to prove to you. I don't have any ambition to
be famous among roguelike developers as the maker of a good game. If I
did, I'd find some theme to use and finish my roguelike game.
> What do you have against unix hackers ? Or people running old
> hardware? Sometimes flowers raise from the dirt(not that I would call
> unix dirt tho)
There's people who are writing games in Java for the sole purpose of
making the game portable. There's way too many people who turned old
machines into Linux boxes and insist on finding ways of optimizing
code that doesn't exist, because they seem to think that they need the
game to run on all of their machines. These aren't bad things to do-
they're just not productive.
>
> >group for [some reason other than 'make my idea more complicated']".
> The question being asked to the group usualy have little connection
> with the answer given anyway. It jsut serves to start an exchange of
> ideas.
I have not seen any case of this grand exchange ever leading to a
meaningful implementation. That is my agenda.
> What is it this thing you have with groups ?
> Why shold everybody work in groups ?
I believe that the people who don't have the talent or skill to
complete something on their own should work together in however large
a group is needed to create a game. It's that simple. I want more
games. So far, I think it's easier to convince two people to work
together than it is to convince someone to become smarter or more
educated. As far as RGRD is concerned, I haven't succeeded in either,
but I'm still going with the former.
> What if they just want to have FUN on their own without having to
> comply with the will of other people. If it latter turns out that
> their game survives and becomes played, it is still time to let a
> group gather, if it is the will of the maintainer.
If someone wants to play around with an implementation on their own,
there's no way of me to know. But when someone posts to RGRD with a
game idea, I assume that he has the intention of actually creating a
game. Perhaps that's the fundamental rift between our beliefs.
> Then you should not flame people beacuse they dont (yet or not) have a
> game to show to the world.
I won't flame "I can, and I will" or "I can't, so I won't". I will
flame "I can't, but I will". That means all of these people with no
real experience, no design, and a few vague features making
meaningless posts and implying that they'll implement a game from
them. As it stands, any retard can post a few ideas and have the post
blossom into a 100-post thread. This great cauldron of ideas might be
fun, but it's (hopefully) not as fun as actually playing a roguelike
game.
Jim Strathmeyer
On 7 Jan 2003, Amy Wang wrote:
>
> 5. I don't have anything to prove to you. I don't have any ambition to
> be famous among roguelike developers as the maker of a good game. If I
> did, I'd find some theme to use and finish my roguelike game.
>
Then why do you keep posting here?
Lichen678
> > >> How 'bout "great flaming asshole"? Oh, wait, you're already using that one.
Did we really need another flamewar? But while we're all hewing in,
here's my two cesti...
<snip>
> I guess I might as well give you a list:
>
> They're egotistical, and won't work together because of their need for
> "creative control". If a few people here started a group, we'd see a
> lot more roguelike games.
You're the one who's keen for this to happen. You may need to do more
than rant about your ideas if you want it to actually eventuate.
<snip>
> When they know how to code at all, they think that design is below
> their code hacking abilities.
You generalise a lot about "they". I think it is rather simplistic.
You'll find that a lot of people who have decent coding abilities just
don't know much about design, it's got nothing to do with thinking
it's below them.
<snip>
> As far as RGRD is concerned, it "matters to me" that repeated failures
> by developers serve to reduce the number of roguelike games available
> to play.
Excuse me? Reduce the number of roguelike games available?
A lack of an increase in the number of games available is rather
different from a reduction. You make it out as if people are somehow
harming roguelike gamers by trying to make new games and failing, or
taking a very long time about it.
<snip>
> I'll be extremely friendly to anyone whose "My roguelike idea" post
> goes something like this: "I'm an experienced programmer who has an
> idea for a roguelike game that has a definite theme other than
> medieval fantasy dungeon crawling. My idea has at most a couple of
> features that aren't in existing roguelikes.... I'm not a UNIX code
> hacker, and my younger brother doesn't have a 386 that I'm trying to
> get my game to run on..... [and most importantly] I'm posting to this
> group for [some reason other than 'make my idea more complicated']".
>
> This also works: "I'm an inexperienced/non-programmer who has a
> well-thought out idea for a roguelike game. I've already done much of
> the design, and I'd like to form a group to help me implement it.
> Here's a rough idea of what the game would be like.... but for more
> details, I'd prefer having a group of programmers being set up first."
Yeah. Nice to know what you want. But this is a forum for anyone and
everyone who wants to post on the topic of roguelike game development.
If you want something more exclusive, I recommend creating it
yourself.
You've ranted at us like this a couple of times now, and as you've
mentioned not everyone likes you (in fact, some people are pretty
hostile toward you). I think you may have something constructive to
add to this newsgroup and you seem pretty interested since you keep
coming back here, but I really wish you would either be friendly and
inoffensive about it, or go elsewhere.
You complain about people ranting about their pipe dreams. I think
your idea of people here banding together to create roguelike games,
somehow agreeing on language and UI and theme and all that junk, and
somehow all staying dedicated without pay to a project on which they
have had to make compromises for the group, is a pipe dream. Feel free
to rant about it, and any other radical change you would like to have
made to the way we conduct ourselves here, but please remember that if
you continue to be negative and offensive, you will get negative and
offensive responses. Be friendly and helpful, or actually offer to do
something constructive for a change, and people may react differently.
--jude.
Joseph Hewitt
> 3. I don't expect any honest criticism from this group, since I seem
> to be your most hated enemy. While there are mature individuals in
> this group, any advice they have to give will unfortunately be ways to
> make the game more fun for them but less fun for me.
You're absolutely right on this point. My advice would be: Your game
needs giant robots. I don't know anything more about your game but I
can tell you that I want it to have giant robots. And more rabbits...
Even if it already has rabbits. Those things are vicious little
beasts, I tell you. Honestly. Rabbits and robots. Rabbits in robots,
if at all possible. Giant robotic rabbits.
More fun for me, less fun for just about everyone else on the planet.
> 4. It's not a roguelike game. This is a roguelike game development
> group.
Eh, neither is GearHead by most people's definitions...
> As it stands, any retard can post a few ideas and have the post
> blossom into a 100-post thread.
I can't. My threads about GearHead's development mostly died quiet
deaths. Perhaps because I actually intended to implement the things I
was talking about... And now, here we are, giving SF another thread.
- Joseph Hewitt
--
DeadCold > http://www.geocities.com/pyrrho12/programming/deadcold/index.html
GearHead > http://www.geocities.com/pyrrho12/programming/gearhead/index.html
Amy Wang
> blueme...@hotmail.com (Amy Wang) wrote in message news:<62acd54d.03010...@posting.google.com>...
> > 3. I don't expect any honest criticism from this group, since I seem
> > to be your most hated enemy. While there are mature individuals in
> > this group, any advice they have to give will unfortunately be ways to
> > make the game more fun for them but less fun for me.
>
> You're absolutely right on this point. My advice would be: Your game
> needs giant robots. I don't know anything more about your game but I
> can tell you that I want it to have giant robots. And more rabbits...
