Temple of The Roguelike Forums
Announcements => Traditional Roguelikes (Turn Based) => Topic started by: guest509 on December 25, 2011, 06:21:31 PM
-
As promised over in the comments section of the Roguelike of the Year poll at Ascii Dreams I will give my quasi academic market analysis of the Roguelike community. This is an attempt to open a dialog about what the different player types are in our community as opposed to the different game types. Hopefully this will increase a developers ability to market their game to the different player types. I will not claim to be the final authority on this topic. But it is interesting to think about and talk about.
I am aware that many (most?) Roguelikes are hobby projects not done to appeal to any sort of market other than the creator. But if that were truly the case one would probably not release the game publicly.
A More Useful Categorization
Modern market research techniques have shown us very interesting things. First there is no best taste or type of any product. There are only multiple bests. A significantly wide customer base is going to fall into a variety of different customer types. Each type favoring a different variety of a product. Further one cannot discover the different customer types by asking the customers what they like. Or what is best. This is how market research was done in the "good ol' days". But it yielded bad results. One must ask a customer to rate the taste of an item after tasting/testing it. Only then will you get good results.
For example if you ask a group of people what sort of coffee they like the response will be most likely something about strong dark blends. But if you were to do a taste test of that same group of people and ask them to rate several different coffees most of them would prefer a weaker milkier type coffee while only a few would choose the strong dark coffee.
This is not to say that milkier coffee is best. Because there is no best coffee. There only only best coffees. Note the plural here. There are an infinite number of coffee customers each with a unique taste preference profile. Statistically they start to fall into several broad types. These types can be seen on the menu board at every Starbucks in the world. Modern market researchers have discovered the various bests of many types of products (coffee, sauces, chewing gum) and now there is a variety of different flavors for just about everything.
The result of finding out what the different groups of people like created a huge variety of choices in the product lines. It's a choice explosion!
Applying this to roguelikes can be fun. This year we have some obvious cliques in the roguelike community. It is not as simple as DoD lovers and DoD haters. Though it was this very obvious fan-type split amongst the greater Roguelike community that got me interested in doing a player study to begin with.
As a start to a good discussion I propose that the greater roguelike community falls into the following categories. Note that some categories have a much lower cross over than others. For example there is probably not a lot of DF players that also play Binding of Isaac. Those that do are Indie lovers more than they are Roguelike lovers. But everything here is debatable.
So without further a due here are the theoretical player types the Roguelike community falls into. They are defined but what game attributes appeal to them.
1. Smooth Operators - The dreaded DoD player type. These types LOVE the ease of a good interface. The nerd credit gained by mastering the interface of OMEGA or Nethack does not appeal to this group. It is a very popular class. These players will be into Cardinal Quest as well. If they play Crawl they'll do it with tiles and with the mouse. This fan-type is not so happy with text. I nearly called this the 'eye candy' class but that's not what truly defines this group. It's the UI. Some of this group might crossover with the Super Complex player group should the UI pass muster. These players value ease of use.
2. Classic Diehards - The classic roguelike player. Games like ToME, Nethack, Angband and Crawl appeal to these players. A very common player type but no longer as dominant. These guys (yes mostly all men) have been playing for years, maybe decades. Definitely the dominant player type in this Forum. I'll use Krice as a good example of this player type. Strict adherence to the tried and true Roguelike tropes brightens the day of this player. These players will cross over pretty well to other categories, especially the Quick Fix category when they burn out a bit on their favorite major and need a little experimental distraction. Note this is the oldest and most hardcore of Roguelike player types. Black and white text with hundreds of commands? Not required but also not a problem. These players value complexity.
3. Sandboxers - DF is the main game of these players. Goblin Camp, Ascii Sector, Flatspace and maybe x@com(?) could appeal to this category but probably not. The appeal of DF is so distinct and noteworthy. This group more than any other is defined by love of the mechanics of a single game. I theorize that there is not a lot of cross over from this category to the others because DF ends up being Roguelike mostly in presentation and procedural generation and not so much in gameplay. Unless we are talking about DF adventure mode? Do people play that? And for those that do, do they cross over much with the Super Complex player type? I think not. I think this is a very distinct type of player that does not like other roguelikes much. These player value freedom.
4. Quick Fixers - Isaac, Brogue, DoomRL, Hydra Slayer and other Coffee Break type games are of this type. There are a ton of players of this type. I fall into this category. These players cross over quite a bit with other types. Mr. Doull of Ascii Dreams is a good example. His 2 best of the year candidates were Brogue and Isaac if I am not mistaken. But he is also a fan of more complex *band type games. Using myself as an example these players like an easy to get into experience with quick throw away characters. Variety is king here. These players value time.
5. Story Lovers - There is definitely a group of people that love this sort of game. It is an easily identifiable sub-group with strong opinions. Most roguelike players dig the design and mechanics of a good dungeon dive, but this group is into the story. The experience. They are most likely to love other types of RPGs. There is little cross over from other sub groups because the story elements turn a lot of people off. Story lovers, conversely, are generally tolerant of Roguelikes with little story. I theorize they have good imaginations and can create a good story in their minds even when it is absent. They need it. For example lovers of Legerdemain cannot fathom why so many of us dislike it. These players value narrative.
You don't have to agree with my division of the player types. But I think you can see the utility of doing so. It allows one to start thinking about what types of players are out there. Once you know this you can create and market your game with a certain existing player base in mind. Or you can go a completely different route and carve out your own niche. This is an indie community after all and part of being indie is experimentation.
No matter what do not listen to those that say the classic style of game play is dead. This was postulated by one of the commentators on Roguelike Radio. Was it Ido? It will only die when the players die. And by looking at the recent Roguelike of the Year poll we can see that the grand complex games that might be a bit hard to to get into because of the UI still have quite a crowd playing them. Jade will likely be the litmus test there.
Now let us delve into a little hypothetical absurdity. Some weeks (months?) back on Roguelike radio there was a joking mention of the perfect grand Roguelike so great the world basically stopped because everyone was playing it. I may be off on the specifics of what was said but the general notion is absurd. And fun!
There is no Roguelike that can appeal to all Roguelike players. Let alone all indie players or the greater gaming public. But hell it's possible because everyone is a gamer. Even your grandma will play some Yahtzee with you.
The perfect Roguelike. We'll call it A Rogue Of All Seasons. It will have a smooth interface. Able to be played by mouse exclusively if so desired. The graphics will be top notch but no need for 3-D. It will be massively complex. Hundreds and hundreds of monsters, items, artifacts and interactions. It may take years to see all the content. But the game will not be long. It can be played in short bursts. Beatable in about an hour. So no need to save the game really. It will be dripping with story but all story elements may be skipped at leisure without significantly impacting gameplay. And it's got dwarves. Tons and tons of stupid dwarves.
Yep. That should appeal to all player types. :-)
EDIT: If I'm going to write this much I should probably just start my own blog.
EDIT2: I added quick and dirty value statements in bold to the end of each player type description. Dunno why I forgot to do it before. Makes what I'm getting at so much clearer.
-
Many thanks for the effort you put into this text. Somehow it's funny that the roguelike community takes itself and its products so seriously, despite simply talking about games, but I think this is something that can train the people for other situations in life as well, so I like your post very much :)
I think I am clearly a combination of "Smooth Operator" and "Story Lover" (the 2nd opposed to the game-mechanics lover category). :D
By the way, the scientific discipline which is concerned with computer games ("games studies" -- not "game theory", which is something different) are also divided in these kinds:
1. Ludologists don't care about story -- for them, a game is defined by it's mechanics and story is usually irrelevant.
2. Narratologists mainly care about the ability of games to tell a story -- only from this perspective they also care about mechanics. (They are like the guys who have a degree in literary theory (these are called "Literaturwissenschaftler" in German, but this can't be translated to English that easily, because in UK/US these are humanities, not sciences), but for games instead of books.
It's very funny :D
-
Also enjoyed the read and discourage your starting a blog---RogueTemple needs all the nice exclusive content/posts out there in the wilds. :P
I comfortably enjoy my position on it as an outlier of an aberration/Ravenous/History's Greatest Monster. 8)
-
@Mario - I think using games as a narrative format ruins games. I think delving too far down that path is what is ruining a lot of big budget titles. But I do appreciate that there are other schools of thought.
I definitely fall into the quick fix camp. I give high value to being able to jump right in and game. But I can appreciate a smooth UI as well. Though I do not value this as highly. I also appreciate Sandbox elements as far as interactivity and freedom go but I do not really require a huge sprawling experience. For me tightness is of greater value. I do not value story or massive complexity hardly at all.
@Getter - I'll not be starting my own blog. I'm not that interesting. Plus my priorities are putting out my roguelike and writing a novel. Best not to deviate from that path. :-)
It is funny how high minded we can get about games. But we are a highly educated and experimental group. The design focus of even your average roguelike fan is unprecedented.
When I was thinking of the different varieties of Roguelike player I actually developed a pretty solid idea for a roguelike. So this was a pretty useful little writing project for me. I think I'll prototype it for the next 7DRL.
-
You mention Super Complex twice but do not define it, is that the same as Die Hard?
What about the classical distinction between Hacks (NetHack, ADOM, Crawl) and Bands (Angband variants, also Legerdemain and LambdaRogue)? This was the major split several years ago, but does not correspond to any of your categorization.
Bands have non-permanent dungeons and limited inventories (as opposed to the permanent world in Hacks), which I hate, but there are apparently people who like it. There is also a third route: games where you can go only forwards (Rogue, DoomRL, Hydra Slayer). At a first glance it might be a bit like Band, but I have no problem with it, so I think it is actually different.
-
There was an interesting article that Yahtzee Croshaw posted recently which I found raised some salient points:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/9276-Context-Challenge-and-Gratification
Essentially it's saying a game is made of a mix of story/setting, gameplay and sheer fun. Applying these archetypes to roguelikes and you can see some clear ways that the traditionals fit along these lines. I might make a separate post on it some time since I think it raises some interesting points. It's a little different from this discussion of gamer types, but is still a good read.
I don't like all of your groupings I must say. There's no such thing as a "Smooth Operator" that plays a game purely for interface. Instead there's the opposite, the person who is willing to go to pains to play a game in spite of a bad interface. It's a commendable trait in a gamer, but a terrible trait in a developer to target that audience alone, since it inherently limits your audience immensely. What you class as "Smooth Operator" is more merged in with "Quick Mixers", since a quick game with a complex interface is pretty much doomed to failure. That's not to say bigger games can't have smooth interfaces; rather there are a few that can amass enough fans who don't care. Those that have a good interface will innately have wider appeal.
On roguelike radio we rant on about UI a lot, and sometimes it feels a bit repetitive, but in the world if roguelikes I think it stands to be repeated. Too many developers are complacent with the idea of sticking to a "traditional" bad UI. If they're only coding for themselves and some die-hards then fine. But it's ignoring a strata of gamers that could be enjoying and contributing to their game too. I say a strata since it's not a separate group - plenty of people who like die-hard gameplay or sandbox or story or whatever mixture still demand an accessible interface. To use the coffee example, UI is more the mug it comes in than the coffee itself, but if it's too difficult to grasp it inhibits the enjoyment. For roguelikes it doesn't have to be pretty graphics, or graphics at all, it just means that if players get frustrated by the controls in the first few minutes they'll move on to another game that won't frustrate them. In the modern roguelike scene they have plenty more accessible choices.
