Talk:Roguelike

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 28 November 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[edit] Influences

One of the earliest roguelikes was Telengard which was commercially released for Apple ][, C64, and Dos.


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.10.79.144 (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Popular Roguelikes

I certainly hope that most of the games in the List of Popular Roguelikes certainly are popular. I'd hate to think that a lot of them are just advertising for their favorite roguelike. Some of them I've heard of, but most I haven't. Can anyone confirm the popuarity of the roguelikes below? I've removed the ones I know are popular.

  • Slash'EM
  • Angband (with over 30 variants)
  • Larn
  • Omega
  • Moria
  • Castle of the Winds (is this still popular? I played it many years ago, back with Windows 3.1...)
  • Dungeon Crawl (or just "Crawl")
  • The Minstrel's Song
  • Iter Vehemens ad Necem (IVAN)
  • Avanor
  • The UnReal World (URW)
  • The legend of Saladir (or just "Saladir")

Thanks! The lesser-known ones we could move to an Other Roguelikes list. That'd avoid misrepresentation, IMHO. —Frecklefoot 15:39, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Angband is hugely popular, about a par with Nethack, though most players refer to it as Vanilla, to distinguish it from the many variants. I am unsure whether ToME should be listed directly, or just as an Angband variant. Crawl is also quite popular.

The Omega listed and linked to here is not the same as Omega, the roguelike game. Someone should probably add a second definition.

—Fangz 13:08, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Someone just added a short def. Feel free to elaborate it, I haven't been playing omega recently. Ravn 17:15, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I know Slash'EM is quite popular, in fact there are probably a lot of people playing Slash'EM that think it's vanilla Nethack. I don't think IVAN is all that popular, but from what I've played it's perhaps the best roguelike I've found (even though things such as magic haven't been implemented yet, so that's saying something), so I think it deserves at least a mention. I'm really for leaving the list as-is, since even if it is just people's favourites, anyone looking at a list of 'popular roguelikes' is most likely looking for 'roguelikes worth playing.' Radix


Yes, Angband is one of the big, major, still going strong (from the standpoints of development, players, and variant creation). As was mentioned above, Angband is one of the roguelikes that has a hefty amount of variants based off it, and is considered to be in the top tier of big boys of roguelikes, as it were.


Moria is one of the early roguelikes, whose source code was released. This spawned a lot of variants based on it, and changes over time. From a particular version of Moria, and from a particular variant of Moria (Umoria), Angband was born. I believe that Moria is still steaming along (not sure has strongly) separate from Angband.


Slash'em is, if I am not mistaken (haven't played it), a popular variant that ultimtely traces it's lineage to NetHack. Slash'em definitely warrants a mention: I'm not sure if it is still widely played or not, but it is considered to be one of the key Roguelikes. So historically, Slash'em is important. As to whether it is a "current" and played Roguelike, I am unable to say. Dxco 21:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


It's hard to label any roguelike as "popular," considering that it's a cult genre. I can confirm that Angband is quite well-known within the community, however, and Moria is also well-established. Larn has faded in popularity, but was once a well-known roguelike. Also, in case someone decides to make an "other" list later: I'd like to mention POWDER.

--HunterZ 04:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


Linley's Crawl has a decent following. A good way to determine a roguelike's popularity is to gauge the response to it on Usenet - Angband, Slash'EM and Crawl are discussed relatively frequently in the rgr hierarchy. (Slash'EM is discussed in the NetHack group; Crawl in the Misc group; Angband has its own)71.131.209.170


Just to say, that a roguelike that I've only just discovered which has been released only fairly recently (and is increasing in popularity) is the aptly named Dwarf Fortress. For those of you who haven't tried it yet, it is an interesting take on the roguelike system, as you can not only wander a persistant world which you generate on first playing the game, and do all manner of things you can do in other roguelikes, but you can take on a team of dwarves and build your own fortress. I shall cease my chatter now and leave the rest for any of you interested to find out. --Josh 00:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New image

What does everyone think of changing the "illustration" into something like this:


    ------                                                               

    |....|      ############           #  Unlit hallway

    |....|      #          #           .  Lit area

    |.$..+########         #           $  Some quantity of gold

    |....|       #      ---+---        +  A door

    ------       #      |.....|

                 #      |.!...|        !  A magic potion

                 #      |.....|

                 #      |..@..|        @  The adventurer

      ----       #      |.....|

      |..|       #######+..D..|        D  A dragon

      |<.+###    #      |.....|        <  Stairs to the previous level

      ----  #    #      |.?...|        ?  A magic scroll

            ######      -------


I prefer it since it's actually how the games are represted on most terminals and DOS windows. Thoughts? — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:27, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it's your formatting, but I think I'm missing something. What are you proposing? --Rossumcapek 08:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, now that I look at it, it looks pretty crappy! It looked fine in a browser window before, but now there is too much spacing between rows. All I'm proposing is changing the "illustration" to make the background black and the foregroung (text) white. That's the way most "roguelikes" look when played on terminals or in a DOS session. If we can get the formattting right, that is. Anyone good with tables and can fix the spacing? — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:10, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I cannot see either a black background or a white foreground using Mozilla Firefox 0.9.3 - I suggest that you only make such a change when it is absolutely fool^Wbrowserproof. Ravn 14:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, then, how's this one?

 ------                                                               
 |....|      ############           #  Unlit hallway
 |....|      #          #           .  Lit area
 |.$..+########         #           $  Some quantity of gold
 |....|       #      ---+---        +  A door
 ------       #      |.....|
              #      |.!...|        !  A magic potion
              #      |.....|
              #      |..@..|        @  The adventurer
   ----       #      |.....|
   |..|       #######+..D..|        D  A dragon
   |<.+###    #      |.....|        <  Stairs to the previous level
   ----  #    #      |.?...|        ?  A magic scroll
         ######      -------

It renders in my browser the way I expect it to (unlike the previous one), but I'm using IE. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:34, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I originally put the illustration in just pre-formatted text, nothing fancy. I wonder if there's a good way to do a screengrab of Rogue? As to Frecklefoot's question, the lastest Wikipedia code has alternate (read: less painful) ways of entering tables. Check out this help page. But here's a simple way to do the colors in HTML. --Rossumcapek 20:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


test
test
test
This time the colors look fine :) -- Ravn 21:17, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We could do a screen grab of Rogue, but this article is about Rogue-like games. I like the illustration because it is generic. :-) I don't care about an easier syntax right now--now that I'm done! :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:19, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Looks good! Do you want the honor of adding it? As for screengrabs for the individual games, I leave that as an exercise to those with a good ASCII to HTML utility. :) --Rossumcapek 03:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think a PNG file would suffice via a screengrab of something like ADOM or one of the other Rogue-likes. :-) I'll go ahead and add the changed image. Thanks for the comments! — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:09, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Popular, redux

I agree with you about keeping the popular games, and perhaps moving the other games to an Other Roguelikes page, or some such. Because honestly, anything that hasn't even hit version 1 yet prrrobably isn't that popular.

[edit] Are there strict rules as to what constitutes a Roguelike?

I mean, say you have a game with an interface and graphics exactly like most roguelikes - @ for the player, letters for monsters, !s for potions, et cetera. But say this game's entire world is predetermined, ie no random dungeons, with an entire world pre-built by the designer. ADOM has an overworld like this but most of its dungeons are still randomly-generated. I'm talking about 100% non-random world. Would it still be a Roguelike? Would the non-random dungeons disqualify such a game as being considered Roguelike, even if the gameplay has the same flexibility and depth as NetHack? Perhaps there's already a name for such "in-the-middle" games that borrow Roguelike elements that I don't know about? --69.234.208.76 21:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

There are no universaly accepted rules for a roguelike. Diablo could be called a roguelike even though it has only a couple of feature that are common in the genre. To me the definition in the article is probably the best available
The roguelikes are usually superficially two-dimensional dungeon crawling computer games, most with simple text or ASCII "graphics" and many with "tiles" which replace the rather limited character set with a wider array.
Now this is far from exact, but that's life for you...--Hexii 00:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I personally take roguelikes as being defined by 1) random maps, and 2) being an RPG. That's really all there is to the strict definition, although ASCII graphics are common, as are dungeon settings (for obvious reasons). Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 00:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I would add that the whole 'can't reload from a save game, if you die its all over' concept partially defines a rogue-like for me, but I haven't played very many of them and that's obviosuly not a universal agreement. -Twinge 23:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
A lot of hacking and slashing through something resembling a labyrinth. Then there are (might be) non-combat RLs too... —Philip Nilsson 00:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I always took roguelike to mean something that shared the essential (as opposed to incidental) characteristics of Rogue, especially games derived from its actual code. I wouldn't call Diablo a roguelike - I think the ability to render the game on a dumb terminal, as well as turn-based gameplay, are two defining characteristics of a roguelike; I don't think a game is roguelike if it lacks both, though it could be argued for games that just lack one or the other (eg Chocobo's Dungeon II or MAngband).71.131.209.170


