Temple of The Roguelike Forums
Game Discussion => Traditional Roguelikes (Turn-based) => Topic started by: radad on October 23, 2010, 01:33:19 AM
-
I came across glorg (http://armorgames.com/play/7115/glorg) recently as was interested what this community thought about it as a roguelike.
It really boils down the genre to the ultimate in simplicity. It does keeps the essentials of the roguelike/rpg. The battle system though is reduced to timing rather than tactics.
I was wondering though is this too simple? Is this simply a caricuture or does it represent a real roguelike.
I actually found it fun to play but I find a lot of roguelikes too complicated to get into. It does highlight the repetitive nature I find in most roguelikes that ultimately ends in frustration for me. I like the idea of them but I feel there should be something more to them.
-
Glorg is a roguelike? Don't make me laugh. It is a twitch game. You cannot even choose not to use a medikit when low on health because your XP bar is almost filled and after winning next fight you will get healed for free.
There is no exploration system. I mean it. Click to explore this room and maybe get an encounter and/or treasure or maybe not. This linearity kills with boredom. No tactics, no choice, no meaningful character development ... Sure, it has stats and levels. But this alone does not make a roguelike. If fights were made turn based and with choices (charge attack, block, flee) you could have a point. Glorg is so mediocre I am happy its not a RL. Not even the essentials are included ... but at least there is permafailure.
So you have trouble getting into roguelikes, huh? Try DiabloRL. It is repetitive and perhaps will not scare you right away. DoomRL is much better (and harder) but no two games feel the same.
-
In Glorg, the only place where pressing a button really matters is in combat. Everything else the developer should have made happen automatically. With that and a little more variety in the enemies, and a shorter game length, Glorg might actually be a decent game, but it isn't at all a roguelike. It's more a shallow mockery of the same.
-
I agree, glorg has no depth.
When exploring in a roguelike and you come across a choice in path, there is nothing to distinguish the choice. You have no prior knowledge to help make a decision. Both paths offer the same random occurances. Where is the fun in the decision when the choice in arbritrary? Exploration in most roguelikes *feel* like the choice for exploration given in glorg.
I have played DoomRL. I used to enjoy up until the traits were added. Then I lost interest, it was too hard to get into. Thats probably because of my limited time to play it. It was no longer a "coffe cup" game for me.
-
If roguelikes have arbitrary choices (which is completely incorrect, by the way), what makes them "too complicated" for you?
-
That arbitrary choice was in respect to exploration. If thats not true then what decision process do you use to decide which path to take? What factors do you take into account?
One area I find too complicated is the number of weapon choices that seem to have little difference between them. It makes the decision of which weapon to keep a chore.
-
This game just sucks.
It lacks roguelikeness at all.
-
That arbitrary choice was in respect to exploration. If thats not true then what decision process do you use to decide which path to take? What factors do you take into account?
My equipment, strengths and weaknesses, known spells ... really a lot of factors. It depends the most on map layout. Here's an example:
#######
#.....#####
#####........
..........##
#####.....#
#..@..####..
#...........
###.######..
#.#
#.#
#.#
Assuming I came from south I would venture south-east now because I see a room there. Being a warrior I dislike being caught in middle of a tunnel by an archer because that will force me to take few arrows to the face. And if its a dragon? Few breathes might be not as survivable. If I am an archer cooridors are good places most of the time.
In caves I try to stick to walls with my melee characters because this lowers number of creatures that can swarm me. With spellcasters I wade though middle of open areas hoping to amass critters so that I can blast as many of them as possible with a single area-of-effect attack.
In ZapM I leave dark rooms for later preferring to go around whenever possible.There may be a facehugger hiding to jump at you out of darkness.
In Rogue I try to guess map layout to minimize backtracking. Food is important.
One area I find too complicated is the number of weapon choices that seem to have little difference between them. It makes the decision of which weapon to keep a chore.
