Roguelike Game: Definition
Erik Max Francis
> What do you think is the definition of a roguelike?
Whatever we point to and say, "That's a Roguelike."
--
Erik Max Francis | email m...@alcyone.com | icq 16063900
Alcyone Systems | web http://www.alcyone.com/max/ | q3a Product
San Jose, CA | languages en, eo | icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
USA | 968.980 Ms p.L. | 272 days left | &tSftDotIotE
__
/ \ Be able to be alone. Lose not the advantage of solitude.
\__/ Sir Thomas Browne
Brandellan
Esperandi
A game that is like rogue.
In case that's not enough, here's the definition of the word like:
The same or nearly the same, (as in appearance, quality, or quantity)
Resembling or characteristic of
having the characteristics of
The definition of a definition of a roguelike is a question that you
should never ask. No one will play your game simply because it is a
roguelike, they will play it because it is fun. If you want to make
sure your engine conforms to a definition of a roguelike then just
play Rogue and make it like that if you're more interested in making a
roguelike than a neat game ;)
Esperandi
Brandellan
Esperandi <espe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:38e996b1....@news.1st.net...
> The same or nearly the same, (as in appearance, quality, or quantity)
> Resembling or characteristic of
> having the characteristics of
Allow me to rephrase my question:
What are the defining characteristics of a roguelike?
Brian Robinson
> What do you think is the definition of a roguelike?
>
--
Brian Robinson
brob...@ist.ucf.edu
Institute for Simulation and Training
Richard Cooley
Brandellan <BRAND...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Allow me to rephrase my question:
>What are the defining characteristics of a roguelike?
That's not any better. :) Generally, random dungeons, character-based
display, a wide variety of monsters, can be considered as something approaching
defining characteristics, but you can't guarantee that: Rogue itself only
had (IIRC) 20 or so monsters, for example. Also, Nethack and many variants
of Angband have graphical tile modes, and nobody (well, nobody but Gwidon,
heh heh) would consider them non-roguelikes.
--
Rick Cooley Extroardinaire, a beast of pure hatred with purpose malign
http://www.shore.net/~pixel/
DVD boycott--are you doing your part?
Brandellan
I wrote:
>Allow me to rephrase my question:
>
>What are the defining characteristics of a roguelike?
Richard Cooley <pi...@shell3.shore.net> wrote:
> That's not any better. :)
I'll admit that it's not an easy question to answer. Regardless, we have
this word, "roguelike", and it means something. I'd like to deconstruct
that symbol, and find out what's underneath.
I've played roguelikes for the past seven or eight years. No other game has
held my attention for that long--not even close. Each time I play a new
game, it's the same, but different. Kind of like a fractal. On the whole,
my experience is generally the same, but when I take a look at a particular
hour, or weekend, it's different that any other. I can still recall certain
battles, or strings of events from years ago.
Why? For me, a roguelike represents depth and variety, but maybe there's
another angle that I haven't seen. I'm *not* looking for a line in the sand
where on one side, we have roguelikes, and on the other, everything else.
I'm just looking for your opinions; what makes an experience "roguelike"?
Taran
"Brandellan" <BRAND...@prodigy.net> kirjoitti viestissä
news:8ccqh0$5kpu$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
> Allow me to rephrase my question:
>
> What are the defining characteristics of a roguelike?
Discussion about is goes on under reg.games.roguelike :-)
Brandellan
Taran <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8cdfh8$4ht$1...@news.kolumbus.fi...
> Discussion about is goes on under reg.games.roguelike :-)
Just out of curiosity then, what belongs in this group?
Joshua E Millard
: Taran <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:8cdfh8$4ht$1...@news.kolumbus.fi...
: > Discussion about is goes on under reg.games.roguelike :-)
:
: Just out of curiosity then, what belongs in this group?
Anything *but* that "what makes a roguelike" thread.
Please, God.
Anything.
Look, look, I'll mention Hitler! Right now! Hitler Hitler
Hitler! Someone or something in relation to the existing posts is in some
way analagous to Nazis!
Now please let the thread die. Quickly.
Although, I guess, an RL ain't an RL if it isn't turn-based with ASCII
graphics.
--
Joshua Millard == pu...@wpi.edu && www.wpi.edu/~pulp
.-'-. '-.-' .-'-. '-.-'
Yo' momma's .sig is so big, she's got to use a full screen editor just to,
um, edit it. Yeah.
Gwidon S. Naskrent
<BRAND...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>What are the defining characteristics of a roguelike?