Oh, and I really resent the idea that there should be any distinction between diehard fans and those who like UIs. This implies there is some elite rank, which is very false. Plenty of diehard fans care very much about UI, and I see many start to care when they notice how other games have made leaps and bounds beyond the classics without sacrificing any complexity. There are a few curmudgeony sorts, but these are rare, and are generally the sort of bitter elitist that hates everything. These are found in many nerdy communities and are best ignored, since they are oft little more than pathetic trolls that desperately want to appear superior to others by clinging to their illogical ideals. Uh, not that we have anyone around here like that... ;)
"Story Lovers" is a bit of a misnomer, since it's not necessarily about a linear story - well, not in this genre anyway. Linear stories don't work well in roguelikes, and perhaps are a bad thing in games in general. Atmosphere is important though, and this is what many crave in a game. It doesn't need a lot of text to attain. Nethack has more text in it than Frozen Depths, but the latter is far more engaging because it has a coherent theme and gameplay mechanics that support the atmosphere of the game. Note that "humour" can also be a theme, which is one thing Dredmor uses to engage with players. A good atmosphere can help one overlook other flaws in the game, as is evident in many AAA commercial games. A game like Skyrim can have an epic feeling without a linear story, and I think it would be great to see a roguelike do the same.
If ignoring story/setting and any individual feel to the game then it's best to go with generic fantasy tropes as these have the benefit of familiarity to the player. It'll be off-putting to some, but it'll require less focus on imaginative elements and long descriptions so you can instead put all effort into gameplay details. Every player knows how goblins, orcs and trolls rank against each other, and how pyromancers will behave - it's an easy setting to get into and straight away offers many design opportunities. The only downside is if you have some very individual design ideas, and you might need an individual setting to truly support your goals.
Some other elements to consider:
"Tight Tacticians" - ToME4 and DCSS are the best examples here. No room for scumming, every decision can be important, spoilers are less useful. Your actions mean a lot, and there is a high density of meaningful choices. You can't blindly hold the direction key and win. Some people misinterpret this as difficulty - it's not, it just demands care and attention, and a game appealing to this group should have a very high success rate amongst those who play perfectly. The caveat is that no one is perfect. Some players don't like this - they enjoy being able to scum, and they like getting their characters to invincible states.
"Gimme more"s - Tie in with sandbox a bit, but also with very complex games like Nethack. These games are characterised by numerous item and enemy types (oft very similar) and a wealth of interaction opportunities, leading to innumerable possibilities in every playthrough. This is one of the joys of roguelikes, but leads to the problem of being hard to maintain balance, coherence and of course a decent interface. Also encourages the use of spoilers. The historic games can get away with this by reputation (though many have now died or are dying) but very few new games can pull this off without some very careful thought and design. Still, it's a big attraction for many roguelikes, so whether to appeal to this or not is an immensely important design decision. It doesn't work well with Tight Tacticians due to balance issues.
"Simulationists" - Some players like games that represent real world mechanics very well, even to the point of including mechanics that others consider painful to play with. They tend to like crafting systems, weapon modding, building in-game and very detailed combat mechanics. This isn't just sandboxness, it's down to wanting exceptional detail in every area. Can crossover with Gimme Mores a bit, but can also be wholly exclusive, and perhaps works best when separated from grander designs. A very small but focused game can maybe do achieve this to best effect.
No matter what do not listen to those that say the classic style of game play is dead. This was postulated by one of the commentators on Roguelike Radio. Was it Ido? It will only die when the players die.
I think I said that some of the classics were doomed unless they get with the times. To those that say the classics won't I die I ask, where are all the Moria players? Moria is still a good game, but it no longer gets significantly played or discussed. It is, in essence, a dead game. Angband and Nethack run risk of following the same route. New players would rather go to ToME4, DCSS or Brogue, and the existing communities are visibly dwindling. There will be a few diehards for many years of course, but why should the great classics put up with this when they are open source and ripe for improvement?
-
What about the classical distinction between Hacks (NetHack, ADOM, Crawl) and Bands (Angband variants, also Legerdemain and LambdaRogue)? This was the major split several years ago, but does not correspond to any of your categorization.
In my opinion there is no such thing as "Hacklikes". Bands are their own family branch, but these days it's minor amongst the diverse tree of roguelikes. Bands have their own individual traits - all other roguelikes have their own traits too. There's nothing else one could label as its own group, except perhaps coffeebreaks, and even with those there's no clear definition of how long a cup of coffee should last.
-
even with those there's no clear definition of how long a cup of coffee should last.
In my case: Minimum 2 minutes, maximum 6 minutes ;-)
-
In my opinion there is no such thing as "Hacklikes".
I think Hacklikes appeared as a result of my Roguelike Alphabet (http://roguebasin.roguelikedevelopment.org/index.php/Roguelike_Alphabet). It was intended a list of interlocking features found in many roguelikes, but not in many non-roguelikes. Some people have noticed that this list defines a hacklike rather than a roguelike... Even though this is not a list of features I have taken from Hack or any of its variants. Rather from ADOM or Ragnarok...
I think it is a family branch, even though lack of direct source relationship makes it not as clear as for Bands. As with other families, distinct hacklike features get mixed with ideas taken from other sources. Hacklike blood is clear in NetHack and Slash'EM, Zap'M and PRIME. Ragnarok and ADOM mix in a bit of overworld and story, but permanent dungeon, fortune cookies, style of shops, b/u/c statuses of items, screen-sized levels, ability to wield anything as a weapon... well, I can understand why they say these are hacklike features, not roguelike (except screen-sized levels, which was true for Rogue). Bands don't have any of these features (not sure about fortune cookies), but Hack, ADOM and Ragnarok all do. Too many features to be a coincidence. A bit more mutations in JADE and IVAN, even more in Crawl or POWDER. I suppose further crossing will reduce hacklikeness in the future roguelikes to a negligible level. Thus, this term won't be very useful, except maybe for future roguelike historians who will recognize the times where there were "major roguelikes", with Rogue as a ancient grandfather, NetHack and ADOM on one side, Moria and Angband on the other side.
-
(Seems I have destroyed the list by editting it instead of replying to it.)
-
In short:
2, 3, 4, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19 (options), 21, 22, 24, 25, 26
I mainly selected interface options in your poll (but you mainly list interface options anyway). This does, of course, not say much about the game itself, but more of the application of the game.
-
On roguelike radio we rant on about UI a lot, and sometimes it feels a bit repetitive, but in the world if roguelikes I think it stands to be repeated. Too many developers are complacent with the idea of sticking to a "traditional" bad UI.
Untrue. The traditional UI is not bad. In fact, it's the opposite of bad -- it's a quintessential digest of everything that is useful and stood the test of time versus the unneeded cruft that's only there to draw attention but doesn't provide any real value.
Yes, the vast majority of players will be turned off by a "traditional UI", but that isn't because it is a bad UI, it's because the vast majority of players have a tiny attention span and will only play a game that gratifies their "shiny reflex".
Not that I have a problem with that, I like shiny things too, like all people. I just want y'all to understand the difference between 'useful' and 'shiny, attention-grabbing'.
-
Untrue. The traditional UI is not bad. In fact, it's the opposite of bad
I think a large number of keyboard commands is not bad if they are well designed and don't have any double commands (like Remove/Take off). In good UI there are also modern alternatives like mouse commands, generic (u)se command and stuff like that. Trying to minimize number of keyboard commands is good, but only if it doesn't lead to ultra-modern menu driven UI which is also bad. I'm always surprised how difficult it seems to be to design good UI. I guess one of the reasons is that developers have their own ideas about good UI and sometimes it's traditional and sometimes maybe too modern, and sometimes it's just really weird.
-
@Krice
UI's can be rated along different dimensions, here is one what to organize it:
1: Ability to learn (perhaps through experimentation, or in-game scenarios)
2: Ability to do what you want
3: Efficiency of use, how much mental/physical effort goes into doing something (cognetics)
Classic RL interfaces fail mostly at 1, and this in turn can sometimes lead to a degradation of number 3, because it takes a lot of effort to figure out how to do what you want. Number 2 is usually executed to perfection.
Since number 1 is the first thing any player will face, it's often the highest barrier to adoption for new RL players. Number 3 is the bane of 'modern', million-menu systems, and number 2 suffers from any UI that requires physical dexterity to operate (mis-clicks and so on).
When looked at systematically, it's precisely because developers have their 'own ideas' about UI's that things are in such a state. Few people take the time to minimize cognitive load (reducing clicks/button presses, showing tooltips at appropriate times, etc), but rather chase some kind of cool factor. Good UI designers take an inventory of inputs and actions, and try to map those inputs to actions in a way that common tasks take little mental and physical effort, and related groups of inputs have some loose isomorphism with the resulting tasks (ie, if left click is move, right click could map to look, rather than bringing up character status).
Look at nintendo games, there are only enough actions available to map to the controllers buttons. Even if you could make the game world 'better' by adding another feature, the difficulty in using it would only end up backfiring. In my own game (WIP), I have a radically different approach to UI because I follow nintendo's lead. I've made loads of features that I easily could've stuffed into submenus, but I held back and tried to find other ways of representing those actions. In a few cases I decided NOT to add a feature because I didn't have a clear way of presenting an interface to it.
Sorry for the rant. UI is a measurable property. See how long it takes you to do an action, what is the rate of failure due to input error, and how long does it take to 'prime' the action. Then you can make a great interface.
In the interest of fair disclosure, some people HATE my games interface and others have praised it highly...
-
I don't like all of your groupings I must say. There's no such thing as a "Smooth Operator" that plays a game purely for interface.
***Yeah i think it's pretty obvious that all gamers value a UI. But for many it is an absolute deal breaker. I suppose a better line of thinking would have been to create a values list. But the paradigm I layed out is food for thought. And that was my intent.
Oh, and I really resent the idea that there should be any distinction between diehard fans and those who like UIs. This implies there is some elite rank, which is very false.
***My intent was to convey that some people can handle a UI that is very difficult to use. Some will not. Those I called the diehards are very much crappy interface tolerant compared to your average gamer.
"Story Lovers" is a bit of a misnomer, since it's not necessarily about a linear story - well, not in this genre anyway. Linear stories don't work well in roguelikes... A game like Skyrim can have an epic feeling without a linear story, and I think it would be great to see a roguelike do the same.
***Definitely agree. I think people that really value a good story are under served by the Roguelike genre.
If ignoring story/setting and any individual feel to the game then it's best to go with generic fantasy tropes as these have the benefit of familiarity to the player. It'll be off-putting to some, but it'll require less focus on imaginative elements and long descriptions so you can instead put all effort into gameplay details. Every player knows how goblins, orcs and trolls rank against each other, and how pyromancers will behave - it's an easy setting to get into and straight away offers many design opportunities. The only downside is if you have some very individual design ideas, and you might need an individual setting to truly support your goals.
***Yeah theme is fun. I might not be big on the narrative. Just give me an over arching goal and let me slay. But a cool thematic take and an engine to go with it can work wonders. DoomRL, AliensRL and the various post apocalypse and zombie themed games really gain a lot from this aspect.
Some other elements to consider:
"Tight Tacticians" - "Gimme more"s - "Simulationists" -
***I like these. But I'm not sure how defining the are. As in I'm not sure there would be much differentiation between Roguelike players. I think these are high value traits to all Roguelikes. But good food for thought.
I think I said that some of the classics were doomed unless they get with the times. To those that say the classics won't I die I ask, where are all the Moria players?...
***I am forced to agree. Evolve of die, eventually. But classic difficult UI, obscure interactions and other Nethacky type things have persevered for quite awhile. I figured those things would persist until the death of the players. But with all these new options you are likely correct.