If you know they have little difference why bother with detailed analysis? Pick one at random. Crawl is especially guilty of this. Weapons having damage with attack delay plus unclear skill bonuses make for a frustrating choice. I ignore that and pick weapon with neatest name. :-)
-
I find the game to be a fun sarcasm and critic of roguelikes and dungeon crawlers. It also looks pretty cute :)
-
Well, you have to say that glorg pretty much takes the 'wander through corridors into rooms' and strips it down to what that is, ie, wandering through corridors into rooms.
Despite there being complicated rogue likes out there, in them your still essentially doing that.
-
Right, except for the fact that tactics matter in roguelikes -- where the player stands and how he moves in combat matters. In order to have a place to stand and someplace to move requires that there be a map with two dimensions, something that Glorg DOES NOT HAVE. Glorg selects your opponent for you while fixing you in front of it, and, in so doing, denies you a key facet of roguelike gameplay. A roguelike player that has any chance of winning will avoid enemies he can't defeat and, when he does fight, position himself well. The original poster obviously hasn't played roguelikes enough to realize how important that is, which is probably why they're so frustrating for him.
-
Well, possibly I haven't played enough roguelikes either. But another possiblity is that alot of the time particular tile postion doesn't matter at all. Like say theres gold in the top left corner of a room - you walk over and get it and...that's it. That's no different from Glorg's one click exploration, really - in fact it requires more key presses for the same result.
Or say your walking through a room and out of the darkened corridor at the end some monster suddenly appears from the darkness. Well, it's as fast as you, so poof, your in combat. Same as glorg.
You can end up in some serious, chess like manouvering in a roguelike, totally. But how often is is - what percentage of time spent playing is that complex and what percentage of time spent playing is Glorg-like? It's a difficult question.
-
This game just sucks.
It lacks roguelikeness at all.
I agree it isn't at all a roguelike (I'd say it's a very minimalistic dungeon crawler), but I think the author's point was to explore what is doable in a 1-button game & I think the game is very good in that context.
-
Well, possibly I haven't played enough roguelikes either. But another possiblity is that alot of the time particular tile postion doesn't matter at all. Like say theres gold in the top left corner of a room - you walk over and get it and...that's it. That's no different from Glorg's one click exploration, really - in fact it requires more key presses for the same result.
Lets change gold to large medikit in DoomRL. It sits there in the corner but look! There is a door in the north wall. Walking straight to medikit is stupid. You should either move cardinally to the door with spread weapons and perpendicularly close at the medikit if you heard baron/knight howl because you want to dodge first surprise shot. If it does not matter how you explore a room the roguelike game in question has not yet reached maturity.
Or say your walking through a room and out of the darkened corridor at the end some monster suddenly appears from the darkness. Well, it's as fast as you, so poof, your in combat. Same as glorg.
In old Rogue it is like that. In newer games it is your fault for not bringing lantern and thus your failure to take advantage of positioning possibilities. All very unlike Glorg.
You can end up in some serious, chess like manouvering in a roguelike, totally. But how often is is - what percentage of time spent playing is that complex and what percentage of time spent playing is Glorg-like? It's a difficult question.
Perhaps it is. I suggest you play DoomRL on Nightmare difficulty, Toby the Trapper, ChessRogue with extended pieces. These will punish you for careless adventuring 95% of the time. Have you heard about autoexplore woes in Crawl? Many players detested it at first because it explored levels without positioning player character well and thus wasting many advantages of sighting a monster early. Sometimes even it put the player right in front of a giant spiked club wielding hungry ogre.
My point is when a game approaches Glorg with playing style it distances itself from roguelike qualities.
-
I'm thinking of nethack mostly, and there are quite a few rooms where you saunter over and that's it. It's different latter in nethack, but glorg isn't that long either. In terms of the earlier levels of nethack, glorg isn't far off from what is 80% of the early nethack play.
It sounds true that glorg is not a doomrl-like.
