born dead roguelikes
copx
and I think I figured out that there are some sure signs that a newly
announced roguelike will never get anywhere:
Classic case No.1: 'the programmer's roguelike"
=================================
These little bastards are my favorites. Their "born dead"
status is obvious:
Signs:
- The author makes a big fuss about in what programming
language the game will be written. This is not a game
feature at all. And the author shows right away that he
really just wants todo some finger training in his fav. PL
instead of writing a game.
- Because the author is really only fascinated by the programming
challenge he probably doesn't have any real new gameplay
ideas at all. He will focus on programming challenges like dungeon
building, FOV and pathfinding and then abandon the project.
- If he mentions any 'unique' 'features' at all these 'features' probably
won't add much/anything to the actual gameplay but are interesting
to program:
Classic examples:
"players and monsters/NPCs share the same code"
"body-part system"
- Before abandoning the project he might start talking about
turning the game into an engine.
Dead examples of these "programmer's roguelikes":
"Tapestry" (It's written in Perl!) , "Netwhack" (It will show
the true power of C++!)
Soon dead example: H-World (Sorry, Hansjoerg. Prove me wrong)
Classic case No 2.: 'larger than life roguelike"
==========================================
Signs:
- Just one big fat sign: The game design is so massive/complex
that pure logic tells you that such a game can't be done by
anybody in his free time/at all.
Dead examples: Jihad
Soon dead example (is it even alive right now?): Genrogue
copx
Hansjörg Malthaner
> I'm reading this newsgroup for years now (much longer than I post)
> and I think I figured out that there are some sure signs that a newly
> announced roguelike will never get anywhere:
>
> Classic case No.1: 'the programmer's roguelike"
[...]
> Soon dead example: H-World (Sorry, Hansjoerg. Prove me wrong)
I've reordered the paragraphs of the message. First I want to answer
this sentance, and then say a few words about the points that you've listed.
Maybe H-World/The jungle will never become a game. OTOH I've already
created a game that is somewhat successful:
http://www.simutrans.de/
I'm surely the programmer type that you mention, the one who is
interested in technical aspects more than the actual game. But that
didn't stop me to develop Simutrans since 1997 and H-World since 2001.
ATM I wouldn't say H-World is dead soon. But tomorrow something might
happen that renders me unable to contine the project, so I can't promise
anything.
Let me put it this way: I've invested a lot of time and effort in
H-World. I'd be quite stupid to stop now that the project is getting a
nice basement to build further features upon. But as said, what I want
to do and what I'll be able to do are two different things.
Last but not least, I must admit that I've got some abandoned projects
on my record. So maybe you're right.
> - Before abandoning the project he might start talking about
> turning the game into an engine.
H-World was planned quite early to be CRPG engine. I think even the
release notes of the first release told it:
http://h-world.simugraph.com/data/release_notes-0_0_1.txt
So the dying of the project took quite a long time, and it's still not
fully dead. From my point of view, the project is currently as alive as
it ever was, with a a slight turn upwards, because it gets increasingly
easier to add new features now that a good base was created.
> - Because the author is really only fascinated by the programming
> challenge he probably doesn't have any real new gameplay
> ideas at all. He will focus on programming challenges like dungeon
> building, FOV and pathfinding and then abandon the project.
You're right I'm more interested in the technical issues. From earlier
projects I know that I've trouble to create real games. This was one of
the reason for my decision to try creating an engine rather than a game.
Maybe I'll abandon the project once all technical challenges are
through. But yet there is so much to try, i.e. I still need a magic system.
> - The author makes a big fuss about in what programming
> language the game will be written. This is not a game
> feature at all. And the author shows right away that he
> really just wants todo some finger training in his fav. PL
> instead of writing a game.
Yep, I had started some discussions about programming languages. But I
didn't want to show off what cool language I do use, but to get more
opinions on possible languages for such an project. I remember we had no
agreement on the language of choice (we didn't have an agreement on
which methodology to use either). But so far I'm not too unhappy with my
choice (let's say the problems are those that could be expected from
this language) and it seems not be a major obstacle to use C++ and OO
design.
Using C++ is no reason for H-World to be dead soon IMO.
> - If he mentions any 'unique' 'features' at all these 'features'
> probably
> won't add much/anything to the actual gameplay but are interesting
> to program:
> Classic examples:
> "players and monsters/NPCs share the same code"
In H-World this is true, but only up to a certain point. Actually items,
monsters and everything are treated the same, as long as you look at the
data structures. Also the management of actions is the same. But the
actions themsleves vary strongly, items mostly have no actions (unless
they can recharge themselves), monsters have theri AI code, and the
player has an interactive action.
I think code resuse is a good thing, since it saves time and effort. But
of course there are limits, and different things at some point just need
different code.
So far I think I found a good compromise in H-World. The only thing you
can accuse me of, is that my code isn't designed for speed. My goals
have been versatility and extensibility.
> "body-part system"
Other games have body part systems too. That wasn't purely my invention
- i.e. ToME had that before, and ToME lives well.
All in all I don't think those are reasons that neccesarily lead to a
projects death. I agree that some points might hinder the project to
turn into a game. That's why I call it an engine - it possible to make a
game with it, but this isn't my core intention.
Let's put it this way: for programmer types like me it is more difficult
to create games, because they focus on things that aren't so important
for the players, and this way we waste a lot of time on things that
don't bring the project forward from the players viewpoint.
Overall this leads surely to a higher rate of abandoned projects.
If I'll have the power to overcome this, I can't say. ATM I'm feeling
confident, but you never know what tomorrow brings.
Getting back to the this point:
> (Sorry, Hansjoerg. Prove me wrong)
I'll try. But I can't make promises :)
c.u.
Hajo
Paul Pekkarinen
> - Just one big fat sign: The game design is so massive/complex
> that pure logic tells you that such a game can't be done by
> anybody in his free time/at all.
I think ADOM has pretty massive game desing, yet it was made by a
single person (afaik).
> Soon dead example (is it even alive right now?): Genrogue
You can't predict that.
Gerry Quinn
>I'm reading this newsgroup for years now (much longer than I post)
>and I think I figured out that there are some sure signs that a newly
>announced roguelike will never get anywhere:
You are Amy Wang and I claim my $5!
Gerry Quinn
--
http://bindweed.com
Screensavers, Games, Puzzles
New! Try our innovative Screensaver Manager
Download evaluation versions free - no time limits
copx
"Gerry Quinn" <ger...@indigo.ie> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:VJ0za.14542$pK2....@news.indigo.ie...
> In article <3ecc3914$0$5947$9b62...@news.freenet.de>, "copx"
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
> >I'm reading this newsgroup for years now (much longer than I post)
> >and I think I figured out that there are some sure signs that a newly
> >announced roguelike will never get anywhere:
>
> You are Amy Wang and I claim my $5!
No, I'm not. Give that money back! ;-)
That roughly 90% of all RL projects die early
is a fact. I just wanted to share my observations
on this phaenomenom.
BTW, at least in the case of the infamous
ShockFrost Amy was damn right from
the start, wasn't she? (I still think 'Amy'
was just a troll, though).
And I'm NOT a troll (please download
Star Hammer, my RL development afforts
are for real) and because of this I ask
you not to compare me with Ms. Wang
again. Thanks.
copx
copx
"Paul Pekkarinen" <pau...@mbnet.fi> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:8f2c2bbc.03052...@posting.google.com...
> "copx" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
> > - Just one big fat sign: The game design is so massive/complex
> > that pure logic tells you that such a game can't be done by
> > anybody in his free time/at all.
>
> I think ADOM has pretty massive game desing, yet it was made by a
> single person (afaik).
ADOM became fatter over the years. And compared
to what Kornel told us about Genrogue ADOM looks
simplistic.
> > Soon dead example (is it even alive right now?): Genrogue
>
> You can't predict that.
Of course I can't. But I can guess ;-)
copx
"copx" <inv...@invalid.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3ecc3914$0$5947$9b62...@news.freenet.de...
> I'm reading this newsgroup for years now (much longer than I post)
> and I think I figured out that there are some sure signs that a newly
> announced roguelike will never get anywhere:
Maybe I should have left out current/still alive
examples..
Please don't take it personal Hanjoerg/Kornel
The Sheep
> I'm reading this newsgroup for years now (much longer than I post)
> and I think I figured out that there are some sure signs that a newly
> announced roguelike will never get anywhere:
> Classic case No.1: 'the programmer's roguelike"
> Classic case No 2.: 'larger than life roguelike"
Classic case No 3: `the first <language> roguelike'
Classic case No 4: `it can't be hard to write because it's text mode, right?'
Classic case No 5: `I've got great story, but I can't program'
etc.
I think Junk Jungle had been in at lest 4 of these stages already. But
I still hope it's not `born dead'.
--
Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski
To bee or not to bee -- this is the question!
Hansjörg Malthaner
Maybe you can do me a favour:
Please test H-World/The Jungle 0.1.7 and let me know what you think
about it, good and bad.
That'd be nice :)
thanks,
Hajo
Dana Larose
> I'm reading this newsgroup for years now (much longer than I post)
> and I think I figured out that there are some sure signs that a newly
> announced roguelike will never get anywhere:
>
If people can play nethack for 7 or 8 years without ascending, I don't see
why I can't program my roguelike for 7 or 8 years without producing a game.
--
Dana Larose
laros...@netscape.net
http://pixelenvy.ca/wa/
copx
"Hansjörg Malthaner" <hansjoerg...@gmx.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3ECCAA9...@gmx.de...
Ok.
(Testing the Windows version of 0.1.7)
(GOOD)
Archive is small. I'm still
on a dial-up 56k connection.
(BAD)
It's a little hard for me to read the
text on this silver stripes background.
I can read it, but readability is not
optimal.
(BAD)
I have a notebook so I don't
have a real numeric keypad.
This makes movement pretty painful.
(GOOD)
Drag and drop inventory/trading is
nice.
(BUG)
In the inventory screen I moved
the dagger into the chest slot
by accident.
And I can't move it out again.
I close the inventory screen.
The Dagger is now permanently shown
on the main screen at a fixed position.
(graphic bug)
(BAD)
It seems that the dungeon entrances
are represented by little buildings.
The player looks like godzilla next
to them!
Change that. It looks really strange.
(BAD)
What the fuck are these strange
"worm holes" supposed to be?
They look really ugly.
(GOOD)
Through one of these holes I walked
into a cave. Light-effects look
really nice in there. Great atmosphere.
(BAD)
Items just lie around everywhere in the
wilderness. This makes no sense.
That's it for today.
Hansjörg Malthaner
> "Hansjörg Malthaner" <hansjoerg...@gmx.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:3ECCAA9...@gmx.de...
>
>>copx schrieb:
>>about it, good and bad.
>>
>>That'd be nice :)
>
> Ok.
Thanks :)
> (Testing the Windows version of 0.1.7)
> (BAD)
> I have a notebook so I don't
> have a real numeric keypad.
> This makes movement pretty painful.
I agree. The cursor keys should also work but they don't offer diagonal
movement. Any ideas?
> (BUG)
> In the inventory screen I moved
> the dagger into the chest slot
> by accident.
> And I can't move it out again.
I'd really like to know how you managed the chest slot to accept the dagger!
> I close the inventory screen.
> The Dagger is now permanently shown
> on the main screen at a fixed position.
> (graphic bug)
I tried to reproduce this. I couldn't entirely - the dagger did not fit
into the chest slot in my test (and that's correct). But if the
inventory window is closed while an item is dragged, the dragged items
stays on the screen. I'll fix that.
> (BAD)
> It seems that the dungeon entrances
> are represented by little buildings.
> The player looks like godzilla next
> to them!
> Change that. It looks really strange.
I'm unsure what to do. I.e. the castle is 100x100 squares per level.
This is the same size as one section of the wilderness.
If I use bigger images, they tend to obstruct the sight on some squares.
Since I cannot use buildings that have the same size from outside that
they have from within (castle being 100x100 sqaures), I decided to use
rather abstract, symbolic small icons that represent the buiding or
dungeon on the map.
What do you suggest?
> (BAD)
> What the fuck are these strange
> "worm holes" supposed to be?
> They look really ugly.
Erm ... those are teleporters. Wormholes is just another word, I think.
They take you to other places of the world or into dungeons.
I planned to replace most of them by the dungeon icons (those small
buildings) once I have the images.
> (BAD)
> Items just lie around everywhere in the
> wilderness. This makes no sense.
Ok. They are handy for testing things, since you easily get some stuff
to trade. Maybe I should remove them in the official releases?
> That's it for today.
Thank you :)
c.u.
Hajo
Joseph Hewitt
> And I'm NOT a troll (please download
> Star Hammer, my RL development afforts
> are for real) and because of this I ask
> you not to compare me with Ms. Wang
> again. Thanks.
Just because you have a RL in development doesn't mean that you're not
trolling right now. I mean, I could start a thread right now saying
"Why there'll never be a RL written in C++" or "How RL-Dev improved my
sex life" and it'd be pretty obvious that I was trolling, regardless
of how many RLs I've worked on or not.