-
You mention Super Complex twice but do not define it, is that the same as Die Hard?
What about the classical distinction between Hacks (NetHack, ADOM, Crawl) and Bands (Angband variants, also Legerdemain and LambdaRogue)? This was the major split several years ago, but does not correspond to any of your categorization.
Bands have non-permanent dungeons and limited inventories (as opposed to the permanent world in Hacks), which I hate, but there are apparently people who like it. There is also a third route: games where you can go only forwards (Rogue, DoomRL, Hydra Slayer). At a first glance it might be a bit like Band, but I have no problem with it, so I think it is actually different.
Yeah sorry for that oversight. I was defining players by what they valued. So the Die Hards are the ones that value complexity in the face of a poorish UI.
As for those other classical distinctions between Roguelikes I have not much to say. I was more trying to figure out what the different parts of the community value and not so much define the games into genres. Though I think the two discussions are infinitely related I actually do not have much to say about that side of it.
-
I bought myself Dungeons of Dredmore as part of my escape from this xmas and its whiskey-fueled family bonding, and the UI is hard for me to get used to. It's even hard to pick things up. Everything takes forever. I actually get bored just trying to walk from room to room because traps are prone to showing up one foot away and there's no real auto-explore feature.
The idea that a mouse interface makes things easier is just strange to me, especially for a roguelike with such a keyboard-friendly interface (as opposed to DF, or Okami the Roguelike.)
It's like the difference between hunt and peck typing versus actually learning how to type. In the end, a roguelike has a LOT of repetitive actions. Doing everything you can to streamline the number of keystrokes required to perform common actions is the most important thing for me.
-
Shift+click to pick up items easily. Get rogue trees or increase perception to see traps at further distance. And surely these gripes are incomparable to trying to learn the commands in a completely new roguelike? Especially for someone from outside the community.
Check out ToME4 for a better example of mouse interface though.
-
As I rambled on above, it's not mouse vs. keyboard or anything like that. It's cognitive load + physical action - error rate. Moving your hand from the mouse to the keyboard might have a higher cost than executing a menu. Or maybe not. The point it that very few people measure these things, and just rely on 'whatever feels right'.
-
I think a large number of keyboard commands is not bad if they are well designed and don't have any double commands (like Remove/Take off).
The 'double commands' thing (as opposed to just a single 'u') is because roguelikes traditionally go way back to text adventure games.
Text adventure games use a 'noun/verb' system. For example, 'kick door', 'open door', 'drink potion', 'throw potion', etc. The 'noun/verb' interface idea carried on eventually to roguelikes, except roguelikes added a top-down map and single-press keyboard commands.
I think that, in many ways, it's a shame that this idea eventually died out and roguelikes moved on to a simpler menu-based interface. 'Noun/verb' is potentially a much richer and more interesting interface, though I've never seen it done properly yet.
-
A good UI IMO should be operable entirely with keyboard, entirely with mouse or a combo of both.
Some actions might be easier with some control, but the point is that in 2012 people expect a game to react to both. When I try a new RPG I instinctively look for the inventory, levleup, ... keys, while an other player might see the icons and click them. In the end my way may be faster, but if there was no icons to click, a good percentage of players would be lost without them even trying the keyboard commands.
Loosing players is never good.
-
As far as defining players by what they value in a game I think roguelike fans are set apart from the mainstream by the way they value graphics (low), complexity(high), difficulty(high) and replayability(high). The indie community in general are going to have low emphasis on graphics as well, but do not necessarily value high complexity, difficulty and replayability.
It seems all the discussion of UI would indicate that the player base expansion has attracted a significant number of people that place high value on ease of play. Or in the alternative it has brought in a bunch of people that see how improving interface is the next logical step to Roguelike World Domination. :-)
-
It's not about gfx yes, it's about not annoying the player. The player is there to play & have fun, not learn obscure UIs
-
As I rambled on above, it's not mouse vs. keyboard or anything like that. It's cognitive load + physical action - error rate. Moving your hand from the mouse to the keyboard might have a higher cost than executing a menu. Or maybe not. The point it that very few people measure these things, and just rely on 'whatever feels right'.
Yes, you said it better than I did. All I would argue is that a keyboard interface (no matter how obtuse) inevitably provides a much higher return after a greater initial investment. Given that I have spent hundreds of hours playing roguelikes, it's simple math for me to determine that a keyboard interface is better - for me. Once you play Crawl at maximum efficiency, nothing less will do. For casual players, maybe that's not the case. But then again, maybe casual players should stick to playing Angry Birds on their cell phones at Starbucks.
-
But then again, maybe casual players should stick to playing Angry Birds on their cell phones at Starbucks.
You classify everyone as either a hardcore rogueliker or extreme casual gamer? What an odd way to view the world...
Keyboard can indeed be faster much of the time, but certainly not all of the time, and is also not necessarily the most comfortable way to play (a mouse has the joy of being one-handed, so you can drink tea and kill monsters at the same time). More importantly though learning a huge list of keyboard commands all at once is simply too demanding of new players, no matter how hardcore or casual they are. Plenty of Crawl and ADOM players won't touch Nethack because the commands are all different and it's a pain to get used to them. There's nothing "casual" about just wanting to be able to start enjoying a game quickly. Learning to play a game should be fun, not a chore. Otherwise... well, there's other games to play.
An analogy I like to use is that of Excel. Many that have used Excel for years know the fastest keyboard shortcuts to move contents, insert formulas, etc. Those that don't know it so well get by on context-sensitive menus and clicking on the appropriate icons. The experts probably started the same, and built up their knowledge over time as they got used to the best way to do things. Both groups can still get plenty out of Excel though, and it's not intimidating for new users to get real use from. A good roguelike can similarly support both user types, and with the right tutorials and labels on menus can push the newer players towards the keyboard shortcuts over time, without demanding too much devotion to the UI at once.
-
MS Word is the same way. Short cuts are great. But it takes awhile to get to know them.
The interface to WoW is a bit like this. You can play the whole game with just your mouse. But you get more out of it, eventually, by using the keys.
-
Exactly!
The key phrase is "players play to have fun"
-
I guess I basically just disagree with the "give the people what they want" mentality because I know that people choose cheetos. The best gaming experiences I have ever had have been very challenging (Megaman, ADOM, etc.) even though there were times that I wanted to set my house on fire due to my own frustation in playing those games. Every step toward meanstreaming roguelikes inevitably includes large concessions toward the cheeto mentality: optional permadeath, scaling difficulty, shorter duration of play, streamlined interface. Justified or not (probably not), I see this well-intended fan analysis as playing into what I consider to be the gentrification of roguelikes.
-
What has a good UI to do with being a hard game ???
-
Look at Crawl and tell me that it somehow has been catering to "cheetos" with all its UI polish.
-
Crawl has a polished UI, yes, but not an "intuitive" UI with a wide casual appeal. See eclectocrat's cognitive load theory alongside jim's "mouse interface sucks" corollary. And I'll hear you tell me what you think about all of that after you bring back 15 runes and the Orb of Zot, sonny. :)
-
As someone who brought to the surface the Orb and nine or ten runes* I feel compelled to answer. Crawl still supports complex but comfortable UI for a complex game approach. Things like choice of left or right finger ring was thrown out of the window and for good. Still, when some clouds litter the map with travel exclusions and break autoexplore your average newbie is going to get confused. Your average veteran roguelike player but new to crawl is going to lose ~10 minutes to that only moderately helpful command display. Not very intuitive either way.
The mana/health bars are only thing that is purely for good looks.
* Can't remember really. I was missing abyssal rune and pandemonium runes. All other were in my inventory.
-
Jo:
Great post, thank you for starting such an interesting thread.
I think I fall in the "complexity lover" category.. by the way I also appreciate the so called coffee-break roguelikes where there is less time but with more intensity so less errors allowed.
Z:
In my opinion, the following would make Adom a better game:
4. Mechanics should be clear. I want to be able to tell whether +2 St or +2 Dx is better.
This is a very undervalued factor, and so many roguelikes lacks it (DCSS included, despite its developers aims); I love tactics and I love math, so it's really important to me
16. Too many "display foo" commands! There should be one command (say, @ - display character information), which shows a menu with all the options, if they are really necessary.
I agree here. There should be a multi page summary when pressing "@", with any other information such as experience points, skills with weapons, identified items, etc.
22. Spell screens should show the numbers (damage etc), instead of requiring us to consult the manual.
See point 4.
The following would instead make Adom worse:
5. Permadeath should be only an option. People want to win!!
People desire other things permadeath offers, such the higher challenge, the bigger sense of achievements once some new goals are reached, and the thrill you only feel when you have only one life.
7. Single use for each item. Some things are equipment, some things are melee weapons, some things are missile weapons, some are one-use or multiple-use items. Who does wield a non-weapon or throw a non-missile anyway?
While I can agree on point 2., I'm not sure about this. Leaving this possibility encourages players to use their own creativity, try things and solve certain situations in unconventional ways.
9. Unlockable characters. New players can only play Human Wizards, Archers, or Fighters. Other 197 race/class combinations need unlocking. The amount of decisions you need to make is too intimidating for a new
player.
Nowaday every console game has this unlockable thing. I hate it. The first times I played Adom (many years ago), as a newbie I kept using human/orcs/trolls fighters without feeling intimidated and that's it, then I naturally gradually became intrigued by other class/races and started playing them and now I'd never come back to those initial combinations, but at the same time I never played a mindcrafter.
10. Equipment choices are bad. Make it obvious which armor or weapon is better. And if it is, equip it automatically.
Just no. Math is awesome, and in many situations there are no obvious choices.
17. Make movement four directional. People play on laptops nowadays, how are they to move in 8 directions?
Not my problem nor so many other people I think, maybe we should start a poll about this. Implementing this 4-way only thing would make the environment much easier to exploit.
29. Limit the inventory. Strength of Atlas or not, it's simply hard to use the inventory when you are carrying 200 items!
It's hard but still grants benefits such as avoiding the inventory-management microgame, improving the tactical aspect and avoiding things like players leaving piles of stuff in the ground in safe levels (lots of DCSS players do this), so I'd say it's a positive (and realistic) thing to have unlimited inventory space (only limit should be weight).
-
There's a big difference between making the interface easy and making the game easy.
Both are things some players want, and many players will consider them to be "the same thing" because "making it easier" -- but there's a huge difference, because making the interface easier adds to player enjoyment, and making the game easier, beyond a certain point where it's not arbitrarily unfair and becomes *possible* to win, reduces player enjoyment.
(Note that where you draw that "arbitrarily unfair and impossible" line has a lot to do with whether you're a "Hardcore" gamer, IMO).
So I'm always dividing the proposals in my mind. Easier interface (mana/health bars, optional low hitpoint warnings, color-coded messages, removing meaningless options like left/right hand for rings, custom keybindings, etc) are IMO, worth it. Easier game (single-use objects, no need for player judgment as to what's best, reduced meaningful options, etc) are, IMO, counterproductive.
Bear
-
17. Make movement four directional. People play on laptops nowadays, how are they to move in 8 directions?
Not my problem nor so many other people I think, maybe we should start a poll about this. Implementing this 4-way only thing would make the environment much easier to exploit.
I don't see how 4 way only movement would make it easy to exploit the environment. Especially if a game is designed for 4-way movement.
Although, I prefer 8-way movement personally, I also fall in with others who use laptops so 8-way movement is actually kind of a pain. Those that use the numberpad for movement like frozen depths, I end up having to hit the top number row which I have to stop and remember which number will make me go which way. Which is why I turned to using a gamepad to play most roguelikes now days.