-
I'm thinking of nethack mostly, and there are quite a few rooms where you saunter over and that's it. It's different latter in nethack, but glorg isn't that long either. In terms of the earlier levels of nethack, glorg isn't far off from what is 80% of the early nethack play.
It sounds true that glorg is not a doomrl-like.
I don't understand why people feel the need to shoehorn every game with a couple of similar attributes to roguelikes into the genre (http://roguebasin.roguelikedevelopment.org/index.php?title=Berlin_Interpretation).
There is nothing roguelike in glorg (a fine game by itself, for different reasons) except for it being a dungeon crawler (a separate genre, albeit with a significant overlap with the roguelike genre).
It isn't any more a roguelike than Ultima 5, Icewind Dale or Dwarf Fortress are (i.e. not at all).
-
I don't understand why people feel the need to shoehorn every game with a couple of similar attributes to roguelikes into the genre (http://roguebasin.roguelikedevelopment.org/index.php?title=Berlin_Interpretation).
I think that, in this case, the OP was frustrated with roguelikes, so he decided to shoehorn something absurd into the roguelike definition to "discredit" the genre in an act of spite. A trolling attempt is the only way I could understand what is going on here.
-
Now now, there is no galactic council of jedi who have determined where the line is set for what is inside the idea of a roguelike. Where you set your line and where someone else sets there line can be miles apart without someone having some evil, mustache twirling intent.
I think rather than shaking your heads at what people apparently shoe horn in, writing out the physical requirements for what constitutes a roguelike would be better. You might even find that, shock horror, even if you agree glorg isn't a roguelike with someone, your requirements don't match each others? Are you trying to be trolls or just think in different ways? The latter.
-
Now now, there is no galactic council of jedi who have determined where the line is set for what is inside the idea of a roguelike.
There is. Did not find it? No excuse for your ignorance.
Where you set your line and where someone else sets there line can be miles apart without someone having some evil, mustache twirling intent.
But it should make some sense? If not I could declare Diablo to be RTS like you are calling Glorg a roguelike now. Not applicable? Come on, Diablo is real time and you can produce units (as Necromancer, mana is your resource), command your hero unit (the main player character) and have a base in each act (the village where stuff gets bought). There are enemy bases too (Tristram, where you rescue hostage). Fits strategy game perfectly.
I think rather than shaking your heads at what people apparently shoe horn in, writing out the physical requirements for what constitutes a roguelike would be better. You might even find that, shock horror, even if you agree glorg isn't a roguelike with someone, your requirements don't match each others? Are you trying to be trolls or just think in different ways? The latter.
Many of us disagree on what a roguelike is but you are first person to actually disregard nature of this genre completely. Okay, I'll help you.
Here is what The Cabal (There Is No Cabal) thinks about what constitutes a RL game:
http://roguebasin.roguelikedevelopment.org/index.php?title=Berlin_Interpretation
And here another set of factors from a slightly different POV:
http://www.roguetemple.com/roguelike-definition/
-
No excuse for your ignorance.
Ancient one! I beg you to be patient with the newcomer to the temple, I don't see evil in his intentions!
-
No excuse for your ignorance.
Ancient one! I beg you to be patient with the newcomer to the temple, I don't see evil in his intentions!
Darknoon's tone didn't strike as very appropriate for a new comer either.
-
You both are right. Darknoon's certainty in his last post struck me as arrogant. A newbie would not state such things about genre he just got to know. On the other hand I did overreact with that remark Slash quoted.
-
Foolish young padawan, the Jedi council we ARE! Much to learn you have.
"Roguelike" does not mean "like Rogue" in a general sense. "Roguelike" is a single word defined by a community of which this temple is a part. It is a proper noun and should be capitalized, but we're not grammar Nazis, so we let that slide. We didn't invent the term, but this place was devoted to an established genre. When we say "Roguelike", we aren't referring to what you think is like Rogue. You can go to the Catholic church and tell them that your church is Catholic too because you have the same decor, but don't expect them to take it well, because they decide what "Catholic" means! It's their thing! The priest to which you're speaking didn't write the Bible or decide how it has been interpreted, but he has committed himself to a specific interpretation, and that is what he means when he says "Catholic". That is why you are being regarded as arrogant --whether it's true or not -- because you're coming in here and defining our genre for us.
