IainPeregrine wrote:
Tsfreaks wrote:
In my vision of a rogue-like, its not about crazy hard luck. It's about visual experiences and wow factor. I want to wow a person with detail.

Have you ever played a rogue-like?

> #######+##
> #........#
> #......f.#
> #........#
> #........#
> #..@.....#
> #........#
> ###+######
>

Not sure what your getting at but...

As per Wikipedia...
The roguelike is a sub-genre of role-playing video games, characterized by randomization for replayability, permanent death, and turn-based movement.

ASCII is not a requirement for falling under the category of roguelike.

Perhaps you had some other meaning or intention.

I prefer the term "Dungeon Crawler" anyway.

Perhaps this is a good time to move the idea over to the "Dungeon Crawlers" guild. It's been nearly 1.5 years since the last comment. heh.

ts
Tsfreaks wrote:
ASCII is not a requirement for falling under the category of roguelike.

I believe the point that he's making is that people who play rogue-likes aren't generally into it for the visuals. :)
The roguelike is a sub-genre of role-playing video games, characterized by randomization for replayability, permanent death, and turn-based movement.

Permanent death doesn't mean you can't ever play again. It means you can play again with an entirely new character.
Vexonater wrote:
The roguelike is a sub-genre of role-playing video games, characterized by randomization for replayability, permanent death, and turn-based movement.

Permanent death doesn't mean you can't ever play again. It means you can play again with an entirely new character.

Heh, I take it in the literal sense. Their just lucky I can't reach out of their screens. ;)

oops. posted by ts
If people wanted to take it literally, they have real-life for that. And the rewards for risking your life in real-life are much more rewarding. :)
I believe there are three major components to the success of the Roguelike genre:

1) High level of difficulty and permadeath invest you heavily into the game.
2) Having to identify potions, scrolls, rings, etc. each time forces you to be cautious about how you use them.
3) The turn-based nature (and usually, hunger mechanic) of these games puts the focus on strategy, using resources as cleverly as possible to avoid death.
Well, risking your life in reality may not always be rewarding. There's no (good) reward for saying to your friends, "Hey, watch me down ten shots and then eat the shotglass!" I mean, sure, you get some mad cred, but in the end you've just intoxicated the heck out of yourself and sent yourself to the hospital.

In other words, risking your life might not even be rewarding: it might just be stupid.

I seem to notice a running discussion about stupidity here... ;-)

As for LJR's three tenets, they hold true for the "popular" sentiment of the genre, but I do think that a winning roguelike could still be made with relaxations of any of those parts, especially permadeath. I'm particularly fond of the Japanese roguelike Elona, which has no permadeath; the penalties for death are insignificant in the learning stage, giving you time to learn the ropes, and then the penalties become more significant later. The only failing of Elona's system is that it encourages The Grind, rather than quick strategic sessions where every move matters.
I agree, Jt, that any of those tenets could be relaxed. I personally prefer the difficulty a notch lower myself.
Page: 1 2