NON came up with what I think is a pretty simple and elegant way to get around this for Infra Arcana.
Shift + left = up left
Shift + right = up right
Ctrl + left = down left
Ctrl + right = down right
I think this was a pretty clever solution.
-
I think we have to seriously consider if 4-way WASD movement is the way forward.
Hydra Slayer is exceptionally interesting in that it allows you to choose 4, 6 or 8 way movement at the start, and adjusts the game mechanics and AI to match.
-
That Infra Arcana solution is just about the classic Fushigi Dungeon one from the SNES days----4 way via D-pad, except when you hold a certain button, then it shifts from the 4 cardinal to the 4 diagonal, usually with a handy little transparent flashing arrow overlay as you adjust your facing then move.
I've said it forever, many of the bold moves of Dredmor and such have near neighbors in the old console/handheld fare---that the series has survived unto the present day with being attached to entirely different properties, undergone subtle and less subtle mechanic changes, and has remained comfortably commercial: There's good to be had from studying the Mystery Dungeon games even if only a fraction are available in English it is a good cross section.
-
I think I have got an idea for a maybe interesting poll/exercise. Let's take ADOM as an example of a roguelike with traditional UI. Implementing which of the following proposals would make it a better game?
Proposals that depend on dubious assumptions:
- 1. Add beautiful graphics.
- 3. Point-and-click interface. Like Dredmor. You see your inventory as a window, left click to use, drag to pick up/throw/drop/equip. Similar windows for "main menu", "skills", "quests", and so on.
- 9. Unlockable characters. New players can only play Human Wizards, Archers, or Fighters. Other 197 race/class combinations need unlocking. The amount of decisions you need to make is too intimidating for a new player.
- 15. There are three "pick up" commands, three "drop" commands, two "pay" and two "pray" commands. *ONE* SHALL BE ENOUGH!
- 16. Too many "display foo" commands! There should be one command (say, @ - display character information), which shows a menu with all the options, if they are really necessary.
- 17. Make movement four directional. People play on laptops nowadays, how are they to move in 8 directions?
- 29. Limit the inventory. Strength of Atlas or not, it's simply hard to use the inventory when you are carrying 200 items!
Beautiful graphics, sure, people like 'em. But IMO, only if you can do it and still have a tactical display as useful (in terms of CLEAR distinctions and large field-of-view) as the current one. This isn't a no-brainer. I for one don't know how to do it and have never seen it done to my satisfaction.
Point & Click interface. Imagine you have somebody doing things for you but you cannot tell him or her what to do. Instead, you can only point at things. Now, I have two questions; first, can this really express everything you need done? Second, if it can, is it still actually simpler than a command interface where you tell the guy what to do? I'm not really opposed to the mouse-interface idea, although it's not my cuppa. I just doubt that the point&click language is expressive enough. Oh, you can MAKE a point&click language that's expressive enough, if you use enough fiddly menus to provide symbols it would be easier to just type, but wouldn't it bear the same relationship to "intuitive" use of the mouse that ASL or ESL bears to "intuitive" talking gestures? -- ie, if it's that complex, it becomes a language with a syntax and grammar (or a pile of menus) that needs to be learned. It's the complexity, rather than the keyboard/mouse mode, that presents a learning curve, and I haven't yet really seen languages of equal expressiveness that aren't equally complex.
Unlockable characters isn't really an interface-related idea, IMO. I will however agree that certain combinations could be marked as "challenging" or "not suitable for beginners" and it might be a net win for newbie experience.
The "redundant" command scheme has commands that do slightly different things or operate differently. Extended drop is not drop, for example, because it allows the player to drop more than one thing during the same game turn. That's a game difference in the effect, not just an interface difference in how the player invokes it. That said, you could preserve the game mechanics (player is allowed to drop multiple things at once) by having the "drop" command take zero time if the previous command was also a "drop", and this would, IMO, be a good interface change because then the player wouldn't need to know about extended drop. But extended drop is *still* more convenient and faster (uses fewer keystrokes) for dropping multiple things at once, so I wouldn't get rid of it. I'd just remove its explanation from the "quick start" guide to the commands, or possibly make it part of an "extended" or "expert" command set.
I'm with you on newbies not needing to memorize all the different "display foo" commands, but I would never use the space in a character information screen to display a menu option if the same amount of space could display the information itself. For example, I would never show a "display gold" menu item rather than a "Gold:1000000" display item. Also, even if you have your "display everything" command that can be the only one newbies need to remember, the "display one thing" commands are still a convenience, in that they display desired information without breaking flow by going to a different screen. So once again, this is the difference between the "quick start" command set which is everything a newbie needs to know to play, and an "extended" or "expert" command set which contains all the conveniences and specialized commands.
Actively bad ideas that simplify (or obfuscate) the game instead of the interface:
- 2. Combine Eat, Drink, Zap, Read, Use, etc. as a single "use" command.
- 4. Mechanics should be clear. I want to be able to tell whether +2 St or +2 Dx is better.
- 5. Permadeath should be only an option. People want to win!!
- 7. Single use for each item. Some things are equipment, some things are melee weapons, some things are missile weapons, some are one-use or multiple-use items. Who does wield a non-weapon or throw a non-missile anyway?
- 10. Equipment choices are bad. Make it obvious which armor or weapon is better. And if it is, equip it automatically.
- 11. Remove the horoscope. Who has time to read 148 lines of manual. The effects of Silvernight/Darknight are negligible, and other sign effects are too random.
- 14. There should be no "clean ears" or "wipe face" command, this is clearly a bad design. Two extra keys to remember for almost no reason.
- 17. Make movement four directional. People play on laptops nowadays, how are they to move in 8 directions?
- 23. Avoid using numbers. Present them using bars, colors, qualitative descriptions, and so on.
- 29. Limit the inventory. Strength of Atlas or not, it's simply hard to use the inventory when you are carrying 200 items!
Uh, no. These aren't interface improvements: they are proposals to change, obfuscate, or eliminate the player's need to understand the rules of the game. These are categorically different things from interface changes.
It's true you can put a simpler interface on a game if the game itself has simpler rules. Dungeons of Dredmor wanted to use a very simple language for its interface, so it had to be a game with relatively simple rules. That's fine. But ADOM is a game that already has rules, and part of being good at the game is to understand the rules well enough to decide for yourself whether this armor will be better for you than that armor, or whether +2 str is better in your situation than +2 dex.
If you make changes like this, the resulting game will not reward the same strategic skills that ADOM rewards. That's a very different thing from making ADOM easier to play.
And our final category, is Good ideas (although, in some cases, only good if you can figure out how to do them):
- 6. Rules should be clear. I want to make informed decisions, not die because I did not know something.
- 8. Make the process of character creation easier. One screen when you can choose all of the options.
- 12. Tooltips. Moving mouse over anything should tell you what it is.
- 13. Ability to record macros.
- 18. A way to configure the keyboard layout with an intuitive menu.
- 19. A way to configure other options with an intuitive menu.
- 19. Sound effects, as an alternative to reading the message log.
- 20. You should be able to target your missiles with mouse.
- 21. Effects of your actions should be visible on the screen so you won't need to read the log (for example, animated drops of blood when you hit or are hit).
- 22. Spell screens should show the numbers (damage etc), instead of requiring us to consult the manual.
- 24. Add an option to use VI key movement.
- 25. No, rather add an option to use something natural for movement.
- 26. Monsters should be accompanied by UI elements which show important information about them, like health bars.
- 27. Please don't quite the game after losing, maybe I want to start a new one.
- 28. After the PC dies, show a menu, rather than a sequence of questions (do you want to see your inventory? do you want to see high scores? do you want to create a final log? etc)
6, 22 are just examples of explaining the darn rules.
12, "saying what it is" is a reasonable default for having the mouse on something.
13, 18, 19a, 24, 25 are all special cases of "rebindable commands with a few good presets."
19b, Sure, another channel is good. Requires a vocabulary of sound symbols at least as complex (and having as much learning curve) as the log you intend to make it possible to skip, but might help out blind players.
20. Targeting is a pointing task, and mice are really good for pointing.
21. Sure, another channel is good. Requires a visual vocabulary of symbols at least as complex (and having the same learning curve) as the log you intend to make it possible to skip, but might help out dyslexic players.
26. I think the most important things that ought to show about a monster are:
- its type (usually by default on the map)
- its present location (usually by default on the map)
- its health (a health bar is fine)
- its timing (does its next action come before yours?)
- its primary wielded weapon
- extended information might include its damage distribution and armor.
Bear
-
Bear:
Very good posts, I fully agree with what you said.
The only thing I don't get is why you put point number 4 into "Actively bad ideas that simplify (or obfuscate) the game instead of the interface".
Only when a player knows games mechanics (how weapons work, damage is calculated, which bonus grants that skill..), he can make informed decision and his brain is challenged.
Otherwise one can only guess.. but no one would guess that the best attacking option in DCSS is a double katana wielding ogre, for example. And that character shouldn't be a reward for sourcecode-diving.
Legend:
I don't see how 4 way only movement would make it easy to exploit the environment. Especially if a game is designed for 4-way movement.
Because you can exploit at your advantage every empty square between two walls being attackable by only one enemy instead of three if there were 8 direction moving/attacking monsters.
#####
#____#
#____#
##@##
If otherwise monsters have the ability to move/attack in 8 directions and you don't, then it looks kind of a cheesy solution to me (oh well, my ratling fencer isn't able to move diagonally like those 8 chainsaw-bears surrounding me because some roguelikers play with laptops and laptops only have 4 directional keys..). Personal taste.
NON came up with what I think is a pretty simple and elegant way to get around this for Infra Arcana.
Shift + left = up left
Shift + right = up right
Ctrl + left = down left
Ctrl + right = down right
I think this was a pretty clever solution.
I never played IA with a laptop but I'd say it's a brilliant solution, I'd like to know if other laptop roguelikers find it intuitive/satisfying. If so, this could be used to solve this 4-arrowkeys problem.
-
Point & Click interface. Imagine you have somebody doing things for you but you cannot tell him or her what to do. Instead, you can only point at things. Now, I have two questions; first, can this really express everything you need done? Second, if it can, is it still actually simpler than a command interface where you tell the guy what to do? I'm not really opposed to the mouse-interface idea, although it's not my cuppa. I just doubt that the point&click language is expressive enough. Oh, you can MAKE a point&click language that's expressive enough, if you use enough fiddly menus to provide symbols it would be easier to just type, but wouldn't it bear the same relationship to "intuitive" use of the mouse that ASL or ESL bears to "intuitive" talking gestures? -- ie, if it's that complex, it becomes a language with a syntax and grammar (or a pile of menus) that needs to be learned. It's the complexity, rather than the keyboard/mouse mode, that presents a learning curve, and I haven't yet really seen languages of equal expressiveness that aren't equally complex.
Bear, have you ever played Ultima Online? It leveraged realworld knowledge to make an awesome point n' click interface. If you double click a knife (or sword, or any bladed weapon) a targeting cursor appears. What do you think would happen if you targeted a rabbit corpse? You cut up the corpse into skin and meat. Now granted there isn't an option to gouge out the eyes and repeatedly stab the corpse while yelling 'I'm a good little boy mother!', but it's pretty darn intuitive anyways.
Most skills were used in the same way.Use a hammer on an anvil and you get an option to forge weapons and armor . Use a needle/thread combo on leather and you could make leather armor. Use a piece of meat on a fire and you cooked it.