> Even if it already has rabbits. Those things are vicious little
> beasts, I tell you. Honestly. Rabbits and robots. Rabbits in robots,
> if at all possible. Giant robotic rabbits.
It has robots, actually. Not giant ones like in Mechwarrior, but ~15'
machines that can be piloted. I don't know about rabbits, though. The
game isn't exactly rodent-themed, but that can all change... :)
> > As it stands, any retard can post a few ideas and have the post
> > blossom into a 100-post thread.
>
> I can't. My threads about GearHead's development mostly died quiet
> deaths. Perhaps because I actually intended to implement the things I
> was talking about... And now, here we are, giving SF another thread.
>
Ironic, isn't it? Perhaps it's the lack of obviously unimplementable
ideas, or the lack of AD&D ripoffs that cause the lack of enthusiasm.
If I were you, I'd create a new name and email address, and use the
GearHead code as a base for a new (closed-source) game "inspired by
GearHead". Then, I'd make a *big* post to RGRD about some blatantly
stupid ideas that could never be implemented and would make the game
hell to play anyways. I think that should generate the necessary
enthusiasm to create a huge thread about ways to make those ideas more
complex and less fun. Then, after a couple of months, give up because
of [random life event].
RabidCow
> machines that can be piloted. I don't know about rabbits, though. The
> game isn't exactly rodent-themed, but that can all change... :)
Didn't you say all our advice would "be ways to make the game more fun
for them but less fun for me."? It sounds like you think Joseph's
advice of adding giant robots and rabbits would make it more fun for
you as well.
-RabidCow
Amy Wang
>
> Excuse me? Reduce the number of roguelike games available?
> A lack of an increase in the number of games available is rather
> different from a reduction. You make it out as if people are somehow
> harming roguelike gamers by trying to make new games and failing, or
> taking a very long time about it.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If everyone who had ever tried to
make a roguelike game (other than Rogue) was an idiot like ShockFrost,
there would be no roguelike genre.
Amy Wang
> blueme...@hotmail.com (Amy Wang) wrote in message news:<62acd54d.03010...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > :)). I'm saying that you have the same design principles as him.
>
> I do? I wrote out everything I was going to put in my game in my first
> post, and that's what's going in the game, nothing more, nothing less.
> I discuss these ideas to get a clearer picture of the details before
> jumping in and implementing them, not to come up with more and more
> ideas that end up leading to dropping the project.
You were kind enough to put your ideas into a list. I'll give you that
much. However, they are still vague ideas that will obviously take an
inhuman level of effort to implement and aren't convincing in their
fun factor. In terms of "design principles", though, you're still
coming to this group with the notion that ideas taken from people who
have no real idea what you're trying to design are better than your
own ideas.
If you merely designed and implemented your ideas in the simplest way
possible, you'd have my respect. Instead, you're depending on a group
of burnouts to replace your creativity. Let's look at your idea's
thread. You got five original responses:
1. Pointing out that one of your ideas isn't entirely original
2. Silly ways of making the game more complex and less fun *that you
fall for*
3. A tease for having grand ideas that we all know you can't implement
4. Pointing out that none of your ideas are truly original, but are
simply the same pipe dream that everyone's throwinging around
5. Something that should have actually been helpful: telling you to
implement a roguelike skeleton before you get too excited, and *do
some design* so you can decide which features are actually good for
the game and which are merely a pathetic attempt at simming-up a
dungeon crawl. In short, think for yourself.
Every newbie developer should read chor's post (since actually taking
a software development course is too much to ask). If you follow the
advice in that, you can make the game without any 'help' from RGRD. If
you lack confidence in your own creativity and abilities so much that
you need this group to turn your ideas into design, then you don't
have any business making games anyways.
> I have the design, talent, AND patience (in fact people pushing me
> tends to make me less patient). None of these things, however is
> absolutely necessary to create a roguelike. What one needs is
> perserverance - something mysteriously absent from your list of things
> I don't have.
Oh, there's plenty of things I left out.
> So your idea of entertainment is insulting people and watching them
> fail? That's sad.
I tried the "not insulting people and watching them succeed" idea, but
that didn't pan out since successful roguelikes generally aren't what
come out of this group.
David Damerell
>>They're egotistical, and won't work together because of their need for
>>"creative control". If a few people here started a group, we'd see a
>>lot more roguelike games.
Consideration of the number of people who succeeded with the original
versions of Rogue, Hack, Moria and Crawl here will be an interesting
illustration of why Amy is full of it... as usual.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Lichen678
No-one with half a brain is disputing this. It is irrelevant to what I
said because I was drawing the distinction between hindering and
failing to help. People failing to create roguelikes does not prevent
other people from succeeding, nor does it remove past successes. You
don't create more successes by crushing the people who are likely to
fail early.
The fact is that most roguelike projects, like most software projects,
will fail. But the more help and encouragement and inspiration people
get, the more might succeed. Your ideas may have great merit, but if
you present them with all the negativity and exclusiveness that you
seem to like, you will only alienate and discourage people, resulting
in less successes.
--jude.
Kornel "Anubis" Kisielewicz
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 01:16:47 +0100, "Kornel \"Anubis\" Kisielewicz"
> <anu...@felis7.civ.pl> wrote:
>
> >> And what kind of response were YOU expecting when you posted your
> >> flame?
> >Note that the first person to flame somebody, per se, was Rick. Of
> >course we all know that Amy's position is quite radical, still she
> >doesn't produce flames. Why? Because all of her argument's are
actualy
> >rational...
> Rational arguments thrown harsly at everything that moves sounds
like
> flaming to me..
Still rational arguments hurt the most, when there's a degree of truth
in them. And from my own experience, I know, how much it would help me
if I would stumble across Amy eight years ago, and listened to her. It
would save me from making many mistakes...
> >That's an unfair argument, DarkGod :).
> Why so? She do seem to think she is superior, see she doesnt even
want
> to show us her great game...
Did she ever tell you that the game she does is great?
> wait maybe she doesvaporware too ? mhh
> naaa ;)
Maybe. But she's not spamming about it the whole newsgroup contrary to
many others. On the same note, GenRogue may be vaporware, right? Can
you point me at least one person that saw a GenRogue beta? No. And
still, you all didn't eat me alive when I started to point out the
same problems to Schockfrost ans Amy does. Of course, I was a little
more non-offensive :).
> >> PS: Dont bother saying I should go write a game, I already did,
and
> >it
> >> is played by many, thank you
> >Oh yes you did... ;)
> >But don't be SOOO proud, you made a _variant_, not a game :).
Making a
> Actually quite a few people would tell you it started as a variant
and
> turned into a game. As for my opinion on the matter, well it shall
> remain hidden :)
Well in the dephts there's still Angband. Of course there are many
changes. But people that don't like Angband, don't like TOME. For
example I don't like many of the base assumptions of the Angband code.