I have to admit I try to be careful to not stretch the usage of "roguelike" too broadly. Due to the very fluid nature of the design, interface, and graphics of many different roguelikes, the term is pretty broad in what it encompassses. But generall, we can say there is a common set of features that roguelikes possess to one degree or another that defines the genrea. ASCII text graphics used iconically (as opposed to written text such as a MUD), randomly generated dungeons, randomly generated loot to one degree or another, save file deletion upon death, and on and on.


Most roguelikes don't contain all of the elements we would associate with the archetypal roguelike, but they will tend to hit critical mass to a sufficient degree to pop them into that category. So, ADOM is definitely a roguelike, MAngband is definitely a roguelike (though a fairly unique take on the genre out of necesity), etc.


The other problem with this issue that I think many of us grapple with comes down to the fact that all RPG's draw their lineage from roguelikes. So, pretty much all current RPG's share a lot of commonality with roguelikes simply becase Rogue was the "father" RPG. However, I think we can still see a pretty clear line - to such an extent that I would feel comfortable saying the Ultima 4 was not a roguelike, despite the fact that, well, it almost completely was :P It, for example, was one of the early steps of making commercial games based on the RPG concept that Rogue and its children created. The fact that roguelikes are still actively developed, instead of just being a now-dead step in the growth of RPG's, also helps provide a little clarity on where that line is drawn. In fact, this may be the point that helps of see where the genre boundary lies: because people keep making and working on roguelikes, we can see the work they do on them as examples of what roguelikes should look like, and what conventional RPG's should not.


All this hot-airinig that I'm busting forth with arises from not infrequently chatting with people who described Diablo as a roguelike. I think its safer to say, for example and in this case, that Diablo instead is a great example of conventional RPG's drawing from their heritage in design. Blizzard assembled almost all the roguelike concepts and put them together in their action rpg game, but the result was still not a roguelike - it was an rpg that was very pure in it's historical borrowing.Dxco 21:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Picky point: not all RPG's descend from Roguelikes so calling it the "Father RPG' doesn't sound right. Some designers weren't exposed to Rogue (perish the thought!) and adapted directly from paper games; or were exposed to the prior traditions; or were on different systems, etc. That Rogue was a big influence is clear, but it wasn't universal. D&D is the Father RPG, and Rogue is one of the older kids. Coll7 22:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, excellent distinction to make. Yes, I will admit I am showing an unintentional bias when I talk about RPG's: for me, I always am thinking "computer game RPG's" (and by "computer" I mean any console, computer, electronic game device, etc). Certainly, when the early computer game pioneers sat down to make a game, they almost universally drew from pen and paper rpg games. Dxco 22:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I consider roguelike to mean any game that is like rogue. That said I think the main "Roguelike" elements are 1) Random map generators, 2) Permadeath, and 3) the Interface. Any game that has any or all of these features I would say "Oh, that's like rogue, I must play." I'm not old-school enough to demand that roguelikes build off of the original source, nor do I think that all RPGs descended from Rouge (And it's got nothing on the Japanese RPGs).

[edit] Dungeon and dnd

Although I understand where the author was coming from, it's strange to read that the first games in the "Roguelike" genre were two games that predated Rogue by several years -- or that Rogue itself is a "Roguelike". I believe "dnd", "Dungeon" (and "Adventure") deserve mention in this article, but perhaps in a different way.71.131.209.170

Made some changes that may address some of your concerns. Please sign your posts, even if you don't have an account. The correct way to do this is with 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). The latter is prefered since it also adds a timestamp. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks for the tip.71.131.209.170 10:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Ever heard of DiabloRL? It's basically the exact ruleset of Diablo moved to ASCII mode -- DiabloRL ?

