Fate: How can they get away with it?
ton...@hotmail.com
get away with not being sued by BLizzard? It's not only "like" Diablo,
it's darn near identical, right down to socketed items, same names for
potions and even the same naming conventions for items (Superior,
etc...)
I am more than a little puzzled by this...anyone else?
gaf1234567890
I noticed this too, and it was probably the reason I liked the demo.
As for why Blizzard would allow it, how do you know they didn't work it
out in advance?
If that's not the case, then maybe they are confident that there's
plenty of "prior art" available to cover them.
ton...@hotmail.com
find it amazing that the similarities are so striking. Whats
interesting is, my son and I tried Diablo 2 once and he didnt like it.
He tried Fate and fell in love with it. When I pointed out how similar
they are, he decided he prefers Fate because its a little more
"cartoony". So I guess that aspect helps to differentiate them a bit.
I about fell off my chair laughing the first time I heard that troll
Shaman guy squealing "ha ha ha ha HA ha"..... :D
Sam Jones
<ton...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123511552.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Firstly because Fate wasn't reverse engineered or copied from the source
code of the Diablo games, and secondly, because Blizz haven't patented any
of the mechanics, if indeed they're able to. It's the same reason anyone
can make a spreadsheet application and call the user-editable datafields
'cells', or what have you.
You are right, though - they are very similar in terms of design, and it
clearly wasn't an accident, although Fate does have it's own individual
features that make it stand out from other games of its type.
Knight37
copyright ideas. Remember that Microsoft won the case where Apple tried
to sue them way back in the 90's for copying the "look and feel" of
Macintosh when they designed Windows. As long as Fate doesn't use any
of the code / art / resources of Diablo, there's no infringement.
BTW if you like Fate, give Dungeon Siege 2 demo a try, it's a more
"meaty" Diablo 2 clone and a well-made one. I can't wait for the full
game because I want to play it multiplayer co-op.
drocket
>Fate is not a bad little game, but I can't help but wonder; How do they
>get away with not being sued by BLizzard? It's not only "like" Diablo,
>it's darn near identical, right down to socketed items, same names for
>potions and even the same naming conventions for items (Superior,
>etc...)
Because 90%+ of the things in Diablo are blatently stolen from the
rogue-like games that came before. "They can't steal our ideas - we
stole them first!" rarely works as an argument in a court case.
Bateau
Because Diablo is a rip off of dozens of Roguelike games, dildo.
Gerry Quinn
ton...@hotmail.com says...
Copyright protects implementations of ideas, not ideas.
Contrary to claims often made by enemies of IP, it doesn't restrict you
from creating novel works that are similar to copyrighted ones.
If they had copied sound, graphics, or code from Diablo, Blizzard could
sue them and would win.
- Gerry Quinn
Mean_Chlorine
>Contrary to claims often made by enemies of IP, it doesn't restrict you
>from creating novel works that are similar to copyrighted ones.
>
>If they had copied sound, graphics, or code from Diablo, Blizzard could
>sue them and would win.
That is not necessarily true. Google copyright + "look and feel"
--
"Forgive Russia. Ignore Germany. Punish France."
-- Condoleezza Rice, at the time National Security Adviser, on how to deal
with european opposition to the war in Iraq. 2003.
Gerry Quinn
@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk says...
> Thusly Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> Spake Unto All:
>
> >Contrary to claims often made by enemies of IP, it doesn't restrict you
> >from creating novel works that are similar to copyrighted ones.
> >
> >If they had copied sound, graphics, or code from Diablo, Blizzard could
> >sue them and would win.
>
> That is not necessarily true. Google copyright + "look and feel"
There's a bit of that (the issue is slightly fuzzy by nature) but 'look
and feel' is not strong.
The chance that Blizzard could successfully claim it against Fate is
zero.
- Gerry Quinn
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> That is not necessarily true. Google copyright + "look and feel"
Not necessary: Some of us are old enough to remember Apple vs.
Microsoft and Lotus vs. Borland: L&F is not protected by copyright.
However, it can possibly be protected by trademark law; I am not sure
what Apple use against the guys who made an Aqua-like shell for X11 or
Windows or whatever it was.
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> You are right, though - they are very similar in terms of design, and it
> clearly wasn't an accident, although Fate does have it's own individual
> features that make it stand out from other games of its type.
And "of its type" is a large number. When Blizzard didn't go after Nox
and all the others back then, why should they go after a clone this
late? None of them were better than D2+LoD anyway.
Bateau
Look and feel is a trademark issue.
Michael Vondung
> That is not necessarily true. Google copyright + "look and feel"
Fate doesn't "look and feel" like Diablo or Diablo 2 to me. I feel much
more reminded of traditional rogue-likes. What does "look and feel" the
same to me are numerous shooters, and I don't see any sueing (suing?) going
on in that genre.
But the discussion is moot. Travis gave Blizzard a few copies of Fate at
the E3, and the Blizzard guys liked the game and didn't have any problems
with it whatoever (they even enjoyed playing it). And seriously, why should
they? Fate doesn't even have multiplayer.
M.
Bateau
What about the guys who made the Dashboard thing that Apple ripped off?
Bateau
Warcraft = Dune 2.
Blackthorne = Flashback.
Diablo = Rogue.
Gerry Quinn
Gam...@work.stomping.aza says...
> Diablo = Rogue.
Some people like to claim that, but in point of fact Diablo wen t so
far beyond the roguelike genre in terms of graphics that there is
really no comparison.
Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.
Roguelikes have never succeeded in multiplayer versions.
Diablo and its sequel introduced significant innovations. Too bad if
that hurts anyone's feelings.
- Gerry Quinn
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> Diablo and its sequel introduced significant innovations. Too bad if
> that hurts anyone's feelings.
Well, in that case, FATE introduces significant innovations over
Diablo (e.g. hi-res 3D graphics instead of isometric sprites at
640x400 or 800x600), so the argument that Blizzard should go after
them is moot.
Volstag
Someone (?) recently ran an interview with Travis Baldree (sp?) while
he was at E3. He mentioned meeting several Blizzard
representatives.... and from what I remember they got along great -- at
least there was no mention of them suing him :)
He even asked them how Diablo III was coming (they remained silent on
the matter). I don't think Blizzard could sue Travis/WildTangent for
anything... especially when you consider that Diablo ripped-off many
elements of other games.
-V
Bateau
>In article <csgkf1tp43odcr5lc...@4ax.com>,
>Gam...@work.stomping.aza says...
>
>> Diablo = Rogue.
>
>Some people like to claim that, but in point of fact Diablo wen t so
>far beyond the roguelike genre in terms of graphics that there is
>really no comparison.
"in terms of graphics" is the punchline right?
>Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.
Not all of them.
>Roguelikes have never succeeded in multiplayer versions.
Sure they have. They just didn't sell millions of copies because they're
not available for sale.
>Diablo and its sequel introduced significant innovations. Too bad if
>that hurts anyone's feelings.
Like what?
Hell I don't think I was suggesting that my feelings were hurt in my
original post. But it's sure obvious that yours are. Fanboy.
Lizard
You can't copyright a concept, only the code used to implement it.
Assuming "Fate" uses no Diablo code (and it's highly doubtful they
do), then, there's really nothing Blizzard can do. The only other
thing would be trademark infringement, and I doubt Fate uses any
Blizzard trademarks.
It's worth noting that similair interface designs were protected in a
court decision from the late 1980s, involving Lotus-123 and a
competitor. (Name fades, sorry). Likewise, it was determined that
programming languages cannot be copyrighted (This was a dBase case).
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
"I've heard of this thing men call 'empathy', but I've never
once been afflicted with it, thanks the Gods." Bruno The Bandit
http://www.mrlizard.com
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> >Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.
>
> Not all of them.
>
> >Roguelikes have never succeeded in multiplayer versions.
>
> Sure they have. They just didn't sell millions of copies because they're
> not available for sale.
For an example of a real-time multiplayer roguelike, see Crossfire.
http://crossfire.real-time.com/
Remember to download both the server and client.
Gerry Quinn
That's not a real difference - the graphics in both are fairly similar.
In practice it is simply a reflection of the advancement of graphic
cards, which in recent years have eliminated the advantages of pre-
calculated isometric graphics. The next Diablo won't use them either -
very few games will.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
Gam...@work.stomping.aza says...
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
> >In article <csgkf1tp43odcr5lc...@4ax.com>,
> >Gam...@work.stomping.aza says...
> >
> >> Diablo = Rogue.
> >
> >Some people like to claim that, but in point of fact Diablo wen t so
> >far beyond the roguelike genre in terms of graphics that there is
> >really no comparison.
>
> "in terms of graphics" is the punchline right?
What's your point here?
> >Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.
>
> Not all of them.
It's a genre standard - many people will refuse to consider a non-turn-
based roguelike as roguelike at all.
> >Roguelikes have never succeeded in multiplayer versions.
>
> Sure they have. They just didn't sell millions of copies because they're
> not available for sale.
They aren't played in millions either, because they don't work.
- Gerry Quinn
Bateau
Bateau
>In article <q0dpf156dumci84lk...@4ax.com>,
>Gam...@work.stomping.aza says...
>> Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
>> >In article <csgkf1tp43odcr5lc...@4ax.com>,
>> >Gam...@work.stomping.aza says...
>> >
>> >> Diablo = Rogue.
>> >
>> >Some people like to claim that, but in point of fact Diablo wen t so
>> >far beyond the roguelike genre in terms of graphics that there is
>> >really no comparison.
>>
>> "in terms of graphics" is the punchline right?
>
>What's your point here?
Cloning a game and giving it pretty graphics is not going "so far beyond
the genre that there is no comparison." It's not going anywhere.
I suppose you'd agree that all the new Pac Man clones with 3d graphics
would be so genre busting that they couldn't even be compared to Pac Man
any more right?
>> >Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.
>>
>> Not all of them.
>
>It's a genre standard - many people will refuse to consider a non-turn-
>based roguelike as roguelike at all.
Until they're presented with one.
>> >Roguelikes have never succeeded in multiplayer versions.
>>
>> Sure they have. They just didn't sell millions of copies because they're
>> not available for sale.
>
>They aren't played in millions either, because they don't work.
No roguelikes are played in millions, because they're ugly.
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> That's not a real difference - the graphics in both are fairly similar.
No they aren't: There are significant differences between the low-res
sprites in Diablo and the 3D models used in FATE. For instance, a
isometric sprite animation consists of X frames times the eight
directions each "sprite character" can face. The animation of a 3D
model does not have this constraint.
It's like saying Wolfenstein 3D is "fairly similar" to BF2.