Prior discussion on the topic has proven that it is impossible to
submit a set of characteristics because people cite opposing
features as making a game rogue-like. So as to not elicit a flamewar,
I will say no more in this thread.
GSN
Millenium Couch
> >
> Argh.
Brilliant. That should be the definition (not sarcastic, btw)
Brandellan
Gwidon S. Naskrent <nask...@artemida.amu.edu.pl> wrote in message
news:38ea13e5...@news.tpnet.pl...
> Prior discussion on the topic has proven that it is impossible to
> submit a set of characteristics because people cite opposing
> features as making a game rogue-like. So as to not elicit a flamewar,
> I will say no more in this thread.
Well, if people can't get along, people can't get along. No use giving
anyone ammunition.
Pulling the plug on the topic,
- Brandellan
Jason Willoughby
> What are the defining characteristics of a roguelike?
If you pop up here and ask "Is such-and-such a roguelike?" you will get
one of two responses. Either "No" followed by a flame war, or a flame
war, followed by another flame war. The latter game is a roguelike.
Jason Willoughby
> Rogue itself only had (IIRC) 20 or so monsters, for example.
Twenty-six, an easy number to remember, at least in the version I
played. Aquator, Bat, Centaur, Dragon, Emu, Flytrap, Griffin,
Hobgoblin, Ice monster, Jabberwock, Kestrel, Leprechaun, Medusa, Nymph,
Orc, Phantom, Quagga, Rattlesnake, Snake, Troll, Ur-vile, Vampire,
Wraith, Xeroc, Yeti and Zombie.
Brandellan
Jason Willoughby <jwil...@gate.net> wrote:
> Twenty-six, an easy number to remember, at least in the version I
> played. Aquator, Bat, Centaur, Dragon, Emu, Flytrap, Griffin,
> Hobgoblin, Ice monster, Jabberwock, Kestrel, Leprechaun, Medusa, Nymph,
> Orc, Phantom, Quagga, Rattlesnake, Snake, Troll, Ur-vile, Vampire,
> Wraith, Xeroc, Yeti and Zombie.
You deserve a merit badge for knowing that.
- B
Richard Cooley
Brandellan <BRAND...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Jason Willoughby <jwil...@gate.net> wrote:
>> Twenty-six, an easy number to remember, at least in the version I
>> played.
Well, I had a feeling that might be the case, but I was wondering about
oddball letters like X, so figured it might be like 23, 24, whatever, so
I hedged my bet.
>> Aquator, Bat, Centaur, Dragon, Emu, Flytrap, Griffin,
>> Hobgoblin, Ice monster, Jabberwock, Kestrel, Leprechaun, Medusa, Nymph,
>> Orc, Phantom, Quagga, Rattlesnake, Snake, Troll, Ur-vile, Vampire,
>> Wraith, Xeroc, Yeti and Zombie.
>You deserve a merit badge for knowing that.
In what? :)
Richard Cooley
Joshua E Millard <pu...@WPI.EDU> wrote:
>Although, I guess, an RL ain't an RL if it isn't turn-based with ASCII
>graphics.
Ahhh, so Nethack isn't RL?
Brandellan
Jason Willoughby <jwil...@gate.net> wrote:
> If you pop up here and ask "Is such-and-such a roguelike?" you will get
> one of two responses. Either "No" followed by a flame war, or a flame
> war, followed by another flame war. The latter game is a roguelike.
That wasn't the question that I asked. I'm interested in hearing how people
define their roguelike experience. No lines in the sand, just opinions.
But, again, if people here can't get along, there's no use to it.
Pulling the plug again (it just won't die),
- Brandellan
Erik Max Francis
> Jason Willoughby <jwil...@gate.net> wrote:
> > Twenty-six, an easy number to remember, at least in the version I
> > played. Aquator, Bat, Centaur, Dragon, Emu, Flytrap, Griffin,
> > Hobgoblin, Ice monster, Jabberwock, Kestrel, Leprechaun, Medusa,
> > Nymph,
> > Orc, Phantom, Quagga, Rattlesnake, Snake, Troll, Ur-vile, Vampire,
> > Wraith, Xeroc, Yeti and Zombie.
>
> You deserve a merit badge for knowing that.
... or something.