[edit] Roguelike history tree

I'm thinking a tree of some roguelikes would be a nice thing to have, I hacked around some with Graphviz and found a pretty good solution, the problem is... what roguelikes to include? Let's say the graph starts with Rogue, what branches then, Moria and Hack? And where from there... Well, I've got some of it done, expansion and trimming is welcome. Image:RoguelikeHistory.png, It'll get some more formatting and such too. —Philip Nilsson 23:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

What's the difference between the solid and dashed lines? — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Inspiration rather than a cloning or porting or patching or so. —Philip Nilsson 14:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I think we may unintentionally send the wrong message with some of the layout of the information in the timeline. Specifically, one might interpret that ToME is the "new" Angband, and that Angband is essentially no more. Instead we would want to indicate that ToME branched off from Angband (Im curious - does ToME keep up to date with patches and version increments from Vanilla, or has it completely broken off and no longer uses anything new from Vanilla past a certain version?), and that Angband is still rocking along up to the present.
Here is an example of the layout I tossed together to demonstrate what I mean: http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/4793/timelinedemo28ks.png
With this type of layout, I think it may be easier to interpret the often messy history of roguelikes, indicating both if one came from another, and if both are still active or not. Dxco 21:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Good idea, how about this? (edges to the last year of release, I didn't bother with them all.) Image:RoguelikeHistory.png —Philip Nilsson 00:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Great idea. I like it, except that I can't see the whole thing at once; would it be less readable if it were laid out horizontally instead?
Also, how complete should it be? I see that it concentrates mostly on Rogue descendants but also mentions ADOM.
Finally, don't forget to cite sources in case it sparks debate ;) --HunterZ 04:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Source is already in the article. Hm, I wonder if I mentioned in the image description too...
Horizontal layout should be no more that setting a variable. Hm, seems less readable to me :/ Scaling it works well though.
As for what roguelikes to include... no idea :/ —Philip N.✉ 10:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You can copy from http://roguebasin.t-o-m-e.net/index.php/Tree_of_roguelike_evolution as it's GFDL. It's from a wiki mostly written by roguelike developers. But how can we keep the two pages identical? 70.24.212.140 03:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should use the layout from Lévénez's Unix history diagram http://www.levenez.com/unix/ -- Krunch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.219.145.182 (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overview

The overview page sort of randomly lists details about roguelikes in no particular logical or organised order. It is not really an overview either, maybe there needs to be a seperate "Gameplay" catgory.--Konstable 10:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the section title to "Typical Gameplay" 70.249.223.71 15:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] roguelikes

"List of popular roguelikes (and other descendents of Rogue)" needs to merged into the rougelikes and removed from here. Seems a bit redundent. (Signed: J.Smith) 23:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. — Frecklefoot | Talk 03:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. And while I'm at it, the list of games "influenced by Rogue" is starting to look like a list of all RPG's, many of which display few of Rogue's key features. Someone who is very deep in Rogue should trim the list, however. Coll7 19:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just removed some entries from the list. But not enough. I just want to get consensus before I go chopping everything. I propose that we just keep actually roguelikes. No roguelike-inspired games. No Diablo and similar RPGs. No old games that aren't really classics in the genre and aren't popular now. No alpha/beta in-dev projects with no popularity. And no minor Angband variants, there are too many of them to list them all here. Here is my proposed list:

--81.219.180.99 04:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)*Doom, the RogueLike (DoomRL) Roguelike-inspired game in the world of Doom, created by --81.219.180.99 04:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)--81.219.180.99 04:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)--81.219.180.99 04:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Kornel Kisielewicz

  • Dungeon Crawl (or just "Crawl")
  • Dweller (roguelike for mobile phones)
  • GearHead (a mecha based Roguelike)
  • Hack
  • NetHack (A descendant of Hack) and its variant Slash'EM
  • Iter Vehemens ad Necem (IVAN)
  • Larn
  • Lost Labyrinth
  • Moria
  • Omega
  • Ragnarok
  • Sword of Fargoal (featuring primitive graphics and realtime combat)
  • The UnReal World (URW)


--Konstable 04:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

A lot of thought and argument went into this issue over at RogueBasin, and I'm wondering: why not use that conclusion? The list of http://roguebasin.t-o-m-e.net/index.php/Major_roguelikes was ADOM, Angband, Crawl, NetHack, ToME, and Zangband. Listed as historically influential were Hack, Larn, Omega, Moria and Rogue. The goal of this list should be more to show what games define the roguelike genre. Trying to list "popular" or "good" games is a moving target which will result in a list constantly expanding as each player adds their "What about X?" to the list. --149.99.33.106 16:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC) (Jeff Lait)

