What is the definition of "roguelike"?
Hans Kamp
Siege, Might and Magic, Never Winternights, etc. are all of that
category...
Hans Kamp.
Hansjoerg Malthaner
> Yes, what is the definition of it? I guess that Diablo II, Dungeon
> Siege, Might and Magic, Never Winternights, etc. are all of that
> category...
IMO there is no sharp definition.
For example:
Diablo II is 'unroguelike' in being realtime.
Diablo II is 'unroguelike' in using animated graphics.
Diablo II is 'roguelike' in having random dungeons.
...
I'd think of "roguelikeness" being a scale rather than a threashold that
only says "yes" or "no".
Overally I think Diablo II doesn't score very well as a roguelike, but
indeed there are roguielike features in there, and quite a lot of its
features remind of existing rogulikes.
I think the developers somewhere stated that they were inspired by
roguelike games, namely NetHack. It was an interview, but I can't give a
reference, sorry :(
> Hans Kamp.
c.u.
Hajo
ABCGi
> Hans Kamp schrieb:
>
>> Yes, what is the definition of it? I guess that Diablo II, Dungeon
>> Siege, Might and Magic, Never Winternights, etc. are all of that
>> category...
>
>
> IMO there is no sharp definition.
>
> For example:
>
> Diablo II is 'unroguelike' in being realtime.
> Diablo II is 'unroguelike' in using animated graphics.
> Diablo II is 'roguelike' in having random dungeons.
> ....
>
> I'd think of "roguelikeness" being a scale rather than a threashold that
> only says "yes" or "no".
>
> Overally I think Diablo II doesn't score very well as a roguelike, but
> indeed there are roguielike features in there, and quite a lot of its
> features remind of existing rogulikes.
>
> I think the developers somewhere stated that they were inspired by
> roguelike games, namely NetHack. It was an interview, but I can't give a
> reference, sorry :(
Diablo is pretty much real time Nethack I say.
--
ABCGi ab...@yahoo.com http://abcgi.fly.to S14 D15 I17 W12 C9
GCS/IT$/L/B$ d+(-) s: a? C++ ULUSU-- P+ L+>++ E- W++$ N+ o+ K--
w+++(--)$ O- !M- V PS++(+) PE-@ Y+(++) PGP>++ t++ 5+ X R(+++) tv
b++(+) DI++++ D+++ G e++>+++ h++(home office!) r++ y++* BAS-----
Kornel Kisieleiwcz
news:b36c4c5c.04042...@posting.google.com...
Hurray, let's have another flamewar!
Seriously, though. This is a real FAQ. The question seems to pop-out every
month or so. And the funny thing is -- there is no spoo...eeee... answer.
The only effect of asking the question (or should i say "The Question"?)
here is provoking flame wars. In their hearts everyone has their own
definition, and as long as that person isn't obnoxious, rude, and aggresive,
he's welcome here.
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Kostatus
There is no set definition, as others have pointed out, but in general i
think everyone will agree on:
-roguelikes are turn-based RPGs with randomly generated dungeons
There are many more aspects to it.
I there's a "definition" at http://www.roguelikedevelopment.org/
--
Kostatus
kostatus001 at ihug co nz
http://www.woodsoftorbin.on.to/
or http://on.to/woodsoftorbin/
darkgod
> > I think the developers somewhere stated that they were inspired by
> > roguelike games, namely NetHack. It was an interview, but I can't give a
> > reference, sorry :(
> Diablo is pretty much real time Nethack I say.
If I was to compared Diablo to a roguelike I'd say
it's much, *MUCH*, more angbandy than nethackish ...
--
ToME power!
http://t-o-m-e.net/
ABCGi
True actually. GP.
ABCGi
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 07:33:49 GMT, Hans Kamp wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, what is the definition of it? I guess that Diablo II, Dungeon
>>Siege, Might and Magic, Never Winternights, etc. are all of that
>>category...
>>
>>Hans Kamp.
>
>
> There is no set definition, as others have pointed out, but in general i
> think everyone will agree on:
>
> -roguelikes are turn-based RPGs with randomly generated dungeons
>
> There are many more aspects to it.
>
> I there's a "definition" at http://www.roguelikedevelopment.org/
>
In one way it means what it says: a game that is LIKE the original ROGUE.
Hans Kamp
I don't intend to start a flame war. Not here, not anywhere else. It
was just a question, that had to be taken literally.
Hans Kamp.
David Damerell
>On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 07:33:49 GMT, Hans Kamp wrote:
>>Yes, what is the definition of it? I guess that Diablo II, Dungeon
>>Siege, Might and Magic, Never Winternights, etc. are all of that
>>category...
>think everyone will agree on:
>-roguelikes are turn-based RPGs with randomly generated dungeons
Roguelikes are not RPGs; you do little or no roleplaying. RPGs are played
with people, and usually not with computers.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
ABCGi
Not "everyone" then.... :)
Ray Dillinger
> Kostatus <to.get....@see.bottom.of.this.post> wrote:
>>There is no set definition, as others have pointed out, but in general i
>>think everyone will agree on:
>>-roguelikes are turn-based RPGs with randomly generated dungeons
> Roguelikes are not RPGs; you do little or no roleplaying. RPGs are played
> with people, and usually not with computers.
Okay, how about,
-roguelikes are turn-based, kill-things-and-take-their-stuff games with
randomly generated maps.
Bear
Kostatus
> David Damerell wrote:
>
>> Kostatus <to.get....@see.bottom.of.this.post> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 07:33:49 GMT, Hans Kamp wrote:
>>>
>>>>Yes, what is the definition of it? I guess that Diablo II, Dungeon
>>>>Siege, Might and Magic, Never Winternights, etc. are all of that
>>>>category...
>>>
>>>There is no set definition, as others have pointed out, but in general
>>>i think everyone will agree on:
>>>-roguelikes are turn-based RPGs with randomly generated dungeons
>>
>> Roguelikes are not RPGs; you do little or no roleplaying. RPGs are
>> played with people, and usually not with computers.
>
> Not "everyone" then.... :)
>
Well, David has the habit of disagreeing with everything I say , (even if he
mistakes one of his own points for one of mine) that attitude got him a nice
place in my kill file.
R Dan Henry
<be...@sonic.net> declared:
turn-based games using mostly randomly generated and populated maps [1]
with an emphasis on tactical conflicts and frequent (usually) random
rewards [2].
[1] Takes into account use of non-random and partly non-random maps on
special levels.
[2] This definition allows for non-lethal combat and non-combat
interactions (you could have a class, or even an entire roguelike, based
around stealth, picking pockets, planting evidence, and beguiling
speeches) and the ability to gain intrinsic abilities as well as loot
items.
--
R. Dan Henry
danh...@inreach.com
They can have my ASCII graphics when they pry them
from my cold dead (c) and (d) slots.
Kostatus
I think the following few points should also be taken into account:
+ where the player controls a character defined by several attributes
+ this character explores maps filled with monsters and items to complete a
certain quest or quests
+ high detail
Putting it all together:
Roguelikes are turn-based games using mostly randomly generated and populated
maps, which are explored by the player character (defined by several
attributes) who recieves frequent (and usually random) rewards in the form of
items, money and experience gained from tactical conflicts while trying to
complete a certain goal (or goals) by exploring previously undiscovered maps.
Special emphasis is placed on strategy and detail.
---
And, correcting me if I'm wrong, but as RPG stands for "Role Playing Game"
and most computer RPGs before the arrival of online multiplayer games
involved playing the computer (not other players), shouldn't roguelikes fit
into the category of RPGs as well? Or doesn't playing a role of a roguelike
character count as role playing?