--
Erik Max Francis | email m...@alcyone.com | icq 16063900
Alcyone Systems | web http://www.alcyone.com/max/ | q3a Product
San Jose, CA | languages en, eo | icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
USA | 968.994 Ms p.L. | 272 days left | &tSftDotIotE
Erik Max Francis
> Jason Willoughby <jwil...@gate.net> wrote:
>
> > If you pop up here and ask "Is such-and-such a roguelike?" you will
> > get
> > one of two responses. Either "No" followed by a flame war, or a
> > flame
> > war, followed by another flame war. The latter game is a roguelike.
>
> That wasn't the question that I asked.
Then you missed the point. The details of the definition itself of a
Roguelike is a point which people disagree upon. The safest thing you
can possibly say is "something like Rogue." Trying to start a thread
about what makes a Roguelike in rec.games.roguelike.misc is exactly like
asking how people define science fiction in rec.arts.sf.written; you are
guaranteed to get a flamewar and no resolution out of it.
Brandellan
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote in message
news:38EA8E29...@alcyone.com...
> Then you missed the point.
No, I got the point.
> you are
> guaranteed to get a flamewar and no resolution out of it.
I'm not looking for a resolution. I'm looking for opinions.
There is one valid resolution. There are many valid opinions.
Richard Cooley
Brandellan <BRAND...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>There is one valid resolution. There are many valid opinions.
Factors that tend to make a game Roguelike, in most people's opinions:
character graphics (although most people wouldn't preclude a game that's
purely graphical; many of us consider Diablo to be
honorarily RL)
wide variety of monsters (notable exception: Rogue itself).
random dungeons
turn-based
This is not a complete list.
William Tanksley
>What do you think is the definition of a roguelike?
A game which shares characteristics with Rogue for the purpose of fitting
into the "Roguelike" genre. No, that's not a cyclic definition; it's
simply saying that the author, designer, or builder of the game must
intend for a game to be Roguelike in order for it to be so.
Oh, and Rogue is the "base case"; it's intended to be like Rogue in the
purest possible way ;-).
There are degrees of Roguelikeness; a realtime game might be faintly
Roguelike, but a realtime game with non-discrete movement isn't hardly at
all. A game with non-random levels could be strongly Roguelike; a game
with no random levels would be much less so.
--
-William "Billy" Tanksley
Taran
"Brandellan" <BRAND...@prodigy.net> kirjoitti viestissä
news:8ce4qs$qb8$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
> I'm not looking for a resolution. I'm looking for opinions.
Then maybe you should look www.dejanews.com
You are _guaranteed_ to find discussions on this topic.
BTW. Now we got a thread discussing about the discussion
that goes on about determing roguelike :-)
--
Taran (who hopes next sommer will be rainy so he can
start his own roguelike (oh no!) project)
tussock
> What are the defining characteristics of a roguelike?
For me, IMHO. I think this covers them all?
Tile-based.
Turn-based.
Top-down.
Non-repeating.
Kinda like rouge.
Marked, "rougelike".
Discussed in r.g.r.* ?
--
tussock
Sarcasm is the lowest form of humor. 8]
Millenium Couch
Is that a sarcastic comment?
:)
Cody Hatch
rec.games.roguelike.misc said:
>Brandellan wrote:
>
>> What are the defining characteristics of a roguelike?
>
>For me, IMHO. I think this covers them all?
> Tile-based.
> Turn-based.
What about Utumno?
> Top-down.
> Non-repeating.
Or ADOM, which is mostly set quests, with a few random dungeons scattered
around?
> Kinda like rouge.
> Marked, "rougelike".
Cody
--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d-(pu) s+:+ a18>? C++++ US++>++++L- P+>P++++ L+>- E--- W+++$ N++
o+>++++ K--$>++++ w++ !O--- !M-- V? PS+++(---)@ PE+++ Y+>+++ PGP->+++ !t--
5? !X-- R* !tv b++++ !DI+++ !D+++ G+++ e>+++ h* r->++ y++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Richard Cooley
tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> Kinda like rouge.
> Marked, "rougelike".
Damn reddish games.
William Tanksley
>tussock sneezed, and the green bits that splattered on
>rec.games.roguelike.misc said:
>>Brandellan wrote:
>>> What are the defining characteristics of a roguelike?
>>For me, IMHO. I think this covers them all?
>> Tile-based.
>> Turn-based.
>What about Utumno?
Utumno attempted to combine tile-based with non-turn-based. It used a
very lazy algorithm design, and it failed.
At any rate, I would _certainly_ say that in this respect, is was not
Roguelike.
>> Top-down.
>> Non-repeating.
>Or ADOM, which is mostly set quests, with a few random dungeons scattered
>around?
