Talk:NetHack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Famicom style controller This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
CVG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Spoilers

There ought to be spoiler warnings here somewhere, as some of the gameplay features mentioned here do not appear in the game's documentation. --Anon.

Good point. Added the warning under Notable creatures. --ZeroOne 10:58, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


[edit] There are too many spoilers

There are too many spoilers mentioned in this document. Part of the charm of the game is not knowing what to do, how to act etc. There are frequent references to things (I am trying to stay vague) that are really hard-won valuable items of knowledge. It is obvious that the writer is a well seasoned expert, and knows too much about the game. A lot of the enjoyment of finding out these things would be ruined after reading this doc. There is plenty of other information that could be put into this article without the spoilers.

A non-spoiled NetHack article would be quite the challenge. Also, I would not suggest anyone to play unless they had 50 pages of spoilers printed out :p Perhaps some spoiler guideline for this article would be in order- nothing that is not in the Guidebook? --Philip Nilsson 07:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have moved the spoiler tag to just above the "Game" section; not perfect, but some of the information in that section could be considered a spoiler. As Philip Nilsson says, it would be rather difficult to play the game without at least mild spoilage! --Lan3y - Talk 00:44, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
If they did not want to be spoiled, they would not have looked it up. HighInBC 06:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. If they did not want to be spoiled, they would not have read the spoiler files. Reading an encyclopedia article is an entirely different matter; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Cheers --Pak21 09:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
If we don't give away *any* information about what goes on in-game, there's not a lot to talk about. Wikipedia is not being an indiscriminate collection of information here - all the "spoilers" given are there as examples. If we listed the effects of all the potions (for example) then it would. Shen 11:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm with Shen here. The spoilers aren't gratuitious, they are quite educational, and readers are fairly warned. --maru (talk) contribs 21:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dungeon hack

Dungeon Hack is NOT a clone of Nethack - it's an effort by SSI to create an easier and more randomized version of the Eye of the Beholder CRPG (the engine is the same in both games). --Anon.


[edit] Poor screenshot

The screenshot should have a status line giving the character's name, class, strength, dexterity and so forth. Also, Angband isn't a Nethack variant (it derives from Moria) - I'll change this. --Ekaterin.


[edit] GUI screenshot?

Would it be worth including a screenshot of the GUI version? --Lan3y


[edit] Creatures

Added infamous creatures. Please add more. --Anon


[edit] Links to characters

I have restored the links to the characters. I find they make interesting "what links here"s. --Error 02:45, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

What about Hearse as well as the public servers? --Anon


[edit] Nethack-originated monsters?

I've yet to get past the sixth or seventh floor in this game so I must ask, are there any monsters in Nethack which are SPECIFIC to Nethack, ie invented by and original to the Nethack development team? Not counting monsters of a humorous or satire-influenced nature- I mean serious monsters. --I am not good at running 18:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Quantum mechanic, for example, might be considered humorous and/or satirical though (just to find a monster whose name begins with q is a challenge, cf. Angband's quylthulg). --Silvermane 18:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see the QM mentioned in the article...Along with the box :)


[edit] Mythology in NetHack

Rather than a haphazard list of notable monsters, I would prefer to see a separate article, Mythology and fiction in NetHack which links the various monsters and settings to their origins. --Jmstylr 09:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC).

UPDATE: I've started this article! Please help flesh it out.


[edit] Do hacked binaries exist?

Do hacked binaries exist? --Anon

Yes! Half the fun of NetHack is applying interesting patches to the game to improve the game experience. And you have to fight the urges to make it like Slash'em. --Philip Nilsson
What's so bad about Slash'em? --Maru (talk) Contribs 20:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Links to public servers

  • notdot.net UF NetHack Server recently created a NetHack server for the User Friendly comic, whose author alludes to NetHack in quite a few of his comics. <-- removed, because the site states, "The UF NetHack Server is currently offline. It will return as soon as I can assemble a fully functioning telnet menu system for it, instead of the kludged-together garbage it was running on. Watch this space!"
  • antisymmetric.com NetHack Server <---- removed. antisymmetric.com is currently down, and to the best of my knowledge has not had a public nethack server in over a year.

rast, 3-20-05


[edit] Slash'em

I wonder, why is there no reference to Slash'Em? I stick to vanilla myself, but I think it should be in this. --Nazgjunk||(talk) 22:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but there seems to be a reference to Slash'em in the Other Versions section. --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Chastity?