I would recommend at least keeping Diablo as an example of how the Rogue-like game directly inspired a first-person, graphically-intensive game. Don't get me wrong: I'd play Zangband much sooner than I would Diablo. But I'd also suggest that an article about Lionel Barrymore wouldn't be diminished by mentioning that Drew's his granddaughter. Same here. --Happylobster 18:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

While Diablo should be present on any page discussing roguelikes, it shouldn't be in the list of influential roguelikes for the simple reason that its status as a roguelike is still open to debate. I think the right course of action here is to extract the existing list into a List of Roguelikes (like the List of Angband Variants). Said list can be broken into several categories to separate "clear" roguelikes from "questionable" roguelikes (to address the tendency of people to apparently put any isometric RPG onto the list!) The Roguelike page can then be reduced to only indexing the major roguelikes.

--149.99.33.106 16:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed the quote that was next to the Diablo entry in the list, as non-NPOV. --Jarcane 21:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that one of the lastest pokémon games, pokémon mysterious dungeon (pokémon no fushigi dungeon) is also a roguelike, developed by the same coders from the Torneko series. I know, I know, pokémon is for kids and that stuff, but that game is roguelike indeed.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.162.91 (talk • contribs)

Something needs to be done now, the list has been expanding all this time. Thsi page is looking like a list of not-so-notable games, rather than an article. I will go on with what Jeff Lait said - change the list title to Major Roguelikes'. I will exclude Diablo because it is a debatable issue and Wikipedia is NPOV. Diablo and other major games that are borderline roguelikes should be mentioned in the body of the article with the controvercies/debates about them explained. Just in case, I will leave the old list on the page, but commented out.--Konstable 11:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Several points:

  • Rogue and Hack are not dead and still are widely played considering they are included in most BSD unix distributions. Larn and Omega are still supported and played. The 'seldom played' comment is not NPOV and is a personal opinion.
  • Please add back in the established games especially the older established games such as Mike's Adventure Game.
  • The Roguelike Restoration Project should have more information since it modernized and will modernize many of the early roguelikes.
  • Add a sub-heading for 'Other Roguelike' with a list of the currently removed games

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.25.38.2 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC2)

I have rephrased the section titles to remove the POVish words. But in regards to your requests: can you verify the current popularity of Moria, Hack, Mike's Adventure Game, Larn, Omega, etc? I have been subscribing to roguelike newsgroups for years, and I have never heard of the popularity of those games. Their download sites (if still existant) are usually quite dusty also. From my knowledge I don't believe they are popular. But if you have some verifiable source which proves their popularity, feel free to bring it forward.
As for the subheading of Other Roguelikes I think it's a bad idea. It would bring back the old list. Which is way too long, does not allow a non-POVish way to stop people from appending their own alpha-stage projects, as well as some projects that are barely roguelike. Such a list provides no encyclopedic benefits. And Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a list or a linkfarm. Can you imagine the cRPG page having such a list?--Konstable 13:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The article should include the short list of early rogulikes which are the basis for many current roguelikes (rogue for hack and for nethack/slash'em) (moria for angband based games) (hack, Mike's Adventure Game, Omega, Larn for Crawl and ADOM).
  • The fact that many current roguelikes are under development shows that there is still much interest in the game genre as well as a development community.
  • Wikipedia is not a list of web links but should include a short list of other roguelikes which are extensively playable. Consider the large amount of 'dead' games listed for different console platforms (see the list of SNES games List_of_SNES_games). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.38.2 (talk • contribs)
Sorry for the long response, I was busy with other things and forgot about this.
  • First of all, have a look at WP:LIST for list guidelines on wikipedia, even these two lists probably shouldnt' be lists!
  • To show that there is much interest in developing roguelikes, we can just state it and note some of the more prominent projects in development (eg GearHead, TOME) - but no need for a long spammy list describing ALL the projects. Especially since there are so many games and every developper will just add his own game on in self-promotion. Not that I want to discourage them, I'm a developer myself actually! But this is not a personal advertising space, nor is it a directory.
  • List of SNES games is ok, because it is a standalone list, which is allowed. But having half of this article here covered with a long needless list is just pointless and only takes away from the actual article. So if you miss the list, you could create a List of Roguelike games and put it there, that could be nice. The old list is still on the page, commented out - so you can still access it easily.--Konstable 13:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • probably the three most active and important in-dev roguelikes are POWDER, GearHead and DoomRL, they might be mentioned on the page?? --81.219.180.99 04:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
First, I don't think active == notable. Second, the List of Actively Developing Roguelikes fulfills that role better than any static Wikipedia list could do. I do appreciate the belief in the relevance of POWDER, however, but I'm not sure it as important as we might wish. Thanks to Konstable for cleaning the list. I like the changes. Jeff Lait --149.99.33.106 20:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding games to the 'See Also'