Have you played it? Almost none of the quests are set. Of course, the
non-set quests are of the annoying "kill a monster of type x", so that's
not a good thing ;-). But anyhow, I don't agree that ADOM fails on this
count. Certainly not as badly as Omega fails, and Omega's my favorite
Roguelike.
You know, I completely forgot one feature which I personally consider to
be the single most important defining feature of a Roguelike: unified
tactical and strategic maps. In other words, you don't have "fight mode"
which differs from your "explore mode". Ultima 8 is not Roguelike mainly
because it has a "fight mode", not merely because it's not tiled.
>> Kinda like rouge.
>> Marked, "rougelike".
Blush.
>Cody
-William "Billy" Tanksley
Cody Hatch
rec.games.roguelike.misc said:
>On 8 Apr 2000 21:19:49 GMT, Cody Hatch wrote:
>>tussock sneezed, and the green bits that splattered on
>>rec.games.roguelike.misc said:
>>>Brandellan wrote:
>
>>>> What are the defining characteristics of a roguelike?
>
>>>For me, IMHO. I think this covers them all?
>>> Tile-based.
>>> Turn-based.
>
>>What about Utumno?
>
>Utumno attempted to combine tile-based with non-turn-based. It used a
>very lazy algorithm design, and it failed.
>
>At any rate, I would _certainly_ say that in this respect, is was not
>Roguelike.
True. But is it a roguelike? It seems to me we're trying to find some set
of rules which MUST be met for a game to be a roguelike. I'd call Utumno a
roguelike (although a very bad one), yet it was real time. So obviously
being turn-based isn't a requirement. So the question remains, what *IS* a
requirement?
>>> Top-down.
>>> Non-repeating.
>
>>Or ADOM, which is mostly set quests, with a few random dungeons
>>scattered around?
>
>Have you played it?
Of course! How far have I gotten? Well, I've SEEN the carpenter several
times...and even solved the quest a couple of times. Never solved any
other quest, or even SEEN any other quest apart from the puppy quest. THe
game doesn't agree with me. :-( So no, I haven't actually seen nearly all
of the game, but I was under the impression the point of the game was a lot
of set quests, as opposed to Nethack with a few set levels, and STRONGLY
opposed to Angband with none.
>Almost none of the quests are set. Of course, the
>non-set quests are of the annoying "kill a monster of type x", so that's
>not a good thing ;-). But anyhow, I don't agree that ADOM fails on this
>count. Certainly not as badly as Omega fails, and Omega's my favorite
>Roguelike.
Omega! The only roguelike I have less luck in that ADOM. Oh, except
Crawl, where I've never made it to dungeon level three, but that's another
story. Actually, I think "non-repeating" needs clarification. Interpreted
literally, it would rule out everything except Angband, since that's the
only roguelike I know off hand where the levels are not persistent. I'm
guessing it was intended to rule out games with only set levels, and no
randomly generated ones?
>You know, I completely forgot one feature which I personally consider to
>be the single most important defining feature of a Roguelike: unified
>tactical and strategic maps. In other words, you don't have "fight
>mode" which differs from your "explore mode". Ultima 8 is not Roguelike
>mainly because it has a "fight mode", not merely because it's not tiled.
A very good point, and one which I agree with. Except for one thing--that
rules out Evets. That *HAS* to be a roguelike.
Really, I suspect that there can't be a definitive list of requirements.
Maybe we should assign points to each criteria, and to be a roguelike a
game has to have a minimum score. For instance, being turn-based would be
worth a LOT of points, since a game pretty much HAS to be turn-based.
OTOH, Gwidon's beloved requirement of being open source could be worth a
point or two (if that).
Richard Cooley
Cody Hatch <co...@chaos.net.nz> wrote:
>>>Or ADOM, which is mostly set quests, with a few random dungeons
>>>scattered around?
>>Have you played it?
>Of course! How far have I gotten? Well, I've SEEN the carpenter several
>times...and even solved the quest a couple of times. Never solved any
>other quest, or even SEEN any other quest apart from the puppy quest. THe
>game doesn't agree with me. :-( So no, I haven't actually seen nearly all
>of the game, but I was under the impression the point of the game was a lot
>of set quests, as opposed to Nethack with a few set levels, and STRONGLY
>opposed to Angband with none.
>>Almost none of the quests are set. Of course, the
>>non-set quests are of the annoying "kill a monster of type x", so that's
>>not a good thing ;-). But anyhow, I don't agree that ADOM fails on this
>>count. Certainly not as badly as Omega fails, and Omega's my favorite
>>Roguelike.