> In practice it is simply a reflection of the advancement of graphic
> cards,
... and the choice to use a completely different graphics technology
(3D instead of 2D). IIRC other Diablo clones like Nox also used 3D
models instead of sprites.
Other advantages FATE has over Diablo is: More quests (though just
three different types of tasks it would seem), more variety of
enemies, larger maps (but not compared to D2), the pet and its
transformations, the open skill system as opposed to Diablo's
classes...
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> It's a genre standard - many people will refuse to consider a non-turn-
> based roguelike as roguelike at all.
Just like the "standard" of turn-based strategy games meant Dune II
and Command and Conquer failed.
Oh wait, they didn't! Instead they spawned a multitude of "real-time"
strategy games.
Xocyll
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
>Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:
>
>> That's not a real difference - the graphics in both are fairly similar.
>
>No they aren't: There are significant differences between the low-res
>sprites in Diablo and the 3D models used in FATE. For instance, a
>isometric sprite animation consists of X frames times the eight
>directions each "sprite character" can face. The animation of a 3D
>model does not have this constraint.
>
>It's like saying Wolfenstein 3D is "fairly similar" to BF2.
>
>> In practice it is simply a reflection of the advancement of graphic
>> cards,
>
>... and the choice to use a completely different graphics technology
>(3D instead of 2D). IIRC other Diablo clones like Nox also used 3D
>models instead of sprites.
And in fact the graphical look of Fate is far more like Darkstone than
Diablo.
The "going down levels into a deep dungeon" is more Diablo than
Darkstone or Nox though - but then it also goes FAR deeper than Diablo -
harkening back to the rogue-alikes.
Hrm in that sense the multiple smaller dungeons and overland travel
approach used in Nox, Darkstone and Diablo2 resemble Omega more than
Rogue.
>Other advantages FATE has over Diablo is: More quests (though just
>three different types of tasks it would seem), more variety of
>enemies, larger maps (but not compared to D2), the pet and its
>transformations, the open skill system as opposed to Diablo's
>classes...
The Pet is certainly neat, although limited, but the magic system is
pretty inferior to Diablo's. There's damn few spells, they aren't
terribly effective and they aren't really boostable.
Ranged combat also suffers from not being able to see far enough to make
it really worthwhile.
But, considering that this is a one-programmer amateur game, not a
studio-of-pros release, those limitations aren't _that_ bad.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Gerry Quinn
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
> >In article <q0dpf156dumci84lk...@4ax.com>,
> >Gam...@work.stomping.aza says...
> >> Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
> >> >In article <csgkf1tp43odcr5lc...@4ax.com>,
> >> >Gam...@work.stomping.aza says...
> >> >
> >> >> Diablo = Rogue.
> >> >
> >> >Some people like to claim that, but in point of fact Diablo wen t so
> >> >far beyond the roguelike genre in terms of graphics that there is
> >> >really no comparison.
> >>
> >> "in terms of graphics" is the punchline right?
> >
> >What's your point here?
>
> Cloning a game and giving it pretty graphics is not going "so far beyond
> the genre that there is no comparison."
I did't say that - I said they went far beyond the genre in terms of
graphics. They went considerably beyond it in other ways too. Diablo
is not in any way a clone of rogue. [Examples of non-graphic elements
in which Diablo far exceeds roguelikes are tactical balance, multi-
player, and real-time.]
> It's not going anywhere.
You mean graphics are meaningless? I suppose you always listen to the
radio rather than watch TV...
> I suppose you'd agree that all the new Pac Man clones with 3d graphics
> would be so genre busting that they couldn't even be compared to Pac Man
> any more right?
I don't know which games you mean, and how they compare. One can make
comparisons between any games, in terms of graphics or other qualities.
In this thread, however, I am talking not about Pacman but specifically
about Diablo (in its current incarnation as D2), Fate, and current
roguelikes. I enjoy them all - in threads where zeal so overcomes
rationality that people assert that "Diablo = Rogue", I think it is
only fair to point out the considerable limitations of roguelikes, some
of which Diablo has overcome.
>
> >> >Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.
> >>
> >> Not all of them.
> >
> >It's a genre standard - many people will refuse to consider a non-turn-
> >based roguelike as roguelike at all.
>
> Until they're presented with one.
Well, yes. Until then.
> >> >Roguelikes have never succeeded in multiplayer versions.
> >>
> >> Sure they have. They just didn't sell millions of copies because they're
> >> not available for sale.
> >
> >They aren't played in millions either, because they don't work.
>
> No roguelikes are played in millions, because they're ugly.
I would have thought that millions must have played them a bit. While
ASCII roguelikes are so ugly that I would not consider playing one, I
find tiled versions quite adequate, and today I should say the majority
have tiles, at least as an option.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
Often a misnomer, since such games tend to have minimal strategy, and
the tactics often depend more on mouse skills than organisational
skills. Not always, of course. However, it's rather beside the point.
Crossfire claims to be "influenced by Gauntlet and Roguelikes". It
doesn't sound like even the authors are making the claim that it's a
roguelike.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:
>
> > That's not a real difference - the graphics in both are fairly similar.
>
> No they aren't: There are significant differences between the low-res
> sprites in Diablo and the 3D models used in FATE. For instance, a
> isometric sprite animation consists of X frames times the eight
> directions each "sprite character" can face. The animation of a 3D
> model does not have this constraint.
I've played D2 and I've played Fate. The graphics *are* very similar,
to my eyes at least.
> It's like saying Wolfenstein 3D is "fairly similar" to BF2.
I don't know what BF2 is, but Wolfenstein was hugely outlassed
graphically by DOOM.
> > In practice it is simply a reflection of the advancement of graphic
> > cards,
>
> ... and the choice to use a completely different graphics technology
> (3D instead of 2D). IIRC other Diablo clones like Nox also used 3D
> models instead of sprites.
A technology-driven choice. Both methods look somewhat similar. In
the past, the pre-calculated isometric sprites gaver enhanced speed and
stability, and Blizzard valued these important elements of gameplay.
> Other advantages FATE has over Diablo is: More quests (though just
> three different types of tasks it would seem), more variety of
> enemies, larger maps (but not compared to D2), the pet and its
> transformations, the open skill system as opposed to Diablo's
> classes...
Those are differences rather than advantages. Comparing D2, the one
I'm familiar with, and in any case the current one, one can point to
merits such as:
More variety of quests (not just a standard fedex to the hightest level
not reached), themed regions with different enemies, hireable henchmen
of different kinds, a balanced skill system offering completely
different play with seven different classes, detailed balancing of
skills and enemies, absence of ridiculously valuable early drops...
- Gerry Quinn
Bateau
>In article <ud8sf1h3soj3shruk...@4ax.com>,
>Gam...@work.stomping.aza says...
>> Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
>> >In article <q0dpf156dumci84lk...@4ax.com>,
>> >Gam...@work.stomping.aza says...
>> >> Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
>> >> >In article <csgkf1tp43odcr5lc...@4ax.com>,
>> >> >Gam...@work.stomping.aza says...
>> >> >
>> >> >> Diablo = Rogue.
>> >> >
>> >> >Some people like to claim that, but in point of fact Diablo wen t so
>> >> >far beyond the roguelike genre in terms of graphics that there is
>> >> >really no comparison.
>> >>
>> >> "in terms of graphics" is the punchline right?
>> >
>> >What's your point here?
>>
>> Cloning a game and giving it pretty graphics is not going "so far beyond
>> the genre that there is no comparison."
>
>I did't say that - I said they went far beyond the genre in terms of
>graphics.
And how is that meant to refute "Diablo = Rogue"?
I'm sorry for thinking you were attempting a logical argument.
>They went considerably beyond it in other ways too. Diablo
>is not in any way a clone of rogue. [Examples of non-graphic elements
>in which Diablo far exceeds roguelikes are tactical balance, multi-
>player, and real-time.]
Tactical balance? You haven't played many roguelikes have you?
I don't think you've played many video games at all. There are
roguelikes that have all those elements.
>> It's not going anywhere.
>
>You mean graphics are meaningless? I suppose you always listen to the
>radio rather than watch TV...
I mean if the graphics are functional making them prettier is
meaningless. If you'd leave things in their proper context it would be
clear to you.
>> I suppose you'd agree that all the new Pac Man clones with 3d graphics
>> would be so genre busting that they couldn't even be compared to Pac Man
>> any more right?
>
>I don't know which games you mean, and how they compare. One can make
>comparisons between any games, in terms of graphics or other qualities.
>In this thread, however, I am talking not about Pacman but specifically
>about Diablo (in its current incarnation as D2), Fate, and current
>roguelikes. I enjoy them all - in threads where zeal so overcomes
>rationality that people assert that "Diablo = Rogue", I think it is
>only fair to point out the considerable limitations of roguelikes, some
>of which Diablo has overcome.
So now we're talking about Diablo 2? Stop moving the goalposts.
Diablo is a roguelike. There is nothing about Diablo you can point to
which suggests it isn't. Roguelikes have included features like sprite
based graphics and real time multiplayer before. They have still been
roguelikes.
>> >> >Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.
>> >>
>> >> Not all of them.
>> >
>> >It's a genre standard - many people will refuse to consider a non-turn-
>> >based roguelike as roguelike at all.
>>
>> Until they're presented with one.
>
>Well, yes. Until then.
So now that you know of them will you admit that Diablo is a roguelike?
>> >> >Roguelikes have never succeeded in multiplayer versions.
>> >>
>> >> Sure they have. They just didn't sell millions of copies because they're
>> >> not available for sale.
>> >
>> >They aren't played in millions either, because they don't work.
>>
>> No roguelikes are played in millions, because they're ugly.
>
>I would have thought that millions must have played them a bit. While
>ASCII roguelikes are so ugly that I would not consider playing one, I
>find tiled versions quite adequate, and today I should say the majority
>have tiles, at least as an option.
You just said they aren't played in millions.
The tiles are still ugly.
Gerry Quinn
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
> >I did't say that - I said they went far beyond the genre in terms of
> >graphics.
> And how is that meant to refute "Diablo = Rogue"?
If you actually play Rogue, you will find that it uses ANSI graphics,
which are quite inferior to the graphics in Diablo. For example,
monsters are represented by capital letters in Rogue. To give Rogue
credit, it is superior graphically to the many ASCII roguelikes,
despite being quite old.
> >They went considerably beyond it in other ways too. Diablo
> >is not in any way a clone of rogue. [Examples of non-graphic elements
> >in which Diablo far exceeds roguelikes are tactical balance, multi-
> >player, and real-time.]
> Tactical balance? You haven't played many roguelikes have you?
I have - their balance is often very poor.
> >> It's not going anywhere.
> >
> >You mean graphics are meaningless? I suppose you always listen to the
> >radio rather than watch TV...