The Sheep
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 18:50:34 GMT, in a fit of madness Ray Dillinger
><be...@sonic.net> declared:
>>David Damerell wrote:
>>> Kostatus <to.get....@see.bottom.of.this.post> wrote:
>>Okay, how about,
>>-roguelikes are turn-based, kill-things-and-take-their-stuff games with
>>randomly generated maps.
> turn-based games using mostly randomly generated and populated maps [1]
> with an emphasis on tactical conflicts and frequent (usually) random
> rewards [2].
What with indetifying items? I think it's important too...
> [1] Takes into account use of non-random and partly non-random maps on
> special levels.
>
> [2] This definition allows for non-lethal combat and non-combat
> interactions (you could have a class, or even an entire roguelike, based
> around stealth, picking pockets, planting evidence, and beguiling
> speeches) and the ability to gain intrinsic abilities as well as loot
> items.
>
--
Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski
Software is nothing like toilets.
(Kostatus, rec.games.roguelike.development)
Martin Read
>And, correcting me if I'm wrong, but as RPG stands for "Role Playing Game"
>and most computer RPGs before the arrival of online multiplayer games
>involved playing the computer (not other players), shouldn't roguelikes fit
>into the category of RPGs as well? Or doesn't playing a role of a roguelike
>character count as role playing?
I don't regard any CRPG earlier than, say, Ultima IV or Wizardry VI as
even *close* to being an RPG. I've played board games that are closer
(Games Workshop's excellent "Talisman" springs to mind).
Hm. I nominate "Dungeonquest"/"Drakborgen" (Games Workshop licensed a
Swedish game called "Drakborgen" for the UK market, and called their
release of it "Dungeonquest") as an example of a roguelike boardgame :)
m.
--
\_\/_/| Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
\ / | She comes like heaven sent her / Like Jesus died upon the cross /
\/ | Such cost / Such loss / She's almost everywhere
------+ -- The Faces Of Sarah, "Fatalistic Warning"
Fangz
Let's see... I use the roguelikey index.
1. Start at 0.
2. If predominantly randomly generated maps: +3
3. If NOT viewed from top down perspective: -5
4. If graphics are NOT constructed of an array of symbols/tiles: -2
5. If has an ASCII mode of display: +2
6. If tunnelling is allowed: +1
7. If open source: +2
8. If it involves a DnD sort of stats system: +2
9. If it can trace a direct code ancestory to rogue, or one of its contempories:
+1
10. If dead characters cannot be revived or reloaded: +1
11. If a key focus of the game is inventory management: +2
12. If a key focus of the game is combat: +2
13. If it is real time: -2
14. If its respective newsgroup, ML, or forum contains repeated mentions of
'YASD', 'YACD', 'YAWP' etc: +2
15. If it has real NPCs (ie. people you talk to, not just aimless wanderers, or
item dispensers): -1
16. If the player is alone in his/her quest: +1
Positive scores are roguelike, and negatives aren't.
Conveniently, then, diablo is just borderline, whilst Diablo 2 is just slightly
not roguelike. Feel free to recalibrate to your tastes.
Raymond Martineau
<zf...@fangs.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>On 2004-04-27 09:33:49, in...@hanskamp.com (Hans Kamp) wrote:
>
>> Yes, what is the definition of it? I guess that Diablo II, Dungeon
>> Siege, Might and Magic, Never Winternights, etc. are all of that
>> category...
>>
>> Hans Kamp.
>>
>>
>
>
>Let's see... I use the roguelikey index.
>
>6. If tunnelling is allowed: +1
Not a correct factor.
>7. If open source: +2
IIRC, Rogue was not exactly open source either. It may have been cloned
into an open source state, but the source code isn't available.
The Dos ports of Rogue are a good example, including the one released by
Epic.
>8. If it involves a DnD sort of stats system: +2
Rogue used an extremely basic stats system much weaker than DnD. Three
attributes: Hitpoints, strength, and experienced. Al three of these are
predetermined at a fixed value.
>10. If dead characters cannot be revived or reloaded: +1
IIRC, Moraff's World implemeted Raise Dead contracts. As a result, this
factor has no real bearing on whether a game is a roguelike or not.
Also, there's the case with backups - technically every single character
can be reloaded, even if it isn't honorable.
>14. If its respective newsgroup, ML, or forum contains repeated mentions of
>'YASD', 'YACD', 'YAWP' etc: +2
Not a factor. Rogue doesn't have enough complexity for things like 'YACD'
to appear frequently. Not only that, but there are the equivalent types of
postings describing the current character or event that do not need these
acronyms.
ABCGi
> On 2004-04-27 09:33:49, in...@hanskamp.com (Hans Kamp) wrote:
>
>>Yes, what is the definition of it? I guess that Diablo II, Dungeon
>>Siege, Might and Magic, Never Winternights, etc. are all of that
>>category...
>
> Let's see... I use the roguelikey index.
>
> 1. Start at 0.
> 2. If predominantly randomly generated maps: +3
> 3. If NOT viewed from top down perspective: -5
> 4. If graphics are NOT constructed of an array of symbols/tiles: -2
> 5. If has an ASCII mode of display: +2
> 6. If tunnelling is allowed: +1
> 7. If open source: +2
> 8. If it involves a DnD sort of stats system: +2
> 9. If it can trace a direct code ancestory to rogue, or one of its contempories:
> +1
> 10. If dead characters cannot be revived or reloaded: +1
> 11. If a key focus of the game is inventory management: +2
> 12. If a key focus of the game is combat: +2
> 13. If it is real time: -2
> 14. If its respective newsgroup, ML, or forum contains repeated mentions of
> 'YASD', 'YACD', 'YAWP' etc: +2
> 15. If it has real NPCs (ie. people you talk to, not just aimless wanderers, or
> item dispensers): -1
> 16. If the player is alone in his/her quest: +1
>
> Positive scores are roguelike, and negatives aren't.
>
> Conveniently, then, diablo is just borderline, whilst Diablo 2 is just slightly
> not roguelike. Feel free to recalibrate to your tastes.
Great list and concept, as you say each person will calibrate it
according to their own beliefs so it works for everyone! Wish people
wouldn't snip your list to bits... so I could add to their discussion...
but I can't so I will sulk.
Thanks.
R
> On 2004-04-27 09:33:49, in...@hanskamp.com (Hans Kamp) wrote:
>
> > Yes, what is the definition of it? I guess that Diablo II, Dungeon
> > Siege, Might and Magic, Never Winternights, etc. are all of that
> > category...
>
> Let's see... I use the roguelikey index.
>
[ snip ]
>
> Positive scores are roguelike, and negatives aren't.
>
> Conveniently, then, diablo is just borderline, whilst Diablo 2 is just slightly
> not roguelike. Feel free to recalibrate to your tastes.
Well, for me, the roguelike game is either Rogue or a game which contains
many features of previous roguelike games. I have created a list of these
features (sorted alphabetically, not by importance -- probably some
points should be assigned, but they depend on your tastes anyway):
ASCII Art
At least as an option. (For me, using AA is not an important factor; the
idea behind it is that rogue programmers prefer great gameplay to great
graphics.)
Bones of previous adventurers
Fighting ghosts of previous characters appears in many roguelikes.
Confusion existant
Appears in most roguelikes. (I suggest it for GearHead)
Dungeon crawling (at least as the majority of the game)
The dungeons should also be random.
Exists Hallucination
Appears in many roguelikes.