That's why, despite Tome being a great game, I don't like it. Because
it follows most of the things I didn't like in Angband. And the things
that I don't like in angband, are the most basic assumptionts, that
couldn't be changet without a coplete rewrite. That's the difference
between a variant and a game. And that's why I don't make variants...
> >variant is easier. Especialy that you didn't have the problems that
> >most of the people that unconsciously spam vapourware have -- those
> >people can show nothing. You could show a whole game even after
> >changing a couple lines of code... So from Amy's point of view, it
> Not really, changing a few line of code doesnt make a new game. It
is
> called a small patch :)
Ok, ok, but you get the idea, I hope.
> Well I made quite a few other games from scrath before ToME. But
they
> dont exactly work on modern computers anymore :(
Can you show me any of those? I have a working Commodore at home, a
working Spectrum, and a working 286/386... (don't ask me why I hold
all this junk :)
> They werent RL either but still quite complex :) But this is beside
> the point anyway
What kind of games? I'm truly interested.
P.S. Could you do me a favor, please? Could you post a news to YARNS
about tome, each time you post one on announce? The content may be the
same. It would make my life much easier :(. Or at least find someone
that would be able to do that for you..
i0lanthe
> Tue, 07 Jan 2003 22:28:53 GMT, DarkGod <dar...@ifrance.com>:
> > On 7 Jan 2003 12:52:20 -0800, blueme...@hotmail.com (Amy Wang)
> > wrote:
> >>> PS: Dont bother saying I should go write a game, I already did, and it
> >>> is played by many, thank you
> >>In case you haven't noticed, I'm the only person here who doesn't use
> >>that tactic in order to defuse someone's argument. Thank you, though,
> >>for using it on me.
>
> Of course you don't use that argument--you've never written a game.
>
> > Then you should not flame people beacuse they dont (yet or not) have a
> > game to show to the world.
>
> Wang's a troll. She'll never release a game of any kind. She's just
> here to stir up trouble and piss people off by telling them "don't
> bother developing a game".
What I wonder is, why haven't more people killfiled her? Do their
newsreaders not support it or something?
copx
"Kornel "Anubis" Kisielewicz" <anu...@felis7.civ.pl> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:avkd08$dan$4...@news.tpi.pl...
> What kind of games? I'm truly interested.
>
> P.S. Could you do me a favor, please? Could you post a news to YARNS
> about tome, each time you post one on announce? The content may be the
> same. It would make my life much easier :(. Or at least find someone
> that would be able to do that for you..
Hello, forgot about me? I do the *band news reporting
for YARNS and I haven't missed any release so far..
Rick C
> What I wonder is, why haven't more people killfiled her? Do their
> newsreaders not support it or something?
Masochism?
DarkGod
>> Wang's a troll. She'll never release a game of any kind. She's just
>> here to stir up trouble and piss people off by telling them "don't
>> bother developing a game".
>What I wonder is, why haven't more people killfiled her? Do their
>newsreaders not support it or something?
Hehe :) But she is a fun troll .. :)
Kornel "Anubis" Kisielewicz
news:3e1dc421$0$15985$9b4e...@newsread4.arcor-online.net...
>
> "Kornel "Anubis" Kisielewicz" <anu...@felis7.civ.pl> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag
> news:avkd08$dan$4...@news.tpi.pl...
> > What kind of games? I'm truly interested.
> >
> > P.S. Could you do me a favor, please? Could you post a news to
YARNS
> > about tome, each time you post one on announce? The content may be
the
> > same. It would make my life much easier :(. Or at least find
someone
> > that would be able to do that for you..
>
> Hello, forgot about me?
No :).
> I do the *band news reporting
> for YARNS and I haven't missed any release so far..
You missed Tome 2.1.0 I don't know why...
BTW, I wanted to thank you for all the work done so far :). Now one
can believe that YARNS actualy may be self-sufficient...
Oh, and another thing -- could you do one bit of formating for me
before you add a news? I mean change all
to
<a href="http://www.blah.org/">http://www.blah.org/</a>
??
thanks,
copx
> Użytkownik "copx" <inv...@dd.com> napisał w wiadomości
> news:3e1dc421$0$15985$9b4e...@newsread4.arcor-online.net...
> >
> > "Kornel "Anubis" Kisielewicz" <anu...@felis7.civ.pl> schrieb im
> Newsbeitrag
> > news:avkd08$dan$4...@news.tpi.pl...
> > > What kind of games? I'm truly interested.
> > >
> > > P.S. Could you do me a favor, please? Could you post a news to
> YARNS
> > > about tome, each time you post one on announce? The content may be
> the
> > > same. It would make my life much easier :(. Or at least find
> someone
> > > that would be able to do that for you..
> >
> > Hello, forgot about me?
>
> No :).
>
> > I do the *band news reporting
> > for YARNS and I haven't missed any release so far..
>
> You missed Tome 2.1.0 I don't know why...
I didn't! I started reporting quite a few days
AFTER ToME 2.1.0 was released. I didn't
miss a single release SINCE I STARTED.
> Oh, and another thing -- could you do one bit of formating for me
> before you add a news? I mean change all
>
> http://www.blah.org/
>
> to
>
> <a href="http://www.blah.org/">http://www.blah.org/</a>
> ??
Ok, I thought your site-scripts would do
such stuff automatically.
Brendan Sechter
>
> I tried the "not insulting people and watching them succeed" idea, but
> that didn't pan out since successful roguelikes generally aren't what
> come out of this group.
So what exactly does come out of this group?
-Brendan
Hansjörg Malthaner
> kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu (Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes) wrote in message news:<slrnb1ncdh.1...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu>...
>
>>Tue, 07 Jan 2003 22:28:53 GMT, DarkGod <dar...@ifrance.com>:
>>
>>>On 7 Jan 2003 12:52:20 -0800, blueme...@hotmail.com (Amy Wang)
>
>>here to stir up trouble and piss people off by telling them "don't
>>bother developing a game".
>
> What I wonder is, why haven't more people killfiled her? Do their
> newsreaders not support it or something?
She doesn't really bother me.
But still I think just excluding somone from your view does not solve
the problem.
c.u.
Hajo
Gerry Quinn
Speaking for myself, I wrote half a roguelike / RPG at one time, and I
just might do one sometime. I like to think about it anyway, and
discuss interesting and sometimes wacky design ideas. And hopefully
some people who are really making roguelikes get some inspiration or
ideas.
Gerry Quinn
--
http://bindweed.com
Entertainment software for Windows
Puzzles, Strategy Games, Kaleidoscope Screensaver
Download evaluation versions free - no time limits
RabidCow
before reaching the server. Damn google groups - just wait till I get
back on campus so I can use a REAL news server (damn the sysadmins who
make the server only work from on campus too)! Oh well... I'm in a
good mood right now, so maybe I'll be a bit less hostile this time
around.
> > > I'm not saying that you're ShockFrost (me and Anubis know the truth
> > > :)). I'm saying that you have the same design principles as him.