Perhaps unlike the Catholic church, our ideals are determined more by majority and seniority than any centralized power, but, unless I'm reading the community wrong, the Berlin Interpretation is widely accepted.
The forum administrator tolerates games that aren't really Roguelikes by our own definition simply because he is a nice guy and doesn't want to drive anyone away.
On the other hand I did overreact with that remark Slash quoted.
I disagree, as you were referring to his ignorance of the Jedi council, not a general ignorance, unless I'm mistaken.
-
Perhaps unlike the Catholic church, our ideals are determined more by majority and seniority than any centralized power, but, unless I'm reading the community wrong, the Berlin Interpretation is widely accepted.
The forum administrator tolerates games that aren't really Roguelikes by our own definition simply because he is a nice guy and doesn't want to drive anyone away.
The definition can tell you which games are more Roguelike than others (well, it's a little blurry even there) but it doesn't tell you the cutoff point for really being a Roguelike or not. All we know that it's not necessary to meet all the criteria as some of the canonical Roguelikes don't. Glorg is clearly a stretch, but it does meet some of the Berlin Interpretation's criteria (about 1/3 of the high value factors and half the low value, by my reckoning) so shouldn't it be up for debate?
-
All we know that it's not necessary to meet all the criteria as some of the canonical Roguelikes don't.
Perhaps the Berlin Interpretation is wrong. It is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Which "canonical" Roguelikes break the criteria?
-
All we know that it's not necessary to meet all the criteria as some of the canonical Roguelikes don't.
Perhaps the Berlin Interpretation is wrong. It is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Which "canonical" Roguelikes break the criteria?
ADOM and to a lesser extent Nethack have infractions against the "randomly generated content" rule (plot and quests, Sokoban), ADOM's overworld and Angband and Crawl's shops violate the non-modal rule, IIRC ADOM violates the "hack 'n' slash" rule with monster-vs-monster combat, and at least Angband violates the player-is-a-monster rule as monsters don't have inventory or equipment or gain levels. I'm not sure any of them lets monsters gain levels through killing, actually.. maybe it makes things too hard for summoner PCs (and would be pointless in a game without summoner PCs or monster-on-monster combat). That's clearly fewer violations than glorg, so I'm sure it's possible to draw the roguelike/non-roguelike line between glorg and the canonical RLs, I just want to see people explicitly making the argument :) I'm curious what people's threshold is before they consider something non-roguelike
-
Well, then, it would appear that our church requires reformation of its religious texts, as I would not consider a game not Roguelike because it added static elements to its randomly generated content (ADoM) or non-modal parts to its modal components (ADoM, Angband, Crawl). In fact, I'm not sure I would consider something not a Roguelike for having added anything. That, of course, leaves the rest of the violations standing, unfortunately.
-
Well, this is certainly an interesting discussion. I definitely believe that multiple definitions of "roguelike" can coexist peacefully.
My own personal definition is that the majority (preferably vast majority) of it's maps must be random. This stems from the idea that the core feature of roguelikes is to entertain the people who build them, which requires random maps. But that alone doesn't necessarily make something a roguelike. I think it's a combination of different factors that make something either more or less roguelike. The Berlin interpretation is great because it lists features which make something "more or less" roguelike without stating "this is a roguelike and all other things are not." There are features like ASCII, turn based, identification, and classes which make something "more roguelike," even though these features do not constitute a roguelike in and of themselves. And I think that's a good thing.
In terms of the Berlin interpretation being descriptive rather than proscriptive, that's generally also a good thing. The best definitions are descriptive rather than proscriptive. The modern study of linguistics insists on descriptive definitions rather than proscriptive definitions, as do many other formal sciences.