Free Software
Or even Open source.
Grid of Squares
(Hexes would probably be good, too.)
Hints (fortune cookies etc.)
Appears in many.
Identification
Preferably shuffled names of potions and such.
Jewellery & Armor
Key-driven Interface
Convenient for experienced players. (But if has both key-driven and
menu-driven, it would be better.)
Lots of kinds of monsters/items/other things
Not focusing on graphics allows roguelike programmers to implement
a high level of detail, and many possibilities.
Messages as information from game
No Multi-Player Support
Roguelike games are generally designed to be played by a signed player.
(But I don't think it would be bad if it allowed a fight between two
PC's, however it might not make too much sense.)
One Player Character
Rather important. (But OK if player can have some servants.)
Permanent Death
Important.
Quaff, Read, Zap as different commands
(I don't think that is important.)
Race and/or Class Selection
Secret Doors & Traps
Many roguelikes.
Turn-Based Gameplay
Important.
Using RPG elements
Like stats, experience. (IMO it is a good thing if it uses NPCs and
other RPG things.)
Various Item Interactions
Items/monsters that can interact in some strange ways. (Like examples
from the next point.)
Wield anything as a weapon
In many roguelikes you can wield or throw anything. Never seen it in
other games. (Nice if actually useful. Like, using dead petrifying
monster as a weapon, or throwing potions.)
Xtended High Score Lists
A high score table which lists 100 entries, which include death causes,
is a roguelike tradition.
Yet Another Stupid Death
Zero hardware requirements
(Not zero, just small.)
Did I miss something important (except quite obvious things, like being a
computer game with combat & inventory focus)?
Here's how it works for some games: (- no, = partially, + yes)
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
+-++-=++++++++++++++++++++ ADOM
+-+++++-+++++++++++++--+++ Angband (I don't know it well; different for vars)
++++-++-++++++++++++++++++ Crawl
++++++++++++++++++++++++++ NetHack
+-+++=+-+++++++++++++-++-+ Rogue
---=-=----==+++=+--++----+ Decker
---+----=+-=--+--++-+----- Diablo
+----++--------+---+-----+ Chess
----------+---+---+------- DOOM
-----+---------=---------= Football
Interesting... NetHack as a perfect roguelike, and Diablo not much more
roguelike than chess (if you do not count importance of characteristics)...
ABCGi
So instead of like rogue your index is like nethack, or hacklike or
likehack or nethacklike. Because rogue doesn't score the best your index
is clearly wrong for "roguelike".
R Dan Henry
<ab...@yahoo.com> declared:
>R wrote:
>> Interesting... NetHack as a perfect roguelike, and Diablo not much more
>> roguelike than chess (if you do not count importance of characteristics)...
>
>So instead of like rogue your index is like nethack, or hacklike or
>likehack or nethacklike. Because rogue doesn't score the best your index
>is clearly wrong for "roguelike".
Except that the roguelike genre has moved on since Rogue. In fact, the
rogue*like* genre can't be said to start until *after* Rogue, as Rogue
was clearly not made in homage to itself. I agree that this list is
slantly towards Nethackisms, but Rogue doesn't deserve absolute
privilege as the most typical roguelike, either. The genre has a right
to evolve without undue literalism regarding its name.
Lucas Ackerman
[snip]
> So instead of like rogue your index is like nethack, or hacklike or
> likehack or nethacklike. Because rogue doesn't score the best your index
> is clearly wrong for "roguelike".
Or: rogue is no longer the definitive roguelike. If anything, rogue
is obviously the progenitor of the genre, but most people don't play
it seriously. The modern rl's are vastly more interesting and
popular.
This observation lead me to an interesting complimentary question: if
you were to design one from scratch, what's the most complete, simple,
definitive roguelike you could come up with? I don't just mean how
generic or vanilla, but perhaps how fundamental you find certain
gameplay aspects, and how elegantly they can be integrated.
Many of us are working on the Next Big Thing, Dream Roguelike, or RL
#1 killer, but I haven't seen any attempts at a whole, small, simple,
and *complete* roguelike. It's an interesting design exercise if
nothing else, because it would be a richer game than Rogue (given our
modern standards), but smaller in scale and scope (and perhaps much
better focused) than Nethack, Angband, Crawl, and company. I also
can't imagine a better launch point for people wanting to extend a
basic roguelike with gameplay/flavor/etc ideas of their own (most are
too simple and incomplete, or too complex and overkill - balance rare
indeed).
I've had numerous ideas for quirky quasi-roguelikes that could be
small games with unique gameplay twists, but not any for a small,
definitive, complete, canonical roguelike. There's obviously no
single answer, as everyone will draw the line according to their own
preferences, but I'd be curious to what people think.
This is similiar to the idea of designing "heartbreaker" games, where
you take the best of what you love to design a game. Typically
heartbreakers try to "fix" perceived flaws, but can't move beyond them
because they're working from the same flawed assumptions, rather than
break new ground and leave the flaws behind altogether. There are a
couple of RPG design articles on The Forge here:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/, called Fantasy Heartbreakers, and
More Fantasy Heartbreakers, where I picked up this concept. The
author, Ron Edwards, observes that designing a heartbreaker may indeed
be a form of personal therapy, because by building a small shrine to
your entrenched, heartbreaking ideals, you can then grow to see them
for what they are, and perhaps move beyond them in the future.
So, as a departure from the usual discussion of Next Big Roguelike
Ideas, I'm inclined to ask: what's your idea of a Roguelike
Heartbreaker? Or, is this a redundant question - are we all already
writing heartbreakers?
-Lucas
ABCGi
> On Sun, 02 May 2004 08:29:08 +1000, in a fit of madness ABCGi
> <ab...@yahoo.com> declared:
>
>>R wrote:
>
>>>Interesting... NetHack as a perfect roguelike, and Diablo not much more
>>>roguelike than chess (if you do not count importance of characteristics)...
>>
>>So instead of like rogue your index is like nethack, or hacklike or
>>likehack or nethacklike. Because rogue doesn't score the best your index
>>is clearly wrong for "roguelike".
>
> Except that the roguelike genre has moved on since Rogue. In fact, the
> rogue*like* genre can't be said to start until *after* Rogue, as Rogue
> was clearly not made in homage to itself. I agree that this list is
> slantly towards Nethackisms, but Rogue doesn't deserve absolute
> privilege as the most typical roguelike, either. The genre has a right
> to evolve without undue literalism regarding its name.
Yes I had the same thought after I had posted and reread my words (damn
Usenet is not like forums :). Evolution I thought to myself, evolution.
Just played the Nethack 3.4.3 (dec 2003) online, great fun.
http://www.catscratch.org/scoop/special/nethack
ABCGi
> ABCGi <ab...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<40942271$0$27647$61ce...@news.syd.swiftdsl.com.au>...
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>So instead of like rogue your index is like nethack, or hacklike or
>>likehack or nethacklike. Because rogue doesn't score the best your index
>>is clearly wrong for "roguelike".
>
> Or: rogue is no longer the definitive roguelike. If anything, rogue
> is obviously the progenitor of the genre, but most people don't play
> it seriously. The modern rl's are vastly more interesting and
> popular.
I'm going to have to use the term HackLike from now on :)
> This observation lead me to an interesting complimentary question: if
> you were to design one from scratch, what's the most complete, simple,
> definitive roguelike you could come up with? I don't just mean how
> generic or vanilla, but perhaps how fundamental you find certain
> gameplay aspects, and how elegantly they can be integrated.
Some of the lists in this post are definitely a start on this.