No, if you want to distance yourself from Amy, best thing to do is
pick the most important difference: You haven't been insulting,
obnoxious, or openly dismissive towards the other people on this
newsgroup. To me, those were the worst thing about Amy's posts... I
don't think she was a troll. I just don't think she was very good at
communicating, at least not on a newsgroup.
- Joseph Hewitt
--
DeadCold > http://www.geocities.com/pyrrho12/programming/deadcold/index.html
GearHead > http://www.geocities.com/pyrrho12/programming/gearhead/index.html
Victor Schnapt_
news:eedfa948.03052...@posting.google.com...
> "copx" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:<3ecc9f69$0$5913$9b62...@news.freenet.de>...
> > And I'm NOT a troll (please download
> > Star Hammer, my RL development afforts
> > are for real) and because of this I ask
> > you not to compare me with Ms. Wang
> > again. Thanks.
>
> Just because you have a RL in development doesn't mean that you're not
> trolling right now. I mean, I could start a thread right now saying
> "Why there'll never be a RL written in C++" or "How RL-Dev improved my
> sex life" and it'd be pretty obvious that I was trolling, regardless
> of how many RLs I've worked on or not.
>
> No, if you want to distance yourself from Amy, best thing to do is
> pick the most important difference: You haven't been insulting,
> obnoxious, or openly dismissive towards the other people on this
> newsgroup. To me, those were the worst thing about Amy's posts... I
> don't think she was a troll. I just don't think she was very good at
> communicating, at least not on a newsgroup.
>
> - Joseph Hewitt
I enjoyed Amy's posts. Yes, she was insulting, obnoxious and openly dismissive.
Those attitudes are merely the ones we all have in our heads that the more
polite among us temper during the transition to screen text. She was usually
right.
Julian C Day
> That roughly 90% of all RL projects die early
> is a fact. I just wanted to share my observations
> on this phaenomenom.
I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of all software projects died early.
Consider that a roguelike is a very complex, very sophisticated project.
Is it terribly surprising that its death rate be the same as other
pieces of software?
Remember, I'm pulling numbers out of my ass, but so are you.
Julian
(author of a dead roguelike)
copx
> copx schrieb:
> > "Hansjörg Malthaner" <hansjoerg...@gmx.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:3ECCAA9...@gmx.de...
> >
> >>copx schrieb:
> >>Please test H-World/The Jungle 0.1.7 and let me know what you think
> >>about it, good and bad.
> >>
> >>That'd be nice :)
> >
> > Ok.
>
> Thanks :)
>
> > (Testing the Windows version of 0.1.7)
>
> > (BAD)
> > I have a notebook so I don't
> > have a real numeric keypad.
> > This makes movement pretty painful.
>
> I agree. The cursor keys should also work but they don't offer diagonal
> movement. Any ideas?
Maybe. You use SDL right? Using its advanced
keyboard handling (compared to curses) you could
use a keybinding like this:
up-right = press key up and key right at the same time
down-left = press key down and key left at the same time
etc.
Don't know if this really works out, though.
(never tried it myself)
> > (BUG)
> > In the inventory screen I moved
> > the dagger into the chest slot
> > by accident.
> > And I can't move it out again.
>
> I'd really like to know how you managed the chest slot to accept the
dagger!
Easy. Try drag and droppin Windows style:
Leftklick on the dagger and hold down the
mouse button. Now try moving the dagger
(with mouse button still down) in the chest slot...
> > I close the inventory screen.
> > The Dagger is now permanently shown
> > on the main screen at a fixed position.
> > (graphic bug)
>
> I tried to reproduce this. I couldn't entirely - the dagger did not fit
> into the chest slot in my test (and that's correct). But if the
> inventory window is closed while an item is dragged, the dragged items
> stays on the screen. I'll fix that.
>
> > (BAD)
> > It seems that the dungeon entrances
> > are represented by little buildings.
> > The player looks like godzilla next
> > to them!
> > Change that. It looks really strange.
>
> I'm unsure what to do. I.e. the castle is 100x100 squares per level.
> This is the same size as one section of the wilderness.
>
> If I use bigger images, they tend to obstruct the sight on some squares.
>
> Since I cannot use buildings that have the same size from outside that
> they have from within (castle being 100x100 sqaures), I decided to use
> rather abstract, symbolic small icons that represent the buiding or
> dungeon on the map.
>
> What do you suggest?
Maybe make the castle 10x10 or 3x3 squares big from the outside.
And of course the player graphic should be smaller than
the castle wall / gate graphic.
> > (BAD)
> > What the fuck are these strange
> > "worm holes" supposed to be?
> > They look really ugly.
>
> Erm ... those are teleporters. Wormholes is just another word, I think.
Kinda. Never seen Star Trek DS9?
> They take you to other places of the world or into dungeons.
>
> I planned to replace most of them by the dungeon icons (those small
> buildings) once I have the images.
I see.
> > (BAD)
> > Items just lie around everywhere in the
> > wilderness. This makes no sense.
>
> Ok. They are handy for testing things, since you easily get some stuff
> to trade. Maybe I should remove them in the official releases?
I think that would be a good idea.
Dana Larose
> I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of all software projects died early.
> Consider that a roguelike is a very complex, very sophisticated project.
> Is it terribly surprising that its death rate be the same as other
> pieces of software?
>
And I'd generalize it further to say the vast majority of hobby projects are
never completed. I remember not too long ago throwing out a ton of notes
for AD&D characters, adventures and campaigns that were half-formed. The
majority of home exercise machines that get purchased are clothes racks. I
bet there are thousands of half-finished chairs, cabinets, etc. That's how
hobbies work.
I think commercial software is probably a little more successful because you
have people working on it fulltime. If my employer goes out of business in
June or July there will be a lot of progress made on my game :) But
nevertheless my software engineering textbox tells me the majority of
software projects fail. (Although included in failures are projects that
are delivered but aren't used because they don't meet the clients' needs)
DarkGod
of confusion Paul Pekkarinen wrote:
> "copx" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>> - Just one big fat sign: The game design is so massive/complex
>> that pure logic tells you that such a game can't be done by anybody in
>> his free time/at all.
> I think ADOM has pretty massive game desing, yet it was made by a single
> person (afaik).
Doesnt mean much, it certainly didnt start this big, it GREW this big.
So did ToME(adv plug :), start simple, grow big :)
--
DarkGod comes from | Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards
the hells for YOU ! :) | because they are subtle and quick to anger.
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------
ToME power! http://t-o-m-e.net
DarkGod
of confusion Joseph Hewitt wrote:
> Just because you have a RL in development doesn't mean that you're not
> trolling right now. I mean, I could start a thread right now saying "Why
> there'll never be a RL written in C++" or "How RL-Dev improved my sex
Would be obvious trolling indeed, i'm developping ToME for over 5 years
now and it certainly did not HELP :|
- Joseph Hewitt
DarkGod
of confusion Hansjörg Malthaner wrote:
>> (BAD)
>> What the fuck are these strange
>> "worm holes" supposed to be?
>> They look really ugly.
As would John Crichton say in Farscape : "Wormholes!"
;)
Paul Pekkarinen
> > I think ADOM has pretty massive game desing, yet it was made by a single
> > person (afaik).
> Doesnt mean much, it certainly didnt start this big, it GREW this big.
It didn't grew by itself.
R Dan Henry
<inv...@invalid.com> declared:
>BTW, at least in the case of the infamous
>ShockFrost Amy was damn right from
>the start, wasn't she?
Yeah, but pretty much everyone told SF that he was being hugely
overambitious and setting up for failure. Amy treated damn near
everyone that way. That a serial killer exists doesn't validate a
paranoid's delusions. Or to put it another way, fire enough shots and
you'll eventually hit the target, but estimating marksmanship includes
counting the shots that miss.
--
R. Dan Henry
rdan...@earthlink.net
They can have my ASCII graphics when they pry them
from my cold dead (c) and (d) slots.
The Sheep
> "Hansjörg Malthaner" <hansjoerg...@gmx.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:3ECCE42F...@gmx.de...
>> copx schrieb:
>> > "Hansjörg Malthaner" <hansjoerg...@gmx.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> > news:3ECCAA9...@gmx.de...
>> I agree. The cursor keys should also work but they don't offer diagonal
>> movement. Any ideas?
> Maybe. You use SDL right? Using its advanced
> keyboard handling (compared to curses) you could
> use a keybinding like this:
> up-right = press key up and key right at the same time
> down-left = press key down and key left at the same time
> etc.
You would need some timeout to wait for the second key to be pressed, or
it will be practically impossible to press two of them at the same time.
>> > The player looks like godzilla next
>> > to them!
>> > Change that. It looks really strange.
>> I'm unsure what to do. I.e. the castle is 100x100 squares per level.
>> This is the same size as one section of the wilderness.
>> If I use bigger images, they tend to obstruct the sight on some squares.
>> Since I cannot use buildings that have the same size from outside that
>> they have from within (castle being 100x100 sqaures), I decided to use
>> rather abstract, symbolic small icons that represent the buiding or
>> dungeon on the map.
>> What do you suggest?
> Maybe make the castle 10x10 or 3x3 squares big from the outside.
> And of course the player graphic should be smaller than
> the castle wall / gate graphic.
The Lemmings come back! ^^)))
But maybe you could really use different player icon in wilderness and in dungeons?
This would also suggest the player different scale of movement/time passing.
>> > What the fuck are these strange
>> > "worm holes" supposed to be?
>> > They look really ugly.
>> Erm ... those are teleporters. Wormholes is just another word, I think.
>> I planned to replace most of them by the dungeon icons (those small
>> buildings) once I have the images.
But I think you'll eventually need them in some places, when you don't have
suitable graphics. Maybe some kind of pentagraph or glowing circle on the
floor would look better?
>> > Items just lie around everywhere in the
>> > wilderness. This makes no sense.
>> Ok. They are handy for testing things, since you easily get some stuff
>> to trade. Maybe I should remove them in the official releases?
> I think that would be a good idea.
I think it would be good idea for playable versions, but not for engine testing.
Sorry for the empty lines, but my server complains there is more text included than new...
Hansjörg Malthaner
> Dnia Thu, 22 May 2003 18:30:31 +0200, copx napisal(a):
>
>>"Hansjörg Malthaner" <hansjoerg...@gmx.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>news:3ECCE42F...@gmx.de...
>>
>>>copx schrieb:
>>>>Items just lie around everywhere in the
>>>>wilderness. This makes no sense.
>
>>>Ok. They are handy for testing things, since you easily get some stuff
>>>to trade. Maybe I should remove them in the official releases?
>
>>I think that would be a good idea.
>
> I think it would be good idea for playable versions, but not for engine testing.
If you want to try, open data/level001.props (it's a text file).
Search this block:
items = 5
item[0].type = sabre
item[0].chance = 50
item[1].type = small_bronze_shield
item[1].chance = 50
item[2].type = medium_bronze_shield
item[2].chance = 50
item[3].type = torch
item[3].chance = 50
item[4].type = pebble
item[4].chance = 500
Remove it, or adapt it.
Then there is a line for random items:
random_chance = 200
You can adjust that, too. Unfortunately this line implies monster and
item creation ... chance to create 1 per 100000 sqaure -> in this case
an average of 200 per 100000 squares.
Of course you can also add other items, other monsters etc ... for a
list of items and monsters see data/beings.sects and data/potions.sects
(also text files).
c.u.
Hajo
Hansjörg Malthaner
> Dnia Thu, 22 May 2003 18:30:31 +0200, copx napisal(a):
>
>>"Hansjörg Malthaner" <hansjoerg...@gmx.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>news:3ECCE42F...@gmx.de...
>>
>>>copx schrieb:
[...]
>>Maybe make the castle 10x10 or 3x3 squares big from the outside.
>>And of course the player graphic should be smaller than
>>the castle wall / gate graphic.
>
> The Lemmings come back! ^^)))
> But maybe you could really use different player icon in wilderness and in dungeons?
> This would also suggest the player different scale of movement/time passing.
Finally that the way to go, I think. A bit farther in future I need this
anyways.
"The Jungle" is more or less a warmup project. Ok, well, it's kind of
false start. There are just too many fantasy adventure games. RL or not,
there are literally hundreds of them being made by amateurs and
professionals. Each day I find some new in the web. I came to the
conclusion that it only has limited sense to create just another one.
Since I've played Elite in the 1980s I was thinking about creating a
space exploration game with more depth. This idea grew even stronger
after playing Elite II (Frontier).
Last autumn, I decided to test if the H-World engine could be a suitable
tool to create a space exploration game. Of course it cannot do 3D
display, but maybe this isn't needed (I think it isn't).
I've started to make some tests:
http://h-world.simugraph.com/space/
There are a lot of obstacles. One is that such a game needs quite a lot
of different map scales. I.e. inside buildings/space stations/space
ships, the scale is roughly 1 meter per square. In cities, 10m per
square might be a good idea. Exploring the outlands will require scales
of 1000m per square or more. Space will require even larger scales.
The player image will change in the scales. Usually the larger scales
require a vehicle (car, spaceship) to be explored.
ATM I'm a bit stuck how to do the transitions between the map scales.