Most people think that mouse UI == endless submenu UI. Not so.
-
The 'double commands' thing (as opposed to just a single 'u') is because roguelikes traditionally go way back to text adventure games.
Traditional doesn't always mean it's good. This whole UI thing depends largely on the type of UI you want. If it's old school ascii then mouse actions can look dumb in that context. But there is certainly room for improvement in traditional ascii UI. It can be a number of minor stuff that was not invented in old roguelikes. For example I improved the typical far look in Teemu (I think it's in dev version 1.3, not yet in release version) by making the cursor go through the list of visible objects from near to far, but also allowing free movement during that with arrow keys. I think it's a huge improvement, because you don't have to move the cursor with arrow keys just to see the important stuff.
Besides (u)se command can be there with the direct commands. That way you can use use command to do the typical/automatic task with object, but you can also use specific command keys if you don't like (u)se.
-
Bear, have you ever played Ultima Online? It leveraged realworld knowledge to make an awesome point n' click interface. If you double click a knife (or sword, or any bladed weapon) a targeting cursor appears. What do you think would happen if you targeted a rabbit corpse? You cut up the corpse into skin and meat. Now granted there isn't an option to gouge out the eyes and repeatedly stab the corpse while yelling 'I'm a good little boy mother!', but it's pretty darn intuitive anyways.
Most skills were used in the same way.Use a hammer on an anvil and you get an option to forge weapons and armor . Use a needle/thread combo on leather and you could make leather armor. Use a piece of meat on a fire and you cooked it.
I think you are missing the point. Chopping up a corpse, forging, sewing armor and cooking are just single actions involving two items at once. The point and click interface is actively limiting choices there. What if you wanted to make useful burning the piece of meat instead of cooking it? Either you present the menu or introduce mouse gestures over the fire to change meaning. This way you increase complexity of interface way beyond what accomplishing the same with keyboard would take.
Try to design good mouse based interface for using Nethack towel or Zap'M roll of duct tape *and* make it more friendly and faster than keyboard commands at the same time. You'll see what Bear means.
-
NON came up with what I think is a pretty simple and elegant way to get around this for Infra Arcana.
Shift + left = up left
Shift + right = up right
Ctrl + left = down left
Ctrl + right = down right
I think this was a pretty clever solution.
I never played IA with a laptop but I'd say it's a brilliant solution, I'd like to know if other laptop roguelikers find it intuitive/satisfying. If so, this could be used to solve this 4-arrowkeys problem.
I've implemented a similar thing (the Shift key adding 45° to the angle of the pressed cursor key), and I like it quite a bit. I think this one might be even more intuitive, though.
-
Bear, have you ever played Ultima Online? It leveraged realworld knowledge to make an awesome point n' click interface. If you double click a knife (or sword, or any bladed weapon) a targeting cursor appears. What do you think would happen if you targeted a rabbit corpse? You cut up the corpse into skin and meat. Now granted there isn't an option to gouge out the eyes and repeatedly stab the corpse while yelling 'I'm a good little boy mother!', but it's pretty darn intuitive anyways.
Most skills were used in the same way.Use a hammer on an anvil and you get an option to forge weapons and armor . Use a needle/thread combo on leather and you could make leather armor. Use a piece of meat on a fire and you cooked it.
I think you are missing the point. Chopping up a corpse, forging, sewing armor and cooking are just single actions involving two items at once. The point and click interface is actively limiting choices there. What if you wanted to make useful burning the piece of meat instead of cooking it? Either you present the menu or introduce mouse gestures over the fire to change meaning. This way you increase complexity of interface way beyond what accomplishing the same with keyboard would take.
Try to design good mouse based interface for using Nethack towel or Zap'M roll of duct tape *and* make it more friendly and faster than keyboard commands at the same time. You'll see what Bear means.
I'm not missing the point at all, the point is an intuitive and expressive vocabulary of game actions. Keyboards will always be more expressive, simply due to the sheer combinatorial volume of keypresses. I can make a command in roguelike that requires you to write war and peace if I like. But this is not intuitive.
So if I want to burn meat, first I'll cook it and then I'll cook it again. Done. Slower, yes, easy, yes. If burning meat is really important to the plot, then a good designer can streamline the process. Perhaps troll meat is extra sensitive to fire and burns right away, skipping the cooking stage.
If I want to blindfold myself with a towel, use it on my characters paperdoll head. If I want to wipe my hands, use it on the paperdolls hands. Fast, yes, easy, yes.
Just like in real life objects in games can be context sensitive, and if the designer is cautious, then the relationships between objects are pretty intuitive. This requires hard work on the part of the designer, but it can certainly be expressive enough to achieve a huge variety of actions, and in a way that can be divined without a FAQ or manual.
-
NON came up with what I think is a pretty simple and elegant way to get around this for Infra Arcana.
Shift + left = up left
Shift + right = up right
Ctrl + left = down left
Ctrl + right = down right
I think this was a pretty clever solution.
I never played IA with a laptop but I'd say it's a brilliant solution, I'd like to know if other laptop roguelikers find it intuitive/satisfying. If so, this could be used to solve this 4-arrowkeys problem.
I've implemented a similar thing (the Shift key adding 45° to the angle of the pressed cursor key), and I like it quite a bit. I think this one might be even more intuitive, though.
Except for us folks that use Sun/Unix keyboard layouts (capslock and left control swapped from the way it is on a PC-101 keyboard). ;P
-
Are there any roguelikes other than the Nethack line where a significant number of items have more than one default use? ADOM only has 3 examples I know of (dipping potions instead of drinking, rubbing one herb type instead of eating, rubbing a djinni ring instead of wearing it). In general I'd say the wealth of interactions in Nethack, whilst "cool", is terrible design in terms of making a game requiring extensive spoilers to even know how to use items properly. Any action in a game must be intuitive to do through both mechanics and interface. Thinking of both together can lead to a far better game.
-
I'm not missing the point at all, the point is an intuitive and expressive vocabulary of game actions.....
Just like in real life objects in games can be context sensitive, and if the designer is cautious, then the relationships between objects are pretty intuitive.
Well, I think you're wrong about not missing the point.
The point is that you have a standard set of commands, which you can do with any object or any set of objects. And in a well-designed (IMO) game you KNOW what the commands are; you don't have to guess what special cases and combinations the designers called out on which objects.
The context-sensitive interface you describe, to me, invokes the very worst trope of late-period adventure games; where you have no bloody idea what the designer intended you to do (and yes, there was usually one specific thing that was the intended only way forward) and you sit there attempting to "apply" every last thing in your inventory to every last other thing in your inventory, waiting for some combination that doesn't make sense to anybody but the designer to "click." Good game design does not leave players following the designer around picking up special cases and context-sensitive exceptions.
Bear
-
It is a mystery by design, but I'd venture a guess that Diggr also has some multi-purposed stuff afoot considering what game it is paying homage to.
-
For me the interface goes hand in hand with the learning curve. An easy to play but hard to master system starts here.
Secondarily the interface should allow me to do what I want with frustration. See MOO3 for how NOT to do this.
-
Try to design good mouse based interface for using Nethack towel or Zap'M roll of duct tape *and* make it more friendly and faster than keyboard commands at the same time. You'll see what Bear means.
So if I want to burn meat, first I'll cook it and then I'll cook it again. Done. Slower, yes, easy, yes. If burning meat is really important to the plot, then a good designer can streamline the process. Perhaps troll meat is extra sensitive to fire and burns right away, skipping the cooking stage.
Fine. It is both easy and intuitive. But to accomplish it you sacrificed an action of burning raw meat which may be needed. Again game loses depth in order to offer a simple interface. You could of course rectify this with a paper doll of sorts like you explain below. Pop up a window with drawn campfire. If you click above fire you cook meat. If you click fire directly it burns. This however, is no longer intuitive. Players are likely to burn it unintentionally. Keyboard stuff is easier and more intuitive to have it because you just specify burn or cook respectively.
In Ultima there is no reason to burn the meat which is why a sufficient point and click interface is doable.
If I want to blindfold myself with a towel, use it on my characters paperdoll head. If I want to wipe my hands, use it on the paperdolls hands. Fast, yes, easy, yes.
Unintuitive, yes. A masqueraded menu, yes. Slow, yes. Who knows, maybe I can click on my feet to wrap it up so I can kick cockatrice corpse with impunity despite I haven't found boots yet? Wait, it does not work. Maybe I need to click the other feet! No ... between them?
The paper doll in question acts like a menu. Head specifies one action and hands specify second. Unfortunately it is less intuitive than a menu because set of commands is not clearly specified. It would be better if after a double click on the towel a classic menu with options popped up. That way you would not need to hover you mouse from inventory box to paper doll (which is not fast), and wonder about what actions are applicable to this item.
Just like in real life objects in games can be context sensitive, and if the designer is cautious, then the relationships between objects are pretty intuitive. This requires hard work on the part of the designer, but it can certainly be expressive enough to achieve a huge variety of actions, and in a way that can be divined without a FAQ or manual.
Context sensitivity is really overpraised. It works well for simple games but for a complex game where a set of interaction is presented it usually does harm. I haven't seen it implemented well in any game with broad array of possible actions available for every item.
To sum up: Can mouse based interface be well done? Yes, and you proved it nicely. Can it be fine as only control medium for a complex game? Never seen it work in a satisfying manner.
-
Now, I have two questions; first, can this really express everything you need done? Second, if it can, is it still actually simpler than a command interface where you tell the guy what to do?
Bear, perhaps I did misunderstand, I thought you were talking about an expressive interface, not a universal interface where you can apply standard commands to anything. In that case keys are better, but I've never played a game where you can 'eat' anything, or 'read' anything.
In regards to attempting to apply objects in incompatible contexts. Doesn't the same thing happen in life? You try to wrap your feet in a towel and it just doesn't work? What's wrong with that compared to a key command? As long as there is clear feedback as to what the effect of an action is, I don't see anything wrong with it. It's just akin to pressing a key that has no effect when something is highlighted. And please tell me again how the nethack towel is more intuitive than my paperdoll suggestion.
The paperdoll is not a menu, it is half of an interaction context. Because we're playing games where items have some loose isomorphism with their real world equivalents we're able to make educated guesses about the effects of certain actions. Using a helmet on a head? Using a potion of acid on a head? It's up to the designer to make good decisions and comprehensive interactions. Well designed commands with context are always far more intuitive that contextless commands, and such a mouse UI, while less efficient than keys, can be designed to map to thousands of different game actions.
Perhaps you've developed such a history with roguelikes that a roguelike context automatically triggers recall of any key command you want. This is not the norm for casual players (like myself).
For examples of good context sensitive UI's I suggest taking a serious look at Ultima 7 through Ultima Online. They progressively get better and better, and by the time Ultima Online comes along, the depth of actions is enormous, larger than many roguelikes I've played. This includes extensive harvesting, crafting, enchanting, commerce (including bartering), training. If you like, I'm sure you can pick it apart and explain how one missing feature makes this a poor UI for a 'real roguelike', but the UI is an overwhelming success and can be adapted to suit many actions.
-
And please tell me again how the nethack towel is more intuitive than my paperdoll suggestion.
It does only have put on and wear. After trying those out I can be sure I have exhausted equipping possibilities. The challenge in Nethack is applying those uses in game well. No combating the UI to find out possibilities in first place. Not so with paperdoll. You need to click all the different parts you think of. With sufficiently large towel you can wrap your foot for kicking cockatrices so this may have been implemented.
The paperdoll is not a menu, it is half of an interaction context.