> Many of us are working on the Next Big Thing, Dream Roguelike, or RL
> #1 killer, but I haven't seen any attempts at a whole, small, simple,
> and *complete* roguelike. It's an interesting design exercise if
> nothing else, because it would be a richer game than Rogue (given our
> modern standards), but smaller in scale and scope (and perhaps much
> better focused) than Nethack, Angband, Crawl, and company. I also
> can't imagine a better launch point for people wanting to extend a
> basic roguelike with gameplay/flavor/etc ideas of their own (most are
> too simple and incomplete, or too complex and overkill - balance rare
> indeed).
I have been guilty of over design and overkill, very debilitating, but
kind of fun in a weird kind of way.
> I've had numerous ideas for quirky quasi-roguelikes that could be
> small games with unique gameplay twists, but not any for a small,
> definitive, complete, canonical roguelike. There's obviously no
> single answer, as everyone will draw the line according to their own
> preferences, but I'd be curious to what people think.
>
> This is similiar to the idea of designing "heartbreaker" games, where
> you take the best of what you love to design a game. Typically
> heartbreakers try to "fix" perceived flaws, but can't move beyond them
> because they're working from the same flawed assumptions, rather than
> break new ground and leave the flaws behind altogether. There are a
> couple of RPG design articles on The Forge here:
> http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/, called Fantasy Heartbreakers, and
> More Fantasy Heartbreakers, where I picked up this concept. The
> author, Ron Edwards, observes that designing a heartbreaker may indeed
> be a form of personal therapy, because by building a small shrine to
> your entrenched, heartbreaking ideals, you can then grow to see them
> for what they are, and perhaps move beyond them in the future.
>
> So, as a departure from the usual discussion of Next Big Roguelike
> Ideas, I'm inclined to ask: what's your idea of a Roguelike
> Heartbreaker? Or, is this a redundant question - are we all already
> writing heartbreakers?
I think I, and others, mix up the definition of RogueLike (or what I,
from now on, will be referring to as HackLike) with what they prefer or
"like" in such a game.
Take permadeath, definitely part of any definition of a HackLike
(objectively speaking) but people that hate it will try to reduce or
remove its importance from the definition.
I find that article disjointed: fantasy heart breakers
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/
but the term heart breaker conjures up to me a game that takes something
you love from a genre (like permadeath) and removes it, thus breaking
your heart. Most CRPG's for me have no sense of apprehension because I
have a save game waiting in the wings. Other console based RPG's with
save points make you relive the exact same experience again and again
which reminds me of linear games with not enough randomisation to
maintain interest on replay - all very heart breaking to me.
R
> On Sun, 02 May 2004 08:29:08 +1000, in a fit of madness ABCGi
> <ab...@yahoo.com> declared:
>
> >R wrote:
>
> >> Interesting... NetHack as a perfect roguelike, and Diablo not much more
> >> roguelike than chess (if you do not count importance of characteristics)...
> >
> >So instead of like rogue your index is like nethack, or hacklike or
> >likehack or nethacklike. Because rogue doesn't score the best your index
> >is clearly wrong for "roguelike".
>
> Except that the roguelike genre has moved on since Rogue. In fact, the
> rogue*like* genre can't be said to start until *after* Rogue, as Rogue
> was clearly not made in homage to itself. I agree that this list is
> slantly towards Nethackisms, but Rogue doesn't deserve absolute
> privilege as the most typical roguelike, either. The genre has a right
> to evolve without undue literalism regarding its name.
OTOH it's hard to have all these features in such a small game as Rogue.
If it is slantly towards Nethackisms, it is not intended (I am not a
NetHack fan). What roguelike features are common, but missing from NetHack?
I have found one that seems to fit:
> Confusion existant
> Appears in most roguelikes. (I suggest it for GearHead)
> Exists Hallucination
> Appears in many roguelikes.
Confusion existant
Appears in most roguelikes. (If hallucination appears too, even better
(some people seem to like it)).
Ego Items
"Normal" weapons (or other things) can get magical (or equivalent)
prefixes or suffixes, like "of orc slaying". At partial levels, we have
enchanted/high quality weapons like "+1 mace" or "+2,+0 mace", and other
kinds of special weapons, which work in other way than adding
prefix/suffix.
Revised table (also some other corrections):
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
+-=++=++++++++++++++++++++ ADOM
+-+++++-+++++++++++++--+++ Angband
++=++++-++++++++++++++++++ Crawl
++++=+++++++++++++++++++++ NetHack
+-++==+-+++++++++-+++-++-+ Rogue
---=-=----==+++==--++----+ Decker
---++-+-=+-=-=+--++-+----- Diablo
+----++--------+---+-----+ Chess
----------+--=+---+------- DOOM
-----+---------=---------= Football
I think separate indices (point values) might be introduced for Roguelike
Elements and Roguelike Purity. And another one for which ones are
good/popular game elements, without any relation to Rogue.
Jeff Lait
>
> This observation lead me to an interesting complimentary question: if
> you were to design one from scratch, what's the most complete, simple,
> definitive roguelike you could come up with? I don't just mean how
> generic or vanilla, but perhaps how fundamental you find certain
> gameplay aspects, and how elegantly they can be integrated.
IMHO, I'd point to Dungeon Monkey:
http://www.geocities.com/pyrrho12/programming/monkey/
On a similar note, this is the design philosophy of POWDER. I started
from scratch and built what I considered a simple, definitive,
roguelike. I have since proceeded to flesh it out, trying to maintain
elegant integration. We'll see how long I can keep that up :>
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
Raymond Martineau
>Fangz <zf...@fangs.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 2004-04-27 09:33:49, in...@hanskamp.com (Hans Kamp) wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, what is the definition of it? I guess that Diablo II, Dungeon
>> > Siege, Might and Magic, Never Winternights, etc. are all of that
>> > category...
>>
>> Let's see... I use the roguelikey index.
>>
>[ snip ]
>>
>> Positive scores are roguelike, and negatives aren't.
>>
>> Conveniently, then, diablo is just borderline, whilst Diablo 2 is just slightly
>> not roguelike. Feel free to recalibrate to your tastes.
>
>Well, for me, the roguelike game is either Rogue or a game which contains
>many features of previous roguelike games. I have created a list of these
>features (sorted alphabetically, not by importance -- probably some
>points should be assigned, but they depend on your tastes anyway):
>
The listing, although generally accurrate enough, should be a bit more well
defined, especially when using a three-option scale.
>Confusion existant
> Appears in most roguelikes. (I suggest it for GearHead)
Here, confusion only will limit the other disabilating mental effects such
as stunning. This is partially fixed in your revised edition.
>Permanent Death
> Important.
This needs defining. Does permanent death mean that dead things are fully
incapalbe of being resurrected, or does it mean that saved games are
deleted?
>
>Yet Another Stupid Death
>
I was thinking about placing a '=' for Doom, because in a loose way,
there's been the equivalent of a YASD posted on one of the demo competition
sites when a player accidently fired a rocket at a decal directly in front
of him.
>Zero hardware requirements
> (Not zero, just small.)
This (obviously) needs some definition. Are these zero hardware
requirements for having the first screen up, for running the first few
areas of the game, for completing the game, or for holding up under extreme
circumstances?
There's no doubt about most of the roguelike games, but some aren't as
processor or memory efficient as they could be.
>
>Did I miss something important (except quite obvious things, like being a
>computer game with combat & inventory focus)?