I'd like to know what Billy and you mean by set quests; it seems to me that
most of ADoM *is* set quests: the carpenter, the puppy, the black druid,
the mummy, the orbs, etc., etc.
>Omega! The only roguelike I have less luck in that ADOM. Oh, except
Well, we're trying to make teh beginning phases of Omega a bit easier.
>OTOH, Gwidon's beloved requirement of being open source could be worth a
>point or two (if that).
Hm. I prefer the term free software to open source.
JSwing
>
>> What are the defining characteristics of a roguelike?
>
If the merits of the game are discussed or debated for any length on the r.g.r
newsgroups. That should cover it.
JSwing
William Tanksley
>William Tanksley sneezed, and the green bits that splattered on
>>>tussock sneezed, and the green bits that splattered on
>>>>> What are the defining characteristics of a roguelike?
>>>>For me, IMHO. I think this covers them all?
>>>> Tile-based.
>>>> Turn-based.
>>>What about Utumno?
>>Utumno attempted to combine tile-based with non-turn-based. It used a
>>very lazy algorithm design, and it failed.
>>At any rate, I would _certainly_ say that in this respect, is was not
>>Roguelike.
>True. But is it a roguelike?
Sure. It's merely a failed one.
>It seems to me we're trying to find some set
>of rules which MUST be met for a game to be a roguelike.
Oh, no. Didn't you see how this thread started? We're merely listing a
set of recognition factors. There is no MUST feature.
>I'd call Utumno a
>roguelike (although a very bad one), yet it was real time. So obviously
>being turn-based isn't a requirement. So the question remains, what *IS* a
>requirement?
There aren't any in that sense.
>>>> Top-down.
>>>> Non-repeating.
>>>Or ADOM, which is mostly set quests, with a few random dungeons
>>>scattered around?
>>Have you played it?
>Of course! How far have I gotten? Well, I've SEEN the carpenter several
>times...and even solved the quest a couple of times. Never solved any
>other quest, or even SEEN any other quest apart from the puppy quest. THe
>game doesn't agree with me. :-( So no, I haven't actually seen nearly all
>of the game, but I was under the impression the point of the game was a lot
>of set quests, as opposed to Nethack with a few set levels, and STRONGLY
>opposed to Angband with none.
ADOM does have a lot of fixed plot to it. I just don't see that factor as
mattering that much -- after all, given the size and complexity of Rogue,
it's quite likely that ADOM has less plot per unit than Rogue did.
>>Almost none of the quests are set. Of course, the
>>non-set quests are of the annoying "kill a monster of type x", so that's
>>not a good thing ;-). But anyhow, I don't agree that ADOM fails on this
>>count. Certainly not as badly as Omega fails, and Omega's my favorite
>>Roguelike.
>Omega! The only roguelike I have less luck in that ADOM. Oh, except
>Crawl, where I've never made it to dungeon level three, but that's another
>story. Actually, I think "non-repeating" needs clarification. Interpreted
>literally, it would rule out everything except Angband, since that's the
>only roguelike I know off hand where the levels are not persistent. I'm
>guessing it was intended to rule out games with only set levels, and no
>randomly generated ones?
I'm not sure what was meant -- it's a pretty bad feature, I guess, since
nobody agrees what it means. How about "randomly generated" to replace it?
>>You know, I completely forgot one feature which I personally consider to
>>be the single most important defining feature of a Roguelike: unified
>>tactical and strategic maps. In other words, you don't have "fight
>>mode" which differs from your "explore mode". Ultima 8 is not Roguelike
>>mainly because it has a "fight mode", not merely because it's not tiled.
>A very good point, and one which I agree with. Except for one thing--that
>rules out Evets. That *HAS* to be a roguelike.
I've never heard of Evets, but although I'm disappointed that it lacks
this feature, that doesn't mean it's not Roguelike.
>Really, I suspect that there can't be a definitive list of requirements.
>Maybe we should assign points to each criteria, and to be a roguelike a
>game has to have a minimum score. For instance, being turn-based would be
>worth a LOT of points, since a game pretty much HAS to be turn-based.
I don't think it would be worth it, although it's not a bad idea outright.
Use some fuzzy logic, though; there's no magical threshold. No game is
simply "not Roguelike"; you can be somewhat Roguelike, or not very
Roguelike, or extremely Roguelike.
>OTOH, Gwidon's beloved requirement of being open source could be worth a
>point or two (if that).
Right.