A menu is not an interaction context then? It could have menu items with hands and head. How is that different from an image?
Well designed commands with context are always far more intuitive that contextless commands, and such a mouse UI, while less efficient than keys, can be designed to map to thousands of different game actions.
While I fully agree with second part of this sentence the first assertion eludes me. In what way is it more intuitive?
For examples of good context sensitive UI's I suggest taking a serious look at Ultima 7 through Ultima Online.
I did so a few years ago. Played on a private server. I loved how you could double click an empty pitcher and target a cow to get milk. However, players were upset there was no possibility to empty it without drinking the contents. Developers acknowledged it and proposed double clicking on a non-empty pitcher would also ask for a target. Picking ground would pour contents out. Yay, intuitive and simple! But then there were cries drinking does not work intuitively and bug reports one can't target other people to feed them. Players were led thinking if a target is asked for one also can pick other players and NPC.
The gripe I have with Ultima is you never know the boundaries of its UI. A strict set of commands is just easier for me to grasp.
-
OK, time to give my own thoughts about my proposals.
As a general rule, my proposals try to make ADOM more accessible to new players, usually at some cost (which ranges from developer's time to making the gameplay shallower).
1. Add beautiful graphics. Most bigger projects today seem to go this route. I have to say some things are easier to express with graphics than with ASCII. My VoI tries to apply an iconic approach to graphics, which is supposed to avoid drawbacks commonly mentioned by opponents of graphical roguelikes (different monsters looking almost the same). I think there are lots of people who judge games based mostly on graphics, but possibly these people would not play deep tactical games anyway.
7. Single use for each item. Some things are equipment, some things are melee weapons, some things are missile weapons, some are one-use or multiple-use items. Who does wield a non-weapon or throw a non-missile anyway? There are many more multiple use items in ADOM than Darren mentions. Potions of holy water can be dipped into, thrown at undead, spilled on ground, and used for alchemy, and all are useful (well maybe throwing at undead is a waste). Other potions can be quaffed, wielded (useless I think), and given to NPCs. Many weapons can be wielded or thrown (generally everything can be wielded or thrown, I only list cases where this is actually useful). Pick axes, hammers, hatchets, and whips act as both weapons and tools. Black torc can be worn or thrown. Anvil can be used for smithing or thrown. Blanket can be used for protection or trap creation. Magical gems can be used, thrown, or shot from slings.
I think one could do much more with multiple use items. But even with just a few uses, this is "cool" (as Darren says), and this "coolness" is important for me.
2. Combine Eat, Drink, Zap, Read, Use, etc. as a single "use" command. Strongly linked with the last point, and again, this is simply cool for me, even though I do not know any roguelike which really uses this coolness (like, having items such as rune-covered wands made of chocolate, which actually can be zapped, read or eaten), somebody should write one. Another good thing about having "drink" and "read" as separate commands is that you only pick from a list of potions, not a list of potions and scrolls (irrelevant for games with tame inventories, such as Doom RL, Brogue or Hydra Slayer, and they all have this combined).
12. Tooltips. Moving mouse over anything should tell you what it is. I think the only potential problem with that is portability. And if you click something...
3. Point-and-click interface. Like Dredmor. You see your inventory as a window, left click to use, drag to pick up/throw/drop/equip. Similar windows for "main menu", "skills", "quests", and so on. I am trying something similar in VoI 0.44 (although this is not complete and not everything is intuitive yet), I think we can cover most common uses easily, and the more exotic ones can be found or performed with keyboard and menus.
4. Mechanics should be clear. I want to be able to tell whether +2 St or +2 Dx is better.
5. Permadeath should be only an option. People want to win!! Commercial roguelikes seem to follow this route (Valhalla/Ragnarok, JauntTrooper, Diablo, Dredmor). I think optional permadeath could work well in ADOM, since even if it lost its roguelikeness, it would still remain a reasonably good RPG. But it should make it clear that permadeath is the correct way, and non-permadeath is cheating, and recommended only for exploration and noobs and people who would not play otherwise.
6. Rules should be clear. I want to make informed decisions, not die because I did not know something. I think that's personal taste. IMO non-obvious interactions make the game richer, but there should be in-game hints about them, like ADOM's fortune cookies (but more specific than "They say that it might come in handy to discover a use for useless potions", which hints about a rather nice reward, but is too obscure).
8. Make the process of character creation easier. One screen when you can choose all of the options. Well I think character creation process is boring in ADOM.
9. Unlockable characters. New players can only play Human Wizards, Archers, or Fighters. Other 197 race/class combinations need unlocking. The amount of decisions you need to make is too intimidating for a new player. Well, it's surely not intimidating for me, and I actually like reading about all the possible races and classes, it's like reading a fantasy book. It's a good way of rewarding players for their progress, but on the other hand, it is bad when you move to a new computer or install a new version and have to unlock everything again.
10. Equipment choices are bad. Make it obvious which armor or weapon is better. And if it is, equip it automatically. I think this is a very bad idea for a game like ADOM, but I have seen this mentioned as an example of how great is the UI design of Cardinal Quest. I can tell that it works very well in Vicious Orcs, I have not played CQ so I cannot tell about it. Besides, mostly any more sophisticated RPG has equipment management anyway, so I don't see why there should be any problem with grasping a well designed interface for equipment.
11. Remove the horoscope. Who has time to read 148 lines of manual. The effects of Silvernight/Darknight are negligible, and other sign effects are too random. Making the game simpler at a cost of losing theme and a bit of depth. No.
13. Ability to record macros. I think a well designed UI should not require recording macros. OTOH you get a plus from more hardcore users.
14. There should be no "clean ears" or "wipe face" command, this is clearly a bad design. Two extra keys to remember for almost no reason. But this is so cool when I read about this commands and wonder when I will use them!
15. There are three "pick up" commands, three "drop" commands, two "pay" and two "pray" commands. *ONE* SHALL BE ENOUGH! TB surely had his reasons for such a design, but I think there is a better solution.
16. Too many "display foo" commands! There should be one command (say, @ - display character information), which shows a menu with all the options, if they are really necessary. I agree with that.
17. Make movement four directional. People play on laptops nowadays, how are they to move in 8 directions? I think that 4-directional, 8-directional and hex are all valid solutions with different tactical challenges. Hex is the coolest IMO but maybe harder to work with and play in ASCII, 8-directional is more cool than 4-directional, but its awkwardness on laptops is a big drawback, a pity how computers have evolved in a way which makes playing classical roguelikes less pleasant (lack of fullscreen console on Vista is another thing). I must try this shift/ctrl thing though, good idea for a NotEye feature BTW. Also maybe a good topic for a Roguelike Radio episode.
18. A way to configure the keyboard layout with an intuitive menu. The only drawback here is that it seems to be extremely boring to implement.
19. A way to configure other options with an intuitive menu. Good idea I think.
19. Sound effects, as an alternative to reading the message log. Yes, good idea. But the dev needs to learn how to do that. Also portability is reduced.
20. You should be able to target your missiles with mouse. A good idea taken from ADOM Sage.
21. Effects of your actions should be visible on the screen so you won't need to read the log (for example, animated drops of blood when you hit or are hit). Hard to do in ASCII.
22. Spell screens should show the numbers (damage etc), instead of requiring us to consult the manual. Another good idea taken from ADOM Sage.
23. Avoid using numbers. Present them using bars, colors, qualitative descriptions, and so on. Qualitative descriptions are IMO very bad (like hunger states in ADOM). Bars are a very good solution, but they take up more room than numbers. Colors are OK if you have no room for a bar or a number. But I think that you should have an access to numerical data.
24. Add an option to use VI key movement. Yes please.
25. No, rather add an option to use something natural for movement. Yes, too.
26. Monsters should be accompanied by UI elements which show important information about them, like health bars. A good idea, although hard to do this in ASCII (Brogue has a nice solution though).
27. Please don't quite the game after losing, maybe I want to start a new one. I don't mind this myself, but I know that some people do.
28. After the PC dies, show a menu, rather than a sequence of questions (do you want to see your inventory? do you want to see high scores? do you want to create a final log? etc) I see nothing good about the traditional sequence of questions. Seems to be an example of a bad interface design which tends to be copied from older to newer roguelikes.
29. Limit the inventory. Strength of Atlas or not, it's simply hard to use the inventory when you are carrying 200 items! I agree with Skeletor that permanent world + weak anti-return mechanics + limited inventory = fail. In Dredmor nothing stops you from stashing everything you find and returning to your stashes when you want to sell or use something, which leads to boring gameplay; also some items tend to be ignored because they are less useful than an empty inventory slot, which is a bad thing. does not it is too cumbersome to carry them in inventory. The effect is weaker, but still bad, in ADOM (Strength of Atlas makes inventory almost unlimited), Crawl and Brogue (tighter time constraints). On the other hand, assigning each item in your inventory to a separate letter is a great interface design in Crawl, Brogue and several other roguelikes, but it can be done only with limited inventory. I think there are better ways to solve the problem (realistic enough, avoid stashing and less-useful-than-nothing problems, easy to handle).
How successful would you expect ADOM to be after your changes? It seems nobody has tried to answer this question. If you think it would become a commercial success, why not try to convince Thomas Biskup and make a deal with him? Why did Dredmor and Diablo achieve a success, while JauntTrooper and Valhalla/Ragnarok failed?
-
I was speaking to a friend of mine yesterday about the topic of what gamers value. He is not a roguelike player or an indie player by any stretch of the imagination. He's into big budget titles he can play online. Starcraft II, Diablo, Modern Warfare 3, etc... I'd say he is your standard computer game player.
He does place to high a value on graphics and ease of control. Non frustrating game play is also huge but he does not mind a hard game at all. But his highest rated requirement to enjoy a game is story. He's a huge fan of the narrative. Does not matter the game genre. It's the story that matters.
Secondarily he enjoys online competition. A competitive player. NOT a social player. He hates MMO's. But he does like to frag his friends and strangers.
It seems to really make a lot of sense and spark very interesting conversations when you mention a 'value' model of classifying players.
I'm glad I thought of it. :-)
-
And please tell me again how the nethack towel is more intuitive than my paperdoll suggestion.
It does only have put on and wear. After trying those out I can be sure I have exhausted equipping possibilities.
Forgive me, I've never played nethack, but how do you know that you only have those two options? Is it intuitive that you can only do those, are they listed as possible actions or is it found by trial and error (serious question).
[/quote]
The paperdoll is not a menu, it is half of an interaction context.
A menu is not an interaction context then? It could have menu items with hands and head. How is that different from an image?
Interaction: head interact with helmet. hands interact with weapon. The result of these interactions are easy to guess, hence more intuitive.
Well designed commands with context are always far more intuitive that contextless commands, and such a mouse UI, while less efficient than keys, can be designed to map to thousands of different game actions.
While I fully agree with second part of this sentence the first assertion eludes me. In what way is it more intuitive?
By mimicking the way real world objects work, it's more intuitive. Real world objects don't exist in a vacuum, they interact. Hence interaction context. Compare 'use meat on fire', to 'select meat, press c'. At face value it's obvious that I can guess that the first will result in either cooking (or burning :P). The second is only understandable in this discussion because I contrast it with the contextual example. If I just come to any non-RL player on the street and present one of those two 'commands' and ask them to guess what happens, the first would garner far more correct guesses.
For examples of good context sensitive UI's I suggest taking a serious look at Ultima 7 through Ultima Online.