Should it be done? There is enough other places where the games are mentioned. I didn't delete CastlevaniaRL out of courtesy but I don't think it is the place for it. Agree/Disagree? Lochok 08:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree.  Grue  08:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OR

This article appears to be original research. Please provide reliable sources for the claims and definitions made in the article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 12:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Such as? Which claims do you think are dubious or false?  Grue  18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The entire thing. None of it is sourced. It's original resource. I don't really know what else to say. The descriptions, the family tree, the descriptions of some games as being major examples. Where did this information come from? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Chris, I'm too lazy to give a lot of sources, but here's one: http://www.thangorodrim.net/. I've been playing the bastard for over 10 years, and a lot of this information is familiar. --Happylobster 21:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Try looking at Roguelike#Sources. Tag removed. Garrie 03:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is great that those have now been added. Do you suppose someone could now turn those into references, citing specific sections so I know which information comes from which sources? Check out WP:CITE for detail. Thanks. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We could also use the @ Play columns by John Harris as references. Harris has strong views on the subject of roguelikes. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 09:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

  • Do Not Merge -- I agree with comments above. Coll7 07:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see how this fits in this article at all. I don't have problems with merging it into Rogue though, even if it appears in some other games.  Grue  14:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If we were going to merge it, I'd say merge with Rogue (computer game), with possible inclusions as to references elsewhere. But I can see keeping it as a seperate article as well. So, don't merge, no consensus for it FrozenPurpleCube 18:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Merge - It's certainly not a defining feature of a roguelike, nor specific to them any more. However, I'm not entirely satisfied it deserves a seperate article. Tough one, but regardless... if it's going to reside in just one place in the Wikipedia, this is certainly not it. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 18:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge discussion closed with a consensus of do not mergeGarrie 00:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game

Would you consider this a roguelike? SharkD 04:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like it from the description. But it's hard to tell without screenshots. Either way, it's not very notable. — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Rogue the most popular dungeon crawler???

The sentance "Rogue became the most popular dungeon crawl game yet created" is a bit bizzare. I assume that whoever wrote that sentance meant something like "In its heyday, Rogue was the most popular dungeon crawl game"; as opposed to "Rogue is the most popular dongeon crawl game ever made". Because it's really not clear, so I'm changing it. Bilz0r 05:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

I invite you to write about the differences between roguelike and CRPG culture over at Cultural differences in role-playing video games. SharkD 14:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is "you" above? This seems like an odd place for an open invitation. D. Brodale 23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why remove text?

Combat is in some ways less tactical in roguelikes than in some other dungeon crawlers, such as the Gold Box games of the late '80s and '90s. A lack of a party of followers[1] or an action point system[2] are contributing factors.

Why did you remove this text? I provided references. The developer of Eschalon said that the game is designed like a roguelike. Maybe a rewrite is in order:

Combat is in some ways less tactical in roguelikes than in some other dungeon crawlers, such as the Gold Box games of the late '80s and '90s. A lack of a party of followers[1] or an action point system[2] have been cited as contributing factors (though there exist roguelikes which possess these features).