>Cody
--
-William "Billy" Tanksley
Sam Glasby
William Tanksley <wtan...@dolphin.openprojects.net> wrote:
>On 9 Apr 2000 11:53:30 GMT, Cody Hatch wrote:
>>William Tanksley sneezed, and the green bits that splattered on
>>>On 8 Apr 2000 21:19:49 GMT, Cody Hatch wrote:
>>>>tussock sneezed, and the green bits that splattered on
>>>>>Brandellan wrote:
>
>>>>>> What are the defining characteristics of a roguelike?
>> So obviously being turn-based isn't a requirement.
>> So the question remains, what *IS* a requirement?
>>>You know, I completely forgot one feature which I personally consider to
>>>be the single most important defining feature of a Roguelike: unified
>>>tactical and strategic maps. In other words, you don't have "fight
>>>mode" which differs from your "explore mode". Ultima 8 is not Roguelike
>>>mainly because it has a "fight mode", not merely because it's not tiled.
I have given this some thought, having played most roguelikes
(and peripherally related types) I have heard of, and
compiled and modified most with source available.
I percieve the most fundamental characteristics of
a "roguelike" to be the model for the representation
of space.
That is, roguelikes represent space as an array of
"squares" in a Cartesian grid, so that questions of
relative location and range make sense.
MUDs, on the other hand, represent space as a collection
of "rooms", connected as some manner of graph.
I've never seen a ranged weapon in a MUD...at least
not one with different abilities than a melee weapon.
Of course, someone will now point out the existence
of such a one to me...and arguably, the arrows
(range=3 rooms) in the classic "hunt the Wumpus"
game are an example of such. But the point is clear
that the MUD representation of space does not lend
itself to any reasonable user interface for AIMING such...
Related, but showing more variation in implementation,
is the handling of space within a point in rogue-space.
To wit, in various roguelikes, in a single space on
the floor there can be:
(0, 1, or N) of (Being, Portable Item, Terrain Feature)
Also, with respect to nesting of spatial relationships,
in various roguelikes you have:
at most (0 or N) objects "wielded" or "in inventory"
And, with the Cartesian grid defined as bounded by some
rectangular area, most/all roguelikes define multiple
such "places", generally considered to be stacked
vertically, connected at "portal" points such as stairs
and the like. Some roguelikes in addition nest Places,
such as specific-location-maps in a larger map, or
shops in a map. (One can consider Angband shops
to be a sort of Place with 1x1 dimensions and an exit.)
I feel that this approach to definition is more fruitful
than considering individual features on a "required"
checklist.
This approach clearly shows why a considerable number
of games which are not "roguelike" in a strong sense
are considered to be "roguelike" in a general manner.
For example, Ultima (I,II,III,IV,V), Wasteland
and a number of RPGs from the 8-bit era
(particularly SSI titles such as Wizard's Crown,
Eternal Dagger, Questron, Legacy of the Ancients)
are members of the "quite roguelike by geometry"
family,
while Ultima (VI,VII), Diablo and similar
take the same spatial representation and
provide a viewport from a different perspective.
(The real-time nature of U7 and Diablo being
another difference of a different sort.)
On the other hand, there is another axis of similarity
which some persons objecting to proposed schemes
have, I think, in mind.
That being, the "similar in gameplay/style to rogue and kin"
criteria. Multi-player games, games with different
dynamics to survival and advancement (lack of starvation
danger, lack of random monster spawning) have
some degree of dissimilarity on this axis,
also real-time games differ herein.
>>A very good point, and one which I agree with.
>>Except for one thing--that
>>rules out Evets. That *HAS* to be a roguelike.
Could you elaborate on this game?
Especially interface, gameplay elements,
and platform of origin?
>I've never heard of Evets, but although I'm disappointed that it lacks
>this feature, that doesn't mean it's not Roguelike.
--
Sam Glasby <sgl...@primenet.com>
Pagan, RPG designer, and user of Linux and Emacs
Taran
"JSwing" <JSw...@NOSPAMWport.com> kirjoitti viestissä
news:aQ2I4.12857$EG2....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> If the merits of the game are discussed or debated for any length on the
r.g.r
> newsgroups. That should cover it.
Nah, nah, nah, I said that first ;-P
--
Taran
tussock
> William Tanksley sneezed, and the green bits that splattered on
> rec.games.roguelike.misc said:
>
> >On 8 Apr 2000 21:19:49 GMT, Cody Hatch wrote:
> >>tussock sneezed, and the green bits that splattered on
> >>rec.games.roguelike.misc said:
> >>>Brandellan wrote:
> >
> >>>> What are the defining characteristics of a roguelike?