I did so a few years ago. Played on a private server. I loved how you could double click an empty pitcher and target a cow to get milk. However, players were upset there was no possibility to empty it without drinking the contents. Developers acknowledged it and proposed double clicking on a non-empty pitcher would also ask for a target. Picking ground would pour contents out. Yay, intuitive and simple! But then there were cries drinking does not work intuitively and bug reports one can't target other people to feed them. Players were led thinking if a target is asked for one also can pick other players and NPC.
The gripe I have with Ultima is you never know the boundaries of its UI. A strict set of commands is just easier for me to grasp.
[/quote]
I completely agree with you, but as I stated in my response above, just because you can find some failure in the UI presentation, it doesn't prevent the UI from being an unqualified and enormous success in intuitively presenting complex gameplay. It does take extraordinary effort to design interactions well, but the result is very much worth it.
Anyways, I've hijacked this thread long enough, I'm pretty sure we understand each other, and I respect your opinion, you've made several valid points that have got me thinking. I hope you've learned a little bit from the conversation too.
Sincerely,
Mouse based interface fan :)
-
Uh oh. Those nested quote boxes got troublesome.
Forgive me, I've never played nethack, but how do you know that you only have those two options? Is it intuitive that you can only do those, are they listed as possible actions or is it found by trial and error (serious question).
The Nethack guide states all possible commands to do with items. Only ones sounding like equipping (I omitted wield there) are those two. You have whole palette of actions to do with items like kicking and reading. You can read armor pieces for example but I believe it is useful only on Hawaiian shirts. Like you said its dev team's responsibility to make it consistent.
There is some trial and error though. Nethack has apply command which is vague enough to be catch-all for interactions not covered by other very specific commands. 'A'plly wands to break them, apply towel to wipe your face, apply bullwhip to disarm opponents etc.
POWDER is curious one as it goes the noun-verb way and always displays all actions. Even nonsensical options.
Interaction: head interact with helmet. hands interact with weapon. The result of these interactions are easy to guess, hence more intuitive.
Yeah. I thought about the paper doll a bit more. If you highlighted possible locations that invoke interaction my argument would be nullified and then it is as good or better than keyboard commands.
By mimicking the way real world objects work, it's more intuitive. Real world objects don't exist in a vacuum, they interact. Hence interaction context. Compare 'use meat on fire', to 'select meat, press c'. At face value it's obvious that I can guess that the first will result in either cooking (or burning :P). The second is only understandable in this discussion because I contrast it with the contextual example. If I just come to any non-RL player on the street and present one of those two 'commands' and ask them to guess what happens, the first would garner far more correct guesses.
Now, that is both funny and quite a revelation to me. You know what my pair would be? Compare 'left mouse button double click meat, left mouse button click fire' to 'action: cook; target: meat'. In ADOM terms that would be "action: use cooking set; target: giant rat corpse". :D
This was lively exchange of views. I think PRIME's UI might get several changes in near future thanks to this.
-
2. Classic Diehards - The classic roguelike player. Games like ToME, Nethack, Angband and Crawl appeal to these players. A very common player type but no longer as dominant. These guys (yes mostly all men) have been playing for years, maybe decades. Definitely the dominant player type in this Forum. I'll use Krice as a good example of this player type. Strict adherence to the tried and true Roguelike tropes brightens the day of this player. These players will cross over pretty well to other categories, especially the Quick Fix category when they burn out a bit on their favorite major and need a little experimental distraction. Note this is the oldest and most hardcore of Roguelike player types. Black and white text with hundreds of commands? Not required but also not a problem. These players value complexity.
That description fit me so well it was mildly unsettling.
I like it when a game has clear mechanics. Going very close to DnD-like mechanics like Incursion is excellent.
You've got your stats, and you know what they do and how increasing each stat will affect your abilities.
You find an item and the game tells you the numbers. Parry value such and such. Can be used while grappling. Reach of 10m. Damage ranges from this to that, slashing type etc etc. I understand what these mean.
Having easy to understand mechanics like Rogue, Hack and The Slimy Lichmummy is excellent too.
For the first two, you need food. You need to get your armor value up to snuff. Your goal is this and that. Having this or that item will be needed in this or that situation etc etc.
Mostly just the ease of equipping an item and seeing a number go up or down is excellent.
That would be why the Binding of Isaac (which is still not... ah, nevermind) did absolutely nothing for me.
I got the tears of the saint? Great! What do they do? If it was a sword or a lasergun I could work with it, but tears of a saint? That's too abstract for me! Did my crying get better? In what way? How does the saintlyness of my tears benefit me? Copper sword, Iron sword, Steel sword, diamond sword. Clear progression that I can understand. Silver sword against a werewolf, I see! Tears, bloody tears, attack fly, speckled feces... I don't know which of these is stronger or even comparable to the others. I don't know what they're for, and frankly that just infuriates me, hahaha.
It's nice breakdown. I'm doubtful whether the sandbox category is all that big. Goblin camp is very much so in its starting stages still.
And the Story Lovers category comes down to Legerdemain and LambdaRogue, right? With maybe a dash of IVAN. Unless I've missed some roguelike that has more story than Fetch Ye Olde MacGuffin, Brave Adventurer!
I don't like all of your groupings I must say. There's no such thing as a "Smooth Operator" that plays a game purely for interface. [...] What you class as "Smooth Operator" is more merged in with "Quick Mixers", since a quick game with a complex interface is pretty much doomed to failure. [...]
Well, the groupings can easily overlap. I feel that there IS a group of players that will or will not play a game purely based on how easy the interface is to grasp for them. Let's say you ask someone (with little or no roguelike experience) to play Rogue and Brogue. Putting aside everything but user interface, Brogue is much more fluid and intuitive. Those that would prefer Brogue over Rogue simply because of the controls and UI of Brogue would be the Smooth Operators, no?
On roguelike radio we rant on about UI a lot, and sometimes it feels a bit repetitive, but in the world if roguelikes I think it stands to be repeated. Too many developers are complacent with the idea of sticking to a "traditional" bad UI. [...] For roguelikes it doesn't have to be pretty graphics, or graphics at all, it just means that if players get frustrated by the controls in the first few minutes they'll move on to another game that won't frustrate them. In the modern roguelike scene they have plenty more accessible choices.
Mr. Doull started a discussion on this over at the Angband forums (of course you know this, but bear with me) and I see some sense in what the two of you are saying. While Angband/Hack/Rogue/etc do have an interface that can immediately be recognized there is indeed the room for improvement. However, "don't fix what isn't broken". And then there's the chance that what you would consider an improved interface would be considered one or more steps in the wrong direction by someone else.
I think I said that some of the classics were doomed unless they get with the times. To those that say the classics won't I die I ask, where are all the Moria players? Moria is still a good game, but it no longer gets significantly played or discussed. It is, in essence, a dead game. Angband and Nethack run risk of following the same route. New players would rather go to ToME4, DCSS or Brogue, and the existing communities are visibly dwindling. There will be a few diehards for many years of course, but why should the great classics put up with this when they are open source and ripe for improvement?
And what if they are doomed? I don't care that not many people play (Revived)Hack, I still enjoy it. I don't require it to be continuously developed and updated even today; it's a done game in my eyes. To be a dead game while still in development is sad, but if it's complete... I'd rather someone makes an Angband and a Moria dies than that Moria keeps getting updated and Angband is never born; that way people have the choice of playing both Moria AND Angband rather than Moria changing into something it didn't use to be.
Untrue. The traditional UI is not bad. In fact, it's the opposite of bad
I think a large number of keyboard commands is not bad if they are well designed and don't have any double commands (like Remove/Take off). In good UI there are also modern alternatives like mouse commands, generic (u)se command and stuff like that. Trying to minimize number of keyboard commands is good, but only if it doesn't lead to ultra-modern menu driven UI which is also bad. I'm always surprised how difficult it seems to be to design good UI. I guess one of the reasons is that developers have their own ideas about good UI and sometimes it's traditional and sometimes maybe too modern, and sometimes it's just really weird.
I'm a fan of generic commands. (a)pply to zap wands, read scrolls, quaff potions. (e)quip a whole bunch of different things. These are nice. Seperate commands for Putting something On, Taking something Off, Wearing, Removing (ring ring armor armor) feel redundant. I like all the options Incursion gives me but when I press y and it asks me what I want to do, there's almost no situation where I'd want to Fast Talk, Barter with someone, Force, Greet, Imbue, Jam, Mix, Pour and the list goes on! Some of these are available elsewhere; I can Greet, Barter, Fast Talk after I (t)alk to someone!
You don't have to pare the options down to (k)ill and (o)ther, but some things could stand to be culled.
Edit: I missed Z's original list, so I've taken to replying to it from what I could glean from other posts.
4. Mechanics should be clear. I want to be able to tell whether +2 St or +2 Dx is better.
Yes please.
5. Permadeath should be only an option. People want to win!!
I love options. But having or not having permadeath shouldn't be something you get to decide as a player.
If you take out the permadeath or add an option to save and load whenever the player wants, I wouldn't download your game. I finished half life 1 thanks to the quicksave and quickload keys. It wasn't a question of WHETHER I was going to win, but WHEN. And it didn't feel like an accomplishment. Didn't feel exciting. It felt dirty and boring because there is no way I could NOT win. Roguelikes are not about WINNING, they're about TRYING to win. If I'm going to respawn in Crawl, you can be sure I'll claw that Orb of Zot to the entrance, tile by agonizing tile if I must. But then why am I playing Crawl? I KNOW I'm going to win, what's the point of playing? Satisfying my own vanity? It's this same reason I only played Bioshock for half an hour. I die, and I plop right out of the respawn-o-matic stationed 2 feet away with no penalty. Again and again and again and again.
Let's say my enemies had the same advantage. Let's say everyone (player and enemy) who dies more than 80 feet from a respawn-o-matic dies forever. I'd have to either lure my foes far away and then kill them or destroy the respawn-o-matic. Suddenly the game is exciting and tactical!
But no. I die, I'm reborn, I go right back in there. On to the next area. I can't lose. There's no game over screen. Why keep playing? For the story? No thank you!
9. Unlockable characters. New players can only play Human Wizards, Archers, or Fighters. Other 197 race/class combinations need unlocking. The amount of decisions you need to make is too intimidating for a new
player.
That's just horrible. I liked it in Rings of Valor since unlocking new races and classes was relatively painless and it's a coffeebreak game, but I absolutely hate it anywhere else. I don't want to go through hoops to unlock races and classes in ToME! Sure, a new player might be intimidated by all the choices, but screwing over people who are not just FOR THAT is not the answer. Character creation in Incursion is a different story! There's something that will scare away a surprising amount of people. I still wouldn't want Journeyman to dumb it down; to do so would be detrimental to Incursion. Compromising is not always the answer.
17. Make movement four directional. People play on laptops nowadays, how are they to move in 8 directions?[/i]
This kills a game faster than anything in my eyes and I play on a laptop. Use Home, PgUp, PgDown and End for diagonal movement like Crawl. Or use yubn like The Slimy Lichmummy. A diagonal tile is right next to my character, so I should be able to stand on it in 1 action. Halving my movement options just because I don't have an explicit keypad is ridiculous. There's plenty of keys available. You could even make it so the arrow keys get rotated 45 degrees clockwise when the user holds Shift (so Shift+Up arrow makes you go Northeast)! Solutions aplenty!
-
I like it when a game has clear mechanics. Going very close to DnD-like mechanics like Incursion is excellent.
You've got your stats, and you know what they do and how increasing each stat will affect your abilities.