> >
> > I do? I wrote out everything I was going to put in my game in my first
> > post, and that's what's going in the game, nothing more, nothing less.
> > I discuss these ideas to get a clearer picture of the details before
> > jumping in and implementing them, not to come up with more and more
> > ideas that end up leading to dropping the project.
>
> You were kind enough to put your ideas into a list. I'll give you that
> much. However, they are still vague ideas that will obviously take an
> inhuman level of effort to implement
I agree that most of my ideas would take an extreme level of effort to
implement... but not inhuman. It's possible, just difficult.
> and aren't convincing in their fun factor.
I was under the impression that my ideas were quite convincing in
their fun factor. After all, most of them are part of just about
everybody's "dream roguelike". But even if they aren't, I'm convinced
that its fun, and since I'm the only one developing the project, I'm
the only one that needs to be convinced. Everybody else can be
convinced when I'm done and they get to play it.
> In terms of "design principles", though, you're still
> coming to this group with the notion that ideas taken from people who
> have no real idea what you're trying to design
I'm trying to design a roguelike that focuses on plot and character
interaction. I've stated that before, and that's all one needs to know
to generate ideas I might find useful.
> are better than your own ideas.
While it certianly is possible for someone else to generate ideas
better than my own, I haven't seen many of those lately. More likely
is the idea that is just a different way of doing something that I've
already considered.
>
> If you merely designed and implemented your ideas in the simplest way
> possible, you'd have my respect.
Then I guess I should have your respect, as that's what I'm doing.
> Instead, you're depending on a group
> of burnouts to replace your creativity.
There are a lot of people here who aren't burnouts. Also, they don't
replace my creativity. If anything, they augment it by providing me
with ideas that I haven't yet considered.
> Let's look at your idea's
> thread. You got five original responses:
A very unproductive thread that was. It seems that people like
ShockFrost, who are so full of ideas that they'll never implement any
of them, are the ones who get all the productive threads.
>
> 1. Pointing out that one of your ideas isn't entirely original
> 2. Silly ways of making the game more complex and less fun *that you
> fall for*
Almost any thread is bound to contain a few of these, but I don't
recall falling for any of them.
> 3. A tease for having grand ideas that we all know you can't implement
You _think_ I can't implement them, just as I think I can. Whether I
can or not hasn't been proven.
> 4. Pointing out that none of your ideas are truly original, but are
> simply the same pipe dream that everyone's throwinging around
Isn't that the same as the first point?
> 5. Something that should have actually been helpful: telling you to
> implement a roguelike skeleton before you get too excited,
I was in the process of making a skeleton when I made that first post,
actually. I hadn't yet written any code, as I was still in the "work
through ideas on paper or else program will be suicidally complex"
phase, but I was making it.
> and *do
> some design* so you can decide which features are actually good for
> the game and which are merely a pathetic attempt at simming-up a
> dungeon crawl. In short, think for yourself.
I had already done enough design to decide which features would be
good for the game before posting. Any further design would be trying
to figure out how to implement any of those features.
>
> Every newbie developer should read chor's post (since actually taking
> a software development course is too much to ask).
I'm working on a BS in computer science, and as part of that, I have
taken a few software development courses.
> If you follow the
> advice in that, you can make the game without any 'help' from RGRD.
You make it sound like one of those support groups that helps people
with addictions. Perhaps RGRD should be RBA instead - roguelike
burnouts anonymous.
> If
> you lack confidence in your own creativity and abilities
I have plenty of confidence in my creativity and abilities. If I
wasn't confident that I actually could make a roguelike, I wouldn't be
trying to make one.
> so much that
> you need this group to turn your ideas into design, then you don't
> have any business making games anyways.
I don't need this groupd to turn my ideas into design. I don't _need_
them for anything. I find the exchange of ideas entertaining, and even
useful sometimes.
It used to also be a place where I could expect encouragement and
constructive criticism. Recently, however, it has become a breeding
place for assholes who shoot down ideas (both good and bad ones) with
their excessive sarcasm and negativity, because they are safe from
physical violence as they sit at their computers typing away.
>
> > I have the design, talent, AND patience (in fact people pushing me
> > tends to make me less patient). None of these things, however is
> > absolutely necessary to create a roguelike. What one needs is
> > perserverance - something mysteriously absent from your list of things
> > I don't have.
>
> Oh, there's plenty of things I left out.
Now you're just being an ass.
>
> > So your idea of entertainment is insulting people and watching them
> > fail? That's sad.
>
> I tried the "not insulting people and watching them succeed" idea, but
> that didn't pan out
Always with the watching. Watching does not affect the flow of
roguelikes from the river called RGRD. Change comes as a result of
interaction. Perhaps if you changed "watching" to "helping" you might
see a result.
> since successful roguelikes generally aren't what
> come out of this group.
So in your opinion, what DOES come out of this group? If you don't
expect there to be a new game for you to play, and if you're not
involving the group in your own roguelike, then what reason do you
have to be here?
Well I started off in a good mood, and now I'm mad again. I should
have known better than to reply to an Amy Wang post. Oh well. Back to
impleminting items and inventory - finishing that should cheer me up.
-RabidCow
Julian C Day
> In article <slrnb1sben...@granicus.if.org>, sg...@granicus.if.org (Brendan Sechter) wrote:
>>In article <62acd54d.03010...@posting.google.com>, Amy Wang wrote:
>>>
>>> I tried the "not insulting people and watching them succeed" idea, but
>>> that didn't pan out since successful roguelikes generally aren't what
>>> come out of this group.
>>
>>So what exactly does come out of this group?
> Speaking for myself, I wrote half a roguelike / RPG at one time, and I
> just might do one sometime. I like to think about it anyway, and
> discuss interesting and sometimes wacky design ideas. And hopefully
> some people who are really making roguelikes get some inspiration or
> ideas.
That's the same thing I'm doing. I've got a half a roguelike on my hard
drive, written in C. You can create a character, move around an abandoned
village, descend into the 100-level catacombs, pick up and drop items, and
look at terrain features. Nothing special, really. I had a lot of ideas
I felt were great, but found C difficult to work with - I really don't like
having to deal with manual memory management.
So I've been planning to do a re-write in some other language which hides
those details away from me, probably Java, though Eiffel's a possibility.
I like to come and read articles on things people are trying, what's
working and what's not, etc.
Once I get some free time and a good tutorial on doing graphics (this
summer?), I should start Yet Another Roguelike. I've done skeletons to
a couple so far, and I've learned a lot from both.
Julian
someog
> constructive criticism. Recently, however, it has become a breeding
> place for assholes who shoot down ideas (both good and bad ones) with
> their excessive sarcasm and negativity, because they are safe from
> physical violence as they sit at their computers typing away.
You guys' sniping is always amusing to read -- good comic relief. But RC,
don't you think this goes a little far? Are you saying Amy wouldn't dare
say this for fear of physical violence if in your presence? If I attended
your school, would you attack me for saying such things? Probably not,
since I'm a rather big man; would you if I were a small woman? No, you're
just trading deft riposte for empty bluster.