In terms of what clearly isn't a roguelike, maybe we've been a bit too quick to dismiss things as not roguelikes. This is probably due to a want to protect the genre, which is good. But, really, tile based games as a whole are not exactly a genre in and of themselves anymore. The roguelike community is probably among the last tile based RPG game communities there is, so perhaps we should accept tile based games as a whole, even if they lack many features of roguelikes. After all, where else are tile based games supposed to advertise and attract players these days? There is no temple of tile based RPGs, but there is a temple of the roguelike.
Having said that, it's still good to have some standard like the Berlin interpretation so that we can judge how many roguelike traits a game has aside from being a tile based RPG. And again, there's really no reason why multiple standards can't coexist. It would be easy to say things like "according to the Berlin interpretation, this is mostly a roguelike, while according to the X standard, this is entirely a roguelike."
Is glorg a roguelike? Well, it's a lot of fun, and it has random maps, which are a major feature of roguelikes. I'd rank it's "roguelikeness" as about 4 out of 10, with 10 being the max. 3 points for random maps, 1 point for fantasy-like dungeon exploration setting.
-
In terms of the Berlin interpretation being descriptive rather than proscriptive, that's generally also a good thing. The best definitions are descriptive rather than proscriptive. The modern study of linguistics insists on descriptive definitions rather than proscriptive definitions, as do many other formal sciences.
This isn't a formal science, but I don't really see what your point is anyway. The description can still be wrong.
In terms of what clearly isn't a roguelike, maybe we've been a bit too quick to dismiss things as not roguelikes. This is probably due to a want to protect the genre, which is good. But, really, tile based games as a whole are not exactly a genre in and of themselves anymore. The roguelike community is probably among the last tile based RPG game communities there is, so perhaps we should accept tile based games as a whole, even if they lack many features of roguelikes. After all, where else are tile based games supposed to advertise and attract players these days? There is no temple of tile based RPGs, but there is a temple of the roguelike.
Maybe there is a reason there isn't a tile-based RPG forum. If someone really cared, there would be a tile-based RPG forum. Maybe there is one and you just haven't found it. Either way, this isn't some halfway house for desperate developers to peddle their games.
I wouldn't mind so much if they would but put their posts in General Discussion and call their games what they are, but instead they slap the "Roguelike" label on it and put it lower in the forums. Coincidentally, someone did that while I was typing this very post. (http://roguetemple.com/forums/index.php?topic=1492.msg10832#new) Case and point.
Is glorg a roguelike? Well, it's a lot of fun, and it has random maps, which are a major feature of roguelikes. I'd rank it's "roguelikeness" as about 4 out of 10, with 10 being the max. 3 points for random maps, 1 point for fantasy-like dungeon exploration setting.
Glorg's maps aren't mechanically random maps. If the character didn't move at all, the game would be played exactly the same way. In Rogue or any real Roguelike, if the character didn't move and all enemies just appeared next to him, his life would be very short, for, as it has already been explained, the map is an important tactical element in a Roguelike.
-
In terms of the Berlin interpretation being descriptive rather than proscriptive, that's generally also a good thing. The best definitions are descriptive rather than proscriptive. The modern study of linguistics insists on descriptive definitions rather than proscriptive definitions, as do many other formal sciences.
This isn't a formal science, but I don't really see what your point is anyway. The description can still be wrong.
My point was that the best definitions are descriptive rather than proscriptive.
In terms of what clearly isn't a roguelike, maybe we've been a bit too quick to dismiss things as not roguelikes. This is probably due to a want to protect the genre, which is good. But, really, tile based games as a whole are not exactly a genre in and of themselves anymore. The roguelike community is probably among the last tile based RPG game communities there is, so perhaps we should accept tile based games as a whole, even if they lack many features of roguelikes. After all, where else are tile based games supposed to advertise and attract players these days? There is no temple of tile based RPGs, but there is a temple of the roguelike.
