Temple of The Roguelike Forums
Game Discussion => Early Dev => Topic started by: twpage on May 30, 2012, 01:41:27 AM
-
Hey all!
Long time lurker on RT, first time poster. (Long time both on RGRD!) I have something I want to run past you guys...
I just finished listening to the last roguelike radio episode, on "coffee break" roguelikes. Great stuff as per usual. The part about smaller games and finding audiences really hit me though. I remembered having a similar conversation with Darren back during the 7DRL episode I did in March. I've been noodling on this problem ever since, but Darren's idea of a 'bundle' shook off some of the cobwebs.
My vision is some kind of roguelike "incubator" project. A handful of serious* developers looking to produce roguelikes that are medium or 'lunch-break' -sized games. My guess is Darren's Rogue Rage fits somewhere in this category, but there are no doubt plenty of others. Basically, we'd all be committed to being each others alpha testers. Sort of a give-and-get kind of deal. Since we are all bundled together, we share marketing (as much as anything done by amateur RL developers can be called "marketed") burdens and help spread exposure to other games.
All of this can be accomplished through something as simple as a rogue temple forum/thread, a google group, a simple deploy/comment website, or some combination there of. Non-bundle developers can be included or excluded... I'd feel weird turning away anyone that wants to help try a game, but on the other hand the crux of this project is the "incubator" part, which is by definition somewhat closed.
The goal of the project would be to release 4 or 5 new fun & playable roguelikes to the community. Roguelikes that are already (mostly) balanced and well criticized, and beta-worthy as a bare minimum. This relieves the average player of the burden of being an alpha/beta tester that goes along with trying out a brand new game (obviously plenty of people -- myself included -- find this fun at times, but probably not all the time). Sort of like a 'seal of approval' for the 5 games -- they are guaranteed to not totally suck (probably). The 7DRL judges scores serve a similar purpose. You can be fairly certain that the top 10-15 games are fun enough to be worth playing.
I realize some of this sounds a bit presumptuous and I assure you it is not intended that way. I have nothing but respect for my fellow roguelike developers. My goal is to foster the kind of atmosphere I see in other parts of the "indie" gaming community and form something that is very real and will have an impact.
That's all for now! Very curious to hear thoughts & feedback.
- Todd
* definition of this word considered too loaded for the current discussion ;)
PS - I'm also aware of the Annual Roguelike Release Party (should be coming up this September?), and haven't figured out quote how (if at all) this idea relates to that.
-
I very much like the idea. Would be a boost in development motivation whilst also getting good feedback and raising publicity for the games involved. Count me in!
-
It's a nice idea. Would you accept LambdaRogue as one of the included games? (But, it's not brand-new, as you say).
-
It's really easy to stay away from bad games already. Just don't play coffee break or 7DRL roguelikes. Wait until one of them becomes a real roguelike, which could happen in theory if the developer is interested to get real. It may not be a good game even then, but at least it IS a roguelike. Not some coffee break android ipad crap.
-
Not some coffee break android ipad crap.
Nethack is available for iPad. So Nethack = ipad crap? ;)
-
Take the exclusionary principles and run with them... call it a roguelike cabal.
A cabal of roguelike developers forms with the intent of releasing a set of games. Perhaps for a AARP as a destination? They work internally, alpha/beta testing with each other to create something truly polished for the AARP deadline. Failure to meet the deadline is encouraged: it is better to release nothing than to release something that reflects badly on the cabal.
Structured in this manner, there need not be a single cabal/incubator, but any group can spontaneously form one.
I quite like this idea as it helps promote more team-work in a field that is very solitary. And it doesn't do so by forcing the developers to work together on the same projects (since they likely can't, being aforementioned solitary visions...)
-
@Krice, who said "Just don't play coffee break or 7DRL roguelikes. Wait until one of them becomes a real roguelike, which could happen in theory if the developer is interested to get real. "
That's kind of the point! We need more games to "graduate" from 7DRL or coffee break to a "real roguelike". ;)
@Jeff, for some reason Cabal sounds way too evil! But yeah, that's the idea I'm going for... less solitary, more collaborative. The problem is getting enough critical mass to make it worthwhile.
-
We need more games to "graduate" from 7DRL or coffee break to a "real roguelike.
I need a girlfriend myself, but yeah.. we need better roguelikes. It's only up to developers to create them. I think there is not much someone else can do to help in that, because as a developer you need to understand requirements and not settle for the usual 7DRL games. It looks like there are developers who make only these coffee break roguelikes while they maybe should aim higher. Still, it's easier said than done.
-
We need more games to "graduate" from 7DRL or coffee break to a "real roguelike.
I need a girlfriend myself, but yeah.. we need better roguelikes. It's only up to developers to create them. I think there is not much someone else can do to help in that, because as a developer you need to understand requirements and not settle for the usual 7DRL games. It looks like there are developers who make only these coffee break roguelikes while they maybe should aim higher. Still, it's easier said than done.
I agree. I think part of that may be that many 7DRLs are based on a single aspect that separates them from existing games. They are often "like game X, only with aspect Y which makes it different". The small scope of the game allows you to put that single Y into the spotlight, and focus on its influence on the mechanics. It's hard to go beyond that when your given Y doesn't really change the gameplay that much. And if you do (usually by adding mechanics to the game), it's just not interesting enough because those additional mechanics aren't affected by it.