I can see how speed running can be a voluntary challenge, but how does chastity work? Unless there's a lot to the game I haven't seen yet, I don't see how that can be a challenge... --maru (talk) Contribs 05:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sex with either an incubus or succubus (as appropriate for your gender) is an easy way to gain levels in the mid to late game :-) Cheers --Pak21 07:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Lol. It's also an easy way to lose certain things too... Btw, is it really true that when your character hallucinates, you'll sometimes see pokemon?! Maybe I just have to get high more often in Nethack.... -- Solberg 09:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Solberg
Use Excalibur or another energy drain preventing item. I've been hallucinating far more often than I should and I think I've seen a Pikachu. Certainly I've encountered a great number of impossible things including a Vorlon. --Kizor 15:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Just done a sourcedive on do_name.c, and there's no Pikachu (as of version 3.4.3). The only Pokemon reference listed is nyaasu, which is a reference to the Japanese name for Meowth. Apparently. Lots of amusing faux-Latin names for hallucinating coyotes (a la Road Runner), though. :) Kinitawowi 08:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Pretty sure I remember a pokemon in there somewhere, also of note is the fleet of spaceships from the hitch hiker's guide to the galaxy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.6.205.237 (talk • contribs).
This is the list and I'm afraid nyaasu is the best pokémon you're going to get... Shen 13:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... I'm almost certain I've seen pokemon in Nethack while hallucinating... but then, I saw pokemon in Half-Life 2 whilst hallucinating, too --Huffers 21:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rv POV

Pak21, I agree with your reverting for POV reasons, but I would not call it a minor change by any means. Kizor when you undo a revert it is good to give a reason. --HighInBC 21:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe the sentence is a bit POV, but in essence it is true. NetHack is clearly the most popular and most played Roguelike game. I don't have any source for this, but it's kinda obvious, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 22:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps... enduring would be a better word? As for popular or preminent, I would need some kind of citation to feal good about it. However I will be making no further alterations to this particular datum. HighInBC 22:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, we could use the Salon article as evidence- I know of no other Rogue-like game which has anywhere near so much publicity. --maru (talk) contribs 22:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm convinced. --HighInBC 22:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
You're right, sorry. When Pak first reverted me I gave my justifications on his talk page as I undid it. When you did, well, it was late and I was tired. Of course I should've done so publically in the first place. --Kizor 01:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
From my point of view, the sentence is probably true, but that's not good enough for an encyclopedia. If we're going to be claiming something like that, we really, really need an external source for it, and I have to say that I don't think that a Salon article from 2000 is good enough evidence for any current claims given we're now in 2006. Apologies for the minor edit tag: too many vandalism reverts... Cheers --Pak21 10:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I know this still isn't verifiable, but I've been involved with Nethack for awhile and I can say with personal certainty that it is by far the most popular Roguelike. One good indicator is the number of posts on rec.games.roguelike.nethack versus all of the other roguelike newsgroups. --Cyde Weys 10:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm convinced HighInBC 15:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm in no way saying that NetHack isn't the most popular (or whatever) Roguelike (hey, I'm a rather keen Nethacker myself!), but I still don't feel we can put state that it is in a Wikipedia article unless we have some kind of evidence that it is. Cheers --Pak21 16:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
We can say it has the oldest and most used usenet group of all the rougelike games. Google groups has archives back to june 1994. [1] HighInBC 17:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date links

See Manual of Style (dates and numbers) section 1.2.2

Links to years should only be done if it is on topic with the subject. HighInBC 15:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess most of us know what the MoS says; what happened today is just a bit of an edit war between Bobblewik and Ambi, both of whom probably shouldn't be doing it. Cheers --Pak21 16:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
My policy is to treat bots like humans. Bobblewik made a change and justified it, and Ambi made a change and did not justify it. HighInBC 17:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You fall into a pit! How pitiful. Isn't that the pits?