If you bit Amy, would she get mad cow disease?
-David
Kornel "Anubis" Kisielewicz
> "Kornel "Anubis" Kisielewicz" <anu...@felis7.civ.pl> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag
> news:avl2mr$s3b$2...@news.tpi.pl...
> > > for YARNS and I haven't missed any release so far..
> >
> > You missed Tome 2.1.0 I don't know why...
>
> I didn't! I started reporting quite a few days
> AFTER ToME 2.1.0 was released. I didn't
> miss a single release SINCE I STARTED.
Ok, ok, I'm sorry, my mistake :). DarkGod -- you don't have to post, I
can count on copx to do that :).
> > Oh, and another thing -- could you do one bit of formating for me
> > before you add a news? I mean change all
> > http://www.blah.org/
> > to
> > <a href="http://www.blah.org/">http://www.blah.org/</a>
> > ??
>
> Ok, I thought your site-scripts would do
> such stuff automatically.
Thanks,
Paul Pekkarinen
> "creative control". If a few people here started a group, we'd see a
> lot more roguelike games.
The creative control is actually an important thing, but there are other
problems when you try to make a group.. I think you would know that
if you ever had tried to create a team.
> They fail to realize that their pipe dream ideas would constitute one
> of the most complicated games ever. And yet, they think that a single
> novice programmer should be able to implement a series of vague ideas.
Roguelike can be made with quite simple code. It's up to the programmer
how he (or she) implements various things. The hard part is the huge
amount of work roguelike requires, not the complexity of the code.
> The few that are
> original are so poorly thought out that it should be obvious that any
> implementation would detract from the fun of the game.
Why the ideas should be original in the first place? You can make a good
game without any original ideas.
> My game? I have an early-alpha roguelike that's not in development,
> and a text-based non-roguelike that's nearing beta. Neither of them
> will be released to a group of dungeon crawling MUD/RPG burn-outs that
> are already rabidly hostile to my honesty.
Most of us have a homepage with some info about their game. I wonder if
you have?
RabidCow
Hmm... guess I asked for that. When I look at the whole thing from a
perspective not my own, it is rather amusing. It's also stupid and
childish. I feel, however, that I should point out that all this
bickering is motivating me to prover her wrong by finishing my
roguelike.
And I agree it's going a bit far. I appoligize to anyone I may have
offended and promise that I will try and make any further insults
based in reality.
As far as physical violence from myself, I'm not a big man (tall, but
not 'big'), and I'm a pacifist. Any abuse from me is mostly verbal and
rarely physical. I usually leave the room before somebody angers me to
the point of physical violence.
>
> If you bit Amy, would she get mad cow disease?
In my world, yes. In real life, probably not.
>
> -David
-RabidCow
ABCGi
@news.cis.dfn.de:
>>They think that roguelike games are so easy to implement that doing so
>>is a good first project for a first year CS student.
> So what ? They will fail, or succeed, why does it bothers you?
> If it fails it will be their failure, not yours.
>
here here... get that monkey off your back and relax.
--
"Loving kindness, warm hearts and a, "Life is mostly froth and bubble,
Stretched out hand of tolerance, Two things stand like stone,
All the shining gifts, Kindness in another's trouble,
That make peace on Earth." - tBW And courage in your own." - ALG
R Dan Henry
<pixe...@hotmail.com> declared:
Can't be. I'm a masochist [1] and I have her killfiled.
[1] I don't cheat by savescumming. According to noted non-flaming
psychological expert Doctor Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes, that makes me a
masochist.
--
R. Dan Henry
rdan...@earthlink.net
They can have my ASCII graphics when they pry them
from my cold dead (c) and (d) slots.
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:51:31 -0500, in a fit of madness "Rick C"
><pixe...@hotmail.com> declared:
>>"i0lanthe" <i0la...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> What I wonder is, why haven't more people killfiled her? Do their
>>> newsreaders not support it or something?
>>Masochism?
> Can't be. I'm a masochist [1] and I have her killfiled.
>[1] I don't cheat by savescumming. According to noted non-flaming
> psychological expert Doctor Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes, that makes me a
> masochist.
I don't cheat by savescumming, either. I reenable saving in games
that inexplicably fail to support that feature. There's very poor
quality assurance in roguelikes, it's a common bug.
You think it's appropriate to villify anyone who wants a reasonable
feature like saving as a "cheater". I think it's appropriate to
identify people who like that as "masochists". Don't like the taste of
your own medicine, Dan?
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"We remain convinced that this is the best defensive posture to adopt in
order to minimize casualties when the Great Old Ones return from beyond
the stars to eat our brains." -Charlie Stross, _The Concrete Jungle_
R Dan Henry
kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu (Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes) declared:
>Tue, 28 Jan 2003 07:11:52 GMT, R Dan Henry <rdan...@earthlink.net>:
>> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:51:31 -0500, in a fit of madness "Rick C"
>><pixe...@hotmail.com> declared:
>>>"i0lanthe" <i0la...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> What I wonder is, why haven't more people killfiled her? Do their
>>>> newsreaders not support it or something?
>>>Masochism?
>> Can't be. I'm a masochist [1] and I have her killfiled.
>>[1] I don't cheat by savescumming. According to noted non-flaming
>> psychological expert Doctor Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes, that makes me a
>> masochist.
>
> I don't cheat by savescumming, either. I reenable saving in games
>that inexplicably fail to support that feature. There's very poor
>quality assurance in roguelikes, it's a common bug.
It is not a bug, it is a feature you happen not to like. But then,
you've got an unclear connection with the truth in some cases. I'm
still trying to assume it's just blind stubbornness, but you do keep
trying to make DD's "liar" hypothesis look better.
Especially since you claimed to have killfiled me. But I'll assume you
only did so temporarily. I do that myself.
> You think it's appropriate to villify anyone who wants a reasonable
>feature like saving as a "cheater".
I am not vilifying you. Not playing a game by its rules is cheating.
Whether or not that makes you in any way a bad person, given that it's
a single-player game, is an entirely different issue.
>I think it's appropriate to
>identify people who like that as "masochists".
The difference is, it is rather clear that savescumming constitutes
cheating in the standard roguelikes. What you are doing is pretending
to be either a mindreader or an unethical psychologist (no ethical
psychologist would pretend to be able to diagnose without personal
contact). Perhaps you are projecting your own inflated pain of loss
upon losing a collection of numbers onto others? I frankly don't
understand how losing a simple game character can count as pain.
>Don't like the taste of your own medicine, Dan?
I don't care for your persistent, aggressive rudeness, but you've gone
to the point where I actually think you're funny, you've gotten that
absurd. Why the hell can't you just say, "Yes, I cheat a solitaire,
but since that's a very minor failing, and my own problem if it is a
problem, why should anyone trouble to try to stop me?" That would be
an entirely reasonable stance and you'd be okay.