Anyways, I need such a feature for the space exploration game. Once it
is implemented, "The Jungle" will have this feature, too, since both use
the same game engine.
c.u.
Hajo
Gerry Quinn
>
>"Gerry Quinn" <ger...@indigo.ie> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:VJ0za.14542$pK2....@news.indigo.ie...
>> In article <3ecc3914$0$5947$9b62...@news.freenet.de>, "copx"
><inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> >I'm reading this newsgroup for years now (much longer than I post)
>> >and I think I figured out that there are some sure signs that a newly
>> >announced roguelike will never get anywhere:
>>
>> You are Amy Wang and I claim my $5!
>
>No, I'm not. Give that money back! ;-)
>That roughly 90% of all RL projects die early
>is a fact. I just wanted to share my observations
>on this phaenomenom.
Maybe so - I don't think they are so predictable, though. I would agree
that certain symptoms might make it more or less likely. Then again,
I rarely talk about a project at all until the finished version goes on
my website...
Gerry Quinn
It's a matter of definition, also - at what stage is a project 'alive'?
When you think of an idea? When you scribble on paper? When you start
a project workspace and define some core classes? When you've spent ten
hours? Twenty? A hundred? When you've posted on Usenet? Or picked a
name?
At each of the early stages, there will be a substantial winnowing
process.
DarkGod
of confusion Paul Pekkarinen wrote:
Hopefully not, I would be VERY sqcared if a program could extend itself
automatically.
The Sheep
> The Thu, 22 May 2003 15:27:24 -0700, after eating far too many mushrooms
> of confusion Paul Pekkarinen wrote:
>> "DarkGod" <dar...@t-o-m-e.nospam.net> wrote in message
> Hopefully not, I would be VERY sqcared if a program could extend itself
> automatically.
I've heard some viruses can...
Peter Farabaugh
stopped working on Tapestry because I was laid of from my job and took
a position in a 3 person company, one of whom left the next month. We
had a project that could have easily supported 10 programmers and I
did not have any time to work on the game. I am planning on returning
to it. When I can.
"copx" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message news:<3ecc3914$0$5947$9b62...@news.freenet.de>...
> I'm reading this newsgroup for years now (much longer than I post)
> and I think I figured out that there are some sure signs that a newly
> announced roguelike will never get anywhere:
>
> Classic case No.1: 'the programmer's roguelike"
> =================================
> These little bastards are my favorites. Their "born dead"
> status is obvious:
>
> Signs:
> - The author makes a big fuss about in what programming
> language the game will be written. This is not a game
> feature at all. And the author shows right away that he
> really just wants todo some finger training in his fav. PL
> instead of writing a game.
>
I did make a fuss about the programming language. Tapestry was my nth
attempt at a roguelike. I had tried c,c++,tcl/tk and java. All failed
to deliver what I needed. Perl was the one language that was able to
build the roguelike I have been envisioning since I first played rogue
in 1985. I was excited, and wanted to share my excitment.
> - Because the author is really only fascinated by the programming
> challenge he probably doesn't have any real new gameplay
> ideas at all. He will focus on programming challenges like dungeon
> building, FOV and pathfinding and then abandon the project.
>
Not true, I felt that tapestry had quite a number of interesting
features. Many of them not in any other game out there. And as far as
dungeon building goes, I am very proud of my dungeon generating
algorithms.
> - If he mentions any 'unique' 'features' at all these 'features' probably
> won't add much/anything to the actual gameplay but are interesting
> to program:
> Classic examples:
> "players and monsters/NPCs share the same code"
> "body-part system"
>
See above, everything I designed was important to my game. I didn't
add anything frivolous for the challenghe of it.
> - Before abandoning the project he might start talking about
> turning the game into an engine.
>
Tapestry was an engine from the start.
Your analysis is a series of generalizations and oversimplifications.
If you feel that all our attempts are so flawed, why don't you try
your own. Right now you are just generating a lot of heat
Pete
> copx
Jimmy_B
> "Hansjörg Malthaner" <hansjoerg...@gmx.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:3ECCE42F...@gmx.de...
>
>>copx schrieb:
>>>I have a notebook so I don't
>>>have a real numeric keypad.
>>>This makes movement pretty painful.
>>
>>I agree. The cursor keys should also work but they don't offer diagonal
>>movement. Any ideas?
>
>
> Maybe. You use SDL right? Using its advanced
> keyboard handling (compared to curses) you could
> use a keybinding like this:
>
> up-right = press key up and key right at the same time
> down-left = press key down and key left at the same time
> etc.
>
> Don't know if this really works out, though.
> (never tried it myself)
It absolutely does not. If you make a move when the key is pressed, you
cannot make a diagonal move without first making a regular one; if you
do it later, then regular movement latent and therefore feels
unresponsive.
The proper solution, of course, is to use hjklyubn movement (as an
option), as Rogue, NetHack, and Angband do. This setup is perfect when
playing on laptops.
--
CalcRogue: TI-89 and TI-92+. <http://www.gis.net/~wssddc/jimmy_b/>.
Björn Bergström
news:3ecc3914$0$5947$9b62...@news.freenet.de...
> I'm reading this newsgroup for years now (much longer than I post)
> and I think I figured out that there are some sure signs that a newly
> announced roguelike will never get anywhere:
>
> Classic case No.1: 'the programmer's roguelike"
> =================================
> These little bastards are my favorites. Their "born dead"
> status is obvious:
>
> Signs:
> - The author makes a big fuss about in what programming
> language the game will be written. This is not a game
> feature at all. And the author shows right away that he
> really just wants todo some finger training in his fav. PL
> instead of writing a game.
Started working on Dungeondweller to learn C++, never made a fuss of it
though. If I were to do a rewrite I might go for J2SE today...
> - Because the author is really only fascinated by the programming
> challenge he probably doesn't have any real new gameplay
> ideas at all. He will focus on programming challenges like dungeon
> building, FOV and pathfinding and then abandon the project.
Yes, recursive shadowcasting, themed dungeonbuilding using dungeontemplates,
need driven AI, sensory events...
> - If he mentions any 'unique' 'features' at all these 'features' probably
> won't add much/anything to the actual gameplay but are interesting
> to program:
> Classic examples:
> "players and monsters/NPCs share the same code"
> "body-part system"
Yes, fully implemented...
> - Before abandoning the project he might start talking about
> turning the game into an engine.
Nope... never did that.
> Dead examples of these "programmer's roguelikes":
> "Tapestry" (It's written in Perl!) , "Netwhack" (It will show
> the true power of C++!)
>
> Soon dead example: H-World (Sorry, Hansjoerg. Prove me wrong)
Add Dungeondweller to the list... lost interest, motivation and free time.
The game would need a rewrite and a big change towards gameplay instead of
advanced algorithms and 'features'. The last thing that I implemented was
gradient lighting and sneaking around in the shadows a'la Thief (haven't
uploaded this version yet though, let me know if anyones interested). It
worked and was pretty cool, but it was something that required much work and
had little impact on the completeness of the game...
I've been working with mobile game development for the past six months.
Maybe a simple RL for J2ME or Mophun would be interesting and fun?
--
Björn Bergström
L:C++ E+ T- R+ P+ D-- G+ F:V RL-- RLA++
W:F Q+++ AI++ GFX+ !SFX RN+++ PO+ Hp- Re+ S++
Dungeondweller (http://roguelikedevelopment.org/dungeondweller/)
Roguelike Development (http://roguelikedevelopment.org)
Gero Kunter
[ ... ]
> [copx's] analysis is a series of generalizations and oversimplifications.
> If you feel that all our attempts are so flawed, why don't you try
> your own. Right now you are just generating a lot of heat
Well, to do copx justice, he is working on a roguelike himself ("Star
Hammer"?) and seems to favour a "start small, get big later" approach -- from
what I've seen, the very basic system is already there, so now it's time to
add substance to the frame. Which is, in my experience, much more difficult
than programming the frame in the first place.
Cheers, Gero
--
Gero Kunter (gero....@epost.de)
copx
"Gero Kunter" <gero....@epost.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:baneup$p5i$1...@surz18.uni-marburg.de...
> Peter Farabaugh <pe...@tbe.net> wrote:
> [ ... ]
> > [copx's] analysis is a series of generalizations and
oversimplifications.
> > If you feel that all our attempts are so flawed, why don't you try
> > your own. Right now you are just generating a lot of heat
BTW, I never said you attempts are 'flawed'. I just pointed
out that your attempts are not really focused on creating a roguelike
game. And of course "oversimplification" is a scientifically correct
term for anything any man ever said about anything (except math maybe).
And 'generalizations' are just as well a vital part of human communication
and thinking. Try thinking without generalizations and oversimplifications
just one day. It's not possible.
> Well, to do copx justice, he is working on a roguelike himself ("Star
> Hammer"?) and seems to favour a "start small, get big later" approach
Exactly.
> -- from
> what I've seen, the very basic system is already there, so now it's time
to
> add substance to the frame. Which is, in my experience, much more
difficult
> than programming the frame in the first place.
No. The only challenge for me is implementing A* pathfindin 'cause I'm
not a professional programmer / lack CS education. That means I've
to learn how to implement something like a 'priority query' first.
FOV and dungeon building are also quite challenging. But apart from
this everything is dead simple. 'Adding substance to the frame' is
only difficult if you don't have ideas. And that's not my problem.
Gero Kunter
>> from what I've seen, the very basic system is already [in copx' "Star
>> Hammer"], so now it's time to add substance to the frame. Which is, in my
>> experience, much more difficult than programming the frame in the first
>> place.
> No.
I think it's slightly odd to reply with a "no" to a "in my experience"
statement, but maybe there are subtleties of English that are far beyond me,
not being a native speaker and all that. :)
> The only challenge for me is implementing A* pathfindin 'cause I'm
> not a professional programmer / lack CS education. That means I've
> to learn how to implement something like a 'priority query' first.
> FOV and dungeon building are also quite challenging. But apart from
> this everything is dead simple. 'Adding substance to the frame' is
> only difficult if you don't have ideas. And that's not my problem.
In my case, I found implementing basic algorithms challenging, yes, but
not the main problem. The problem wasn't not knowing where to go to once the
frame was there, but where to make a sensible start of adding the ideas I
have. I did get stuck a bit at the "proof of concept" stage where all the
game mechanics required to do the things I envisioned were there, but the
real problem was being daunted by the mere scope of the game I want to
develop. One of your "larger than life roguelike" projects, apparently.
Which I, personally, find much more interesting than just programming a
rather simple dungeon crawl/space station exploration game. It shouldn't be
too difficult to downscale what I've done so far in my project to one of
these -- maybe I should just do something like a "COSE Light"...
copx
> copx <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
> > "Gero Kunter" <gero....@epost.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> [ ... ]
> >> from what I've seen, the very basic system is already [in copx' "Star
> >> Hammer"], so now it's time to add substance to the frame. Which is, in
my
> >> experience, much more difficult than programming the frame in the first
> >> place.
>
> > No.
>
> I think it's slightly odd to reply with a "no" to a "in my experience"
> statement, but maybe there are subtleties of English that are far beyond
me,
> not being a native speaker and all that. :)
Maybe I know better than you what you experienced and what
not? :)
Of course, you're right. BTW, if you haven't noticed it already:
I'm not a native speaker, either. In fact I'm one of your countryman
(German).
[snip]
be...@sonic.net
>
> I think it's slightly odd to reply with a "no" to a "in my experience"
> statement, but maybe there are subtleties of English that are far beyond me,
> not being a native speaker and all that. :)
No, you are not missing anything.
You have the subtleties exactly right. It *is* an odd way
to respond to an "in my experience" statement. As a native
speaker of English and an AI programmer whose specialty is
natural language, I have training in both English grammar
and linguistics. I affirm your perception.
Bear
Michael
> Dnia Thu, 22 May 2003 04:51:23 +0200, copx napisal(a):
> > I'm reading this newsgroup for years now (much longer than I post)
> > and I think I figured out that there are some sure signs that a newly
> > announced roguelike will never get anywhere:
>
> > Classic case No.1: 'the programmer's roguelike"
> Classic case No 3: `the first <language> roguelike'
> Classic case No 4: `it can't be hard to write because it's text mode, right?'
> Classic case No 5: `I've got great story, but I can't program'
Well, the real problem is that for some odd reason people announce
roguelike's (and everything else these days) the instant the idea pops
into their head rather than after the first release of the actual
product. If you do this with ANYTHING then you are probably doomed to
failure as very few ideas actually reach the useful product stage.
The other problem, which I'm sure everyone here shares to a certain
extent, is that we all have lives to live and loved ones to love. If the
reason my roguelike never gets off of the ground is because I decided to
spend my time with my wife and children then so be it -- they are more
important than any game.
Michael
R Dan Henry
declared:
Nope, there isn't anything wrong with that response at all. Nor
terribly odd. "In my experience" is not a pure qualifier; it does not
mean "this statement only covers my personal experience". It is a form
of knowledge-claim, it usually means something more like "The
following statement is based on knowledge from experience". If the
original statement had been intended to be a purely subjective report
of personal experience, it should have said, "Which is, *for myself at
least*, much more difficult than programming the frame in the first
place" or "Which is much more difficult for me than programming the
frame in the first place" or some other form directly referencing
himself.