This bit needs modifying; the full message (of a pit (viper|fiend) dying on falling into a poisoned spiked pit) wouldn't occur barring some exceptional circumstances, as those two creatures have intrinsic poison resistance. The only way to get that combination of messages is to be poly'd into one, and then lose the poison resistance to gremlin attack... Kinitawowi 21:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Not true, if the fall itself kills you you get that message also. Say you had only 1 hp and fell in, it does not even need to have spikes, any pit will do. HighInBC 22:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Then you'd get "You fall into a pit! How pitiful. Isn't that the pits? You die...", which isn't the message quoted in the article. And even if you did it by polyself, you'd automatically "return to human form" at that point anyway. The upshot is that the message isn't the one that's quoted in the article, which therefore needs changing. Kinitawowi 23:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Difficulty

I can't think of a good way to phrase (or source) this, but might it be worth mentioning that while NetHack is considered by some to be one of the hardest games around, some seasoned players disagree with this point of view? (While I can't give a specific citation suitable for an article, the most common reason cited in my experience is the fact that beyond a certain point, the game becomes highly formulaic and short of gross error on the player's part, beyond said point, it is nearly impossible to die.) Of course, in the interest of not spoiling people, I will neglect to state exactly what those conditions are, but anyone who's ascended or even come close to it should have an idea. ;) UOSSReiska 08:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That game is so hard to win, I can very close once, then a giant J killed me. HighInBC 13:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, certain people ascend a very high proportion of the games they play... --Pak21 14:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, my ascension rate is fairly sucky. Once you've gotten a couple down, though, there are a number of things you can recognize and act on in the early game which make your success rates jump significantly. Much more of my deaths nowadays are random bad luck than actual playing errors. My own record UOSSReiska 23:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Some doctors succeed at almost every brain surgery they do. That do not mean it is not difficult. HighInBC 16:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

OK, before this little edit war we have going on escalates into anything bigger, let's see what we currently have and discuss it here:

Reviews

The official site is of course a must. The NetHack index is, well, a large list of NetHack websites. However, it is not that useful to anyone new to NetHack. From its vast collection of links it is difficult to pick anything useful. I just restored the Hugo/O'Donnell spoilers main page, Yet Another NetHack Site. Ask any nethacker, these spoilers are The definitive source of all NetHack information. When I first stripped out some of the links, I removed a few sub-pages of that, including the bibliography. StrategyWiki then. It was imported from Wikibooks. Possibly maintains its place as a tutorial. Wikihack is already a huge, ever growing database of all NetHack information, aiming to be the ultimate repository of all NetHack knowledge. Reviews; well, it's good to have them. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 00:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Gwern restored Dudley's Dungeon and the NetHack song. I'm OK with those, especially since he left the justifications too. However, I disagree with restoring the link to the Guidebook. For one, it is the game manual. What other articles link to general game/product manuals? Secondly, it goes too much into detail and is not useful for the casual reader. Thirdly, it is just a sub-page of the official site and can be accessed that way. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 18:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your statement that it is not needed as the main page is referenced, for that reason it need not be included. But I have not heard of an external link being declined because it goes into too much detail, that is a good thing. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't agree with Zero here. The guidebook isn't simply a list of commands and brief explanations and such; it's an in depth discussion of many of the interesting things of Nethack, and not a mere guide. It conveys the "flavor" of Nethack far better than we are allowed to do here, and there are not all that many links. NOT paper, you know. --Gwern (contribs) 20:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I also don't agree with Zero. First, it's not just a subpage of the official site. The Guidebook predates nethack.org, and there were versions of it on other websites as early as 1993, and even earlier. It is a primary source of information about the game written by a member of the DevTeam, usually coming with the nethack package in its entirety as a text file, and is cited very often on RGRN, as well as some FAQs and spoilers.
> What other articles link to product manuals?
So another reason for your removal of it is because it's a product manual? You should consider how much use would it be for other people whoever or wherever it came from.
Anyway, I can't bring back the link myself as doing so would be a conflict of interest (I was the one who added it there in the first place), so I'm going to let you guys decide and end my post with a quote from RGRN --
(BTW, I got all this information
from the Guidebook. It's really very useful.) -Arthur
Cheers. --Aeon17x 13:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
If the guidebook predates the website, then it is of historical importance and should be included. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cite needed for Deux Ex?

I've read the email in question. It's very cool. What precisely would be acceptable as a citation? A copy of the email? :)

Send an email to me with the answer. I rarely log in these days.

NathanZook 04:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge of Amulet of Yendor

It has been propoesed to merge Amulet of Yendor with Roguelike. I suggest that it should be argued vigorously...Garrie 06:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge with NetHack General Public License

Deleted the tag suggesting a merge with NetHack General Public License .There was no mention of any reasons for this on either talk page. If someone wants the pages to be merged, (which they very well could be) they should really bring it up on the talk page before tagging the pages. The suicide forest 00:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/t/Talk%7ENetHack_1d51.html"