> >
> >>>For me, IMHO. I think this covers them all?
> >>> Tile-based.
> >>> Turn-based.
> >
> >>What about Utumno?
No way. 8]
Honorary title at best, like Diablo, DungeonHack, or X-Com.
> >>> Top-down.
> >>> Non-repeating.
> >
> >>Or ADOM, which is mostly set quests, with a few random dungeons
> >>scattered around?
<snip ADOM>
Impossible without spoilers, boring with them... great game funny enough.
> >Almost none of the quests are set. Of course, the
> >non-set quests are of the annoying "kill a monster of type x", so that's
> >not a good thing ;-). But anyhow, I don't agree that ADOM fails on this
> >count. Certainly not as badly as Omega fails, and Omega's my favorite
> >Roguelike.
>
> Omega! The only roguelike I have less luck in that ADOM. Oh, except
> Crawl, where I've never made it to dungeon level three, but that's another
> story. Actually, I think "non-repeating" needs clarification. Interpreted
> literally, it would rule out everything except Angband, since that's the
> only roguelike I know off hand where the levels are not persistent. I'm
> guessing it was intended to rule out games with only set levels, and no
> randomly generated ones?
To clarify, I would have to leave it a common and favorite feature and not
a requirement. I was intending to compare with most games use of pre generated
levels and set monsters (I have all the positions of every baddy and every map
in Doom, Doom2, Quake, and a lot of Quake2 fixed in my memory).
Unpredictable level and monster layout may be more fitting. Has become less
common, but still there.
> >You know, I completely forgot one feature which I personally consider to
> >be the single most important defining feature of a Roguelike: unified
> >tactical and strategic maps. In other words, you don't have "fight
> >mode" which differs from your "explore mode". Ultima 8 is not Roguelike
> >mainly because it has a "fight mode", not merely because it's not tiled.
>
> A very good point, and one which I agree with. Except for one thing--that
> rules out Evets. That *HAS* to be a roguelike.
I would advocate tile based mostly. The total abstraction of monster and
dungeon sizes is a core concept. One tile wide corridors, into which fit AMHD
and kobold alike. ADOM is Roguelike, but with an added ASCII map (good feature
of the game, sad it's fixed).
> Really, I suspect that there can't be a definitive list of requirements.
> Maybe we should assign points to each criteria, and to be a roguelike a
> game has to have a minimum score. For instance, being turn-based would be
> worth a LOT of points, since a game pretty much HAS to be turn-based.
> OTOH, Gwidon's beloved requirement of being open source could be worth a
> point or two (if that).
I'm concerned my definition allows too much in, tactical mode in X-Com for
example, so top-down had to be added. ASCII mode is traditional, as is freeware
or similar status.
Tile-Based (including size abstraction)
Turn-Based (with short, single step / action turns being traditional)
Top-Down (no isometric or true 3D views, gotta draw the line somewhere 8])
Character Advancement (? through levels(skills) / abilities / items)
Tactical Level Gameplay (to avoid Masters of Magic and such)
Marked, "Roguelike"
Also, common or traditional...
Unpredictable layout (at least, not totally pre-determined layout)
ASCII display (Still my favorite anyway 8])
Discussed in r.g.r.*
Non-commercial, Single Player, Final Goal, PITA to complete...
And of course a reddish hue. 8]
--
tussock
Factory
the mothership connection said...
> MUDs, on the other hand, represent space as a collection
> of "rooms", connected as some manner of graph.
> I've never seen a ranged weapon in a MUD...at least
> not one with different abilities than a melee weapon.
>
> Of course, someone will now point out the existence
> of such a one to me...and arguably, the arrows
> (range=3 rooms) in the classic "hunt the Wumpus"
> game are an example of such. But the point is clear
> that the MUD representation of space does not lend
> itself to any reasonable user interface for AIMING such...
Well there are MUDs that support missile weapons, in the same room by
way of 'formations', or missile weapons that shoot into other rooms. The
interface in one that I have played was simply 'shoot <direction>
<target>'.
[snip]
> For example, Ultima (I,II,III,IV,V), Wasteland
> and a number of RPGs from the 8-bit era
> (particularly SSI titles such as Wizard's Crown,
> Eternal Dagger, Questron, Legacy of the Ancients)
> are members of the "quite roguelike by geometry"
> family,
>
> while Ultima (VI,VII), Diablo and similar
> take the same spatial representation and
> provide a viewport from a different perspective.