Consider the following exchange:
Person with limited experience: "In my experience, copper doohickeys
last longer than zinc doohickeys."
Expert in subject: "No, zinc doohickeys have a 40% longer average
lifespan in this application."
Nothing strange there. Personal experience can very well provide wrong
results as soon as one try to generalize from it. That's one of the
basic sources of error.
Brendan Guild
> I did make a fuss about the programming language. Tapestry was my nth
> attempt at a roguelike. I had tried c,c++,tcl/tk and java. All failed
> to deliver what I needed. Perl was the one language that was able to
> build the roguelike I have been envisioning since I first played rogue
> in 1985. I was excited, and wanted to share my excitment.
Perl is an interesting language. I haven't used it much, but I have
read about it. One of the interesting things it has is automatic
garbage collection based on reference counting. Because of this
feature, my Perl books advise me to avoid cycles of references, since
they would not be garbage collected unless broken.
It seems to me that this forces the writer to think about a design of
strict containment, where objects reference mostly only things which
they contain, and never things which contain them. This seems very
elegant to me, but I have difficulty creating such designs.
Currently, my roguelike is a tangle of references going seemingly at
random to whatever each object seemed to need when it was being
written. What kind of design did you use to help keep control of this
kind of problem?
Pfhoenix
is also a space exploration / go wherever do whatever Elite type of gameplay
game.
> ATM I'm a bit stuck how to do the transitions between the map scales.
> Anyways, I need such a feature for the space exploration game.
I've planned two scales. The first is standard player scale (running around
stations, planetside, inside ships) and the other is space scale. The way I
figure it, you can't get away with not having the standard player scale, so
all ships will need graphics for "real size" scale. The other thing is that
I want to avoid having to create versions of graphics for different scales,
so when it comes to interplanetary travel, you have two options - either you
find out if your intended destination has teleporter pad facilities or you
fly there in a ship. You can either tell your ship's computer to autopilot
there or you can take off on your own. Autopilot travel will jump you from
the system immediately (and the trip there is subject to falling into random
encounters, pirate traps, special encounters, etc.). Attempting to fly
yourself there has you at the space scale - planets appear large (not
to-scale large though, it'd be rediculous), and you move around as you would
controlling your player. Movement is affected by your piloting skill, and
ship combat largely determined by your ship hardware and computer
facilities. If you don't opt to jump out of the system, you can wander
around the local system at will; no borders (randomly generate a block of
map ahead of the player as s/he reaches the border of the current one,
destroy as player leaves and there aren't ships/entities following).
If you'd like to trade notes, I'd be happy to share with you some of the
things I have designed out and planned.
- Pfhoenix
<a href="http://pfhoenix.com/adeo">Adeo</a>
<a href="http://www.marblemadness2003.com">Marble Madness 2003</a>
Paul Pekkarinen
> Well, the real problem is that for some odd reason people announce
> roguelike's (and everything else these days) the instant the idea pops
> into their head rather than after the first release of the actual
> product. If you do this with ANYTHING then you are probably doomed to
> failure as very few ideas actually reach the useful product stage.
I think this has nothing to do with the final result. You either
finish the game or not.
> The other problem, which I'm sure everyone here shares to a certain
> extent, is that we all have lives to live and loved ones to love.
Have we?
Tomasz "Warui" Nowakowski
.@.. are those ancient runes engraved on one of the walls by
#### Björn Bergström on 24.05.2003 00:28 :
> I implemented was
> gradient lighting and sneaking around in the shadows a'la Thief (haven't
> uploaded this version yet though, let me know if anyones interested).
It would be nice to see it. Maybe someone would find it inspiring.
--
Tomasz "Warui" Nowakowski
RLDev L:C++ E+ T- R-- P+ D+ G+ F:ADOM RL--- RLA--
Deeper & Deeper (suspended), SRL (work in progress)
W:F Q+ AI+ GFX- !SFX RN++ PO--- Hp+++ Re- S+
Michael
> > The other problem, which I'm sure everyone here shares to a certain
> > extent, is that we all have lives to live and loved ones to love.
>
> Have we?
Well, unless you are a total idiot then yes, we do.
I'll be sure to file you in my total idiot folder.
Michael
Icosahedron
> and I think I figured out that there are some sure signs that a newly
> announced roguelike will never get anywhere:
>
> Classic case No.1: 'the programmer's roguelike"
> These little bastards are my favorites. Their "born dead"
> status is obvious:
> Classic case No 2.: 'larger than life roguelike"
> ==========================================
> Signs:
>
You know, I'd have to agree with you. I suppose you could further classify
the various reasons, but it is true that most of the projects started by
readers/writers in this group don't see the light of day. It's that fact
that holds me in awe of ADOM, NetHack and the *band series.
Still, I have to ask myself of what the point of pointing that out is? It's
not like this is a unique phenomenon. Most programs started by developers
are abandoned. Just look at all the abandoned and orphaned projects on
SourceForge.
I can honestly say that I've never started a project that hasn't benefited
me in some way, by giving me some knowledge or whatnot, so even these
abandoned projects have value to those who started them.
Well, to those who have started and *want* to finish, good luck. I'm sure
you can. If you're just goofing around, good for you. It if makes you
happy, then go for it.
Icos (who is currently working on his own project in his spare time)
Hansjörg Malthaner
> The proper solution, of course, is to use hjklyubn movement (as an
> option), as Rogue, NetHack, and Angband do. This setup is perfect when
> playing on laptops.
I'd like to use that, but I'm afraid it takes quite a lot of potential
command keys ... ATM it only interferes with the 'l'ook command, which
could be remapped to 'L'ook.
But I think this is the only solution that works reliably.
c.u.
Hajo
The Sheep
Hey, don't get so excited. He's probably have time for this.
He'll realise when he meets her... ^-))
Live and let live.
The Mysterious Aardvark
> I'm reading this newsgroup for years now (much longer than I post)
> and I think I figured out that there are some sure signs that a newly
> announced roguelike will never get anywhere:
Yes, there are.
>
> Classic case No.1: 'the programmer's roguelike"
> =================================
> These little bastards are my favorites. Their "born dead"
> status is obvious:
>
> Signs:
> - The author makes a big fuss about in what programming
> language the game will be written. This is not a game
> feature at all. And the author shows right away that he
> really just wants todo some finger training in his fav. PL
> instead of writing a game.
Well, I don't know any decent programming languages, only QB, so, I
don't think I fit into this category. I really must say that I haven't
seen many RLs around that seem to comply to this sign.
>
> - Because the author is really only fascinated by the programming
> challenge he probably doesn't have any real new gameplay
> ideas at all. He will focus on programming challenges like dungeon
> building, FOV and pathfinding and then abandon the project.
>
> - If he mentions any 'unique' 'features' at all these 'features' probably
> won't add much/anything to the actual gameplay but are interesting
> to program:
> Classic examples:
> "players and monsters/NPCs share the same code"
I assume that by this you are insinuating that Dungeon Crawl and JADE
are/will be programmer's roguelikes? Though I have never played
Dungeon Crawl, I really hope that /JADE/ will be followed through...
it seems to conform to some of the 'programmer's RL' signs.... :(
> Classic case No 2.: 'larger than life roguelike"
> ==========================================
> Signs:
>
> - Just one big fat sign: The game design is so massive/complex
> that pure logic tells you that such a game can't be done by
> anybody in his free time/at all.
That's what people have been telling me... and I agree that a project
is demolished before started if people have /grand, huge/
expectations, but as long as you start small and build your way up...
Hansjörg Malthaner
>
> I'm genuinely surprised to see this, Hans, good work so far. My pet project
> is also a space exploration / go wherever do whatever Elite type of gameplay
> game.
:)
I've vistied your website. The screenhsots look quite promising. It
seems we are on a very similar track, particularly since we apparently
both started with the idea of mining :)
>>ATM I'm a bit stuck how to do the transitions between the map scales.
>>Anyways, I need such a feature for the space exploration game.
>
> I've planned two scales. The first is standard player scale (running around
> stations, planetside, inside ships) and the other is space scale. The way I
> figure it, you can't get away with not having the standard player scale, so
> all ships will need graphics for "real size" scale.
ATM in my project the players ship is 30x20 squares. My wilderness level
maps are usually 400x400 squares, so the landed ship fits quite nicely
in there.
But it doesn't look very space-ship-like from the outside. All the
player can see if part of the hull, like a buildings wall.
Anyways, maybe this is sufficient for the game.
I could do big buildings the same way, just display the ground floor
walls from the outside ... it doesn't look very nice but probably it
would work.
> The other thing is that
> I want to avoid having to create versions of graphics for different scales,
> so when it comes to interplanetary travel, you have two options - either you
> find out if your intended destination has teleporter pad facilities or you
> fly there in a ship.
One thing I dislike about multi-tile objects is, that for the H-World
engine, I have to split the graphics into blocks of 64x128 pixel size -
one block per tile. This is quite some, partzicularyl boring, work,
which I'd like to avoid. Maybe I need to write a small tool or something
that does the splitting for me.
To avoid creating graphics of different scales, it should work to draw
only the biggest, most detailed version and downscale the size as needed.
> You can either tell your ship's computer to autopilot
> there or you can take off on your own. Autopilot travel will jump you from
> the system immediately (and the trip there is subject to falling into random
> encounters, pirate traps, special encounters, etc.). Attempting to fly
> yourself there has you at the space scale - planets appear large (not
> to-scale large though, it'd be rediculous), and you move around as you would
> controlling your player.
Yes, I think that's the best option. I've discarded the idea of a 3D
display for space flight - it requries too much additional work and it's
also inconsistent with the rest of the game.
I think, on a gridded map, the scale isn't so important. I wouldn't mind
if planets are just 5x5 sqaures or something. IMO it suffices that the
player recognizes them as planets.
> Movement is affected by your piloting skill, and
> ship combat largely determined by your ship hardware and computer
> facilities.
This seems to be a god idea. I must admit, that I've not considered
space combat very thoroughly yet.
> If you don't opt to jump out of the system, you can wander
> around the local system at will; no borders (randomly generate a block of
> map ahead of the player as s/he reaches the border of the current one,
> destroy as player leaves and there aren't ships/entities following).
ATM I'm investigating if it's a good idea to copy a certain area around
the player from the old to the new map. This would solve the problem of
followers - if they are close, they get copied onto the new map part
also. I guess an area of 15x15 squares around the player would suffice
for most situations.
> If you'd like to trade notes, I'd be happy to share with you some of the
> things I have designed out and planned.
My space game design is not developed very far ATM. A mere page of
notes. But if you want, I can send it by email, or just post it here, if
more people are interested in such a discussion ?
> - Pfhoenix
c.u.
Hajo
Hansjörg Malthaner
> I
> stopped working on Tapestry because I was laid of from my job and took
> a position in a 3 person company, one of whom left the next month. We
> had a project that could have easily supported 10 programmers and I
> did not have any time to work on the game.
I'm glad to hear that your well. I've recently searched the web, but
couldn't find any sign of you and Tapestry except some old postings.
>>- Because the author is really only fascinated by the programming
>> challenge he probably doesn't have any real new gameplay
>> ideas at all. He will focus on programming challenges like dungeon
>> building, FOV and pathfinding and then abandon the project.
>>
[...]
> And as far as
> dungeon building goes, I am very proud of my dungeon generating
> algorithms.
Yes, Tapestry has very nice and well-used dungeon generators. Also, not
only the shape but the contents of the dungeon are nicely placed.
I hope you put up your website again - or is it just me? I cannot get to
it since a very long time :(
> Pete
c.u. Hajo
--
http://h-world.simugraph.com
Kornel "Anubis" Kisielewicz
wiadomości news:slrnbd3lch...@atos.wmid.amu.edu.pl...
> Dnia 25 May 2003 20:38:02 GMT, Michael napisal(a):
> > In <8f2c2bbc.03052...@posting.google.com>, Paul
Pekkarinen wrote:
> >> > The other problem, which I'm sure everyone here shares to a
certain
> >> > extent, is that we all have lives to live and loved ones to
love.
> >> Have we?
> > Well, unless you are a total idiot then yes, we do.
> > I'll be sure to file you in my total idiot folder.
>
> Hey, don't get so excited. He's probably have time for this.
> He'll realise when he meets her... ^-))
Or when he looses her... [...sad smile...]
--
Kornel "Anubis" Kisielewicz
RLDev Code v.0.65
L:FP E+ T+ R+++ P+ D++ G++ RL-- RLA+++ F:GearHead
GenRogue Reloaded ( http://genrogue.felis7.civ.pl/ )
W:DF Q+++ AI++ !GFX !SFX RN+++ PO--- Hp-- Re+++ S+++
Paul Pekkarinen
> > > extent, is that we all have lives to live and loved ones to love.
> > Have we?
> Well, unless you are a total idiot then yes, we do.
So, you are saying that lonely people are total idiots?
> I'll be sure to file you in my total idiot folder.
Whatever...