>
>Here's how it works for some games: (- no, = partially, + yes)
>
>ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
>+-++-=++++++++++++++++++++ ADOM
>+-+++++-+++++++++++++--+++ Angband (I don't know it well; different for vars)
>++++-++-++++++++++++++++++ Crawl
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++ NetHack
>+-+++=+-+++++++++++++-++-+ Rogue
>
>---=-=----==+++=+--++----+ Decker
>---+----=+-=--+--++-+----- Diablo
>
>+----++--------+---+-----+ Chess
>----------+---+---+------- DOOM
>-----+---------=---------= Football
>
>Interesting... NetHack as a perfect roguelike, and Diablo not much more
>roguelike than chess (if you do not count importance of characteristics)...
There's a minor mistake with the Doom entry - it provides text messages
from the game whenever you pick up an item (which can be disabled if
desired.) As a result, it will look like this:
:ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
:----------+-+-+---+------- DOOM
Also, Adom and Angband don't exactly have zero hardware requirements - I've
tried compiling Angband and ran very quickly into the 64K variable size
limit, meaning that it requires a bit more memory than "zero'.
Adom, as some people know, has an extremely inefficient LOS algorithm that
isn't very accurrate either.
>+-++-=+++++++++++++++++++- ADOM
>+-+++++-+++++++++++++--++= Angband
Also, angband did have Bones at one time but it was removed by one of the
maintainers (Ben Harrison) because it looked too much like a hackish
implementation. Thus, you might want to take that into consideration with
your ratings.
Jeff Lait
> Fangz <zf...@fangs.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 2004-04-27 09:33:49, in...@hanskamp.com (Hans Kamp) wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, what is the definition of it? I guess that Diablo II, Dungeon
> > > Siege, Might and Magic, Never Winternights, etc. are all of that
> > > category...
Neverwinternights is definitely a non-roguelike IMHO.
> > Let's see... I use the roguelikey index.
> >
> [ snip ]
> >
> > Positive scores are roguelike, and negatives aren't.
> >
> > Conveniently, then, diablo is just borderline, whilst Diablo 2 is just slightly
> > not roguelike. Feel free to recalibrate to your tastes.
>
> Well, for me, the roguelike game is either Rogue or a game which contains
> many features of previous roguelike games. I have created a list of these
> features (sorted alphabetically, not by importance -- probably some
> points should be assigned, but they depend on your tastes anyway):
>
...
> Free Software
> Or even Open source.
I keep seeing this come up as a "Roguelike" feature. How does the
price/license of the software change the *gameplay*? (The cries of:
"Nethack is so good because of X, Y, and Z, and because it's !FREE!"
always depress me. Nethack would be just as good a game if it cost
$50)
This also has the bizarre effect of causing any free game to suddenly
be "roguelike".
> Race and/or Class Selection
This is just silly. I know it is often vogue to spend most of ones
time in crafting race/class selection menus, but in practice, most of
the game is spent *playing*. This, IMO, has nothing to do with
gameplay, so has nothing to do with if it is a roguelike or not.
> Various Item Interactions
> Items/monsters that can interact in some strange ways. (Like examples
> from the next point.)
>
> Wield anything as a weapon
> In many roguelikes you can wield or throw anything. Never seen it in
> other games. (Nice if actually useful. Like, using dead petrifying
> monster as a weapon, or throwing potions.)
These two points I think are some of the more important. However, I
think these are much more "Hacklike" measures than they are
"Roguelike" measures.
> Zero hardware requirements
> (Not zero, just small.)
Alas, I can't claim this :>
> Did I miss something important (except quite obvious things, like being a
> computer game with combat & inventory focus)?
Umm... Shouldn't you *start* with obvious things? Because you go on
to claim that Diablo is as roguelike as Chess, yet Chess isn't a
computer game with combat & inventory focus!
> Here's how it works for some games: (- no, = partially, + yes)
>
> ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
> +-++-=++++++++++++++++++++ ADOM
> +-+++++-+++++++++++++--+++ Angband (I don't know it well; different for vars)
> ++++-++-++++++++++++++++++ Crawl
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ NetHack
> +-+++=+-+++++++++++++-++-+ Rogue
---+-=+-++-?+++++-+++++-?- POWDER
> ---=-=----==+++=+--++----+ Decker
> ---+----=+-=--+--++-+----- Diablo
>
> +----++--------+---+-----+ Chess
> ----------+---+---+------- DOOM
> -----+---------=---------= Football
>
> Interesting... NetHack as a perfect roguelike, and Diablo not much more
> roguelike than chess (if you do not count importance of characteristics)...
Of course, that's partly because Diablo got penalized for costing
money whilst chess was rewarded as being free.
Kornel Kisieleiwcz
> ABCGi <ab...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<40942271$0$27647$61ce...@news.syd.swiftdsl.com.au>...
>> likehack or nethacklike. Because rogue doesn't score the best your
>> index is clearly wrong for "roguelike".
> Many of us are working on the Next Big Thing, Dream Roguelike, or RL
> #1 killer, but I haven't seen any attempts at a whole, small, simple,
> and *complete* roguelike.
I did. And finished.
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
R Dan Henry
torespon...@hotmail.com (Jeff Lait) declared:
>I keep seeing this come up as a "Roguelike" feature. How does the
>price/license of the software change the *gameplay*? (The cries of:
>"Nethack is so good because of X, Y, and Z, and because it's !FREE!"
>always depress me. Nethack would be just as good a game if it cost
>$50)
This is unlikely. Games that cost $50 are made for money and development
does not continue for long years after the game is released, with
constant refinement and expansion. At most, a couple of add-ons (usually
buggy) are rushed out while the game is hot, then a sequel of
unpredictable worth will be the next project.
But it isn't a feature that's constantly mentioned because it's part of
gameplay in the strictest sense, but because it is part of the roguelike
*culture*. It probably doesn't automatically disqualify a game to be
closed-source and fifty dollars, but it'll have a hard time finding
acceptance with the roguelike community.
>This also has the bizarre effect of causing any free game to suddenly
>be "roguelike".
To have a *single* feature typical of roguelikes. If that makes a game a
roguelike, then Chess and Monopoly are already roguelike games.
ABCGi
> On 3 May 2004 07:50:19 -0700, in a fit of madness
> torespon...@hotmail.com (Jeff Lait) declared:
>
>>I keep seeing this come up as a "Roguelike" feature. How does the
>>price/license of the software change the *gameplay*? (The cries of:
>>"Nethack is so good because of X, Y, and Z, and because it's !FREE!"
>>always depress me. Nethack would be just as good a game if it cost
>>$50)
How does it "runs on low powered machines" change gameplay? How does it
"runs/compile on multiple platforms" change gameplay besides the
non-Windows(TM,C,R,XYZ) specific feel? How does "posting YASD on Usenet"
effect gameplay except retrospectively? Is this a case of someone who
doesn't like *open source* and therefore altering the definition of a
HackLike (aka RL) based on what they do and do not like?
> This is unlikely. Games that cost $50 are made for money and development
> does not continue for long years after the game is released, with
> constant refinement and expansion. At most, a couple of add-ons (usually
> buggy) are rushed out while the game is hot, then a sequel of
> unpredictable worth will be the next project.
>
> But it isn't a feature that's constantly mentioned because it's part of
> gameplay in the strictest sense, but because it is part of the roguelike
> *culture*. It probably doesn't automatically disqualify a game to be
> closed-source and fifty dollars, but it'll have a hard time finding
> acceptance with the roguelike community.
Culture, I like that, that is really what we have been trying to define
(and having just as much difficulty in RL - that's Real Life), the
RogueLike culture. In this case I'd want to add these aspects;
* Written by total geeks, usually a small team or individual
* Contains clever reference/homage to popular culture OR literature OR
D&D OR mythology etc.