>
> I mean if the graphics are functional making them prettier is
> meaningless.
Your lack of aesthethic sensibility is unfortunate - most of us are not
crippled in this way.
> >I don't know which games you mean, and how they compare. One can make
> >comparisons between any games, in terms of graphics or other qualities.
> >In this thread, however, I am talking not about Pacman but specifically
> >about Diablo (in its current incarnation as D2), Fate, and current
> >roguelikes. I enjoy them all - in threads where zeal so overcomes
> >rationality that people assert that "Diablo = Rogue", I think it is
> >only fair to point out the considerable limitations of roguelikes, some
> >of which Diablo has overcome.
>
> So now we're talking about Diablo 2? Stop moving the goalposts.
It's the current version of Diablo, and I compare it with current
roguelikes. Also, D2 is the one I am familiar with.
> Diablo is a roguelike. There is nothing about Diablo you can point to
> which suggests it isn't. Roguelikes have included features like sprite
> based graphics and real time multiplayer before. They have still been
> roguelikes.
If Diablo were a roguelike, how come lots of people play it who
wouldn't be bothered with ordinary roguelikes? Is it that it is by far
the best roguelike (refuting your claim that "Diablo = Rogue") or that
it isn't a roguelike?
Sprite graphics and real-time multiplayer may have been tried in some
roguelikes, but not with any degree of success.
> >> >> >Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not all of them.
> >> >
> >> >It's a genre standard - many people will refuse to consider a non-turn-
> >> >based roguelike as roguelike at all.
> >>
> >> Until they're presented with one.
> >
> >Well, yes. Until then.
>
> So now that you know of them will you admit that Diablo is a roguelike?
I don't know of them.. The only one mentioned claims to be "influenced
by Gauntlet and Roguelikes". An experimental one has been discussed on
the roguelike development newsgroup, but does not appear to have been
successfully implemented yet. And even if they were, it would not make
Diablo a roguelike, although it also is influenced by them. And even
if one categorised computer games in a manner that placed Diablo among
the roguelikes, the assertion that "Diablo=Rogue" would remain moronic.
> >I would have thought that millions must have played them a bit. While
> >ASCII roguelikes are so ugly that I would not consider playing one, I
> >find tiled versions quite adequate, and today I should say the majority
> >have tiles, at least as an option.
>
> You just said they aren't played in millions.
> The tiles are still ugly.
Depends on what tense you assign to 'played'. Millions have played
them. As for your assertion that the tiles are ugly, you have already
admitted to being so aesthetic dysfunctional that you see no value in
graphics beyond functionality.
- Gerry Quinn
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> If you actually play Rogue, you will find that it uses ANSI graphics,
> which are quite inferior to the graphics in Diablo.
Yes, but that's presentation only. The underlying game is the same:
Whack mobs for loot as you descend a randomly-generated dungeon.
> Your lack of aesthethic sensibility is unfortunate - most of us are not
> crippled in this way.
We bow to your superiority, Master. ^_^
> It's the current version of Diablo,
No, it's a sequel to Diablo. What you are doing is akin to saying that
since Return to Castle Wolfenstein is a modern FPS, the original
Wolfenstein 3D is not a derivate of 3D Maze.
> and I compare it with current roguelikes. Also, D2 is the one I am
> familiar with.
Which means you are not familiar with Diablo, which is the game we
discuss. D2 is closer to ADOM or Omega, since it has open areas. Which
roguelikes do you compare with?
> If Diablo were a roguelike, how come lots of people play it who
> wouldn't be bothered with ordinary roguelikes?
Straw man: You cannot buy traditional roguelikes in stores (unlike the
Diablos), so people aren't exposed to them. And just because someone
who likes one roguelike doesn't like another (I didn't much fancy
Omega, but love Cthangband for instance) doesn't mean the disliked
game isn't in the same genre or vice versa.
> Sprite graphics and real-time multiplayer may have been tried in some
> roguelikes, but not with any degree of success.
Plenty of people played Crossfire back in the day.
Bateau
>In article <ot91g19t6cmv9roeb...@4ax.com>,
>Gam...@work.stomping.aza says...
>> Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
>
>> >I did't say that - I said they went far beyond the genre in terms of
>> >graphics.
>
>> And how is that meant to refute "Diablo = Rogue"?
>
>If you actually play Rogue, you will find that it uses ANSI graphics,
>which are quite inferior to the graphics in Diablo. For example,
>monsters are represented by capital letters in Rogue. To give Rogue
>credit, it is superior graphically to the many ASCII roguelikes,
>despite being quite old.
That isn't the BEST argument you have is it? That's a pretty superficial
difference.
>> >They went considerably beyond it in other ways too. Diablo
>> >is not in any way a clone of rogue. [Examples of non-graphic elements
>> >in which Diablo far exceeds roguelikes are tactical balance, multi-
>> >player, and real-time.]
>
>> Tactical balance? You haven't played many roguelikes have you?
>
>I have - their balance is often very poor.
Too hard?
>> >> It's not going anywhere.
>> >
>> >You mean graphics are meaningless? I suppose you always listen to the
>> >radio rather than watch TV...
>>
>> I mean if the graphics are functional making them prettier is
>> meaningless.
>
>Your lack of aesthethic sensibility is unfortunate - most of us are not
>crippled in this way.
I appreciate pretty things as much as anyone else. I can just see beyond
them to the nature of things.
>> >I don't know which games you mean, and how they compare. One can make
>> >comparisons between any games, in terms of graphics or other qualities.
>> >In this thread, however, I am talking not about Pacman but specifically
>> >about Diablo (in its current incarnation as D2), Fate, and current
>> >roguelikes. I enjoy them all - in threads where zeal so overcomes
>> >rationality that people assert that "Diablo = Rogue", I think it is
>> >only fair to point out the considerable limitations of roguelikes, some
>> >of which Diablo has overcome.
>>
>> So now we're talking about Diablo 2? Stop moving the goalposts.
>
>It's the current version of Diablo, and I compare it with current
>roguelikes. Also, D2 is the one I am familiar with.
It's a sequel.
>> Diablo is a roguelike. There is nothing about Diablo you can point to
>> which suggests it isn't. Roguelikes have included features like sprite
>> based graphics and real time multiplayer before. They have still been
>> roguelikes.
>
>If Diablo were a roguelike, how come lots of people play it who
>wouldn't be bothered with ordinary roguelikes? Is it that it is by far
>the best roguelike (refuting your claim that "Diablo = Rogue") or that
>it isn't a roguelike?
If it was "the best roguelike" it would prove my argument that it was a
roguelike you noob. Lots of people play it because it's easier, faster,
and prettier than other roguelikes. All roguelikes differ in difficulty,
speed and graphics but it doesn't mean they can't all be roguelikes.
>Sprite graphics and real-time multiplayer may have been tried in some
>roguelikes, but not with any degree of success.
And not with any comparable budget.
>> >> >> >Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not all of them.
>> >> >
>> >> >It's a genre standard - many people will refuse to consider a non-turn-
>> >> >based roguelike as roguelike at all.
>> >>
>> >> Until they're presented with one.
>> >
>> >Well, yes. Until then.
>>
>> So now that you know of them will you admit that Diablo is a roguelike?
>
>I don't know of them.. The only one mentioned claims to be "influenced
>by Gauntlet and Roguelikes". An experimental one has been discussed on
>the roguelike development newsgroup, but does not appear to have been
>successfully implemented yet. And even if they were, it would not make
>Diablo a roguelike, although it also is influenced by them. And even
>if one categorised computer games in a manner that placed Diablo among
>the roguelikes, the assertion that "Diablo=Rogue" would remain moronic.
Which one was that? I mentioned TomeNET which is very openly a
roguelike. The only thing moronic is your failure to take notice of the
context of my statement. I said that Fate is to Diablo as Diablo is to
roguelikes.
>> >I would have thought that millions must have played them a bit. While
>> >ASCII roguelikes are so ugly that I would not consider playing one, I
>> >find tiled versions quite adequate, and today I should say the majority
>> >have tiles, at least as an option.
>>
>> You just said they aren't played in millions.
>> The tiles are still ugly.
>
>Depends on what tense you assign to 'played'. Millions have played
>them. As for your assertion that the tiles are ugly, you have already
>admitted to being so aesthetic dysfunctional that you see no value in
>graphics beyond functionality.
I never said that. I said graphics are irrelevant when you're
categorizing gameplay.
Nick Vargish
> Diablo is not in any way a clone of rogue.
Not a clone, but certainly inspired by the roguelike family. The ways
in which it resembles Angband is kind of uncanny.
> [Examples of non-graphic elements in which Diablo far exceeds
> roguelikes are tactical balance, multi-player, and real-time.]
Tactical balance between classes is intentionally ignored in most
roguelikes -- some classes are actually meant to be harder than
others. That's a reasonable design decision if the game isn't
multiplayer.
Some people don't actually consider real-time to "exceed" turn-based
gameplay.
> I would have thought that millions must have played them a bit.
I wonder... How would we find out?
> While ASCII roguelikes are so ugly that I would not consider
> playing one,
That seems kind of prejudiced. :^)
Traditional turn-based roguelikes are nice in some ways that the
Diablos are not. For example, Nethack has much more complex and
interesting uses for non-combat items, and really smart monsters in
comparison (they pick up and use dungeon items, and so forth).
> find tiled versions quite adequate, and today I should say the majority
> have tiles, at least as an option.
I've never found tiles to be better than ASCII, but then I still
prefer using the rogue/vi key layouts, so maybe I'm coming at this
from a different direction from you.
I do love D2, BTW. Other than free roguelikes, no other game has given
me more gameplay per dollar. But as much as I enjoy it, I don't think
it totally pwns the traditional roguelikes, especially in the areas
you are focused on.
Nick
--
#include<stdio.h> /* sigmask (sig.c) 20041028 PUBLIC DOMAIN */
int main(c,v)char *v;{return !c?putchar(* /* cc -o sig sig.c */
v-1)&&main(0,v+1):main(0,"Ojdl!Wbshjti!=ojdlAwbshjti/psh?\v\1");}
Nick Vargish
> If Diablo were a roguelike, how come lots of people play it who
> wouldn't be bothered with ordinary roguelikes?
Because most roguelikes are very frustrating for new players -- and
sometimes for experienced players! They are intentionally difficult,
especially at low levels, and death is permanent (unless you save
scum, which I admit I do with Angband).
Prettyness certainly is a factor, too.
> Is it that it is by far the best roguelike (refuting your claim that
> "Diablo = Rogue") or that it isn't a roguelike?
I'd say it's the most accessible roguelike ever, and comes from a
hugely successful company with a large marketing budget.