Patrick Buchholz
> "Gerry Quinn" <ger...@indigo.ie> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:VJ0za.14542$pK2....@news.indigo.ie...
>
>>In article <3ecc3914$0$5947$9b62...@news.freenet.de>, "copx"
>
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>>I'm reading this newsgroup for years now (much longer than I post)
>>>and I think I figured out that there are some sure signs that a newly
>>>announced roguelike will never get anywhere:
>>
>
>
> No, I'm not. Give that money back! ;-)
> That roughly 90% of all RL projects die early
> is a fact. I just wanted to share my observations
> on this phaenomenom.
Hmm, yes I guess you are somewhat right! 2 years ago I tried my first
own RL project with tons of ideas that haven't done before. So I kept up
writing descriptions etc etc and began coding. But what happend: After
half a year I noticed that I started to implment more and more ideas and
saw that I'd changed the base design at least 30 times. STOP! That cant
get successfull.
And you are right (at least when I look at me) in other points:
- It was a meant to improve my skills, not to finish a RL at all.
- At the beginning I took a lot of time in choosing the programming
lanmguage
I'm glad that I stopped and rethought everything more as a year ago, so
I had the chance to rethink the project and to start over again before
it's too late.
Patrick
Pfhoenix
> seems we are on a very similar track, particularly since we apparently
> both started with the idea of mining :)
Actually, I implemented mining as I was working on the basic map<->pawn
interactivity. My original ideas for Adeo involved a sci-fi version of
Angband that I scrapped in the interest of doing something different.
> One thing I dislike about multi-tile objects is, that for the H-World
> engine, I have to split the graphics into blocks of 64x128 pixel size -
> one block per tile. This is quite some, partzicularyl boring, work,
> which I'd like to avoid. Maybe I need to write a small tool or something
> that does the splitting for me.
>
> To avoid creating graphics of different scales, it should work to draw
> only the biggest, most detailed version and downscale the size as needed.
"Particularly" =)
Adeo supports multi-tile objects, but I have yet to come up with a standard
way to handle rotation of multi-tile objects that aren't of square size.
Also, in order for multi-tile objects to look right, their textures have to
be drawn for the total tile area.. though the benefit to this is that I'm
not doing any manual slicing as you are.
> I think, on a gridded map, the scale isn't so important. I wouldn't mind
> if planets are just 5x5 sqaures or something. IMO it suffices that the
> player recognizes them as planets.
I agree - that players get a general sense of it being a planet of a certain
size and habitability, though I think 5x5 might be a little too small, I
want there to be some semblence of size. My current planning is
approximately as such :
Asteroids, escape pods, small fighters - 1x1
Large asteroids, large shuttles ~ 2x2/3
Moonlets, heavy fighters, cruisers ~ 4x5
Carriers, Battleships ~ 6x10
Moons ~ 8x8
Dreadnaughts ~ 8x14
Small planets ~ 15x15
Stars ~100x100
Note that the way I handle graphics enables me to effortlessly scale the
textures used, rotate, blend, color, whatever, so the most difficult thing
of all is actually creating the art assets. =)
> This seems to be a god idea. I must admit, that I've not considered
> space combat very thoroughly yet.
I want space exploration to be as important and rewarding as surface/station
exploration.
> ATM I'm investigating if it's a good idea to copy a certain area around
> the player from the old to the new map. This would solve the problem of
> followers - if they are close, they get copied onto the new map part
> also. I guess an area of 15x15 squares around the player would suffice
> for most situations.
My map implementation makes it very easy to have multiple maps of arbitrary
size loaded and for pawns/entities/things to move between maps easily.
> My space game design is not developed very far ATM. A mere page of
> notes. But if you want, I can send it by email, or just post it here, if
> more people are interested in such a discussion ?
Post it wherever you like. I have a single text todo file that is quite
large, covering current implementation, design notes on things yet to be
started, story bits (I intend the final version of Adeo to have a fairly to
very compelling and interesting story to follow, should the player choose
to), and shreds of ideas that have yet to take a definite form. =)
- Pfhoenix
http://pfhoenix.com/adeo
Amy Wang
> I enjoyed Amy's posts. Yes, she was insulting, obnoxious and openly dismissive.
> Those attitudes are merely the ones we all have in our heads that the more
> polite among us temper during the transition to screen text. She was usually
> right.
I'm not exactly gone. I just rarely have any reason to post to a small
group who are eager to worship the next ShockFrost wannabe as their
messiah. Roguelike development failures display varying levels of
retardation, but copx is wise to recognize that there are many traits
that they have in common. This allows us to hold back enthusiasm on
projects that are destined for failure. Giving 'developers'
encouragement that they don't deserve only serves to reinforce their
belief that their mediocre efforts will result in creating something
as complex as a roguelike game. Besides the categories already
mentioned, there are several traits that are often held in common by
failed roguelike developers.
They are 'gameplay' snobs. It's in quotes because they really don't
know what gameplay is- they just think that the most banal
munchkin-enforcing dungeon crawl has better gameplay (and is more
deep, meaningful, and emotion-producing) than a real CRPG, as long as
it has poor graphics (or none).
They don't have a shred of creativity. They think that implementing
disparate ideas from AD&D's advanced rules or real life represents the
pinnacle of innovation. While they may be able to articulate these
ideas well enough for people on the group to get excited about them
(and thus, eager to extend them), truly creative concepts escape them.
They think that developing a roguelike game is easy. After all, if it
doesn't have graphics, it *must* be easy to implement. Of course, we
all know that this is false. Implementing the core of the game is
viewed as a trivial task, allowing the bulk of the programmer's time
to be spent on realism-enhancing features or programmer toys.
Their ideas are painfully derivative, almost as if (for a good
reason...) they just got done with a marathon of playing their
favorite roguelike game. They are so enamoured with the roguelike
genre that it's obvious that they aren't concerned with making a good
game for its own sake- they want to make a *roguelike* game. Even
though there are many different types of text mode games that they
could develop (text mode being desirable because of the previous
fallacy), all of these possibilities are dismissed completely.
They aren't interested in making a good roguelike game for the sake of
the genre, either. Without any real creativity, the only thing that
allows them to think they are making something new is the idea of
making an extremely complicated game. You won't see them posting to
the group saying something like "my idea would be like Nethack, but
different in these ways....". That would be a Linley's or ADOM. No,
they are more likely to say "my idea is like Nethack, but with these
additional features....". They'll then continue describing their
"larger than life" or "programmer's" roguelike, with a list of
features that are simply too complex or numerous to be implemented by
a single person in any reasonable time.
They think that design is below them. This is because of their
impatience. They believe that posting vague ideas to RGRD makes their
plans concrete enough so that they can go straight to implementation.
A long time ago, I never expected ADOM to have a world map, or half of
the features that it has now. Nevertheless, it was a good game. Biskup
started small, basing his game off of a homemade pencil&paper RPG. The
idea wasn't to make a "bigger and better" roguelike game. It was to
make a somewhat different and original roguelike, with no more
features than in existing games. I'm not saying that you have to
create a RPG to be able to make a good roguelike. I'm saying that the
people who step back and desire to create a *good game* or a *new
roguelike* will succeed much more often than those who gather a sense
of worth from the size of their feature lists.
As a final thought, I'd like to imagine that for every idiot who posts
his poorly-thought out ideas to this group as a means to get
validation for his pathetic life, there's another person who is
implementing a roguelike game on his own, realizing that unless he's
forming a team, no amount of posting to Usenet is going to do the
design and code for him. Of course, this group *is* useful for some
things, but it takes more than the power of Usenet to turn every
stupid "my roguelike idea" post into a playable game.
Amy Wang
blueme...@hotmail.com
jakub
> important than any game.
There's a good solution. You have to find a lover!
Your wife will think, that you're with lover, lover will think,
that you're with wife... and you can sit and quietly write your roguelike...
regards
Jakub
--
"We're just toys in the hands of Xom"
www.xenocide.w.pl - SF roguelike in development
Hansjörg Malthaner
>>My space game design is not developed very far ATM. A mere page of
>>notes. But if you want, I can send it by email, or just post it here, if
>>more people are interested in such a discussion ?
>
> Post it wherever you like.
I've uploaded it here:
http://www.simugraph.com/rpg/space.txt
Comments are welcome! But I'll be away from 29th of May untill 1st of
June, so I most likely won't be able to reply immediately.
> I have a single text todo file that is quite
> large, covering current implementation, design notes on things yet to be
> started, story bits (I intend the final version of Adeo to have a fairly to
> very compelling and interesting story to follow, should the player choose
> to), and shreds of ideas that have yet to take a definite form. =)
I'd be interested in taking a look at your document, too :)
> - Pfhoenix
> http://pfhoenix.com/adeo
c.u.
Hajo
Hansjörg Malthaner
>>One thing I dislike about multi-tile objects is, that for the H-World
>>engine, I have to split the graphics into blocks of 64x128 pixel size -
>>one block per tile. This is quite some, partzicularyl boring, work,
>>which I'd like to avoid. Maybe I need to write a small tool or something
>>that does the splitting for me.
>>
>>To avoid creating graphics of different scales, it should work to draw
>>only the biggest, most detailed version and downscale the size as needed.
>
> "Particularly" =)
:) (sometimes I think there is a little demon in this keyboard)
> Adeo supports multi-tile objects,
How do you handle them? I tried but ran ino trouble with the field of
view calculation. If the player approaches a multi-tile object in
formerly unknown area, he shouldn't see all of it immediately, but only
the parts that are close enough to him.
That's why I split them .. this way I can display parts of them, and the
usual 'is square (LOS) blocked by object' can be done as it is done for
other objects, too - one check per tile.
> but I have yet to come up with a standard
> way to handle rotation of multi-tile objects that aren't of square size.
I'm sorry I'm afarid I can't help with that. Usually I just try to avoid
multi-tile objects ...
> Also, in order for multi-tile objects to look right, their textures have to
> be drawn for the total tile area.. though the benefit to this is that I'm
> not doing any manual slicing as you are.
I think the image splitting can be automatized, yet I was too lazy to
really investigate that option.
>>I think, on a gridded map, the scale isn't so important. I wouldn't mind
>>if planets are just 5x5 sqaures or something. IMO it suffices that the
>>player recognizes them as planets.
>
> I agree - that players get a general sense of it being a planet of a certain
> size and habitability, though I think 5x5 might be a little too small, I
> want there to be some semblence of size. My current planning is
> approximately as such :
>
> Asteroids, escape pods, small fighters - 1x1
> Large asteroids, large shuttles ~ 2x2/3
> Moonlets, heavy fighters, cruisers ~ 4x5
> Carriers, Battleships ~ 6x10
> Moons ~ 8x8
> Dreadnaughts ~ 8x14
> Small planets ~ 15x15
> Stars ~100x100
Will a solar system fit on one map?
> Note that the way I handle graphics enables me to effortlessly scale the
> textures used, rotate, blend, color, whatever,
You mean D3D9 is doing that for you? On one hand this is clever, since
it allows a jump start. OTOH you need to be careful or you'll find
yourslef tightly locked to the windows platform.
But this isn't neccesarily a problem, 97% (probably more?) of potential
players should have windows installed.
> so the most difficult thing
> of all is actually creating the art assets. =)
Right. I usually think it is possible to start with 'programmers
artwork' and later on get some real artists to help. I mean, once your
project shows some potential people will get confidence that it becomes
the Next Big Thing and are more likely to help :)
OTOH this can take years. In case of Simutrans I worked the first three
years alone, an still it was hard to get help from artists after that.
Now, 5 years after starting the project, a small group of very helpful
people is reworking the complete image set and they are doing a very
good job :)
(If one of you should read this - big thanks to you all!)
>>This seems to be a god idea. I must admit, that I've not considered
>>space combat very thoroughly yet.
>
> I want space exploration to be as important and rewarding as surface/station
> exploration.
How will you do this? I mean what will you do to make space exploration
interesting?
>>ATM I'm investigating if it's a good idea to copy a certain area around
>>the player from the old to the new map. This would solve the problem of
>>followers - if they are close, they get copied onto the new map part
>>also. I guess an area of 15x15 squares around the player would suffice
>>for most situations.
>
> My map implementation makes it very easy to have multiple maps of arbitrary
> size loaded and for pawns/entities/things to move between maps easily.
While the code can create multiple instances of the map data structure,
the world class (and much of the other code, that depends on it) assumes
there is only one current level. Probably this was a design mistake.
I should've rather tried to implement a set of 3x3 map parts, that are
panned as the player moves, but treated as one entity in terms of the
game. This way the surroundings of the player are always seamless, as
long as a map part is bigger than the displayed area.
> - Pfhoenix
> http://pfhoenix.com/adeo
c.u. Hajo
--
http://h-world.simugraph.com
Paul Pekkarinen
> will succeed much more often than those who gather a sense
> of worth from the size of their feature lists.
Well.. you can do yet-another-roguelike and "succeed", or you can
do better. Think about really good game developers like Shigeru
Miyamoto. He is always trying to make something new or something
with new way. Mario's water gun was a new idea, while he could
have stick to the good 'ol jumping. Current roguelikes are
just too simple for me and many other developers. I think you
like to shoot people down, because you probably failed yourself.