* Feels like a RogueLike.
>>This also has the bizarre effect of causing any free game to suddenly
>>be "roguelike".
>
> To have a *single* feature typical of roguelikes. If that makes a game a
> roguelike, then Chess and Monopoly are already roguelike games.
Open Source and no $cost$ has been a feature of HackLike's, but just
like the other features, they are not show stoppers - ADoM is still a
HackLike because it satisfys enough other features but is closed source.
Releasing the source (under whatever license) so that people can
collaborate, learn from the source, make little changes of their own,
and just get that good feeling in the pit of their stomach is definitely
part of HackLike culture and one of the reasons I became interested in
the first place. Indeed, for some, its the reason they could write/get
so far in writing a HackLike of their own; and therefore has helped the
culture grow.
Ray Dillinger
>>Free Software
>> Or even Open source.
>
>
> I keep seeing this come up as a "Roguelike" feature. How does the
> price/license of the software change the *gameplay*? (The cries of:
> "Nethack is so good because of X, Y, and Z, and because it's !FREE!"
> always depress me. Nethack would be just as good a game if it cost
> $50)
>
> This also has the bizarre effect of causing any free game to suddenly
> be "roguelike".
Well, the fact is roguelikes are generally too deep
(ie, too much work) to have produced for profit. If
your motive was profit, you'd have concentrated your
effort on a flashy GUI and an advertising campaign.
If your motive is gameplay, you go really really deep,
obsessively, in terms of behavior and options, and you
wind up with something more roguelike.
If somebody wanted to produce a 'nethack' for profit,
there is no way on earth they could possibly charge
enough money to pay the programmers involved for the
time they've spent on it. If you work on roguelikes,
you have to do it because you *want* to.
Bear
Kenny
*******************************************************************************
tout casse, tout passe, tout lasse.
*******************************************************************************
On 1 May 2004, Lucas Ackerman wrote:
> Many of us are working on the Next Big Thing, Dream Roguelike, or RL
> #1 killer, but I haven't seen any attempts at a whole, small, simple,
> and *complete* roguelike. It's an interesting design exercise if
> nothing else, because it would be a richer game than Rogue (given our
> modern standards), but smaller in scale and scope (and perhaps much
> better focused) than Nethack, Angband, Crawl, and company. I also
> can't imagine a better launch point for people wanting to extend a
> basic roguelike with gameplay/flavor/etc ideas of their own (most are
> too simple and incomplete, or too complex and overkill - balance rare
> indeed).
>
But by your definition, isn't Nethack, Crawl, Moria, Angband etc are all
fantasy heartbreakers? All were written after Rogue. All were probably
written by programmers wanting to improve on the aspects of Rogue they
thought it lacked?
K
Kenny
> gli...@gweep.net (Lucas Ackerman) wrote in message news:<6d33ce44.0405...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > This observation lead me to an interesting complimentary question: if
> > you were to design one from scratch, what's the most complete, simple,
> > definitive roguelike you could come up with? I don't just mean how
> > generic or vanilla, but perhaps how fundamental you find certain
> > gameplay aspects, and how elegantly they can be integrated.
>
> IMHO, I'd point to Dungeon Monkey:
> http://www.geocities.com/pyrrho12/programming/monkey/
Hmm. But technically Dungeon Monkey isn't a fantasy heartbreaker, as
the writer as if I recall correctly it was more of a programming
challenge. In a sense, it is more of seed for programmers to nuture, kinda
like QHack.
Fantasy heartbreakers as they apply to RLs are more along the lines
of people coming on to the newgroups and stating they like to create a
large random world with random cities with random dungeons with random
quests.
Whether they get coded is another matter entirely, hence my assertion
that Moria, Nethack, Adom and Crawl are all fantasy heartbreakers as
they were written to apply ideas that the writers thought were missing
from the original Rogue.
K
ABCGi
> On 3 May 2004, Jeff Lait wrote:
>
>>gli...@gweep.net (Lucas Ackerman) wrote in message news:<6d33ce44.0405...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>>This observation lead me to an interesting complimentary question: if
>>>you were to design one from scratch, what's the most complete, simple,
>>>definitive roguelike you could come up with? I don't just mean how
>>>generic or vanilla, but perhaps how fundamental you find certain
>>>gameplay aspects, and how elegantly they can be integrated.
>>
>>IMHO, I'd point to Dungeon Monkey:
>>http://www.geocities.com/pyrrho12/programming/monkey/
>
> Hmm. But technically Dungeon Monkey isn't a fantasy heartbreaker, as
> the writer as if I recall correctly it was more of a programming
> challenge. In a sense, it is more of seed for programmers to nuture, kinda
> like QHack.
>
> Fantasy heartbreakers as they apply to RLs are more along the lines
> of people coming on to the newgroups and stating they like to create a
> large random world with random cities with random dungeons with random
> quests.
Heh! Only if you believe the hype. This usually gets cynical reactions
here rather than broken hearts :)
> Whether they get coded is another matter entirely, hence my assertion
> that Moria, Nethack, Adom and Crawl are all fantasy heartbreakers as
> they were written to apply ideas that the writers thought were missing
> from the original Rogue.
--
David Damerell
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Roguelikes are not RPGs; you do little or no roleplaying. RPGs are played
>>with people, and usually not with computers.
>-roguelikes are turn-based, kill-things-and-take-their-stuff games with
>randomly generated maps.
I simply don't think you can say "roguelikes are such-and-such"; the best
you can do is to list a number of things that roguelikes typically
involve, and note that any given roguelikes might not use any particular
item on the list.
For instance, I would argue that robotfindskitten is a simple roguelike,
but it has none of the character advancement mechanics found in the
computer games incorrectly called RPGs - nor any killing of things and
taking their stuff.
A rough draft of that list would be;
Roguelikes typically depict a situation you can win or lose, not a
"sandbox" like the Sim Cities. Usually there is combat.
Where there is combat, it's carried out using the same interface as is
used outside of combat.
[Actually, I think that one is pretty fundamental, and often overlooked in
people's attempts at defintions. A game where, for instance, running away
is accomplished by pressing a button in combat which then dumps you out to
the map is not very roguelike.]
A roguelike normally has strong elements of exploration and discovery.
A roguelike normally involves a lot of randomly generated situations -
layouts, item identities, etc. - to give a different challenge every game.
A roguelike normally has permanent death.
A roguelike is normally turn-based, or at any rate allows the player to
take as long as they like to consider their next move.
A roguelike is normally played on a square grid with discrete positions
which could be represented in ASCII (and often is).
A roguelike normally does not test manual dexterity or reflexes (like a
first-person shooter does), and normally does not rely on interface
awkwardness to provide a challenge (for instance, in an FPS you have a
limited field of view; in a roguelike, you would only ever have a limited
field of view if there was an actual game mechanic that cost you time to
look around).
Roguelikes usually have character advancement mechanics, and those that do
tend to make building up your character a very important part of the game.
Now the traditional roguelikes have all these characteristics; but a
number of games like Diablo, Dungeon Master, robotfindskitten, etc. have
some of them, and can reasonably be called a bit roguelike...
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Jeff Lait
> R Dan Henry wrote:
> > On 3 May 2004 07:50:19 -0700, in a fit of madness
> > torespon...@hotmail.com (Jeff Lait) declared:
> >
> >>I keep seeing this come up as a "Roguelike" feature. How does the
> >>price/license of the software change the *gameplay*? (The cries of:
> >>"Nethack is so good because of X, Y, and Z, and because it's !FREE!"