Diablo 2 doesn't really qualify as a roguelike to me, basically
because of the real-time thing. But it's so heavily influenced by them
that it's a direct offspring as far as I'm concerned.
Gerry Quinn
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:
>
> > If you actually play Rogue, you will find that it uses ANSI graphics,
> > which are quite inferior to the graphics in Diablo.
>
> Yes, but that's presentation only. The underlying game is the same:
> Whack mobs for loot as you descend a randomly-generated dungeon.
Different mobs, different dungeon, different abilities, realtime,
multiplayer. Why are they not part of "the underlying game"?
> > It's the current version of Diablo,
>
> No, it's a sequel to Diablo. What you are doing is akin to saying that
> since Return to Castle Wolfenstein is a modern FPS, the original
> Wolfenstein 3D is not a derivate of 3D Maze.
>
> > and I compare it with current roguelikes. Also, D2 is the one I am
> > familiar with.
>
> Which means you are not familiar with Diablo, which is the game we
> discuss. D2 is closer to ADOM or Omega, since it has open areas. Which
> roguelikes do you compare with?
The version of Rogue that is usually considered definitive was not the
first. Again, why should "open areas" suddenly assume overwhelming
importance? Indeed, surely the main difference between 'open areas'
and 'dungeons' is the graphics?
> > If Diablo were a roguelike, how come lots of people play it who
> > wouldn't be bothered with ordinary roguelikes?
>
> Straw man: You cannot buy traditional roguelikes in stores (unlike the
> Diablos), so people aren't exposed to them.
OTOH, they are free, which would surely be an advantage if people were
interested. People pay to play Diablo.
> And just because someone
> who likes one roguelike doesn't like another (I didn't much fancy
> Omega, but love Cthangband for instance) doesn't mean the disliked
> game isn't in the same genre or vice versa.
> > Sprite graphics and real-time multiplayer may have been tried in some
> > roguelikes, but not with any degree of success.
>
> Plenty of people played Crossfire back in the day.
The authors claim only "influenced by Gauntlet and Roguelikes".
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
> >> And how is that meant to refute "Diablo = Rogue"?
> >
> >If you actually play Rogue, you will find that it uses ANSI graphics,
> >which are quite inferior to the graphics in Diablo. For example,
> >monsters are represented by capital letters in Rogue. To give Rogue
> >credit, it is superior graphically to the many ASCII roguelikes,
> >despite being quite old.
>
> That isn't the BEST argument you have is it? That's a pretty superficial
> difference.
It's the biggest and most obvious reason why "Diablo=Rogue" is a
moronic assertion. Of course it's not thye only one - there are many
more differences.
And I would hardly call the creation of detailed animated graphics,
compared to throwing a few letters and dots on the screen, to be a
superficial difference anyway.
> >> >They went considerably beyond it in other ways too. Diablo
> >> >is not in any way a clone of rogue. [Examples of non-graphic elements
> >> >in which Diablo far exceeds roguelikes are tactical balance, multi-
> >> >player, and real-time.]
> >
> >> Tactical balance? You haven't played many roguelikes have you?
> >
> >I have - their balance is often very poor.
>
> Too hard?
Sometimes - or too easy, rewarding boring play. Rogue, the one we
refer to, is poorly balanced, in that if you don't find and identify
the ring of slow digestion, you will need a miraculous number of food
drops to win, and wearing any other ring may be considered well-nigh
suicidal.
> >Your lack of aesthethic sensibility is unfortunate - most of us are not
> >crippled in this way.
>
> I appreciate pretty things as much as anyone else. I can just see beyond
> them to the nature of things.
Clearly you don't appreciate them, or you wouldn't be making this
ridiculous argument.
> >> So now we're talking about Diablo 2? Stop moving the goalposts.
> >
> >It's the current version of Diablo, and I compare it with current
> >roguelikes. Also, D2 is the one I am familiar with.
>
> It's a sequel.
So is the version of Rogue we normally talk about.
> >Sprite graphics and real-time multiplayer may have been tried in some
> >roguelikes, but not with any degree of success.
>
> And not with any comparable budget.
True, but such efforts as have been made have had limited success.
> >I don't know of them.. The only one mentioned claims to be "influenced
> >by Gauntlet and Roguelikes". An experimental one has been discussed on
> >the roguelike development newsgroup, but does not appear to have been
> >successfully implemented yet. And even if they were, it would not make
> >Diablo a roguelike, although it also is influenced by them. And even
> >if one categorised computer games in a manner that placed Diablo among
> >the roguelikes, the assertion that "Diablo=Rogue" would remain moronic.
>
> Which one was that? I mentioned TomeNET which is very openly a
> roguelike. The only thing moronic is your failure to take notice of the
> context of my statement. I said that Fate is to Diablo as Diablo is to
> roguelikes.
No you didn't. And if you had it would still be moronic. Fate doesn't
advance much on the Diablo games in any significant way and is behind
them overall - whereas Diablo has quite distinctive features compared
to roguelikes, and vastly surpasses them in some respects.
> >Depends on what tense you assign to 'played'. Millions have played
> >them. As for your assertion that the tiles are ugly, you have already
> >admitted to being so aesthetic dysfunctional that you see no value in
> >graphics beyond functionality.
>
> I never said that. I said graphics are irrelevant when you're
> categorizing gameplay.
We were talking about identifying games as clones, not categorising
gameplay. And graphics, in any case, are still perfectly relevant to
the latter.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
nav+...@bandersnatch.org says...
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:
> > I would have thought that millions must have played them a bit.
>
> I wonder... How would we find out?
If we added up the number of students in university departments that
are computer orientated, did a straw poll to find the percentage who
played roguelikes, and multiplied by a fudge factor, we might get
somewhere. Counting internet downloads might be an option too.
> > While ASCII roguelikes are so ugly that I would not consider
> > playing one,
>
> That seems kind of prejudiced. :^)
No, it's just unacceptable for me. It's ugly and different monsters
look the same.
> Traditional turn-based roguelikes are nice in some ways that the
> Diablos are not. For example, Nethack has much more complex and
> interesting uses for non-combat items, and really smart monsters in
> comparison (they pick up and use dungeon items, and so forth).
Sure, there are some features that they have that Diablo doesn't.
> I do love D2, BTW. Other than free roguelikes, no other game has given
> me more gameplay per dollar. But as much as I enjoy it, I don't think
> it totally pwns the traditional roguelikes, especially in the areas
> you are focused on.
Actually, I never mentioned 'complex item interactions' etc. at all. I
agree that NetHack wins out over Diablo there.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:
> Prettyness certainly is a factor, too.
>
> > Is it that it is by far the best roguelike (refuting your claim that
> > "Diablo = Rogue") or that it isn't a roguelike?
>
> I'd say it's the most accessible roguelike ever, and comes from a
> hugely successful company with a large marketing budget.
>
> Diablo 2 doesn't really qualify as a roguelike to me, basically
> because of the real-time thing. But it's so heavily influenced by them
> that it's a direct offspring as far as I'm concerned.
But... but... Diablo was also realtime! I don't remember it well, but
I did play the demo years ago!
- Gerry Quinn
Xocyll
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
>In article <iha4g1lenc43vu8pj...@4ax.com>,
>Gam...@work.stomping.aza says...
>> Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
>
>> >> And how is that meant to refute "Diablo = Rogue"?
>> >
>> >If you actually play Rogue, you will find that it uses ANSI graphics,
>> >which are quite inferior to the graphics in Diablo. For example,
>> >monsters are represented by capital letters in Rogue. To give Rogue
>> >credit, it is superior graphically to the many ASCII roguelikes,
>> >despite being quite old.
>>
>> That isn't the BEST argument you have is it? That's a pretty superficial
>> difference.
>
>It's the biggest and most obvious reason why "Diablo=Rogue" is a
>moronic assertion. Of course it's not thye only one - there are many
>more differences.
>
>And I would hardly call the creation of detailed animated graphics,
>compared to throwing a few letters and dots on the screen, to be a
>superficial difference anyway.
But really it is.
You, represented by your letter, icon, sprite or 3d multi-thousand
polygon figure, attack the monster that is likewise represented.
The underlying mechanics are basically the same.
Does it really matter if the magic missile you shoot is represented as a
"/" as it shoots northeast of you or is a fantastically animated, light
casting, extravaganza; when in the final analysis, it's you causing 1d4
points of damage to the critter with a spell?
The only real thing that increasing graphics have done is _seriously_
limit the scope of the games.
Diablo may look nicer, but it's a tiny fraction of a Rogue-alike.
Take Diablo2.
With it's graphic engine and layout, it would have to be something like
20 times bigger to encompass everything that's in Omega.
[Not to mention have a lot of code changes to take into account
modifying items, getting blessed/cursed by gods, genocide scrolls,
etc,etc,etc.]
Diablo2 is a nice-looking simple gamer, Omega is a VASTLY bigger and
more complicated game but with only simple ANSI graphics.
Nick Vargish
> If we added up the number of students in university departments that
> are computer orientated, did a straw poll to find the percentage who
> played roguelikes, and multiplied by a fudge factor, we might get
> somewhere.
We could just count the number of Comp Sci grads that flunk out...
Nethack used to be called "Gradekiller" by the CS folks when I was in
college.
> No, it's just unacceptable for me. It's ugly and different monsters
> look the same.
Different monsters look the same in the Diablos too, just
palette-shifted. Most roguelikes use one character for a class of
monsters, and vary the color depending on the discrete type. Seems
like similar approaches to me.
Lots of people think Diablo2 is ugly because it's sprite-based and not
polygonal...
Cheers,
Bateau
>In article <iha4g1lenc43vu8pj...@4ax.com>,
>Gam...@work.stomping.aza says...
>> Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
>
>> >> And how is that meant to refute "Diablo = Rogue"?
>> >
>> >If you actually play Rogue, you will find that it uses ANSI graphics,
>> >which are quite inferior to the graphics in Diablo. For example,
>> >monsters are represented by capital letters in Rogue. To give Rogue
>> >credit, it is superior graphically to the many ASCII roguelikes,
>> >despite being quite old.
>>
>> That isn't the BEST argument you have is it? That's a pretty superficial
>> difference.
>
>It's the biggest and most obvious reason why "Diablo=Rogue" is a
>moronic assertion. Of course it's not thye only one - there are many
>more differences.
But as you pointed out yourself there are lots of roguelikes with
graphics.
>And I would hardly call the creation of detailed animated graphics,
>compared to throwing a few letters and dots on the screen, to be a
>superficial difference anyway.
It is to the player.
>> >> >They went considerably beyond it in other ways too. Diablo
>> >> >is not in any way a clone of rogue. [Examples of non-graphic elements
>> >> >in which Diablo far exceeds roguelikes are tactical balance, multi-
>> >> >player, and real-time.]