R Dan Henry
<ja...@mks.com.pl> declared:
>> spend my time with my wife and children then so be it -- they are more
>> important than any game.
>
>There's a good solution. You have to find a lover!
>Your wife will think, that you're with lover, lover will think,
>that you're with wife... and you can sit and quietly write your roguelike...
Or perhaps then his wife will leave him and he'll have even more time
to work on his roguelike!
Amy Wang
> blueme...@hotmail.com (Amy Wang) wrote in message
> > will succeed much more often than those who gather a sense
> > of worth from the size of their feature lists.
>
> Well.. you can do yet-another-roguelike and "succeed", or you can
> do better. Think about really good game developers like Shigeru
Of course! Nobody likes games like Nethack, Angband, Dungeon Crawl,
ADOM, or Omega, that all start out as yet-another-roguelikes. This is
the 21st century! Games with bloated feature lists are where it's at.
It doesn't matter if the features add playability or make sense
together, as long as there are *a lot of them*! I was playing
ShockFrost's game for hours yesterday, and I was having a great time
training up my old PCs on level 20, but I quit after a gnome stole my
king's talisman. I'll send down some politician NPCs today to bargain
to get it back. That game is so much better than a normal roguelike!
> Miyamoto. He is always trying to make something new or something
> with new way. Mario's water gun was a new idea, while he could
'Different' doesn't have to mean 'more complicated'. You've said
yourself, Mario's water gun was a *new idea*. Shigeru doesn't add
groundbreaking AI or limb-handling algorithms to his games because he
understands that the effort required to implement these features
outweighs any perceived benefit. A truly new idea, on the other hand,
may often be simple to implement, but appreciated greatly by players.
The desire to have meaninglessly complicated features in a game, or to
tack on a sim to a roguelike, is a sure sign of poor thinking and a
lack of creativity.
ShockFrost had a decent idea for a small, easy to implement quirk that
could have made for a fun game. Instead of going with it, he decided
to expand his idea to include everything under the sun, in order to
satisfy people like you. Legend of Saladir certainly isn't the most
complicated roguelike game, but it has some neat little features that
make it attractive. If Anubis would develop "yet another"
horror-themed roguelike (it's obvious where I could go with that) we'd
all be happier, but instead he decided that something within his
abilities isn't worth his time.
> have stick to the good 'ol jumping. Current roguelikes are
> just too simple for me and many other developers. I think you
> like to shoot people down, because you probably failed yourself.
I like to shoot down people who are going to fail anyways because I
have something against encouraging people to waste their time. It's
certainly no more harmful than the countless "here's an idea that
could make your game more complicated" posts that constitute the bulk
of "My Game Idea" threads. As for the notion of me failing at my
efforts, I have a perfectly working roguelike engine, which would take
only a handful of hours to prepare for distribution. However, nobody
seems to want "just another" modern-era roguelike, and I wasted too
much time designing difficult features that would add nothing to the
gameplay.
Joseph Hewitt
> 'Different' doesn't have to mean 'more complicated'. You've said
> yourself, Mario's water gun was a *new idea*. Shigeru doesn't add
> groundbreaking AI or limb-handling algorithms to his games because he
> understands that the effort required to implement these features
> outweighs any perceived benefit. A truly new idea, on the other hand,
> may often be simple to implement, but appreciated greatly by players.
Well said.
> As for the notion of me failing at my
> efforts, I have a perfectly working roguelike engine, which would take
> only a handful of hours to prepare for distribution.
You shouldn't go there. Whether or not you've made a rl game yourself
has no impact on the validity of your arguments.
- Joseph Hewitt
--
DeadCold > http://www.geocities.com/pyrrho12/programming/deadcold/index.html
GearHead > http://www.geocities.com/pyrrho12/programming/gearhead/index.html
Paul Pekkarinen
> tack on a sim to a roguelike, is a sure sign of poor thinking and a
> lack of creativity.
I think you really are woman. You like to "put words in others mouth".
I'm not a big fan of these "500+ items and 300+ monsters" games without
deeper interaction and diversity.
> to expand his idea to include everything under the sun, in order to
> satisfy people like you.
People like me.. you don't even know me and still you keep shooting:)
> I like to shoot down people who are going to fail anyways
You can't predict that. Lately there have been lots of people around
who think they can predict the future!
> As for the notion of me failing at my
> efforts, I have a perfectly working roguelike engine, which would take
> only a handful of hours to prepare for distribution.
Yeah, sure...
GodAllmighty
> have something against encouraging people to waste their time.
Who died and made you a god?
If people want waste their time making RL (failure or not) it's THEIR right.
After all, it is THEIR time, not yours. Unless you all the sudden have
monopoly for all the time in world, even other people time. Now, have you?
It's same as if you waste here your time to bullshit arrogantly thinking
you're only truth out there and that everyone should agree and worship your
word and opinions as gospel.
Grow back under that bedrock where you were hiding and get a life you
retarded goatfuck. Or if you can't do that, get RID of life - yours - and
collective happiness of mankind will raise a fraction...
Victor Schnapt_
news:bb57p7$h9j$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
Go uncork yourself. She's right. Shockfrost sucked, made great promises, died
young. Just because she doesn't filter her actual thoughts through the
societally-imposed veil of politesse, a freedom you covet, you tell her off--but
you still can't bring yourself to do so without an alias, it seems.
Joseph Hewitt
> blueme...@hotmail.com (Amy Wang) wrote in message
> > The desire to have meaninglessly complicated features in a game, or to
> > tack on a sim to a roguelike, is a sure sign of poor thinking and a
> > lack of creativity.
>
> I think you really are woman. You like to "put words in others mouth".
At first I thought this line did not deserve comment, but on second
thought it should not go unchallenged. 1) Ad hominem attacks have no
place in a serious discussion of any kind, and 2) ad hominems based on
gender, race, nationality, et cetera are particularly banal. So, not
only are you lowering the standard of conversation in this newsgroup,
you're being boring as well. That's doubly bad.
> I'm not a big fan of these "500+ items and 300+ monsters" games without
> deeper interaction and diversity.
Then why, in your original reply to Amy, did you come to the apparent
defense of such practices? I know that may not have been your intent
but it certainly is one way to interpret your post. The line "Current
roguelikes are just too simple for me" seems particularly
incriminating in this regard but perhaps you could explain it more
clearly.
> > to expand his idea to include everything under the sun, in order to
> > satisfy people like you.
>
> People like me.. you don't even know me and still you keep shooting:)
Well, supposedly if you didn't identify with the group of people Amy
identified in her first post to this thread, you wouldn't have felt
the need to reply with "Well.. you can do yet-another-roguelike and
"succeed", or you can do better". Amy knows as much about you as you
post to Usenet- and in this case, it seems to me that your own words
validate Amy's judgement.
Nowhere in Amy's post do I see her advocating the creation of more
"yet-another-roguelike"s. What she has advocated are focused design
and economy of effort. So, what do you mean by "doing better", as
stated in your original post? Are you saying that RL developers would
be better off if these things were abandoned?
> > I like to shoot down people who are going to fail anyways
>
> You can't predict that. Lately there have been lots of people around
> who think they can predict the future!
If you're not willing to learn from history, then you're destined to
repeat it.
If you start programming a roguelike without a focused concept, you
are more likely to fail. If you spend too much time on features which
take lots of effort to code but add little to the play value, you are
more likely to fail. If you disagree with any of this I'd like to hear
arguments in support of your position. If you don't disagree with it,
then why on Earth did you get angry with Amy?
GodAllmighty
died
> young.
And where exactly I said _ANY_ word about shockfrost? As far as I know I did
NOT mention it in any way, now did I? Prove me wrong, or stop trying to
change subject and learn read.
Victor Schnapt_
Change subject and learn read? Learn to grammarize. You merely envy what you
haven't the balls or brains to do; be rude and right without cover of anonymity.
Incidentally, if you want to split hairs, I didn't say you said anything about
shockfrost. But are you really that pedantic? Probably.
Dana Larose
> Change subject and learn read? Learn to grammarize. You merely envy what
you
> haven't the balls or brains to do; be rude and right without cover of
anonymity.
>
Does it really take balls or brains to be rude? Right maybe, but rude?
--
Dana Larose
laros...@netscape.net
http://pixelenvy.ca/wa/
Victor Schnapt_
news:bb5c4k$2ej$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
> >
> > Change subject and learn read? Learn to grammarize. You merely envy what
> you
> > haven't the balls or brains to do; be rude and right without cover of
> anonymity.
> >
>
> Does it really take balls or brains to be rude? Right maybe, but rude?
It takes brains to be right. It takes balls to be rude and then sign your name
to it. It takes neither balls nor brains to be anonymously wrong.
R Dan Henry
pyrr...@hotmail.com (Joseph Hewitt) declared:
>pau...@mbnet.fi (Paul Pekkarinen) wrote in message news:<8f2c2bbc.03052...@posting.google.com>...
>> blueme...@hotmail.com (Amy Wang) wrote in message
>> > The desire to have meaninglessly complicated features in a game, or to
>> > tack on a sim to a roguelike, is a sure sign of poor thinking and a
>> > lack of creativity.
>>
>> I think you really are woman. You like to "put words in others mouth".
>
>At first I thought this line did not deserve comment, but on second
>thought it should not go unchallenged. 1) Ad hominem attacks have no
>place in a serious discussion of any kind, and 2) ad hominems based on
>gender, race, nationality, et cetera are particularly banal. So, not
>only are you lowering the standard of conversation in this newsgroup,
>you're being boring as well. That's doubly bad.
I'll second that.
>> I'm not a big fan of these "500+ items and 300+ monsters" games without
>> deeper interaction and diversity.
>
>Then why, in your original reply to Amy, did you come to the apparent
>defense of such practices? I know that may not have been your intent
>but it certainly is one way to interpret your post. The line "Current
>roguelikes are just too simple for me" seems particularly
Current roguelikes have large numbers of items and monsters. It is
debatable whether or not they may be said to have "deeper interaction
and diversity".
>If you start programming a roguelike without a focused concept, you
>are more likely to fail. If you spend too much time on features which
>take lots of effort to code but add little to the play value, you are
>more likely to fail.
Of course, it's fairly easy to misjudge what effect a change will have
on play unless you know the game thoroughly and have a good grasp of
statistics and trained intuitions with respect to gameplay. Certainly,
it's too complex a judgment to make based on something like "a body
parts system" in someone's proposed features list, but that hasn't
stopped people from jumping to conclusions.
R Dan Henry
Schnapt_" <sch...@yahoo.com> declared:
>Go uncork yourself. She's right. Shockfrost sucked, made great promises, died
>young. Just because she doesn't filter her actual thoughts through the
>societally-imposed veil of politesse, a freedom you covet, you tell her off--but
>you still can't bring yourself to do so without an alias, it seems.
A *lot* of people were trying to tell Shockfrost he was being overly
ambitious. Someone might even have got through to him if Amy's
aggressive offensive style hadn't put him on the defensive right away.
She showed no special insight and quite possibly made the situation
worse. I'm getting sick and tired of SF being trotted out as if he was
some validation of Amy's position. If the group as a whole had been
expecting him to fulfill his promises, if Amy's skepticism had been a
lone voice in the wilderness, *then* his failure would have been a
point to her. But that's not even remotely how it happened.
Victor Schnapt_
news:06kcdvghgaevv1gr5...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 29 May 2003 11:14:57 -0400, in a fit of madness "Victor
> Schnapt_" <sch...@yahoo.com> declared:
>
> >Go uncork yourself. She's right. Shockfrost sucked, made great promises,
died
> >young. Just because she doesn't filter her actual thoughts through the
> >societally-imposed veil of politesse, a freedom you covet, you tell her
off--but
> >you still can't bring yourself to do so without an alias, it seems.
>
> A *lot* of people were trying to tell Shockfrost he was being overly
> ambitious. Someone might even have got through to him if Amy's
> aggressive offensive style hadn't put him on the defensive right away.
> She showed no special insight and quite possibly made the situation
> worse. I'm getting sick and tired of SF being trotted out as if he was
> some validation of Amy's position. If the group as a whole had been
> expecting him to fulfill his promises, if Amy's skepticism had been a
> lone voice in the wilderness, *then* his failure would have been a
> point to her. But that's not even remotely how it happened.
Far be it from me to make you sick or tired. If you eliminate the third
sentence from the post to which you responded, you'll still have the gist of my
opinion on the matter, with no mention of ShockFrost. I see no reason to
pillory someone for failing to bother with the social graces in a forum not
noted for such behavior.
This ng is a good resource for those willing to listen to others. Those not
willing don't particularly deserve persuasion, now, do they?
Paul Pekkarinen
> > deeper interaction and diversity.
> Then why, in your original reply to Amy, did you come to the apparent
> defense of such practices?
I'm defending the right to add features, even crazy ones.
Adding 500+ items is not the same thing as adding new features.
I think all current roguelikes use the huge amount of objects to
create seemingly complex games while they in fact are quite simple,
especially in some areas.
> So, what do you mean by "doing better", as stated in your
> original post?