> >>always depress me. Nethack would be just as good a game if it cost
> >>$50)
>
> How does it "runs on low powered machines" change gameplay?
It doesn't, and I don't think that's a feature of roguelikes.
> How does it
> "runs/compile on multiple platforms" change gameplay besides the
> non-Windows(TM,C,R,XYZ) specific feel?
It doesn't, and I don't think that's a feature of roguelikes.
> How does "posting YASD on Usenet"
> effect gameplay except retrospectively?
It doesn't, and I don't think that's a feature of roguelikes.
> Is this a case of someone who
> doesn't like *open source* and therefore altering the definition of a
> HackLike (aka RL) based on what they do and do not like?
???
Where do you get that question from? If I were someone who didn't
like open source, and wanted to alter the definition based on what I
liked, I would state that "a feature of roguelikes is that they are
closed source". I would think that it is much more likely that it is
a case of someone who doesn't like *closed source* and therefore
altering the definition of HackLike based on what they do and do not
like.
My objection is because I would like the definition of a roguelike to
be based upon the *game* itself. That doesn't seem like such a
bizarre request?
If I were to add "written in C/C++" as an attribute of roguelikes, you
would rightfully point out that the game play is independent of the
language.
> Culture, I like that, that is really what we have been trying to define
> (and having just as much difficulty in RL - that's Real Life), the
> RogueLike culture. In this case I'd want to add these aspects;
I have absolutely no interest in defining roguelike culture. I also
think it would be much harder to define that then it would be to
define roguelike games. Consider the difference in culture between
rec.games.roguelike.development and the other rec.games.roguelike.*.
Consider the differences in culture between r.g.r.adom and
r.g.r.nethack. Now consider that most players of roguelikes don't
post to Usenet.
> * Written by total geeks, usually a small team or individual
This doesn't affect gameplay, and I don't think that's a feature of
roguelikes.
> * Contains clever reference/homage to popular culture OR literature OR
> D&D OR mythology etc.
I can see what you are trying to get at, but you have so watered down
this definition that it pretty much means: "Contains reference to
other cultural works". And, I'd say it's pretty difficult to *avoid*
that.
> * Feels like a RogueLike.
This is the One True Definition of Roguelike, no? If you allow "Feels
like a Roguelike" on the list, there is really no need to add any
other entries.
> >>This also has the bizarre effect of causing any free game to suddenly
> >>be "roguelike".
> >
> > To have a *single* feature typical of roguelikes. If that makes a game a
> > roguelike, then Chess and Monopoly are already roguelike games.
>
> Open Source and no $cost$ has been a feature of HackLike's, but just
> like the other features, they are not show stoppers - ADoM is still a
> HackLike because it satisfys enough other features but is closed source.
"Written in C" is a feature of HackLikes. I would, however, not even
blink if a game lacked said feature. Furthermore, I would not say Tax
Software that is "Written in C" has a feature of HackLikes.
R
> On Sat, 1 May 2004 13:47:01 +0000 (UTC), R <r...@xxx.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 2004-04-27 09:33:49, in...@hanskamp.com (Hans Kamp) wrote:
> >>
> >> > Yes, what is the definition of it? I guess that Diablo II, Dungeon
> >> > Siege, Might and Magic, Never Winternights, etc. are all of that
> >> > category...
> >Well, for me, the roguelike game is either Rogue or a game which contains
> >many features of previous roguelike games. I have created a list of these
> >features (sorted alphabetically, not by importance -- probably some
> >points should be assigned, but they depend on your tastes anyway):
> >
>
> The listing, although generally accurrate enough, should be a bit more well
> defined, especially when using a three-option scale.
>
> >Confusion existant
> > Appears in most roguelikes. (I suggest it for GearHead)
>
> Here, confusion only will limit the other disabilating mental effects such
> as stunning. This is partially fixed in your revised edition.
I don't understand what you mean here... This point is not about mental
effects in general, but only about Confusion (and Hallucination), which
appears in almost all roguelikes and is therefore a roguelike feature.
Adding claustrophobia, insanity or some other original mental effect
would certainly help with "Lots of detail" and maybe "Various interactions",
but this point is specifically about confusion.
> >Permanent Death
> > Important.
>
> This needs defining. Does permanent death mean that dead things are fully
> incapalbe of being resurrected, or does it mean that saved games are
> deleted?
If something bad (for example, death) happens, reloading a savegame from
the past is considered cheating. You have either to accept it and continue
with it (if it is not game over), or to start a new game. That's what I meant.
If the game allows you to play after death, it would be against, too, but
it was not covered in my list.
> >Yet Another Stupid Death
>
> I was thinking about placing a '=' for Doom, because in a loose way,
> there's been the equivalent of a YASD posted on one of the demo competition
> sites when a player accidently fired a rocket at a decal directly in front
> of him.
Maybe it should be defined as "stupid deaths happen", not "YASDs posted"
(so that it actually affects gameplay). Permanent death is probably very
strongly related to that, since nobody cares for death if it is not
permanent.
> >Zero hardware requirements
> > (Not zero, just small.)
>
> This (obviously) needs some definition. Are these zero hardware
> requirements for having the first screen up, for running the first few
> areas of the game, for completing the game, or for holding up under extreme
> circumstances?
>
> There's no doubt about most of the roguelike games, but some aren't as
> processor or memory efficient as they could be.
The requirements are for playing and completing a game. This point is not
very important --- the "Lots of detail" point's definition is even worse,
and it is much more important.
But if you want a more formal definition, I see two possibilities.
One is historical ('-' means that you needed a very new machine to play this
game when it was released), and the other refers to current state ('-' means
that you need rather a powerful and new machine to play it, while '+' means
that it could be ported to a very old computer/PDA/cellphone). The scores
below were based on my own judgement, and are inaccurate for both.
> >Here's how it works for some games: (- no, = partially, + yes)
> >
> >ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
> >+-++-=++++++++++++++++++++ ADOM
> >+-+++++-+++++++++++++--+++ Angband (I don't know it well; different for vars)
> >++++-++-++++++++++++++++++ Crawl
> >++++++++++++++++++++++++++ NetHack
> >+-+++=+-+++++++++++++-++-+ Rogue
> >
> >---=-=----==+++=+--++----+ Decker
> >---+----=+-=--+--++-+----- Diablo
> >
> >+----++--------+---+-----+ Chess
> >----------+---+---+------- DOOM
> >-----+---------=---------= Football
> >
> >Interesting... NetHack as a perfect roguelike, and Diablo not much more
> >roguelike than chess (if you do not count importance of characteristics)...
>
> There's a minor mistake with the Doom entry - it provides text messages
> from the game whenever you pick up an item (which can be disabled if
> desired.) As a result, it will look like this:
>
> :ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
> :----------+-+-+---+------- DOOM
But in roguelikes the messages are more important than in Doom. Also, there
are no messages like "The cyberdemon misses you" in Doom. I agree for a '='.
> Also, Adom and Angband don't exactly have zero hardware requirements - I've
> tried compiling Angband and ran very quickly into the 64K variable size
> limit, meaning that it requires a bit more memory than "zero'.
>
> Adom, as some people know, has an extremely inefficient LOS algorithm that
> isn't very accurrate either.
Are requirements of Angband greater than of Nethack?
Zak Arntson
> But by your definition, isn't Nethack, Crawl, Moria, Angband etc are all
> fantasy heartbreakers? All were written after Rogue. All were probably
> written by programmers wanting to improve on the aspects of Rogue they
> thought it lacked?