>> >
>> >> Tactical balance? You haven't played many roguelikes have you?
>> >
>> >I have - their balance is often very poor.
>>
>> Too hard?
>
>Sometimes - or too easy, rewarding boring play. Rogue, the one we
>refer to, is poorly balanced, in that if you don't find and identify
>the ring of slow digestion, you will need a miraculous number of food
>drops to win, and wearing any other ring may be considered well-nigh
>suicidal.
I didn't think Diablo was particularly well balanced or interesting.
>> >Your lack of aesthethic sensibility is unfortunate - most of us are not
>> >crippled in this way.
>>
>> I appreciate pretty things as much as anyone else. I can just see beyond
>> them to the nature of things.
>
>Clearly you don't appreciate them, or you wouldn't be making this
>ridiculous argument.
What universe is that logical in?
>> >> So now we're talking about Diablo 2? Stop moving the goalposts.
>> >
>> >It's the current version of Diablo, and I compare it with current
>> >roguelikes. Also, D2 is the one I am familiar with.
>>
>> It's a sequel.
>
>So is the version of Rogue we normally talk about.
"We" normally don't talk about roguelikes you fucking ape.
>> >Sprite graphics and real-time multiplayer may have been tried in some
>> >roguelikes, but not with any degree of success.
>>
>> And not with any comparable budget.
>
>True, but such efforts as have been made have had limited success.
Because they didn't have millions of dollars to advertise.
>> >I don't know of them.. The only one mentioned claims to be "influenced
>> >by Gauntlet and Roguelikes". An experimental one has been discussed on
>> >the roguelike development newsgroup, but does not appear to have been
>> >successfully implemented yet. And even if they were, it would not make
>> >Diablo a roguelike, although it also is influenced by them. And even
>> >if one categorised computer games in a manner that placed Diablo among
>> >the roguelikes, the assertion that "Diablo=Rogue" would remain moronic.
>>
>> Which one was that? I mentioned TomeNET which is very openly a
>> roguelike. The only thing moronic is your failure to take notice of the
>> context of my statement. I said that Fate is to Diablo as Diablo is to
>> roguelikes.
>
>No you didn't. And if you had it would still be moronic. Fate doesn't
>advance much on the Diablo games in any significant way and is behind
>them overall - whereas Diablo has quite distinctive features compared
>to roguelikes, and vastly surpasses them in some respects.
I didn't say that? I'm pretty sure I did though not in those exact
words. Maybe you'd like to go back and refresh your memory. Or go back
to school and refresh your comprehension skills.
AFAICT Fate advances on Diablo in exactly the same way Diablo advances
on roguelikes - better graphics. You're such a hypocrite.
>> >Depends on what tense you assign to 'played'. Millions have played
>> >them. As for your assertion that the tiles are ugly, you have already
>> >admitted to being so aesthetic dysfunctional that you see no value in
>> >graphics beyond functionality.
>>
>> I never said that. I said graphics are irrelevant when you're
>> categorizing gameplay.
>
>We were talking about identifying games as clones, not categorising
>gameplay. And graphics, in any case, are still perfectly relevant to
>the latter.
Graphics are still irrelevant even if you were talking about clones. EG
those 3D Pacman remakes.
Bateau
Then please cease arguing that it is not a roguelike when you do not
remember it at all. No wonder you are so desperate to push your lame
"Diablo = Diablo 2" case.
Gerry Quinn
Xoc...@kingston.net says...
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> looked up from reading the
> entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
> say:
> >And I would hardly call the creation of detailed animated graphics,
> >compared to throwing a few letters and dots on the screen, to be a
> >superficial difference anyway.
>
> But really it is.
>
> You, represented by your letter, icon, sprite or 3d multi-thousand
> polygon figure, attack the monster that is likewise represented.
>
> The underlying mechanics are basically the same.
It's like saying that a stick figure with a weird smile is basically
the same as the Mona Lisa.
> Does it really matter if the magic missile you shoot is represented as a
> "/" as it shoots northeast of you or is a fantastically animated, light
> casting, extravaganza; when in the final analysis, it's you causing 1d4
> points of damage to the critter with a spell?
Real-time and restricted views make a huge difference even in your
terms. But yes, it matters - otherwise why not play a game in which
you start with 100 points and win if you're still alive after
subtracting 40d4? After all, there are no critters, really. Why not
call the monster "Spreadsheet Row 30" with normal attack behaviour and
2d3 damage?
> The only real thing that increasing graphics have done is _seriously_
> limit the scope of the games.
>
> Diablo may look nicer, but it's a tiny fraction of a Rogue-alike.
This is the sort of bias I am objecting to - a grotesque overvaluation
of the advantages of a niche genre, combined with completely ignoring
the advantages of others.
> Take Diablo2.
> With it's graphic engine and layout, it would have to be something like
> 20 times bigger to encompass everything that's in Omega.
> [Not to mention have a lot of code changes to take into account
> modifying items, getting blessed/cursed by gods, genocide scrolls,
> etc,etc,etc.]
>
> Diablo2 is a nice-looking simple gamer, Omega is a VASTLY bigger and
> more complicated game but with only simple ANSI graphics.
It's also unfinished, unbalanced, and ugly.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
> >> >If you actually play Rogue, you will find that it uses ANSI graphics,
> >> >which are quite inferior to the graphics in Diablo. For example,
> >> >monsters are represented by capital letters in Rogue. To give Rogue
> >> >credit, it is superior graphically to the many ASCII roguelikes,
> >> >despite being quite old.
> >>
> >> That isn't the BEST argument you have is it? That's a pretty superficial
> >> difference.
> >
> >It's the biggest and most obvious reason why "Diablo=Rogue" is a
> >moronic assertion. Of course it's not thye only one - there are many
> >more differences.
>
> But as you pointed out yourself there are lots of roguelikes with
> graphics.
The comparison was to Rogue.
> >And I would hardly call the creation of detailed animated graphics,
> >compared to throwing a few letters and dots on the screen, to be a
> >superficial difference anyway.
>
> It is to the player.
You are saying that Diablo would be just as popular if the 'superficial
to the player' graphics were eliminated?
> >> >Your lack of aesthethic sensibility is unfortunate - most of us are not
> >> >crippled in this way.
> >>
> >> I appreciate pretty things as much as anyone else. I can just see beyond
> >> them to the nature of things.
> >
> >Clearly you don't appreciate them, or you wouldn't be making this
> >ridiculous argument.
>
> What universe is that logical in?
What fault do you find with it?
> >> >> So now we're talking about Diablo 2? Stop moving the goalposts.
> >> >
> >> >It's the current version of Diablo, and I compare it with current
> >> >roguelikes. Also, D2 is the one I am familiar with.
> >>
> >> It's a sequel.
> >
> >So is the version of Rogue we normally talk about.
>
> "We" normally don't talk about roguelikes you fucking ape.
Most people who talk about Rogue nowadays are surely thinking of Toy-
Arnold-Wichman.
> >> >Sprite graphics and real-time multiplayer may have been tried in some
> >> >roguelikes, but not with any degree of success.
> >>
> >> And not with any comparable budget.
> >
> >True, but such efforts as have been made have had limited success.
>
> Because they didn't have millions of dollars to advertise.
But they gave them away free. If they were so good, they could have
sold them and gained enough money for modest advertising, enough to
kickstart things. Look at Fate - it's producers didn't spend much on
ads.
Your gibbering bores me, Bateau.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
> >But... but... Diablo was also realtime! I don't remember it well, but
> >I did play the demo years ago!
> Then please cease arguing that it is not a roguelike when you do not
> remember it at all. No wonder you are so desperate to push your lame
> "Diablo = Diablo 2" case.
If, as you seem to be asserting, Diablo was turn-based, it is clear
that I remember it even more poorly than I thought - which only
underlines my wisdom in sticking to discussing the version with which I
am familiar.
But I am almost certain it was in fact real-time. I believe it is you
who is making the error, and if so you should retire from the debate
before embarrassing yourself further.
- Gerry Quinn
Knight37
Diablo 1 was certainly real-time, but I'm not sure that's what this
argument is about, not that I really care. Was Diablo 1 a rogue-like?
In many respects, yes. However, in one major respect, it was not, in
that when you die in most rogue-likes, you're dead. Restart. Diablo
didn't have that "feature". And of course, the graphics in Diablo 1
were light years ahead of any other graphical rogue-like that existed
at the time. And very few rogue-likes are real-time (I know of none,
but then I don't know all of the rogue-likes, just the major ones). You
could argue that Diablo has almost as much in common with Gauntlet as
it does rogue-likes.
--
Knight37
http://knightgames.blogspot.com
Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer!
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> It's like saying that a stick figure with a weird smile is basically
> the same as the Mona Lisa.
No, it's like saying the Mona Lisa and a sumple drawing of a face are
both portraits.
Noone here is saying Diablo is the same as e.g. Angband. But the two
games are in the same genre: Roguelikes.
But a certain individual is fighting this by trying to argue that a
game cannot belong to genre X if it has features that weren't in the
games present when the genre X term was first used. The same way he'll
probably argue that Civilization IV is not a 4X since it uses 3D
graphics instead of sprites.
> Real-time and restricted views make a huge difference even in your
> terms.
Yes, but on a cosmetic scale, not relative to a genre. When Quake used
3D, people didn't say it couldn't be called a FPS because its
predecessors like Doom were 2D.
> But yes, it matters - otherwise why not play a game in which
> you start with 100 points and win if you're still alive after
> subtracting 40d4? After all, there are no critters, really. Why not
> call the monster "Spreadsheet Row 30" with normal attack behaviour and
> 2d3 damage?
How is representing a "monster" with a 3D model any more "real" than
representing it symbolically? It's all numbers. Not real.
Bateau
>In article <31j6g1t974nk4o3d5...@4ax.com>,
>Xoc...@kingston.net says...
>> Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> looked up from reading the
>> entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
>> say:
>
>> >And I would hardly call the creation of detailed animated graphics,
>> >compared to throwing a few letters and dots on the screen, to be a
>> >superficial difference anyway.
>>
>> But really it is.
>>
>> You, represented by your letter, icon, sprite or 3d multi-thousand
>> polygon figure, attack the monster that is likewise represented.
>>
>> The underlying mechanics are basically the same.
>
>It's like saying that a stick figure with a weird smile is basically
>the same as the Mona Lisa.
Oh fuck off Gerry. I had no idea you were such a troll.
Bateau
same and you still go THE MECHANICS ARE NOT THE SAME BECAUSE THE
GRAPHICS ARE BETTER you're just a fucking troll.