Basically it means breaking out of the traditional roguelike-canon.
ADOM is a perfect example of following this tradition too closely.
I would like to see some kind of evolution in RL's.
> take lots of effort to code but add little to the play value, you are
> more likely to fail.
I don't think so. All of them are just features. Nethack has also
features and the programmers spent lots of time implementing them.
> then why on Earth did you get angry with Amy?
I don't like her style.
Graeme Dice
>
> "GodAllmighty" <g...@hell.com> wrote in message
> news:bb57p7$h9j$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
<snip>
> > Grow back under that bedrock where you were hiding and get a life you
> > retarded goatfuck. Or if you can't do that, get RID of life - yours - and
> > collective happiness of mankind will raise a fraction...
>
> Go uncork yourself. She's right. Shockfrost sucked, made great promises, died
> young. Just because she doesn't filter her actual thoughts through the
> societally-imposed veil of politesse, a freedom you covet, you tell her off--but
> you still can't bring yourself to do so without an alias, it seems.
If you don't want to fit within society, don't be surprised when society
doesn't want you either.
Graeme Dice
Amy Wang
> On 29 May 2003 08:21:18 -0700, in a fit of madness
> pyrr...@hotmail.com (Joseph Hewitt) declared:
>
> >pau...@mbnet.fi (Paul Pekkarinen) wrote in message news:<8f2c2bbc.03052...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >> deeper interaction and diversity.
> >
> >Then why, in your original reply to Amy, did you come to the apparent
> >defense of such practices? I know that may not have been your intent
> >but it certainly is one way to interpret your post. The line "Current
> >roguelikes are just too simple for me" seems particularly
>
> Current roguelikes have large numbers of items and monsters. It is
> debatable whether or not they may be said to have "deeper interaction
> and diversity".
I won't pretend to know what "deeper interaction and diversity" means.
Certainly it doesn't mean having a multitude of differently-sized
subhumans sitting around in a cave ignoring each other and everything
around them, waiting to attack a particular person they've never met
on sight.
Personally, I would get more excited about a new roguelike game that
advertises "violates someone else's copyrights than TSR's" than "over
1000 monsters and items". Just as a random example taken from what's
on TV, what about a Harry Potter roguelike? It wouldn't necessarily be
*better* on its own, but it would be different, which is better for
players who are bored with having the same Tolkien/D&D rehashed into
roguelike games with varying levels of realism. Without even using
your own brain, there are hundreds of different fantasy, sci-fi, and
horror concepts that simply have not been explored by roguelike
developers (or have been a line item on a wishlist). A new roguelike
game could easily be little more complex than Rogue, but still be
different enough to attract more players than any of the wishlist
roguelikes would.
>
> >If you start programming a roguelike without a focused concept, you
> >are more likely to fail. If you spend too much time on features which
> >take lots of effort to code but add little to the play value, you are
> >more likely to fail.
>
> Of course, it's fairly easy to misjudge what effect a change will have
> on play unless you know the game thoroughly and have a good grasp of
> statistics and trained intuitions with respect to gameplay. Certainly,
> it's too complex a judgment to make based on something like "a body
> parts system" in someone's proposed features list, but that hasn't
> stopped people from jumping to conclusions.
A body part system is simply a classical example of a feature that
hints at the developer's incompetence. It serves as a good red flag of
irresponsible design for quite obvious reasons. Firstly, it can be
difficult to implement, despite having little purpose except when the
game's theme demands it. A turn-based tactical game generally doesn't.
So, when we see it included as the crux of realism in a design that
doesn't stress realism, we can see that the use of a body part system
doesn't really fit, but is just there as part of the developer's wish
list of disparate features. Secondly, it is realism, and therefore, a
sim feature. This often implies that the developer doesn't understand
the genre, but is enthusiastic about features for their own sake.
Lastly, it's extendable. The supposed developer just has to mention
'body parts system' and the people at RGRD will helpfully add to it
with ideas such as amputations and specialized armor. Before long,
we're talking about measuring the diameter of the PC's fingers, and as
soon as a developer shows that he's willing to buy into any
suggestion, we know that the feature list will become too bloated to
be implementable.
In other words, if a developer demonstrates that he doesn't know what
he's doing, or (more importantly) doesn't know why he's doing it, it's
virtually guaranteed that he has a poorly formed idea of the game in
his mind, and will lose enthusiasm as soon as the time for actual
design or programming comes. That will happen regardless of what
people at RGRD do. True encouragement is what leads to success, which
in this case means getting these developers to realistically visualize
a successful implementation of their games, not brainstorming random
features for them.
Amy Wang
blueme...@hotmail.com
Victor Schnapt
Amy Wang
> > > I'm not a big fan of these "500+ items and 300+ monsters" games without
> > > deeper interaction and diversity.
> > Then why, in your original reply to Amy, did you come to the apparent
> > defense of such practices?
>
> I'm defending the right to add features, even crazy ones.
> Adding 500+ items is not the same thing as adding new features.
> I think all current roguelikes use the huge amount of objects to
> create seemingly complex games while they in fact are quite simple,
> especially in some areas.
You won't find much disagreement there.
>
> > So, what do you mean by "doing better", as stated in your
> > original post?
>
> Basically it means breaking out of the traditional roguelike-canon.
> ADOM is a perfect example of following this tradition too closely.
> I would like to see some kind of evolution in RL's.
You aren't going to give an example, are you?
>
> > take lots of effort to code but add little to the play value, you are
> > more likely to fail.
>
> I don't think so. All of them are just features. Nethack has also
> features and the programmers spent lots of time implementing them.
Nethack also started small (at some point, being called Hack instead)
and had a group of programmers, so that one developer flaking out
didn't kill the game.
>
> > then why on Earth did you get angry with Amy?
>
> I don't like her style.
Translation: you don't have any counter arguments that don't make you
look like an idiot, such as "all of them are just features".
Graeme Dice
If you won't be polite, then society has every right to ignore you,
because you've decided to ignore them.
Graeme Dice
--
NOTE: The Most Fundamental Particles in This Product Are Held Together
by a "Gluing" Force About Which Little is Currently Known and Whose
Adhesive Power Can Therefore Not Be Permanently Guaranteed.
Victor Schnapt
Ah. Since I spoke those words of Amy, I suppose you're saying Amy shouldn't
be surprised that society doesn't want her. However, I'm part of society,
and I say she makes the ng more interesting. Another point in her favor is
that she isn't overly cryptic in her posts.
Joseph Hewitt
> on play unless you know the game thoroughly and have a good grasp of
> statistics and trained intuitions with respect to gameplay.
That's certainly true. For GearHead I have been using the "Chilli
Cook-Off" method of programming: change some things, taste the mix,
then go back and change some things again. My original idea for the
global war storyline has been modified beyond recognition. It turns
out that my plans (which looked brilliant on paper, btw) weren't that
much fun when implemented. So, certainly, game programmers should feel
free to try new things.
At the same time, I think there's a lot to be said for economy of
effort. Making large numbers of random changes to a game in the hopes
of achieving a decent final product through evolutionary development
is, I think, a waste of time. I believe that most programmers would
benefit from having a clear and focused design before they start work.
So what's my actual position? I have no idea. I do have one more
mostly unrelated point to say though: I think it's a good thing to
always have a devil's advocate on hand. Someone like Amy. If the DA
points out a flaw in your design/methodology/etc, that's a good thing.
You can then change things. If the DA criticises your
design/methodology/etc but you think she's wrong, that's a good thing
too. Defending your work helps to refine your concepts.
I guess my final position would be a middle path between
experimentation and realistic expectation, with the ability to take
criticism constructively.
Joseph Hewitt
> Adding 500+ items is not the same thing as adding new features.
Exactly. Amy even agreed with you when she said "'Different' doesn't
have to mean 'more complicated'. You've said yourself, Mario's water
gun was a *new idea*".
> Basically it means breaking out of the traditional roguelike-canon.
Amy railed against people who "think that implementing disparate ideas
from AD&D's advanced rules or real life represents the pinnacle of
innovation". Sounds to me like the two of you were making the same
point.
> > then why on Earth did you get angry with Amy?
>
> I don't like her style.
Aha. I think nothing more needs to be said about that...
> > take lots of effort to code but add little to the play value, you are
> > more likely to fail.
>
> I don't think so. All of them are just features. Nethack has also
> features and the programmers spent lots of time implementing them.
A game is more than just a collection of features. Or rather, the
whole is more than the sum of its parts. Composition is very
important.
Joseph Hewitt
> Personally, I would get more excited about a new roguelike game that
> advertises "violates someone else's copyrights than TSR's" than "over
> 1000 monsters and items".
I'd be far more excited over a RL which doesn't violate anyone's
copyrights, but that being said you really can't beat the DnD monsters
for instant recognition (see
http://www.bookofratings.com/dndmonsters.html ).
> In other words, if a developer demonstrates that he doesn't know what
> he's doing, or (more importantly) doesn't know why he's doing it, it's
> virtually guaranteed that he has a poorly formed idea of the game in
> his mind, and will lose enthusiasm as soon as the time for actual
> design or programming comes.
Deciding whether or not a designer knows what he's doing probably
takes more than just looking at his features list. GH has body parts,
but I still think I know what I'm doing, for example. That said, I
don't think it's anyone here's business deciding which designers are
likely to succeed or fail. I tend to spend my encouragement and
criticism on those programmers I believe in, and not really interact
much with the others.
R Dan Henry
<laros...@netscape.net> declared:
>>
>> Change subject and learn read? Learn to grammarize. You merely envy what
>you
>> haven't the balls or brains to do; be rude and right without cover of
>anonymity.
>>
>
>Does it really take balls or brains to be rude? Right maybe, but rude?
Brains, never.
Balls? In RL, to someone bigger than you, or to a crowd, sure. On the
Internet? Never ever.
Paul Pekkarinen
> > ADOM is a perfect example of following this tradition too closely.
> > I would like to see some kind of evolution in RL's.
> You aren't going to give an example, are you?
Not yet. Wait until Kaduria is ready:)
> > I don't like her style.
> Translation: you don't have any counter arguments that don't make you
> look like an idiot, such as "all of them are just features".
You make me laugh:)
I have nothing BUT counter arguments, you just don't get them. Sad.
Martin Read
Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>Shouldn't that be "ad feminam"?
Um, no. The latin "homo" means "person", not "male person". "Male
person" is "vir".
m.
--
\_\/_/| Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
\ / | eine answeringmachine fuer letzte frage als selbstschussanlage
\/ | stuhl. letztendlich letztmalig ein hecke brennender buesche
------+ -- Einstuerzende Neubauten, "Sie"
jakub
> global war storyline has been modified beyond recognition. It turns
> out that my plans (which looked brilliant on paper, btw) weren't that
Heh, I have the same problems. It's very hard to create playable
and complicated roguelike game, which is not an copy of existing one.
SF world also brings new difficulties - noone has done it before well
(the only playable game is Mission Thunderbolt).
In Xenocide world has changed about 5 times for a year
of developement. Some ideas weren't as great as I thought thinking
them up, some things are too hard to implement with too small
result for game...
I've written few level generators, but looking at them now,
I just don't like them... They need to be changed...
Eh...
regards
Jakub
--
"We're just toys in the hands of Xom"
www.xenocide.w.pl - SF roguelike in development
GodAllmighty
you
> haven't the balls or brains to do; be rude and right without cover of
anonymity.
I commented about some __CERTAIN__ person's behaviour about complaining
about people wasting THEIR time, now did't I?
I do not need to have balls or brains about commenting. If you have ANY
fucking braincells left, you can get info WHO I am in aproximately 5 minutes
after you think bit, IF you do not know how to DO that, it's your shame, you
are dumb fuck then but feel FREE use your brains and email me straight after
you USE your own mind you dumb fuck.
> Incidentally, if you want to split hairs, I didn't say you said anything
about
> shockfrost. But are you really that pedantic? Probably.
You agreed "she's right shockfrost sucked"... ring any bell? So why did you
MENTION it? If not meant I had said anything? Just cause you were wanting to
WHINE about something?? Or are you telling you wanted just "steer" talk some
other direction?
It plainly impliest I what ever I said would be some way related shockfrost
and it is not. If you didn't mean that, ADMIT it... If not... Shut the fuck
up and go live in cave you cocksucking son of a faggotbitch!
And btw... To be right... Have you EVER bothered read bullshit some certain
"amy wang" has been writing here before, say last 2 years? if not... GO
back google back in time and READ to get some idea... "she" ain't that
smart, mainly she's trying to poke ppl to annoy etc and get reactions.
Idiots like you that is...
GodAllmighty
shouldn't
> be surprised that society doesn't want her. However, I'm part of society,
> and I say she makes the ng more interesting. Another point in her favor
is
> that she isn't overly cryptic in her posts.
Sofar her influence to newsgroup has been mainly whine and bitch and try
tell people THEY are "wrong" or that they waste time while she's about only
one right...
If I tell YOU that you are wasting your time whining there what do you
think? Do you think I am trying to limit what you tell; or do you think I
make newsgroup more interesting?