You find an item and the game tells you the numbers. Parry value such and such. Can be used while grappling. Reach of 10m. Damage ranges from this to that, slashing type etc etc. I understand what these mean.
Having easy to understand mechanics like Rogue, Hack and The Slimy Lichmummy is excellent too.
For the first two, you need food. You need to get your armor value up to snuff. Your goal is this and that. Having this or that item will be needed in this or that situation etc etc.
Mostly just the ease of equipping an item and seeing a number go up or down is excellent.
That would be why the Binding of Isaac (which is still not... ah, nevermind) did absolutely nothing for me.
I got the tears of the saint? Great! What do they do? If it was a sword or a lasergun I could work with it, but tears of a saint? That's too abstract for me! Did my crying get better? In what way? How does the saintlyness of my tears benefit me? Copper sword, Iron sword, Steel sword, diamond sword. Clear progression that I can understand. Silver sword against a werewolf, I see! Tears, bloody tears, attack fly, speckled feces... I don't know which of these is stronger or even comparable to the others. I don't know what they're for, and frankly that just infuriates me, hahaha.
Wow, I have to say I couldn't agree more!
-
And the Story Lovers category comes down to Legerdemain and LambdaRogue, right? With maybe a dash of IVAN. Unless I've missed some roguelike that has more story than Fetch Ye Olde MacGuffin, Brave Adventurer!
ToME4 has, well, not exactly a story, but a well-developed setting. There's over half a novel's worth of text in the game, mostly found in random lore pieces and libraries. The main story itself has its moments, but for the purposes of the player can be treated as a simple "kill the baddies" quest. This is deliberate - a linear story doesn't suit roguelikes well, and should just be skippable by those who don't care.
Well, the groupings can easily overlap. I feel that there IS a group of players that will or will not play a game purely based on how easy the interface is to grasp for them. Let's say you ask someone (with little or no roguelike experience) to play Rogue and Brogue. Putting aside everything but user interface, Brogue is much more fluid and intuitive. Those that would prefer Brogue over Rogue simply because of the controls and UI of Brogue would be the Smooth Operators, no?
Perhaps, but that doesn't say anything about what gameplay they want, which is far more important. Would a smooth operator prefer Brogue or ToME4?
While Angband/Hack/Rogue/etc do have an interface that can immediately be recognized there is indeed the room for improvement. However, "don't fix what isn't broken". And then there's the chance that what you would consider an improved interface would be considered one or more steps in the wrong direction by someone else.
I don't think that you have to sacrifice capability for interface. It helps if the game is designed from the ground up with both combined, but any game can simply have extras on top of the existing interface to make it play smoother. Or alternatives in the options. The original game can be left untouched but the new interface makes it more accessible for new players to try out. Even if there are changes to the gameplay the older versions will be available to download.
That's just horrible. I liked it in Rings of Valor since unlocking new races and classes was relatively painless and it's a coffeebreak game, but I absolutely hate it anywhere else. I don't want to go through hoops to unlock races and classes in ToME! Sure, a new player might be intimidated by all the choices, but screwing over people who are not just FOR THAT is not the answer.
Antoher justification for its use in ToME4 is to give you a sense of achievement when playing a game even if you die. So your character dies at level 30 after some stupid moves, but at least you can think "Oh well, I unlocked this and that race and class, so it wasn't all for nothing". I felt that a bit with early characters I admit. However I also find it irritating for the few ones I've yet to unlock, or the new classes that get added. I might lobby DarkGod to make all unlocks open for those who donate a specific amount (much like you can turn off permadeath if you donate enough - the justification being he thinks it's bad game design, but is happy for people to pay for the game they want).
This kills a game faster than anything in my eyes and I play on a laptop. Use Home, PgUp, PgDown and End for diagonal movement like Crawl. Or use yubn like The Slimy Lichmummy. A diagonal tile is right next to my character, so I should be able to stand on it in 1 action. Halving my movement options just because I don't have an explicit keypad is ridiculous. There's plenty of keys available. You could even make it so the arrow keys get rotated 45 degrees clockwise when the user holds Shift (so Shift+Up arrow makes you go Northeast)! Solutions aplenty!
Inelegant solutions though. The best solution is hex grids, with QWEASD as the input.
4-way movement feels restrictive at first, but after a while you get used to it and it's not so bad. It's just part of the rules of the game. You don't feel annoyed that rooks in chess are only 4-way, for instance. Some of the nerdrage against Dredmor and Cardinal Quest's 4-way movement is just silly. Interface-wise it makes a huge amount of sense, and the benefits for those games far outweigh the gameplay restrictions.
-
Inelegant solutions though. The best solution is hex grids, with QWEASD as the input.
Does any game use QWEASD? I think WEADZX is more intuitive since these keys are arranged roughly like a hex grid. But maybe two-row layouts (QWEASD, WASD) are more ergonomic than intuitive ones (ESDX, WEADZX). When playing old 8-bit games my favorite control scheme was QAOP anyway.
-
Two rows is more ergonomic, and more similar to the traditional WASD control. To make it more intuitive you could squash your hexes, though this doesn't suit ASCII text so well.
-
Perhaps, but that doesn't say anything about what gameplay they want, which is far more important. Would a smooth operator prefer Brogue or ToME4?
They're both very smooth as far as gameplay goes. Brogue's a very organic evolution of Rogue, and ToME is cooldowns-the-roguelike; it shows skills and their corresponding turn-cooldown-timers right there on screen. They've both got very friendly interfaces, but I think Brogue would win since it cuts out all the pre-game fussing (naming, class, race, difficulty, stats, feats, perks and all the hoo-ha) and puts you straight in the action.
All you see is the level and the health of all enemies in your line of sight. It doesn't get more user friendly than that.
If, as you said, the Smooth Operator is the DoD type, then Brogue should easily be closer to their preferences than ToME.
I don't think that you have to sacrifice capability for interface. It helps if the game is designed from the ground up with both combined, but any game can simply have extras on top of the existing interface to make it play smoother. Or alternatives in the options. The original game can be left untouched but the new interface makes it more accessible for new players to try out. Even if there are changes to the gameplay the older versions will be available to download.
I'd really rather judge it off screenshots/mockups. I think interfaces are very much up to personal preference. Incursion/Crawl's "The goblin is washing your socks! The hobgoblin is cleaning your <MOREx20>" infernal messages at the top of the screen that one has to actively scroll past with a button press get on my nerves. Angband's optional extra dialog windows get on my nerves too, but I'm sure there's people who find them very handy and informative (even vital).
When in doubt, Fork It? Third party frontends would be an ideal solution, but good luck writing one that can work with every single existing roguelike!
Antoher justification for its use in ToME4 is to give you a sense of achievement when playing a game even if you die. So your character dies at level 30 after some stupid moves, but at least you can think "Oh well, I unlocked this and that race and class, so it wasn't all for nothing". I felt that a bit with early characters I admit. However I also find it irritating for the few ones I've yet to unlock, or the new classes that get added. I might lobby DarkGod to make all unlocks open for those who donate a specific amount (much like you can turn off permadeath if you donate enough - the justification being he thinks it's bad game design, but is happy for people to pay for the game they want).
I don't really require shinies to comfort me when my character dies ;D.
Think of it this way. I can go wrestle the golden headband of Trymenas from the Yellow Priest to unlock Farseers so I can unlock Goldsingers by smiting 20 enemies to death with Prophecies...
Or I can just turn on Crawl and play whatever I feel like from second 0 without having to bother unlocking things.
If I get bored with a certain combination I can freely pick any other combination I feel like playing.
Withholding content from the player is just not a smart idea.
The earliest roguelikes had you starting out as just some mook, with no skills or classes or races to bother you.
Then came the races and classes. More options, a step forward. Then came the skills. More options, a step forward. Then came the taking away of races and classes so you have to do things you really can't be bothered to unlock them? I can't call that a step forward. I can't call paid DLC in console and PC games a step forward.
If you're going to say that unlocking things isn't such a pain as I'm making it out to be, why even bother locking them to begin with? It's not the same as with achievements/trophies/stickers in certain other videogames. You unlock those, but they're nothing but eye-candy you can look at and boast about. They're cleanly seperate from the actual game and gameplay.
Inelegant solutions though. The best solution is hex grids, with QWEASD as the input.
4-way movement feels restrictive at first, but after a while you get used to it and it's not so bad. It's just part of the rules of the game. You don't feel annoyed that rooks in chess are only 4-way, for instance. Some of the nerdrage against Dredmor and Cardinal Quest's 4-way movement is just silly. Interface-wise it makes a huge amount of sense, and the benefits for those games far outweigh the gameplay restrictions.
When comparing 4-way to 8-way movement you can't really say it feels restrictive "at first". It's half the options and will continue to feel restrictive forever.
I'd love to hear how it makes a huge amount of sense for those games and benefits them. I, for one, can't see a single problem.
Take this example; There's a trap in front of a hallway.
8-way movement gives you these options: Disarm, step on it, move diagonally into the hallway avoiding the trap.
4-way movement gives you these options: Disarm, step on it.
How about this one; You're in a hallway and there's two monsters at the end of it.
4-way movement gives you these options:
-Fight one monster and then fight the other one since it takes the others place. When you've killed both you can move on.
-Turn around and go back.
8-way movement gives you these options:
-Turn around and go back.
-Move diagonally, slipping past them in the one free space, after which you've got a whole room of options to fight or flee.
-Fight one and then fight the other OR slip past him from the two open spaces you can move into diagonally.
Mean one; you're surrounded by 7 monsters. There's one diagonal space open...
There's nothing to be gained going from 8-way to 4-way unless I've overlooked something important.
Since we're on the subject of 4-way movement; Moraff's Dungeons of the Unforgiven. It has a fair amount of roguelike features and one of the most... interesting user interfaces I've ever seen. Basically your character sees north, south, east and west at the SAME TIME. This gives you FOUR view windows along with the top-down map.
You can move your character forward, backward or turn left/right, only being able to attack whatever is in front of you. There's your 4-way movement done right.
Foes don't show up on the top-down map, hence the four view windows and the tank-controls. Elegant? Not really. Ridiculous? Probably. Would it work with 8-way movement? Nnnnnno.
-
When comparing 4-way to 8-way movement you can't really say it feels restrictive "at first". It's half the options and will continue to feel restrictive forever.
I do agree here.
Take this example; There's a trap in front of a hallway.
8-way movement gives you these options: Disarm, step on it, move diagonally into the hallway avoiding the trap.
4-way movement gives you these options: Disarm, step on it.
I would say, from an unbiased point of view, that any decent level generator wouldn't place a trap in front of a hallway if it knew it only have 4-way controls.
How about this one; You're in a hallway and there's two monsters at the end of it.
4-way movement gives you these options:
-Fight one monster and then fight the other one since it takes the others place. When you've killed both you can move on.
-Turn around and go back.
8-way movement gives you these options:
-Turn around and go back.
-Move diagonally, slipping past them in the one free space, after which you've got a whole room of options to fight or flee.
-Fight one and then fight the other OR slip past him from the two open spaces you can move into diagonally.
I say you're right here, 8-way gives more versatility in a fight, and makes it more realistic.
Mean one; you're surrounded by 7 monsters. There's one diagonal space open...
Yup, screwed... Unless you have 8-way movement :)
There's nothing to be gained going from 8-way to 4-way unless I've overlooked something important.
The only thing I can think would be gained is simplicity. I really don't enjoy the whole HJKLYI setup (that puts NESW all on one line), or whatever it is. I would really much rather go with a hex, like QWEASDZXC or UIOJKLM,. (comma and period act as south and south-east)