Xocyll
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
>In article <31j6g1t974nk4o3d5...@4ax.com>,
>Xoc...@kingston.net says...
>> Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> looked up from reading the
>> entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
>> say:
>
>> >And I would hardly call the creation of detailed animated graphics,
>> >compared to throwing a few letters and dots on the screen, to be a
>> >superficial difference anyway.
>>
>> But really it is.
>>
>> You, represented by your letter, icon, sprite or 3d multi-thousand
>> polygon figure, attack the monster that is likewise represented.
>>
>> The underlying mechanics are basically the same.
>
>It's like saying that a stick figure with a weird smile is basically
>the same as the Mona Lisa.
Nice try, but since the Mona Lisa is art and NOTHING else, while a game
is a lot more than just the artwork this nothing but a strawman.
Now if you wanted to compare it to something similar you could try a
pre-printed mass market version of Monopoly, vs a homemade copy created
by 8year olds with crayons that is the equivalent of the "stick figure
with a wierd smile" you'd have a somewhat legitimate comparison.
The gameplay would be identical, even though the graphical content would
be Massively different.
Hell you could create a full 3d version of Monopoly in which you drove,
wheelbarrowed, dogwalked/whatevered around the block; got hauled off to
a full 3d prison, had weather effects and the whole shebang.
But in the final analysis, it's still the same game as the tabletop
boardgame - even the kid made version.
Park Place is Park Place, whether pre-printed, crayon drawn or a 10,000
polygon 3d skyscraper.
>> Does it really matter if the magic missile you shoot is represented as a
>> "/" as it shoots northeast of you or is a fantastically animated, light
>> casting, extravaganza; when in the final analysis, it's you causing 1d4
>> points of damage to the critter with a spell?
>
>Real-time and restricted views make a huge difference even in your
>terms. But yes, it matters - otherwise why not play a game in which
>you start with 100 points and win if you're still alive after
>subtracting 40d4? After all, there are no critters, really. Why not
>call the monster "Spreadsheet Row 30" with normal attack behaviour and
>2d3 damage?
Oh you mean like those old favorites like Civilization or Master of
Magic, where a unit is nothing but a tile with stats?
>> The only real thing that increasing graphics have done is _seriously_
>> limit the scope of the games.
>>
>> Diablo may look nicer, but it's a tiny fraction of a Rogue-alike.
>
>This is the sort of bias I am objecting to - a grotesque overvaluation
>of the advantages of a niche genre, combined with completely ignoring
>the advantages of others.
Have you ever actually played one?
This is in no way an overvaluation, a lot of the old text/ANSI games are
HUGE and contain very complex gameplay.
Why? Because at the time most of them were created you couldn't even do
Diablo style graphics, so without REAL GAMEPLAY you'd have had nothing
left at all.
Diablo coasts in comparison because it has eye candy.
>> Take Diablo2.
>> With it's graphic engine and layout, it would have to be something like
>> 20 times bigger to encompass everything that's in Omega.
>> [Not to mention have a lot of code changes to take into account
>> modifying items, getting blessed/cursed by gods, genocide scrolls,
>> etc,etc,etc.]
>>
>> Diablo2 is a nice-looking simple gamer, Omega is a VASTLY bigger and
>> more complicated game but with only simple ANSI graphics.
>
>It's also unfinished, unbalanced, and ugly.
Have you ever even looked at Omega?
I'm guessing not, since I finished the game, not once but multiple
times, yet you claim it's unfinished.
What you don't seem to get (or refuse to get) is that when you don't
have pretty graphics, you MUST have good gameplay and complexities
because you have nothing else.
One paragraph can describe a room that might take a good graphic artist
several months to create.
The focus on eye-candy has caused a diminishment in game complexity, if
for no other reason than they don't have the time and budget to do both,
and they know a good chunk of the gamer market only care about pretty
graphics.
How many times have you seen someone whine about a game in this group
and say something like "this game sucks, the graphics look two years
old" or "it looks like it was made in 1998"?
As that had anything at all to do with the gameplay.
Graphics are only part of a game, but you're treating it like it's the
only part that's important.
You can have a good game with cruddy graphics, but go the other way with
no gameplay and great graphics and you have an "Aquanox".
Aquanox had much better graphics than Archimidean Dynasty, but would
ANYONE say it was a better game?
On another note - I still install and play System Shock 2 from time to
time. While it's graphics are pretty weak compared to newer games, it
has gameplay that they just don't have.
I really don't want "dumb blonde" games that are all look and no
substance.
Mean_Chlorine
>>It's like saying that a stick figure with a weird smile is basically
>>the same as the Mona Lisa.
>
>Nice try, but since the Mona Lisa is art and NOTHING else, while a game
>is a lot more than just the artwork this nothing but a strawman.
The point is valid. I could now go into a tirade about how nothing has
changed since the Lascaux paintings - in 50000 years, humanity hasn't
managed to produce pictures which were fundamentally different from
those!
The thing is that similarity is in the eye of the beholder.
>Now if you wanted to compare it to something similar you could try a
>pre-printed mass market version of Monopoly, vs a homemade copy
---
>But in the final analysis, it's still the same game as the tabletop
>boardgame - even the kid made version.
>Park Place is Park Place, whether pre-printed, crayon drawn or a 10,000
>polygon 3d skyscraper.
I consider Oasis to have been inspired by Beatles to the point of
plagiarism, right down to the ugly haircuts, but does that make their
music fundamentally the same? Even I don't think so.
Your example above is more as if Oasis had recorded an actual Beatles
song. Would it have been the same song?
>>Real-time and restricted views make a huge difference even in your
>>terms.
Considering that not a single line of code, not a single concept art
sketch, nothing in the rules, nothing in the names, nothing in the
games design is common between Rogue and Diablo, how, exactly
different must two games be to be considered not-clones by you?
IMHO you're arguing a 'look and feel' case on very flimsy ground.
>I really don't want "dumb blonde" games that are all look and no
>substance.
And again this old fallacy. One More Time: ugly does not equal good.
--
"Forgive Russia. Ignore Germany. Punish France."
-- Condoleezza Rice, at the time National Security Adviser, on how to deal
with european opposition to the war in Iraq. 2003.
Gerry Quinn
Gam...@work.stomping.aza says...
> Fuck off Mr Troll. When someone says the underlying mechanics are the
> same and you still go THE MECHANICS ARE NOT THE SAME BECAUSE THE
> GRAPHICS ARE BETTER you're just a fucking troll.
The fact that you top-post, rather than point to where I allegedly said
that, clearly identifies you as a liar putting words in my mouth.
I did not say the above, nor anything that could be considered close to
it except by someone with deficiencies in reading and analysis (we have
already covered aesthetics).
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:
>
> > It's like saying that a stick figure with a weird smile is basically
> > the same as the Mona Lisa.
>
> No, it's like saying the Mona Lisa and a sumple drawing of a face are
> both portraits.
>
> Noone here is saying Diablo is the same as e.g. Angband. But the two
> games are in the same genre: Roguelikes.
Actually the original claim was precisely that: "Diablo=Rogue". That
is to say, that Diablo was a copy of Rogue with insignificant
differences.
Genre is a matter of definition; the main problem is that the cladic
metaphor for classification is valid only for entities that have
evolved without significant hybridisation, something that does not
apply to computer games. I would certainly not dispute that Diablo has
roguelike elements - indeed, insofar as it may be considered part of
the roguelike genre it has made some fine innovations. I don't doubt
that future roguelikes will add socketed weapons, for example, even as
their players rant at the lack of creativity of "companies run by
marketing suits".
> But a certain individual is fighting this by trying to argue that a
> game cannot belong to genre X if it has features that weren't in the
> games present when the genre X term was first used. The same way he'll
> probably argue that Civilization IV is not a 4X since it uses 3D
> graphics instead of sprites.
I'm saying that it's not a *canonical* roguelike. If you want to
streetch the boundaries or call it a hybrid, you can. But turn-based,
single-player, and rather basic graphics are certainly things one
associates with the roguelike genre.
> > Real-time and restricted views make a huge difference even in your
> > terms.
>
> Yes, but on a cosmetic scale, not relative to a genre. When Quake used
> 3D, people didn't say it couldn't be called a FPS because its
> predecessors like Doom were 2D.
All its predecessors from Wolfenstein on were increasingly successful
attempts to invoke a 3D graphical effect, giving the impression of
"first person" involvement. The dimensional nature of the map is
irrelevant - it went to 3D in stages, for example DOOM had vertical
height but no bridges. None of that was essential to the genre.
Wolfenstein was an FPS albeit an early, limited one, Gauntlet was not.
The 3D graphical effect is what makes a game an FPS, along with the
shooting.
The FPS genre has hybridised and we often tend not to call games FPS's
if they have other more significant features. For example, WOW is not
considered an FPS. We think of Half-Life as an FPS, but we note that
there is a degree of hybridisation with the adventure game. The
boundaries are malleable and not easily defined.
> > But yes, it matters - otherwise why not play a game in which
> > you start with 100 points and win if you're still alive after
> > subtracting 40d4? After all, there are no critters, really. Why not
> > call the monster "Spreadsheet Row 30" with normal attack behaviour and
> > 2d3 damage?
>
> How is representing a "monster" with a 3D model any more "real" than
> representing it symbolically? It's all numbers. Not real.
As Gen. Patton observed, "quantity has a quality all of its own".
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> looked up from reading the
> entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
> say:
> >It's like saying that a stick figure with a weird smile is basically
> >the same as the Mona Lisa.
>
> Nice try, but since the Mona Lisa is art and NOTHING else, while a game
> is a lot more than just the artwork this nothing but a strawman.
Art is a large part of a game, in my opinion. And, as I've said
before, the art comes entangled with things that actually do affect the
mechanics.
> >> Does it really matter if the magic missile you shoot is represented as a
> >> "/" as it shoots northeast of you or is a fantastically animated, light
> >> casting, extravaganza; when in the final analysis, it's you causing 1d4
> >> points of damage to the critter with a spell?
> >Real-time and restricted views make a huge difference even in your
> >terms. But yes, it matters - otherwise why not play a game in which
> >you start with 100 points and win if you're still alive after
> >subtracting 40d4? After all, there are no critters, really. Why not
> >call the monster "Spreadsheet Row 30" with normal attack behaviour and
> >2d3 damage?
> Oh you mean like those old favorites like Civilization or Master of
> Magic, where a unit is nothing but a tile with stats?
Like I said, if units are just tiles with stats, why gove them names.
The games are striving towards creating a particular metaphor. A lot
of game art is connected with that striving.
> >> The only real thing that increasing graphics have done is _seriously_
> >> limit the scope of the games.