If people WANT waste their time on "doomed" development of RL, it's THEIR
time. Not yours, not "amy wang's". THEIRS! if you whine about that, prepare
DELIVER some proves it DOES concern you, or shut the fuck up.
If you have No idea how some certain "amy wang" has been posting (dealing
things), read, say last 2 years or something, posts and learn...
All "she" makes ng is more boring with quite predictable drivel about her
bullshit where she whines ppl should not do thing X... BLAA BLAA BLAA
Amy Wang
> blueme...@hotmail.com (Amy Wang) wrote in message
> > > Basically it means breaking out of the traditional roguelike-canon.
> > > ADOM is a perfect example of following this tradition too closely.
> > > I would like to see some kind of evolution in RL's.
> > You aren't going to give an example, are you?
>
> Not yet. Wait until Kaduria is ready:)
Oh, I get it. I was having trouble understanding what you meant by
'evolution', but I understand now. I agree that developers need to
stray from the old and worn-out ideas that have already been used too
many times. I would personally like to see the next generation of
roguelikes be non-dungeon crawl CRPGs that, if not original, are at
least not blatant AD&D ripoffs. You, on the other hand, apparently
hope that the next generation will be the same "kill the random
monster" affairs we could play ten years ago, but with GRAPHICS. Oh,
and let's not forget all of the realism-increasing features that make
the games more tedious to play, and the ones that only show up once
every million PCs. Is that about right?
>
> > > I don't like her style.
> > Translation: you don't have any counter arguments that don't make you
> > look like an idiot, such as "all of them are just features".
>
> You make me laugh:)
> I have nothing BUT counter arguments, you just don't get them. Sad.
Perhaps a counter argument less retarded than "Current roguelikes are
just too simple for me and many other developers" would be helpful.
Victor Schnapt_
Wow, thanks! My day was somewhat boring, and your snot-slinging expostulation
was just the entertainment I needed.
Victor Schnapt_
I fart in your general direction.
Amy Wang
> blueme...@hotmail.com (Amy Wang) wrote in message news:<62acd54d.03052...@posting.google.com>...
> > Personally, I would get more excited about a new roguelike game that
> > advertises "violates someone else's copyrights than TSR's" than "over
> > 1000 monsters and items".
>
> I'd be far more excited over a RL which doesn't violate anyone's
> copyrights, but that being said you really can't beat the DnD monsters
> for instant recognition (see
> http://www.bookofratings.com/dndmonsters.html ).
Of course, that's the ideal solution, but I lowered my expectations
when I was told that hobbyist developers who lack artistic talent due
to concentrating on programming couldn't be bothered with having
original ideas.
I also think that having lots of recognizable monsters isn't necessary
unless it's the focus of the game. Having a variety of humans and
animals would be enough for most settings.
>
> Deciding whether or not a designer knows what he's doing probably
> takes more than just looking at his features list. GH has body parts,
> but I still think I know what I'm doing, for example. That said, I
That's because you have a reason for including it beyond "I can".
> don't think it's anyone here's business deciding which designers are
> likely to succeed or fail. I tend to spend my encouragement and
> criticism on those programmers I believe in, and not really interact
> much with the others.
That's a good strategy. I like to tip the scales, though, and try to
get some of the developers who would otherwise fail to re-examine what
they're doing, and perhaps change their strategies. If one more
roguelike game comes out of it, it's worth it.
Michael Blackney
> > copyrights, but that being said you really can't beat the DnD
monsters
> > for instant recognition (see
> > http://www.bookofratings.com/dndmonsters.html ).
>
> Of course, that's the ideal solution, but I lowered my expectations
> when I was told that hobbyist developers who lack artistic talent due
> to concentrating on programming couldn't be bothered with having
> original ideas.
Jesus Amy, you are such a frigging troll. You blow down anyone who has
an original idea viz. gameplay because it's too difficult to implement
(even though you seem to not have had a problem getting your RL into a
'one-hour-from-completion' state) but require that all new RLs go with
non-standard non-fantasy themes. Whatthefuck? So if I implement
Angband-with-guns I am a hero, but if I implement
Angband-with-body-parts-system I am an idiot?
> I also think that having lots of recognizable monsters isn't necessary
> unless it's the focus of the game. Having a variety of humans and
> animals would be enough for most settings.
There's real artistic talent. Animals. Wow. You blow me away.
> > Deciding whether or not a designer knows what he's doing probably
> > takes more than just looking at his features list. GH has body
parts,
> > but I still think I know what I'm doing, for example. That said, I
>
> That's because you have a reason for including it beyond "I can".
Nobody here is stupid enough to implement a feature just because they
can. In fact, most of the time *they* *can't* but want to anyway. Just
because they didn't explain it to you doesn't mean that they didn't have
a good enough reason. Maybe they just didn't have time for you?
> > don't think it's anyone here's business deciding which designers are
> > likely to succeed or fail. I tend to spend my encouragement and
> > criticism on those programmers I believe in, and not really interact
> > much with the others.
>
> That's a good strategy. I like to tip the scales, though, and try to
> get some of the developers who would otherwise fail to re-examine what
> they're doing, and perhaps change their strategies. If one more
> roguelike game comes out of it, it's worth it.
Boo. Such a shame that you came back. *plonk*
--
michaelblackney at hotmail dot com
Born dead roguelike: http://www27.brinkster.com/atrl/
Latest version 0.87 20-5-3
Paul Pekkarinen
> hope that the next generation will be the same "kill the random
> monster" affairs we could play ten years ago,
You are wrong again.
> but with GRAPHICS.
Graphics are a step to the right direction. There is no reason
to make text based RL's anymore. And I'm not saying that people
can't make them. Feel free to make anything you want.
> and let's not forget all of the realism-increasing features that make
> the games more tedious to play, and the ones that only show up once
> every million PCs. Is that about right?
No. Realism is not always good thing in gameplay. You don't have
to worry about that, I'm skilled enough in game design to detect
bad features.
> Perhaps a counter argument less retarded than "Current roguelikes are
> just too simple for me and many other developers" would be helpful.
What there is to argue?
If you want to argue, get yourself a boyfriend:)
Amy Wang
> It plainly impliest I what ever I said would be some way related shockfrost
> and it is not. If you didn't mean that, ADMIT it... If not... Shut the fuck
> up and go live in cave you cocksucking son of a faggotbitch!
>
> And btw... To be right... Have you EVER bothered read bullshit some certain
> "amy wang" has been writing here before, say last 2 years? if not... GO
> back google back in time and READ to get some idea... "she" ain't that
> smart, mainly she's trying to poke ppl to annoy etc and get reactions.
> Idiots like you that is...
Uh, more like idiots like *you*. But more to the point, my #1
motivation to posting to RGRD has always been to facilitate the
creation of quality roguelike games. No, this isn't an entirely
unselfish purpose. More games means more players, which means more
developers, which keeps the genre alive and growing, which means that
when I'm in the mood to play a roguelike, I might be able to someday
play something other than these tired Tolkien-esque dungeon crawls.
When the majority of software development projects fail, that's fine.
That's just how the world works, and nobody expects that to change.
However, when the majority of 'new developers' posting to RGRD are
novice programmers promising to make an earth-shattering new game that
encompasses every feature they can imagine, it makes me want to do
something to discourage such behavior. To do that, I challenge the
notions on which many of these destined failures are working on.
Hey, let's go Googling!
"Most roguelike games fail not because the programmer doesn't have the
talent to clone a twenty year old game engine derived from board
games. They fail because they are afraid to develop something unique,
and they end up just copying AD&D rules and ideas. Making a good
roguelike isn't about how much you can program, because you can keep
it up for the next five years and finish with a game in the same niche
as Nethack, or you can have a cool story, characters, or world
(whichever narrative style you choose)."
"We've all tried, at least in design, to take an action game, turn it
into a sim by adding monstrous AI, and then turn it into an RPG. Most
people just copy the rules from AD&D, thinking that the rules and
statistics are what make an RPG. Then many people decide it's too much
effort to come up with unique plots and characters that are easy to
implement, so they try to pump up the AI to the point that those
things will emerge on their own (ironically, this is more difficult).
It's no wonder that after twenty years, there's about a dozen
roguelikes worth mentioning."
"One phenomenon that I've observed is what I call "rate of return".
There are all sorts of features that can be implemented with minimal
effort, while others take more effort than they are worth. It can be
determined mathematically, using multiplication. For instance, in the
typical role-playing game, let's say there are ten races and ten
classes. That can be good if it means that the designer has to make
the effort of making 20 different types (10+10), and the player sees
100 different entities. Or, it can be bad, if an artist has to draw
all 100 combinations, but the player only appreciates 20 different
things. There are examples everywhere, but as a rule, something that
is dynamic, like a percentage, gives a better rate of return. This is
why skill-based systems are so attractive (although they have fairly
obvious drawbacks, which we can discuss if you want)."
(to ShockFrost) "You haven't even produced a demo with a '@' that can
bump into things, but you're treating complicated, and essential,
tasks like they are trivial. LOS and AI pathfinding are going to take
time to implement. I'm sure you understand that, but you seem to think
it's more important to get people on the internet to brainstorm for
you, and convince us that you *will* have a playable roguelike in the
end."
...
"Produce some kind of design document (if there's enough paper in the
world for your hierarchy chart) and a demo that shows playability
instead of a map generation algorithm, and your detractors will start
taking you seriously. What's the payoff for you? You can get some help
from people who do more than brainstorm irrelevant data. Until you
have a playable roguelike, most of these ideas are simply useless.
They're fun to talk about, but talk will not create a roguelike game."
(and, of course, my favorite) "I'm sorry that you are such an idiot
because of being fed cheap formula as a baby..."
Amy Wang
blueme...@hotmail.com
GodAllmighty
> motivation to posting to RGRD has always been to facilitate the
> creation of quality roguelike games. No, this isn't an entirely
> unselfish purpose. More games means more players, which means more
> developers, which keeps the genre alive and growing, which means that
> when I'm in the mood to play a roguelike, I might be able to someday
> play something other than these tired Tolkien-esque dungeon crawls.
Your 1st priority about mailing always have been that YOU can
complaint/whine to people and tell them they're not gonna "make it". What
ever else you say is a outright lie. You "live" from that sick perverted
satisfaction you get by telling people are gonna fail. Besides that, it
seems you like trolling, but I guess it's not worst flaw in your person...
> When the majority of software development projects fail, that's fine.
> That's just how the world works, and nobody expects that to change.
> However, when the majority of 'new developers' posting to RGRD are
> novice programmers promising to make an earth-shattering new game that
> encompasses every feature they can imagine, it makes me want to do
> something to discourage such behavior. To do that, I challenge the
> notions on which many of these destined failures are working on.
Who GIVES a shit about "failures"? That is not a point. Point is that
atleast people TRY! Even if they usually go way over their
limits/capabilities. If they'd do as "you" propose, they NEVER would do/go
anywhere or never learn their own limits.
Only way to get people exceed their limits is by TRYING, not by whining and
telling they never make it as you are doing.
If you can't do anything else, shut the fuck up and go live in cave and play
"ai mee schwang's never published da Über RL game dat shattered da world as
rl ppl know it" and leave rest of people atleast TRY do something even if
they fail most of time! Everyone has RIGHT to fail and find out their own
limitations, you are not some fucking "god" that tells people what they
should do. So snap out of your sick illusion and go troll under the bridge.
Brendan Guild
> All "she" makes ng is more boring with quite predictable drivel about her
> bullshit where she whines ppl should not do thing X... BLAA BLAA BLAA
I've been an avid reader of this newsgroup for a long time, and so I
never like it when someone stops posting. No matter what, someone is
interested in reading each and every post to this newsgroup. Please,
no one stop posting!
There are only two ways one can make a newsgroup more boring: by
stopping one's posting, or by causing someone else to stop posting.
I'd just like to ask that we try to phrase our comments in such a way
that it doesn't discourage anyone from posting.
R Dan Henry
Schnapt_" <sch...@yahoo.com> declared:
>"GodAllmighty" <g...@hell.com> wrote in message
>news:bb83kn$qm8$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
A *plonk* on both your houses.
Arcum Dagsson
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote:
> In article <62acd54d.03052...@posting.google.com>,
> blueme...@hotmail.com (Amy Wang) wrote:
>
> >Personally, I would get more excited about a new roguelike game that
> >advertises "violates someone else's copyrights than TSR's" than "over
> >1000 monsters and items". Just as a random example taken from what's
> >on TV, what about a Harry Potter roguelike?
>
> I'm sure Harry is due to appear as a unique in the next Zangband!
>
> - Gerry Quinn
I'd prefer to see Voldemort as a unique, actually, and you could even
avoid copyright restrictions simply by calling him "You-Know-Who"...
As far as a Harry Potter roguelike, besides copyright problems, the
magical system would be hard to balance. If you wanted to be true to the
books, you would need to have "Avada Kedavra" included, and any
roguelike with a spell that instantly kills your character would not be
very playable...
Still, the idea could be fun:
The Death eaters spit in your general direction. -more-
Lord Voldemort screams "DIE!!" -more-
You die...
-- Arcum
"Yellow bulldozers
Frolic in the drying mud
Arthur's house is gone."