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
> On 28 Jan 2003 07:30:27 GMT, in a fit of madness
> kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu (Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes) declared:
> only did so temporarily. I do that myself.
Actually, I scored you down fairly low, but you still show up if you
post in reply to me, or on a thread which otherwise has a higher score.
> I am not vilifying you.
The words "cheater" or "scum" are not generally seen as compliments.
If you used the phrase "people who save", without the insults, I
wouldn't give a damn.
> Not playing a game by its rules is cheating.
> Whether or not that makes you in any way a bad person, given that it's
> a single-player game, is an entirely different issue.
If the rules are stupid, I ignore them. All other single-player
CRPGs, adventure games, and even most action games are expected to have
a non-crippled save system, and get raked over the coals in reviews if
they don't. Hell, text adventures usually have UNDO, and yet they
manage to maintain tension.
It's freaky and weird. It's common to roguelikes solely because of a
historical accident of the environment they were developed on. I've
discussed this before, but you don't get it.
I guess you're just not a competent enough game designer to maintain
an atmosphere of tension in a game without resorting to cheap mechanical
tricks.
>>Don't like the taste of your own medicine, Dan?
> I don't care for your persistent, aggressive rudeness, but you've gone
> to the point where I actually think you're funny, you've gotten that
> absurd.
Pretty much how I feel about you, which is why I scored you down so
low. You're a strident little broken record, and can't even understand
how badly you're broken. So very sad. I do pity you, Dan.
> Why the hell can't you just say, "Yes, I cheat a solitaire,
> but since that's a very minor failing, and my own problem if it is a
> problem, why should anyone trouble to try to stop me?" That would be
> an entirely reasonable stance and you'd be okay.
Working around a defect in someone else's game is not *my* failing.
It's a flaw in the game.
Roguelikes are not solitaire.
Rick C
> Roguelikes are not solitaire.
Uh, yes, they *are*. When's the last time *you* played a multiplayer
roguelike?
ABCGi
80100.news.dfncis.de:
There are multiplayer roguelike's in various stages of development are
there not? Are there any playable ones?
On the save issue: I think not allowing save scumming is a legitimate
design decision in some cases, as long as an appropriate scheme is set up
to restore after crashes (such as NetHack). ADoM is an example of what
Mark is talking about where the developer simply has a badly designed
save game scheme because it does not cater for crashes.
Looking beyond Roguelikes: Project IGI is an example of developer
laziness not allowing any type of save during a mission (what happen's if
the boss comes round and you have to turn it off?) and is reminiscent of
pathetic console game progress save schemes (damn you Mario!). Whereas
Diablo 2 is an example of an acceptable (but not perfect) save scheme
that still allows for no save scumming as a legitimate design choice (it
updates your one and only auto-save every 5 minutes). Of course Diablo is
not perma-kill so this design is easier to take for the casual wussy
gamer :) In repetive linear games save-scumming is essential unless you
want to frustrate the gamer, which is why we see load/save options on
"flashy" but essentially dull titles.
To me RogueLike perma-kill is essential to the game's longevity but that
is no excuse for a half assed save scheme that does not adequately deal
with crash restoration - especially if the game is ported to Windoze.
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
Solitaire, the card game, as you knew but chose to take out of
context. Most roguelikes are single-player, but I'm unaware of any
card-based roguelikes.
Multiplayer roguelikes do exist, but they have a legitimate reason for
at least restricting saves, or even removing them.
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
> To me RogueLike perma-kill is essential to the game's longevity but that
> is no excuse for a half assed save scheme that does not adequately deal
> with crash restoration - especially if the game is ported to Windoze.
Save points would be an adequate save method in a roguelike, for those
who don't like free saves. Autosave the game whenever the player is
about to enter a new level, but before generating it. Let the player
restore to that anytime they want.
Permadeath is not essential to roguelikes--the basic fact that many,
probably most, players do save and yet keep enthusiastically playing
roguelikes proves that it's just a form quirk, like ASCII graphics. It
has nothing to do with the gameplay.
ABCGi
> Permadeath is not essential to roguelikes--the basic fact that many,
> probably most, players do save and yet keep enthusiastically playing
> roguelikes proves that it's just a form quirk, like ASCII graphics. It
> has nothing to do with the gameplay.
I agree not essential, but just in my personal playing experience, if it's
not permadeath I lose interest much quicker in RogueLikes.
R. Alan Monroe
> I'm unaware of any
>card-based roguelikes.
If there WERE one, what would it be like?
Alan
R Dan Henry
<ab...@codeYOINKmonkey.com.au> declared:
>"Rick C" <pixe...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b16bfj$vprpc$1@ID-
>80100.news.dfncis.de:
>
>> "Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes" <kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu> wrote
>>
>>> Roguelikes are not solitaire.
>>
>> Uh, yes, they *are*. When's the last time *you* played a multiplayer
>> roguelike?
>
>There are multiplayer roguelike's in various stages of development are
>there not? Are there any playable ones?
But, of course, I think even Mark would admit that cheating on one of
those was wrong. And I think even Mark would admit that violating the
rules of the game on one of those was cheating. But I could be wrong.
>To me RogueLike perma-kill is essential to the game's longevity but that
>is no excuse for a half assed save scheme that does not adequately deal
>with crash restoration - especially if the game is ported to Windoze.
Right. Unless you can, as I jokingly suggested, develop a system that
can distinguish between a backup for cheating purposes and a backup
for crash-restoration purposes, you shouldn't prevent savefile
backups. I do backups on ADOM characters that make any progress,
because the game is just too unreliable. OTOH, I've never backed up an
Angband savefile and have never needed to. Well, except the time when
the entire computer died.
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 22:57:28 GMT, in a fit of madness ABCGi
><ab...@codeYOINKmonkey.com.au> declared:
>>there not? Are there any playable ones?
> But, of course, I think even Mark would admit that cheating on one of
> those was wrong. And I think even Mark would admit that violating the
> rules of the game on one of those was cheating. But I could be wrong.
Letting one player save and restore in a multiplayer game would be
unfair to the others, and it just doesn't make sense for a persistent
world. But for a small-group game, "LAN gaming" even if it's over the
Internet instead, saving everyone's position and letting the group
decide if they want to restore a savegame is reasonable.
Very few MUDs and MMORPGs have permadeath; the few I knew of which
did, ended up shutting down from lack of players. In essentially all
modern MUDs, if you die, you drop your stuff and sometimes lose some
experience points, and respawn at your starting position. You then have
to get some backup gear and maybe some help and go get your corpse if
you want your stuff back.
You've got too much fixation on obedience to "rules", though, very
Orderly. To a Chaotic like me, rules exist to be broken. All the rules
are, is the opinion of the game designer. If the game designer had his
head up his arse, I have a moral obligation to break the rules.
R Dan Henry
kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu (Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes) declared:
>Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:34:52 -0500, Rick C <pixe...@hotmail.com>:
>> "Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes" <kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu> wrote
>>> Roguelikes are not solitaire.