> >>
> >> Diablo may look nicer, but it's a tiny fraction of a Rogue-alike.
> >
> >This is the sort of bias I am objecting to - a grotesque overvaluation
> >of the advantages of a niche genre, combined with completely ignoring
> >the advantages of others.
>
> Have you ever actually played one?
Yes - I've played lots, and I've actually beaten Rogue a couple of
times. (I've never finished another Roguelike or Diablo, but that's
normal for me, I get bored with most games long before the end.)
> This is in no way an overvaluation, a lot of the old text/ANSI games are
> HUGE and contain very complex gameplay.
> Why? Because at the time most of them were created you couldn't even do
> Diablo style graphics, so without REAL GAMEPLAY you'd have had nothing
> left at all.
> Diablo coasts in comparison because it has eye candy.
I think you'd find that Diablo and its successor are actually quite as
complex in terms of scripting, combat and item generation as any
roguelike. Perhaps with more care to polish, and less to throwing in
the kitchen sink.
I played ANSI Empire - surely Civ was a huge advance?
> >> Take Diablo2.
> >> With it's graphic engine and layout, it would have to be something like
> >> 20 times bigger to encompass everything that's in Omega.
Absolute nonsense.
> >> [Not to mention have a lot of code changes to take into account
> >> modifying items, getting blessed/cursed by gods, genocide scrolls,
> >> etc,etc,etc.]
You overestimate the amount of code or indeed thought needed to think
of and implement such things (balancing them is the hard part).
> >> Diablo2 is a nice-looking simple gamer, Omega is a VASTLY bigger and
> >> more complicated game but with only simple ANSI graphics.
> >
> >It's also unfinished, unbalanced, and ugly.
>
> Have you ever even looked at Omega?
>
> I'm guessing not, since I finished the game, not once but multiple
> times, yet you claim it's unfinished.
Yes, I played it on the Amiga long ago. It was unfinished, in the
sense that there were broken elements. Whether a player could finish
it or not is irrelevant to whether it is unfinished. For all I know,
the first version of Rogue may have generated the Amulet of Level 1,
and have been unfinished but very easy to finish.
Omega was actually moderately interesting, but the PC versions I found
when I last looked don't even have tiled graphics, so I don't have any
interest in trying them. (The Amiga version had tiles but was
unfinished, with the same tile representing multiple monsters.)
> What you don't seem to get (or refuse to get) is that when you don't
> have pretty graphics, you MUST have good gameplay and complexities
> because you have nothing else.
Actually, there are games devoid of both. Not having good graphics
does not automatically make a game fun to play.
> One paragraph can describe a room that might take a good graphic artist
> several months to create.
I disagree.
> The focus on eye-candy has caused a diminishment in game complexity, if
> for no other reason than they don't have the time and budget to do both,
> and they know a good chunk of the gamer market only care about pretty
> graphics.
I honestly disagree with you. Particularly if you include balance and
polish as relevant to gameplay.
> How many times have you seen someone whine about a game in this group
> and say something like "this game sucks, the graphics look two years
> old" or "it looks like it was made in 1998"?
> As that had anything at all to do with the gameplay.
Less often than I see people whine that a new game is a pale shadow of
some fondly-remembered game from the past, a memory that would be
greatly spoiled by plasying it.
> Graphics are only part of a game, but you're treating it like it's the
> only part that's important.
No, I'm treating it with the importance it deserves.
> You can have a good game with cruddy graphics, but go the other way with
> no gameplay and great graphics and you have an "Aquanox".
>
> Aquanox had much better graphics than Archimidean Dynasty, but would
> ANYONE say it was a better game?
Don't know either.
> On another note - I still install and play System Shock 2 from time to
> time. While it's graphics are pretty weak compared to newer games, it
> has gameplay that they just don't have.
>
> I really don't want "dumb blonde" games that are all look and no
> substance.
Nor do I. And, by and large, that's not what we get.
- Gerry Quinn
Knight37
Gerry Quinn wrote:
> The FPS genre has hybridised and we often tend not to call games FPS's
> if they have other more significant features. For example, WOW is not
> considered an FPS. We think of Half-Life as an FPS, but we note that
> there is a degree of hybridisation with the adventure game. The
> boundaries are malleable and not easily defined.
WoW is not an FPS because it's an RPG. An MMORPG in fact. It's not even
remotely an FPS.
And Half-Life is the epitome of FPS. It's not an "adventure" hybrid,
it's a pure FPS, through and through. When someone asks "what is the
best FPS of all time" Half-Life will get mentioned more often than not.
Half-Life's only expansion of the FPS genre was to add scripted events,
which made it a better STORY, but as far as actual game play, Half-Life
is more or less the same as Doom or Quake.
I'm not sure what your point is except if you're trying to say genres
are meaningless in which case I'd completely disagree. Genres are
extremely useful in describing games. And while some games are
"hybrids" that fall into more than genre, most are pretty easily
classifiable.
Knight37
Mean_Chlorine
>WoW is not an FPS because it's an RPG.
Just because I'm feeling evil right now, I must point out that neither
of those two concepts have been adequately defined, and hence any
appeal to those two categories void.
Knight37
Mean_Chlorine wrote:
> Thusly "Knight37" <knig...@gmail.com> Spake Unto All:
>
> >WoW is not an FPS because it's an RPG.
>
> Just because I'm feeling evil right now, I must point out that neither
> of those two concepts have been adequately defined, and hence any
> appeal to those two categories void.
FPS and RPG are genres of games that have been previously defined and
are in common use prior to this debate. I do not feel the need to
redefine commonly used terms. You didn't expect me to spell out what
the word "is" means, did you? I know you're trying to be "cute" but
you really DO know what the hell I was talking about.
Mean_Chlorine
>> >WoW is not an FPS because it's an RPG.
>>
>> Just because I'm feeling evil right now, I must point out that neither
>> of those two concepts have been adequately defined, and hence any
>> appeal to those two categories void.
>
>FPS and RPG are genres of games that have been previously defined and
>are in common use prior to this debate.
They have? Where? The terms are in common use, but there's no
consensus.
A universal definition would settle a lot of long-standing issues,
such as what Deus Ex really is (an FPS, naturally).
>you really DO know what the hell I was
Lost in semantic space?
Bateau
FFS. You're still fucking trolling. GO HOME TROLL.
Knight37
with:
> Thusly "Knight37" <knig...@gmail.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>> >WoW is not an FPS because it's an RPG.
>>>
>>> Just because I'm feeling evil right now, I must point out that neither
>>> of those two concepts have been adequately defined, and hence any
>>> appeal to those two categories void.
>>
>>FPS and RPG are genres of games that have been previously defined and
>>are in common use prior to this debate.
>
> They have? Where? The terms are in common use, but there's no
> consensus.
> A universal definition would settle a lot of long-standing issues,
> such as what Deus Ex really is (an FPS, naturally).
Simple. Deus Ex is an FPS/RPG hybrid.
>>you really DO know what the hell I was
>
> Lost in semantic space?
>
--
Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com
Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Kaos
speak in front of ME:
>Mean_Chlorine wrote:
>> Thusly "Knight37" <knig...@gmail.com> Spake Unto All:
>>
>> >WoW is not an FPS because it's an RPG.
>>
>> Just because I'm feeling evil right now, I must point out that neither
>> of those two concepts have been adequately defined, and hence any
>> appeal to those two categories void.
>
>FPS and RPG are genres of games that have been previously defined and
>are in common use prior to this debate.
The terms may be in common use, but we often see heated debates here
that really boil down to not having a common definition for the terms.
(EG Diablo is not an RPG, Deus Ex is not an FPS...)
--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafg...@2allstream3.net
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Mean_Chlorine
>>>FPS and RPG are genres of games that have been previously defined and
>>>are in common use prior to this debate.
>>
>> They have? Where? The terms are in common use, but there's no
>> consensus.
>> A universal definition would settle a lot of long-standing issues,
>> such as what Deus Ex really is (an FPS, naturally).
>
>Simple. Deus Ex is an FPS/RPG hybrid.
I say it isn't. Prove me wrong.
>>>you really DO know what the hell I was
>>
>> Lost in semantic space?
I'll take the above as a 'yes'.
Gerry Quinn
knig...@gmail.com says...
>
> Gerry Quinn wrote:
> > The FPS genre has hybridised and we often tend not to call games FPS's
> > if they have other more significant features. For example, WOW is not
> > considered an FPS. We think of Half-Life as an FPS, but we note that
> > there is a degree of hybridisation with the adventure game. The
> > boundaries are malleable and not easily defined.
>
> WoW is not an FPS because it's an RPG. An MMORPG in fact. It's not even
> remotely an FPS.
Most of your time in WOW is spent going around singly or in a group,
shooting monsters or killing them with melee weapons.
In NOLF2, you get to improve your statistics when you kill enough
monsters. And that is considered an FPS.
[I agree that WOW is not an FPS, but then how do we define FPS?]
> And Half-Life is the epitome of FPS. It's not an "adventure" hybrid,
> it's a pure FPS, through and through. When someone asks "what is the
> best FPS of all time" Half-Life will get mentioned more often than not.
> Half-Life's only expansion of the FPS genre was to add scripted events,
> which made it a better STORY, but as far as actual game play, Half-Life
> is more or less the same as Doom or Quake.
Not actually story, but atmosphere, I think. But it was probably a bad
example. However, one can surely imagine a chain of hybrids running
from FPS to CRPG, and no reason to suspect that those in the middle
would be poor or unpopular games.
> I'm not sure what your point is except if you're trying to say genres
> are meaningless in which case I'd completely disagree. Genres are
> extremely useful in describing games. And while some games are
> "hybrids" that fall into more than genre, most are pretty easily
> classifiable.
I think fewer are easily classifiable than you think. For example,
Diablo to my mind has roguelike elements but is a hybrid with Gauntlet-
style games and even the MMORPG.
- Gerry Quinn
Knight37
with:
> Thusly Knight37 <knig...@gmail.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>>>FPS and RPG are genres of games that have been previously defined and
>>>>are in common use prior to this debate.
>>>
>>> They have? Where? The terms are in common use, but there's no
>>> consensus.
>>> A universal definition would settle a lot of long-standing issues,
>>> such as what Deus Ex really is (an FPS, naturally).
>>
>>Simple. Deus Ex is an FPS/RPG hybrid.
>
> I say it isn't. Prove me wrong.
>
What's the point in a stupid argument about that? I'll just agree that
you're wrong and I'm right and you can agree the opposite. I mean, first of
all that discussion has been done to death, and even when it was fresh it
wasn't an interesting discussion. I got better things to do with my time,
don't know about you.