> (The real-time nature of U7 and Diablo being
> another difference of a different sort.)
Actually the two commercial games that I most see referred to as rogue-
like are Diablo and that ad&d-game-thing-which-I-can't-remember-the-name-
of-but-it-used-an-engine-that-was-like-eye-of-the-beholder..
The commonality in these two games I see is
1) RPG focus.. (is there any rogue-like that doesn't have a strong RPG
component?)
2) Random level design.
3) dungeons..
Hmm maybe a better way of trying to determine rogue-like-ness is to
gather together all games that are considered rogue-like and list their
common features..
> >>A very good point, and one which I agree with.
> >>Except for one thing--that
> >>rules out Evets. That *HAS* to be a roguelike.
>
> Could you elaborate on this game?
> Especially interface, gameplay elements,
> and platform of origin?
Hmm me too.. :)
- Factory
Daniel Reid, Osmosisch
<8cbot2$4246$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>...
|
|What do you think is the definition of a roguelike?
Please tell me you're trolling.
Daniel Reid, Osmosisch
Current CD : REM|Automatic for the People
"[some stuff] deserves a quiet night"
Dark Fiber
wrote:
>Cody Hatch wrote:
>
>> William Tanksley sneezed, and the green bits that splattered on
>> rec.games.roguelike.misc said:
>>
>> >On 8 Apr 2000 21:19:49 GMT, Cody Hatch wrote:
>> >>tussock sneezed, and the green bits that splattered on
>> >>rec.games.roguelike.misc said:
>> >>>Brandellan wrote:
>> >
>> >>>> What are the defining characteristics of a roguelike?
>> >
>> >>>For me, IMHO. I think this covers them all?
>> >>> Tile-based.
>> >>> Turn-based.
>> >
>> >>What about Utumno?
>
> No way. 8]
>Honorary title at best, like Diablo, DungeonHack, or X-Com.
mmmm dungeonhack is a roguelike imo, just has no ascii 'graphics'.
this is where this 'lets catagorise all games in a roguelike<>non
roguelike' system falls down.
-df
[ Dark Fiber <dfi...@mega-tokyo.com> Running FreeBSD 3.4 ]
[FAQ] Write Your Own OS
http://www.mega-tokyo.com/os/
3x3 Eyes Fan Fiction Archive
http://www.mega-tokyo.com/pai/
Sarien Sierra Emulator
http://www.mega-tokyo.com/sarien/
Brandellan
Dark Fiber <rubbi...@spamburger.com> wrote
> mmmm dungeonhack is a roguelike imo, just has no ascii 'graphics'.
> this is where this 'lets catagorise all games in a roguelike<>non
> roguelike' system falls down.
[Throwing fuel on the fire] How come?
To clarify one thing, we're not looking for rules to carve into slabs of
granite, we're trying to explore the idea of the roguelike. What makes them
tick? Why are they fun to play?
- Brand
keniwasa
Let's ask some questions that are more relevant.
Why do we need a clear cut definition to a vague term like
"roguelike"? The spirit of the law is more important than the
letter of the law in this instance.
Why is the definition a roguelike is like rogue not good enough?
If a game is made in the spirit of the original rogue or any of
its descendents, why do the similarities have to be spelled out?
Or are you just curious if you can break this group up into
separate camps?
>
>- Brand
>
>
>
>
Ken
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Brandellan
keniwasa <keniwasa...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote
> Let's ask some questions that are more relevant.
>
> Why do we need a clear cut definition to a vague term like
> "roguelike"? The spirit of the law is more important than the
> letter of the law in this instance.
>
> separate camps?
I don't appreciate the suggestion that breaking the group into camps was my
intent.
There are certainly those who are petty enough to draw lines in the sand,
and insist that people choose sides. I am not one of these people. I have
made it perfectly clear in earlier posts that this discussion was not
intended to be an argument.
At the very least, let's put *this* issue behind us, and talk about
roguelikes for a change. If you don't feel that exploring the meaning of an
undefinable word is worthwhile, you don't need to follow this thread, right?
Kazoo King
>
>:)
It seems it may be.
I don't agree with the comment it's self though. I think poor
sarcasm is the lowest form of humour. But used well, sarcasm can
be very, very funny.
TeLeMeNTaL
Dungeon-oriented games where gameplay is more important than graphics, and
the inventory is more diverse due to separate attributes of items being
determined by the RNG. I think that using the RNG to set attributes of
items/monsters is what makes things so non-repetitive, and keeps them from
being like that other genre (predetermination)...
Tele