>> Uh, yes, they *are*. When's the last time *you* played a multiplayer
>> roguelike?
>
> Solitaire, the card game, as you knew but chose to take out of
>context. Most roguelikes are single-player, but I'm unaware of any
>card-based roguelikes.
And absolute literalism about proverbial phrases looks a lot like
dodging the issue. However, it is possible you are somehow unfamiliar
with this common phrase. Googling for it does require filtering out
the band, but that still leave a good number of examples, most of
which are either literal and refer to the card game or explicit in
their metaphor by the use of simile. However, a few examples of
metaphorical use without assuming the audience is too dim to get it
without the red flag of simile:
http://www.sampayne.com/onetakes.htm
http://www.furia.com/twas/twas0203.html
http://www.cs.umb.edu/jfklibrary/eh_manuscript_update.html
But it isn't even a good literalism. The term 'patience' refers solely
to the card game, but 'solitaire' does not. Of the three dictionaries
within my reach, only the poor one which I wouldn't trust for anything
significant considers only the card game. If you don't have a decent
unabridged dictionary handy, try:
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=Solitaire
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/solitary
The basic meaning is "single player game", although custom has
habitually applied it far more commonly to a subset of such games. It
has the same root as "solitary" and is related to the single-stone
"solitaire" diamond. The only reason for it not to be applied more
widely to computer games is that (a) one player is still the most
common form of computer game and (b) that word has been incorrectly
linked on computers to Patience. Of course, by your statement,
Microsoft's "Solitaire" isn't solitaire, either, as you don't have any
cards, just some pixels.
David Damerell
>Looking beyond Roguelikes: Project IGI is an example of developer
>laziness not allowing any type of save during a mission
IGI would not have worked at all with a conventional FPS 'save anytime'
mechanism. It is exactly the lack of saves during missions that imposed
the very stealthy and careful playing style that divided it from other
games.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Isaac Kuo
R. Alan Monroe <amon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OKJZ9.136485$GF.34...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
There are a number of trading card game based RPGs, like
the Pokemon Card game RPG and Card Fighter's Clash, and
such...the obvious roguelike analog would be to make movement
turn based and everything else is the same (combat is a card
game duel).
Isaac Kuo
Rick C
Dokapon Monster Hunter for the GBA uses a rock-paper-scissors motif in
combat. When you attack or defend, you pick one of 4 moves. There's an
untyped one, and one each of, literally, rock-paper-scissors type moves.
Picking the winning move on attack will usually negate the defense entirely,
whereas the defender's winning will pretty much negate the attack. Picking
the wrong move will have the opposite effect.
The game is sort of roguelike in that it's more or less turnbased and has a
fairly wide variety of monsters, moves, items, and so on, as well as taking
place on a grid.
Pokemon is a 15- or 17-way game of rock-paper-scissors, modified by using
stats as well.
Rick C
> But it isn't even a good literalism. The term 'patience' refers solely
> to the card game, but 'solitaire' does not.
> (b) that word has been incorrectly
> linked on computers to Patience. Of course, by your statement,
> Microsoft's "Solitaire" isn't solitaire, either, as you don't have any
> cards, just some pixels.
I'm not sure what you mean here, unless I'm being obtuse. I thought the
common form of Solitaire-the-computer-card-game was Klondike?
Rick C
Whoops, decided to figure it out myself. Googling shows that Brits call
"Solitaire" "Patience".
ABCGi
3p...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk:
> ABCGi <ab...@codeYOINKmonkey.com.au> wrote:
>>Looking beyond Roguelikes: Project IGI is an example of developer
>>laziness not allowing any type of save during a mission
>
> IGI would not have worked at all with a conventional FPS 'save anytime'
> mechanism. It is exactly the lack of saves during missions that imposed
> the very stealthy and careful playing style that divided it from other
> games.
Ah yes... I had a letter about this published in a computer magazine.
The point is that IGI could still have the permadeath style (which I
liked and I agree with you) with a single exit with auto save anytime
mechanism, where you may not save and continue. This then gives you the
ability to save the game when your mom tells you it's bed time without
having to start the whole mission again, whilst retaining the suspense.
The developer laziness was not including any kind of in-mission save at
all which means they don't have to worry about storing game state data.
David Damerell
>David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in news:DSc*
>>mechanism. It is exactly the lack of saves during missions that imposed
>>the very stealthy and careful playing style that divided it from other
>>games.
>liked and I agree with you) with a single exit with auto save anytime
>mechanism, where you may not save and continue.
A roguelike style saving mechanic, in fact. Yes. That would have worked
well, but with the relatively short missions it would have been a minimal
benefit compared with the game as released, and potentially a lot of work
owing to the nature of IGI's engine. I don't think one can uncategorically
class it as "developer laziness" if they were unwilling to do a lot of
work for a small benefit to the players.
One can construct hypothetical situations where the boss/one's mother [1]
/whatever intervenes and forces an immediate stop, but I think it's more
to do with genre expectations. Flight sim fans don't expect in-mission
saving, and aren't constantly interrupted by the boss's mother.
[1] How old _are_ these people anyway?
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
ABCGi
hehe well at the time of IGI's release many players were livid about the
no save so it was a big issue. It was a bad design decision not to at
least have what I describe above, and the bad review/publicity probably
did not help sales.
R Dan Henry
kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu (Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes) declared:
>Tue, 28 Jan 2003 08:49:29 GMT, R Dan Henry <rdan...@earthlink.net>:
>> I am not vilifying you.
>
> The words "cheater" or "scum" are not generally seen as compliments.
"Cheater" is not a compliment, but it is a statement of fact. You are
trying to deny the denotation, because you do not like the
connotation. I have tried explaining to you that rather than deny the
facts, which make the denotation applicable, you should be arguing
that the usual connotation is inappropriate to this context. As for
"scumming" it is derived from the process of repeated removing the
"scum" or surface debris on a liquid in order to obtain a purified
substance. Thus it is used to mean repeated activities in order to
obtain the "good stuff". Not all savefile cheating properly deserve
the name "savescumming". That term is properly applied not to
restoring after death, but to repeatedly restoring to generate key
treasure drops until something "good" is dropped. Like killing
Wormtongue over and over until he drops Ringil. Personally, I think
this is a far worse cheat than simple restore-from-death. But the
majority of "scumming" activities are done in-game and are not
cheating (although some cases are clearly abuses of the game
mechanics). If someone is calling restore-from-death "savescumming",
you have a right to complain about that, as the term is being
misapplied.
> If you used the phrase "people who save", without the insults, I
>wouldn't give a damn.
I save, but I don't cheat. Unless you finish a game in a single
sitting, you save. Using savefiles according to the rules is not the
same as using them to cheat (cheat: v. to violate rules or
regulations).
>> Not playing a game by its rules is cheating.
>> Whether or not that makes you in any way a bad person, given that it's
>> a single-player game, is an entirely different issue.