Kaos
speak in front of ME:
>Mean_Chlorine <mike_no...@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> once tried to test me
>with:
>
>> Thusly Knight37 <knig...@gmail.com> Spake Unto All:
>>
>>>>>FPS and RPG are genres of games that have been previously defined and
>>>>>are in common use prior to this debate.
>>>>
>>>> They have? Where? The terms are in common use, but there's no
>>>> consensus.
>>>> A universal definition would settle a lot of long-standing issues,
>>>> such as what Deus Ex really is (an FPS, naturally).
>>>
>>>Simple. Deus Ex is an FPS/RPG hybrid.
>>
>> I say it isn't. Prove me wrong.
>
>What's the point in a stupid argument about that? I'll just agree that
>you're wrong and I'm right and you can agree the opposite.
Which would make him Right about his initial point (that the
categories FPS and RPG haven't been satisfactorily defined.)
>I mean, first of
>all that discussion has been done to death,
Done to tedium, perhaps, but obviously not to death.
(Besides, this is usenet. No topic ever dies.)
Mean_Chlorine
>>>> A universal definition would settle a lot of long-standing issues,
>>>> such as what Deus Ex really is (an FPS, naturally).
>>>
>>>Simple. Deus Ex is an FPS/RPG hybrid.
>>
>> I say it isn't. Prove me wrong.
>
>What's the point in a stupid argument about that? I'll just agree that
>you're wrong and I'm right and you can agree the opposite.
Point.
Set.
Match.
I *pwn*!
Bateau
>Mean_Chlorine <mike_no...@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> once tried to test me
>with:
>
>> Thusly Knight37 <knig...@gmail.com> Spake Unto All:
>>
>>>>>FPS and RPG are genres of games that have been previously defined and
>>>>>are in common use prior to this debate.
>>>>
>>>> They have? Where? The terms are in common use, but there's no
>>>> consensus.
>>>> A universal definition would settle a lot of long-standing issues,
>>>> such as what Deus Ex really is (an FPS, naturally).
>>>
>>>Simple. Deus Ex is an FPS/RPG hybrid.
>>
>> I say it isn't. Prove me wrong.
>>
>
>What's the point in a stupid argument about that? I'll just agree that
>you're wrong and I'm right and you can agree the opposite.
To us that reads "I have lost but I'll save face if I convince him to
agree to a stalemate."
>I mean, first of
>all that discussion has been done to death,
I think that is his point. If it had resulted in any usable definitions
you would have quickly quoted them to win the argument.
Bateau
>Thusly Knight37 <knig...@gmail.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>>>> A universal definition would settle a lot of long-standing issues,
>>>>> such as what Deus Ex really is (an FPS, naturally).
>>>>
>>>>Simple. Deus Ex is an FPS/RPG hybrid.
>>>
>>> I say it isn't. Prove me wrong.
>>
>>What's the point in a stupid argument about that? I'll just agree that
>>you're wrong and I'm right and you can agree the opposite.
>
>Point.
>Set.
>Match.
>
>I *pwn*!
Yes you do.
Knight37
with:
> Thusly Knight37 <knig...@gmail.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>>>> A universal definition would settle a lot of long-standing issues,
>>>>> such as what Deus Ex really is (an FPS, naturally).
>>>>
>>>>Simple. Deus Ex is an FPS/RPG hybrid.
>>>
>>> I say it isn't. Prove me wrong.
>>
>>What's the point in a stupid argument about that? I'll just agree that
>>you're wrong and I'm right and you can agree the opposite.
>
> Point.
> Set.
> Match.
>
> I *pwn*!
Yeah go knock yourself out. You proved that you're a more stuborn son of a
bitch than I am.
Knight37
> I think that is his point. If it had resulted in any usable definitions
> you would have quickly quoted them to win the argument.
>
Yeah, whatever. We might as well just take the terms out of the dictionary
then, eh? They're completely useless. Not.
Mean_Chlorine
>> I think that is his point. If it had resulted in any usable definitions
>> you would have quickly quoted them to win the argument.
>
>Yeah, whatever. We might as well just take the terms out of the dictionary
>then, eh? They're completely useless. Not.
Oooh, following up with a slippery-slope logical fallacy. Nice one.
Mean_Chlorine
>>>>>> A universal definition would settle a lot of long-standing issues,
>>>>>> such as what Deus Ex really is (an FPS, naturally).
>>>>>
>>>>>Simple. Deus Ex is an FPS/RPG hybrid.
>>>>
>>>> I say it isn't. Prove me wrong.
>>>
>>>What's the point in a stupid argument about that? I'll just agree that
>>>you're wrong and I'm right and you can agree the opposite.
>>
>> Point.
>> Set.
>> Match.
>>
>> I *pwn*!
>
>Yeah go knock yourself out. You proved that you're a more stuborn son of a
>bitch than I am.
Stubborn? You conceded the point. You just don't know it. Which makes
it even more beautiful.
Bateau
>Bateau <Gam...@work.stomping.aza> once tried to test me with:
>
>> I think that is his point. If it had resulted in any usable definitions
>> you would have quickly quoted them to win the argument.
>>
>
>Yeah, whatever. We might as well just take the terms out of the dictionary
>then, eh? They're completely useless. Not.
You'd have to put them in a dictionary first.
Knight37
Mean_Chlorine wrote:
> Thusly Knight37 <knig...@gmail.com> Spake Unto All:
>
> >>>>>> A universal definition would settle a lot of long-standing issues,
> >>>>>> such as what Deus Ex really is (an FPS, naturally).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Simple. Deus Ex is an FPS/RPG hybrid.
> >>>>
> >>>> I say it isn't. Prove me wrong.
> >>>
> >>>What's the point in a stupid argument about that? I'll just agree that
> >>>you're wrong and I'm right and you can agree the opposite.
> >>
> >> Point.
> >> Set.
> >> Match.
> >>
> >> I *pwn*!
> >
> >Yeah go knock yourself out. You proved that you're a more stuborn son of a
> >bitch than I am.
>
> Stubborn? You conceded the point. You just don't know it. Which makes
> it even more beautiful.
Whatever. Keep thinking that RPG and FPS are meaningless terms, while
the rest of the world goes on using them with no trouble.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_role-playing_game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-person_shooter
Knight37
Mean_Chlorine
>> Stubborn? You conceded the point. You just don't know it. Which makes
>> it even more beautiful.
>
>Whatever. Keep thinking that RPG and FPS are meaningless terms, while
>the rest of the world goes on using them with no trouble.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_role-playing_game
"More recently, with the advent of games like Deus Ex and Warcraft
III, the idea of what it means to be a RPG has become blurred."
Ho-hum.
Knight37
with:
>>Whatever. Keep thinking that RPG and FPS are meaningless terms, while
>>the rest of the world goes on using them with no trouble.
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_role-playing_game
>
> "More recently, with the advent of games like Deus Ex and Warcraft
> III, the idea of what it means to be a RPG has become blurred."
>
> Ho-hum.
Blurred. But not erased. The genres do mean something, even if more than
one genre can apply to any given game. It's like any adjective. If I say
such and such game is RPG, it's akin to calling a shirt blue. The shirt may
indeed be blue, but it could be different shades and still be blue, or it
might have a print on it, or other colors besides blue may also be present.
But it's still a blue shirt.
Bateau
Anyone can write a wikipedia article.
Gerry Quinn
@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk says...
> Thusly "Knight37" <knig...@gmail.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>
> >> Stubborn? You conceded the point. You just don't know it. Which makes
> >> it even more beautiful.
> >
> >Whatever. Keep thinking that RPG and FPS are meaningless terms, while
> >the rest of the world goes on using them with no trouble.
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_role-playing_game
>
> "More recently, with the advent of games like Deus Ex and Warcraft
> III, the idea of what it means to be a RPG has become blurred."
Whereas up to then, it was unproblematic - and they include Diablo!
- Gerry Quinn
Mean_Chlorine
>Blurred. But not erased. The genres do mean something, even if more than
>one genre can apply to any given game.
Message-ID: <1124459483....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
...shows that Gerrys (and my) definition isn't the same as yours. In
fact, there IS no universal definition of rpg - the wikipedia article
you referred to didn't define rpg's other than as games with traits
similar to PnP rpg's, and its FPS definition would have e.g. Gothic
and Morrowind be FPS's. The consensus you think exist (and which of
course conforms to your personal definitions) does not.
Just as an example, to me Deus Ex is a straight up shooter. I don't
see it having any RPG elements at all. Yes, it has
findable/purchaseable powerups, but so does Project X, Chaos Engine,
Breakout, Counterstrike, Progress Quest and NOLF2. But perhaps they're
all RPG hybrids.
As there is no definition and no consensus other than in the clearest
cases, this whole thread is pointless. The issue of what is an RPG, or
a rogue-like, can not be settled without an agreed-upon definition.
That is the point I've been making, and which you've been studiously
tripping over.
Knight37
Mean_Chlorine wrote:
> As there is no definition and no consensus other than in the clearest
> cases, this whole thread is pointless. The issue of what is an RPG, or
> a rogue-like, can not be settled without an agreed-upon definition.
> That is the point I've been making, and which you've been studiously
> tripping over.
I agree that no one is going to define RPG the same, that's not what
I'm arguing. I was under the impression that YOU were arguing that
genres were useless. Perhaps that's not what you were arguing. Just
because something has a "fuzzy" definition doesn't mean it's useless as
a descriptor.
Genres help give a gamer a rough idea of what type of game a game is
without having to describe it in detail. If someone says, "Game XYZ is
coming out", and I ask, "what kind of game is it?", a quick answer of
"It's an FPS" could tell me a LOT about the game without having to go
into paragraphs detailing it. Even if it's not a straight up FPS, they
could say "It's an FPS but it's got RPG elements" or whatever. The
genre names can be used as adjectives to describe the game.
Knight37
patrick...@standardregister.com
ton...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Fate is not a bad little game, but I can't help but wonder; How do they
> get away with not being sued by BLizzard? It's not only "like" Diablo,
> it's darn near identical, right down to socketed items, same names for
> potions and even the same naming conventions for items (Superior,
> etc...)
>
> I am more than a little puzzled by this...anyone else?
I would have been unhappy if I paid $50 for it, but Fate is a great
game for the price.
My guess on how they can get away with being so similar to Diablo is
that none of the stuff they copied was legally the intellectual
property of Blizzard.
I suspect it is kind of tough to protect game mechanics from being
copied. Fate couldn't use the same setting or characters but I'm sure
it's a lot easier to get away with copying something like socketed
items. It's a pretty general concept.
That's just a guess. I really don't know the law.
I do know that the Fate developer has sat down with the Diablo
developers at E3 and they liked the game.