SharkD (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Providing references does not bind one to accept the validity of the references or related claims at face value.
Perhaps I should expand on the edit log comments previously supplied. The first claim, that lack of a party contributes to reduction in "tactics" (whatever that is), is not supported by the reference supplied. Reading the cited passage in context, the author discusses turn-based combat as possessing weak appeal to the "average gamer" (whatever that is) and that this is more notable in the case of single-character games compared to party-oriented games, as the latter provides at least an surface-level excuse to adopt a turn-based approach. Note, he is not stating that one is less "tactical" than the other, but rather that in the former case it may contribute to lack of appeal to an "average gamer." Put bluntly: the cited reference is being twisted to support a point not present or intended in the original material. If anything, the referenced source plays up the complexity of RLs in general, though that is neither here nor there.
Here's the quote again: "I think turn-based gameplay hurts single-character games more than party-based ones where the tactical aspect is a good justification for turn-based combat". He's saying there's a tactical aspect to party-based combat. This statement is made out of context.
Also, there are whole genres of games--Turn-based tactics, Real-time tactics, Tactical role-playing game--most of which feature parties as well as action points (at least, the turn-based ones).
One definition of tactics: "the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle."[1] This implies the use of more than one unit. SharkD (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You're missing the point. You've ignored the entire context of the remark you quote above. The question to which the interviewee is responding is this: "Why do you think roguelikes haven't appealed more to the average gamer?"[2] And here's the context to the quote you supply:
"The turn-based gameplay might be a problem for some gamers; turn-based games have been on the decline for many years now, except for strategy games ... I think turn-based gameplay hurts single-character games more than party-based ones where the tactical aspect is a good justification for turn-based combat. Still, I don't think this is a crucial disadvantage for attracting average gamers.
So what should be done if one wanted to make roguelikes more appealing to average gamers, or even commercially appealing?"[3]
He's not talking about tactical depth, he's talking about whether a game will or won't appeal to today's typical gamer, and how today's gamers are turned off by turn-based play if real-time play is a viable option. Your marshalling of definitions of this or that here makes your case no stronger, and I can't begin to understand how it fits here.
D. Brodale (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
In the second case, at first glance (with the further detail provided above), I still don't grasp use of a preview of Eschalon as valid here. The supplied reference above that ties Eschalon to the RL genre is terribly weak, reading in full as: "I think I had mentioned in another interview that the overall mechanics of Eschalon feels very similar to a Rogue-like RPG." That's a terribly vague throw-away comment, and I think it a bit much to presume that Eschalon is thereby representative of the genre as a whole, let alone even a member of it.
I don't see what's so vague about "very similar". SharkD (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Here, let me highlight the problematic words in that one-off remark: "I think I had mentioned in another interview that the overall mechanics of Eschalon feels very similar to a Rogue-like RPG." I'd supply a link, but it appears you've since edited your original mention (why?) to hide it. Let me underscore that this is the only mention made in that missing interview, that it's a reference to another interview, maybe, and that something can appear or seem to be similar to something without being that something. There's no expansion of this remark by the designer, and it's still a bit much to think that one can know what he means when that meaning isn't expressed.
D. Brodale (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
However, returning to the original use of the second source to shore up the (rephrased) claim that "the lack of an action point system contributes to RL combat being less tactical in some ways than in some other dungeon crawlers." ... *whew* ... the claim alone is wishy-washy. Anyway...
Nonetheless, it is supported by a source. SharkD (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
As I first asked, where? Where is this support? I'm not even sure what "it" is in the above remark.
D. Brodale (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The source backing the second claim describes its subject as "Eschalon[,] a traditional 2D, tile-based, turn-based CRPG with stat-driven gameplay."[4] No discussion of it being RL in any way is present, nor do I think one could conclude much from the review other than it being an "old-school" CRPG. After a recap of game features, the preview rolls around to the sentence originally referenced as in support of the claim. Here's the passage with that sentence highlighted:
Eschalon uses an unusual turn-based system but we need to see a lot more to understand how it develops throughout the game. So far, rather than a traditional action-point system, each combatant gets a single movement or attack and then the turn automatically ends and switches to the other side. This leads to a fast-moving system than can almost appear real-time if the player clicks fast enough. For example, going head-to-head with a monster in melee, a single click performs a standard attack. The turn ends instantly, the monster attacks and it’s back to the player – and so on. It’s simple and fast but lacks the tactical depth of action-points – although this may change with higher skill levels. Magic, potions and equipment can all add extra depth for the right characters.
Note that in staking the highlighted passage to the claim in the Roguelike article, you've omitted important context: this is a review of the mechanics of one game, as measured against one reviewer's estimation of action points. Somehow this has been taken and applied to an unrelated genre as a whole. Setting that aside, the same developer you mention above casts these remarks as highly questionable even in the case of Eschalon alone (see "BasiliskWrangler"'s remarks in the forum thread directly tied to the review[5]).