>
> K
An integral part of an RPG Fantasy Heartbreaker is that they are
ultimately all trying to do D&D better than D&D. The inherent flaw is
that the new game will inevitably be compared to D&D, which it isn't,
so it fails the test.
With Roguelikes, you don't have a single dominant game. D&D is in its
own genre, 'D&D Fantasy' (A gumbo of Moorcock's morals, Jack Vance's
spellcasting, Tolkien's races, Lieber's rogues, and so on). There
really isn't a single Roguelike which defines the genre.
One of the points behind analyzing Fantasy Heartbreakers is as a
lesson: You're not going anywhere trying to "out-D&D" D&D. The other
point is that each one usually has one specific feature that really
stands out as a "wow!" feature, something that makes it stand out from
a D&D clone. It's frustrating to see the love that goes into these
self-published efforts ultimately fail, especially when there's a
diamond hiding in all the rules. It would be great for the designers
to just do their own thing and release an original game, and it's sad
to see the wasted effort.
With Roguelikes, I would put the Heartbreaker conditions at:
* Touted as the "Next Big Thing" in Roguelikes
* At least one part is incredibly detailed in comparison to the
ethereal Roguelike standard (for example, every entity in the game has
at least 15 hit locations with separate hit points).
* Never gets completed (this is partly a function of them being
non-commercial)
I'm no expert on Roguelike culture, though, so I could be wrong with
my assumptions.
ABCGi
It was a question but on rereading I can see insinuation in it, sorry.
And me not liking closed source and commercialism is a fair call, that
does colour my judgement.
I think I find the culture more interesting as part of the definition,
so we are talking about two different things really. This last example
seems a stretch, it really is a collective definition using feature
lists and not to be used in isolation like this. But for a more pure
technical gameplay definition (rather than cultural) I would be inclined
to go with what you have said above and in previous posts.
I'm also glad to see neither of us have got into ad hominems :)
David Damerell
>Well, David has the habit of disagreeing with everything I say , (even if he
>mistakes one of his own points for one of mine)
There's little point in lying about a thread so recently concluded.
Jeff Lait
> Jeff Lait wrote:
>
> > Where do you get that question from? If I were someone who didn't
> > like open source, and wanted to alter the definition based on what I
> > liked, I would state that "a feature of roguelikes is that they are
> > closed source". I would think that it is much more likely that it is
> > a case of someone who doesn't like *closed source* and therefore
> > altering the definition of HackLike based on what they do and do not
> > like.
>
> It was a question but on rereading I can see insinuation in it, sorry.
> And me not liking closed source and commercialism is a fair call, that
> does colour my judgement.
No offense taken. I just wanted to point out that I (for once) was
the one being more open and tolerant :>
> > "Written in C" is a feature of HackLikes. I would, however, not even
> > blink if a game lacked said feature. Furthermore, I would not say Tax
> > Software that is "Written in C" has a feature of HackLikes.
>
> I think I find the culture more interesting as part of the definition,
> so we are talking about two different things really. This last example
> seems a stretch, it really is a collective definition using feature
> lists and not to be used in isolation like this. But for a more pure
> technical gameplay definition (rather than cultural) I would be inclined
> to go with what you have said above and in previous posts.
Agreed. There are two separate terms being defined. One is the set
of things which make a game "roguelike", ie: "Feels like Rogue". The
other is the set of things that typify the roguelike culture. Free &
Open Source could well be argued to be in the latter.
> I'm also glad to see neither of us have got into ad hominems :)
Shhh! Do you want us to be kicked off USENET for committing the
cardinal sin of rational debate?
ABCGi
There is still time ... :)
ABCGi
http://adom.de/adom/roguelike.php3
1# There are two major differences to roguelike games {from CRPG's}
though: most roguelike games do not use any graphics but rather rely on
the ASCII character set to display their surroundings.
2# Roguelike games are very random.
3# Roguelike games usually do not allow you to save your character past
his/her death.
YAY permadeath!
BOO ASCII only :( Dan will like that though...
David Damerell
>I note on Thomas's ADoM site that his most important criteria for a RL are;
>http://adom.de/adom/roguelike.php3
>1# There are two major differences to roguelike games {from CRPG's}
>though: most roguelike games do not use any graphics but rather rely on
>the ASCII character set to display their surroundings.
This does not inherently inform gameplay. I would say, rather, that
roguelikes are usually _capable_ of such a display - that play takes place
on a grid with discrete positions.
The other two are on my list too.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
ABCGi
He makes a good point on the site, that crappy tile graphics get in the
road of your imagination.... and it is a feature of the very primitive
ASCII that allows your imagination to soar!
But then I play NetHack with the tiles on...
--
ABCGi *** BEYOND H-WORLD *** http://abcgi.fly.to
http://codemonkey.sunsite.dk/projects/beyond/hworld.html
Heroes - http://www.simugraph.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=5&t_id=9
Specs - http://www.simugraph.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=5&t_id=6
topazg
>
> ---=-=----==+++=+--++----+ Decker
Cool, someone else that has played Decker :-)
--
Take Care,
Topaz
V(3.0.4b) Beta "Brakki" hoW L:23 DL:750' A-- R--- !Sp w:Trident (Holy Avenger)
+9,+10
V(S/T/Z/NPP) W H- D- c-- f PV+ s- TT? d P++ M+
C-- S+ I- So B ac GHB- SQ+ RQ+ V+ F:Better V AI, (w/Monster Mana etc..)
Kornel Kisieleiwcz
Gee, I'm so dissapointed that no one got offended by this statement :)
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Michael Blackney
I'll bite.
Why would we get offended? Puzzled, maybe, as I only remember Joe
Hewitt's whole, small, simple, and complete roguelike.
Did I miss yours? If you made one then quit being such a tease and show
us - don't feed us any Gabbo-esque, pre-release, mystery marketing; or
Amy Wangker, "I've done it but you can't see it because I don't like
you" nonsense.
--
michaelblackney at hotmail dot com
http://aburatan.sourceforge.net/
Latest version 0.95 2-5-4
ABCGi
Yeah where is the link! Figured you were making it up :) (joke)
Hansjoerg Malthaner
>>>Many of us are working on the Next Big Thing, Dream Roguelike, or RL
>>>#1 killer, but I haven't seen any attempts at a whole, small, simple,
>>>and *complete* roguelike.
>>
>>I did. And finished.
>
> Gee, I'm so dissapointed that no one got offended by this statement :)
I saw a feedback message from a tester so I know that there was
something playable even if you didn't release to public.
Also, you're a thinker, a designer. IMO it isn't actually important if
you released something. Sharing thoughts and ideas is valuable, too.
Just one point that bugs me: stop rewriting GenRogue all over. Some
things will stay dreams regardless how often you try. Push forward with
one of the better/more complete rewrites and do the doable :)
OTOH dreams, let's say visions are important. One needs to dream of the
undoable to move the borders of the doable forward. If noone have
dreamed of flight, noone would've tried to create wings.
> regards,
> Kornel Kisielewicz
c.u.
Hajo
Michael Blackney
>
> I consider the definitive test to be whether item types are unknown at
> the beginning of the game, yet are discoverable during the game, and
> that they're consistent across descriptions in the same game but not
> different games.
I agree. Some of my first ever roguelikes were console games - Dragon
Crystal for SMS and Toejam and Earl for Sega Mega Drive. I played both
of them to death and the most memorable part of each was the randomized
item descriptions. Damn those Randomizer presents!