Maybe there is a reason there isn't a tile-based RPG forum. If someone really cared, there would be a tile-based RPG forum. Maybe there is one and you just haven't found it. Either way, this isn't some halfway house for desperate developers to peddle their games.
Is there something wrong with tile based game developers talking about their games on our websites? Are there downsides?
I wouldn't mind so much if they would but put their posts in General Discussion and call their games what they are, but instead they slap the "Roguelike" label on it and put it lower in the forums. Coincidentally, someone did that while I was typing this very post. (http://roguetemple.com/forums/index.php?topic=1492.msg10832#new) Case and point.
They shouldn't be calling their games roguelikes, but there isn't any damage done in posting their games here. In this example, witches and zombies looks like an interesting game, many of us may be interested in playing it. Maybe we shouldn't ban games from our sites just because they're not "roguelike enough."
Is glorg a roguelike? Well, it's a lot of fun, and it has random maps, which are a major feature of roguelikes. I'd rank it's "roguelikeness" as about 4 out of 10, with 10 being the max. 3 points for random maps, 1 point for fantasy-like dungeon exploration setting.
Glorg's maps aren't mechanically random maps. If the character didn't move at all, the game would be played exactly the same way. In Rogue or any real Roguelike, if the character didn't move and all enemies just appeared next to him, his life would be very short, for, as it has already been explained, the map is an important tactical element in a Roguelike.
Nethack and Angband can both be automated to the point that glorg is. Nethack bots are an example, they could be modified to provide a one button interface. Crawl even has an autoexplore feature very similar to what we're talking about. Even if the character in glorg didn't move, he would still encounter random events in a random order.
The map is an important tactical element of roguelikes, but like many roguelike features, a tactical map does not make a game roguelike. That's the beauty of the Berlin interpretation: it lists features which make something more roguelike, without stating that X, Y, and Z are required for a roguelike. There have been roguelikes which don't feature traditional tile maps, but are instead room based. As in, the player moves between whole rooms rather than between tiles, similar to glorg.
-
My point was that the best definitions are descriptive rather than proscriptive.
I can appreciate your preference, but it doesn't make it the less irrelevant.
Is there something wrong with tile based game developers talking about their games on our websites? Are there downsides?
I never said that there was something wrong with it. In fact, I said "I wouldn't mind so much if they would but put their posts in General Discussion and call their games what they are..."
They shouldn't be calling their games roguelikes, but there isn't any damage done in posting their games here.
Never said there was.
In this example, witches and zombies looks like an interesting game, many of us may be interested in playing it. Maybe we shouldn't ban games from our sites just because they're not "roguelike enough."
No one is suggesting Slash ban anyone.
Nethack and Angband can both be automated to the point that glorg is. Nethack bots are an example, they could be modified to provide a one button interface.
Then it wouldn't be the same game any more, would it?
That's the beauty of the Berlin interpretation: it lists features which make something more roguelike, without stating that X, Y, and Z are required for a roguelike.
So its "beauty" is that it is ambiguous?
There have been roguelikes which don't feature traditional tile maps, but are instead room based.
Then perhaps their "Roguelike" status is as debatable as Glorg.
-
For Trog's sake, gentlemen, the chaos spawn hurl themselves against our walls, and all we can do is tailor the thread on our tattered banner? The Temple is all that stands between every @ on this planet and an unstoppable wave of %, and we wield platitudes as though they were +2 broadswords! We choose who has fought well and who weakly, awarding medals and threatening court-marshals, but who shall wear the medals when all heroes are dead? Who shall suffer the court-marshals when the courts of chaos ply our souls? Who shall tailor the golden edges of our banner when it lies beneath a sea of brown jellies?
-
It's a roguelike if it's:
- role-playing game
- turn-based
- lot of random content
- permadeath
- over 50 items and 25 monsters
-
Meh.
-
I came across glorg recently as was interested what this community thought about it as a roguelike.
I think about glorg as a roguelike the same way I think about Progress Quest (http://progressquest.com/) as a roguelike.