It's the very same form of combat found in most roguelikes. If you read the forum thread, you'll see that consensus is against the developer. They disagree with him. Eschalon has been called a roguelike here, here and here. Also, I would hardly call "classic" RPGs and roguelikes totally unrelated... SharkD (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You're overstating things by a long-shot, and I don't subscribe to the view that throwing out a series of weblinks constitutes evidence without review. I'm not going to argue that RLs don't relate in some way to CRPGs (it's a subgenre), and that wasn't my point. My point is that you've taken review of a particular game, of one particular mechanic within it, and used it as a proxy for an entire genre in full. That in itself is a problematic chain of reasoning from drawing upon one source to make a bold claim. It doesn't help that Eschalon doesn't appear to be a roguelike, despite a potentially similar feature here or there.
Anyway, let's look at the three sources you've marshalled here, all of which are forum threads that, while interesting, don't really meet accepted Wikipedia standards for reliable, verifiable sources. However, here are the remarks found within each that appear to be the triggers for your thoughts:
"I read on RPGCodex that someone said it sounds like a Roguelike game. I've only played a couple of those (years ago) but I do think maybe it does feel something like that."[6] Note that what develops in this single post is that Eschalon combat is turn-based, not that it's a roguelike.
"I like the looks of the combat system, it's sort of roguelike-like."[7] One person's vague remark that no one follows up on or develops into anything meaningful.
"Isn't it basically the system implemented in almost every roguelike?" ... "Yeah, but with more 'complex' (is that the right term?) controls to use in kombat."[8] Two anonymous users exchanging sentences that could, at best, be described as unclear. Basically but more complex? Does that make it different, the same? Again, the "it" is the turn-based nature of combat.
If I had to characterize your response on this point, it would seem that you've fixated on the presence of the word "roguelike" to the exclusion of noting how and to what it is applied (and by whom). I don't think we should play keyword bingo like this. Nowhere do I see anyone mention anything that supports the view that RLs are "less tactical" (whatever that means), and I've lost track of why proving this vague assertion is crucial to the Wikipedia article. You introduced the issue into the article to refute it, which seems like the construction of a strawman. Correct me if I'm wrong, but (as far as Wikipedia is concerned) RLs aren't classed as a subgenre of Tactical RPGs in the least.
D. Brodale (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, the developer doesn't say that a lack of action points doesn't make a RPG less tactical. He merely says that despite the game's lack of action points, the game is still very tactical. My original text does not say that roguelikes are overall less tactical than other RPGs with action points; it says that they are in some ways less tactical than those other RPGs. SharkD (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You're splitting hairs, and that interpretation is even more at odds with the originally cited review. What notable meaning are you trying to convey, in the context of the Wikipedia article, with statements like "in some ways less tactical"? Especially when this whole issue was introduced to be torn down (see above)?
D. Brodale (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
(As an aside, whether an AP system is "more" or "less" tactical seems an odd thing to argue, given that it's a measure of timekeeping, something present to varying degrees among RLs, and that it is but one component of combat, to be sure. But again, this is neither here nor there with respect to my edits.)
Nevertheless, the argument was made. I'll leave it to future browsers/reviewers to comment in greater detail on the subject. SharkD (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
As stated elsewhere, merely (re)stating that an argument was made isn't conducive to discussion.
D. Brodale (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
So, in sum, the reason for my removal of the above passage is that the claim remains unsupported because the two references have been (1) misinterpreted and (2) misapplied.
D. Brodale (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The references were neither misapplied nor misinterpreted. SharkD (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You're free to disagree, but for this to be a conversation, it would help if you could back that statement with evidence or reasoning. If not, I'm not sure what else to add. D. Brodale (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Scratch that, I now see that you've buried brief replies throughout. I'll reply in kind now that this approach has been taken, but can you please avoid this posting style ... it's very hard to follow. D. Brodale (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Your follow-up remark as to a rewrite was posted during composition of my response above. In response to that suggestion, I don't see the rewrite as any better. Tacking on a parenthetical remark and weaselly "have been cited" not only renders the original claim less cogent, but further buries the misreading and misapplication of the referenced sources. D. Brodale (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beneath Apple Manor

Apparently, the Apple II game Beneath Apple Manor was an earlier roguelike than rogue. This should go into the history sections somewhere. http://www.roguetemple.com/2008/01/29/bam/ http://worth.bol.ucla.edu/ http://psittacine.com/beneath-apple-manor/. 78.52.192.222 (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing Popularity with Release Dates

A roguelike game's popularity does not have anything to do with the most recent release date of a new version. The article should include a) early major roguelikes, b) modern rogulikes with an active following c) Rogulikes with notable new features or gameplay (e.g., Crawl for its multitude of classes + skill combination and how similar some modern commercial games are to it (Ultima Online)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.209.187 (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where in the article popularity is confused with date of release for any particular title. D. Brodale (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)