>
> If the rules are stupid, I ignore them.
That is, you cheat.
> It's freaky and weird. It's common to roguelikes solely because of a
>historical accident of the environment they were developed on. I've
>discussed this before, but you don't get it.
No, it is not historical accident. It is a deliberate choice. Several
roguelike designers have stated so, but I guess you'd rather imply
they are all liars than allow that your opinion might not be fact.
Gerry Quinn
>> The words "cheater" or "scum" are not generally seen as compliments.
>
>"Cheater" is not a compliment, but it is a statement of fact. You are
>trying to deny the denotation, because you do not like the
>connotation. I have tried explaining to you that rather than deny the
>facts, which make the denotation applicable, you should be arguing
>that the usual connotation is inappropriate to this context. As for
>"scumming" it is derived from the process of repeated removing the
>"scum" or surface debris on a liquid in order to obtain a purified
>substance. Thus it is used to mean repeated activities in order to
>obtain the "good stuff". Not all savefile cheating properly deserve
>the name "savescumming". That term is properly applied not to
>restoring after death, but to repeatedly restoring to generate key
>treasure drops until something "good" is dropped.
The term "cheating", as in Solitaire, is unexceptionable. However
"SaveScumming" seems to be unique to roguelikes - the more natural
phrase would be "SaveSkimming". It may be that the former is a
corruption of the latter.
Gerry Quinn
--
http://bindweed.com
Entertainment software for Windows
Games, Puzzles, Kaleidoscope Screensavers
Download evaluation versions free - no time limits
David Damerell
>David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
>>[1] /whatever intervenes and forces an immediate stop, but I think
>>it's more to do with genre expectations. Flight sim fans don't expect
>>in-mission saving, and aren't constantly interrupted by the boss's
>>mother.
>no save so it was a big issue.
Yes; but as I said I think that was a result of genre expectations.
>It was a bad design decision not to at
>least have what I describe above, and the bad review/publicity probably
>did not help sales.
Even if we do not entertain the village idiot's fantasy that roguelikes
are unpopular, I think we all agree here that sales figures do not reflect
the actual value of a game.
From a purely commercial POV I would have included conventional
save-anytime in IGI - not roguelike-style save-and-quit - and wept
privately for the desecration so visited upon it. :-/
I think a much worse design decision was the respawning bad guys. That was
highly inconsistent with the in-mission permadeath and general lethality
of the game.
be...@sonic.net
> I think a much worse design decision was the respawning bad guys. That was
> highly inconsistent with the in-mission permadeath and general lethality
> of the game.
I'm planning very limited monster-respawning in my game. It's
a campaign consideration, working on the order of game-days,
game-weeks, and game-months.
It grows out of several things; it balances a desire to keep the
game lively even when the character is backtracking through areas
where s/he hasn't been for a while with a desire not to nullify
the character's work and accomplishments so far.
And in my game the character will need to backtrack; unlike the
"every path down is the right path" style of most roguelikes,
part of my game is actually solving a persistent-map 3-d maze.
There'll be more than just one path through it, but backtracking
and trying different branches (up as well as down staircases)
will be occasionally necessary.
So it works on the scale of weeks or months, rather than being
the "instant-respawning" we see in some of the twitch-combat
games. If you backtrack through an area where you haven't been
for several weeks, you need to look out.
Bear
David Damerell
>David Damerell wrote:
>>I think a much worse design decision was the respawning bad guys. That was
>>highly inconsistent with the in-mission permadeath and general lethality
>>of the game.
>I'm planning very limited monster-respawning in my game.
Steady on; I don't mind respawning in roguelikes. But in IGI there's a
severely limited supply of health - typically you can afford to be caught
off guard once per mission plus once for every medikit you find (as in,
two screwups and your initial health has been shot off) - and so you are
totally dependent on identifying and clearing safe areas. To have bad guys
respawn in a corridor where you _know_ there can't be anyone ruins that
ingenious design.
Isaac Kuo
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:yPF*pr...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> Steady on; I don't mind respawning in roguelikes. But in IGI there's a
> severely limited supply of health - typically you can afford to be caught
> off guard once per mission plus once for every medikit you find (as in,
> two screwups and your initial health has been shot off) - and so you are
> totally dependent on identifying and clearing safe areas. To have bad guys
> respawn in a corridor where you _know_ there can't be anyone ruins that
> ingenious design.
I believe most Resident Evil type games feature severely limited
supplies of health and ammunition, but with constant monster
respawning (i.e. the monsters reappear when you enter a room
even if you just popped out/in a door). This is what makes them
scary and tension filled struggles to survive.
Obviously, you can't clear any safe areas, so instead you have
to try and minimize how much time is spent in more dangerous
areas and minimize backtracking.
Isaac Kuo
ABCGi
news:fMD_9.72922$GX4.2...@news2.east.cox.net:
Dave is right about IGI though. It would of been much better with a
finite number of enemies. Then you are free to decide to sneak around or
murder them all - or a combination of both, the respawning kind of forced
you into a more linear approach sometimes. It also ruins the suspension
of disbelief.
Respawning in RogueLikes is by comparison desirable for more XP and
items.
R Dan Henry
(Gerry Quinn) declared:
>In article <nboj3v8rsmiqua4pf...@4ax.com>, rdan...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>> The words "cheater" or "scum" are not generally seen as compliments.
>>
>>"Cheater" is not a compliment, but it is a statement of fact. You are
>>trying to deny the denotation, because you do not like the
>>connotation. I have tried explaining to you that rather than deny the
>>facts, which make the denotation applicable, you should be arguing
>>that the usual connotation is inappropriate to this context. As for
>>"scumming" it is derived from the process of repeated removing the
>>"scum" or surface debris on a liquid in order to obtain a purified
>>substance. Thus it is used to mean repeated activities in order to
>>obtain the "good stuff". Not all savefile cheating properly deserve
>>the name "savescumming". That term is properly applied not to
>>restoring after death, but to repeatedly restoring to generate key
>>treasure drops until something "good" is dropped.
>
>The term "cheating", as in Solitaire, is unexceptionable. However
>"SaveScumming" seems to be unique to roguelikes - the more natural
>phrase would be "SaveSkimming". It may be that the former is a
>corruption of the latter.
AFAIK, "Savescumming" as a term postdates other forms of "scumming"
and takes the name from them. Unfortunately, the evolution of
roguelike terminology has no well-organized documentation. Indeed,
other than Usenet archives, I don't think it has any documentation at
all. This makes it difficult (or at least as tedious as scumming
itself) to trace the path that led to the use of the term
"savescumming". As I say, it really isn't applicable to the type of
cheating under discussion and it's entirely reasonable to object if
the term is misapplied to restore-after-death. (Unless it's a "I'll
just keep restoring and do something slightly different to get a
different RNG state until I get enough of a run of luck to actually
win against this monster I don't have the skill to beat" method, but
I've never known anyone to admit to that degree of lamerdom, so it's
just theoretical.)