In the case of my 7DRL, I mostly focused on how the time system interacts with the quest for high scores. It kind of failed because it wasn't nearly hard enough for that to really matter, but the idea was that you'd avoid fights because the reward (both in score and stat improvements) wouldn't be worth the time you spend on them.
It's kind of hard to expand this concept into a larger game because the premise doesn't really change anything about the mechanics I left out. Anything else I could add would just be standard roguelike tropes, and that's not interesting.
-
Long time lurker on RT, first time poster. (Long time both on RGRD!) I have something I want to run past you guys...
Welcome!
My vision is some kind of roguelike "incubator" project. A handful of serious* developers looking to produce roguelikes that are medium or 'lunch-break' -sized games. My guess is Darren's Rogue Rage fits somewhere in this category, but there are no doubt plenty of others. Basically, we'd all be committed to being each others alpha testers. Sort of a give-and-get kind of deal. Since we are all bundled together, we share marketing (as much as anything done by amateur RL developers can be called "marketed") burdens and help spread exposure to other games.
So that would be a kind of testing/feedback/review exchange project? Looks interesting and useful. The amount of feedback received for less known roguelikes is indeed quite low. I rarely play new roguelikes myself recently, since my free time is rather given to writing my own roguelikes and other projects... And such a feedback would be helpful for the other developer, and if I like the game, I would probably mention it whenever it is relevant for a discussion (currently I mostly mention either well known roguelikes or my own games, because I don't know the details about other minor ones), that would work as some kind of marketing (I would not like to do such marketing if I don't find the given game interesting, though). On the other hand it is sad that we need to go for this (there are some non-developers in the community after all, why don't they play everything and give the developers feedback, as a reward for their hard work? :) )
Feedback is not the only thing that needs help from other people. For me, other things that I could use some help with are ports (I can produce Windows executable and portable sources on my own, but not compile for OSX, for example), music (I think my games, and probably most roguelikes, would benefit from a soundtrack, but I don't want to use anything generic, and I doubt that my skills in this area are good enough), and servers (I am thinking about creating a NotEye server on which you could play and watch many different roguelikes, but I don't want to organize the server myself).
The goal of the project would be to release 4 or 5 new fun & playable roguelikes to the community. Roguelikes that are already (mostly) balanced and well criticized, and beta-worthy as a bare minimum. This relieves the average player of the burden of being an alpha/beta tester that goes along with trying out a brand new game (obviously plenty of people -- myself included -- find this fun at times, but probably not all the time). Sort of like a 'seal of approval' for the 5 games -- they are guaranteed to not totally suck (probably). The 7DRL judges scores serve a similar purpose. You can be fairly certain that the top 10-15 games are fun enough to be worth playing.
IRLDb (http://roguetemple.com/irldb/index.php?i=5451bc&s=22.21.) attempts to perform the same 'seal of approval' role as 7DRL judge scores, but for all roguelikes in RogueBasin, and allowing all RogueTemple members to give ratings and reviews. Should be especially useful for less known roguelikes, as they would hopefully get a high rating (contrary to, say, the ROTY pool, which helps the popular roguelikes to become even more popular). Currently the top of the list is shared by the well-known gems of the genre and by underdogs with unfortunately currently have not enough votes to be reliable (although there are some surprises on the list, both positive and negative). Maybe it could be used somehow. Organize a Roguelike Review Commitee similar to the 7DRL Review Committee which fills IRLDb with reviews, or whatever.
-
I agree. I think part of that may be that many 7DRLs are based on a single aspect that separates them from existing games. They are often "like game X, only with aspect Y which makes it different". The small scope of the game allows you to put that single Y into the spotlight, and focus on its influence on the mechanics. It's hard to go beyond that when your given Y doesn't really change the gameplay that much. And if you do (usually by adding mechanics to the game), it's just not interesting enough because those additional mechanics aren't affected by it.
Original ideas have varying potentials for further development. My two games (Hydra Slayer, HyperRogue) both started as small 7DRL games based on some original set of ideas, but I gradually found ideas which extended the original ideas instead of mindlessly stealing the standard tropes from other roguelikes. I don't think that they currently miss anything serious (well, gameplay related, as some polish is missing in both cases). If I have any generic roguelike idea which is not related to the core ideas of these two games, it would probably go into my third game (Vapors of Insanity), which is intended to be a relatively traditional major roguelike (where "major" is understood as an opposite to "coffebreak"). HyperRogue grew less than Hydra Slayer, which means that its concept has less potential.
In the case of my 7DRL, I mostly focused on how the time system interacts with the quest for high scores. It kind of failed because it wasn't nearly hard enough for that to really matter, but the idea was that you'd avoid fights because the reward (both in score and stat improvements) wouldn't be worth the time you spend on them.
It's kind of hard to expand this concept into a larger game because the premise doesn't really change anything about the mechanics I left out. Anything else I could add would just be standard roguelike tropes, and that's not interesting.
Your 7DRL was based on a very different theme, which IMO has lots of potential. It should be possible (although difficult) to create a bigger roguelike based on it, with many original features, and without the "standard roguelike tropes", since the theme is so different. The time limit would probably have to go in such a bigger roguelike, though (less potential). So it would be probably a new game based on that theme, not a continuation ;)
But low development potential does not mean a bad game. Actually, I think the two things are orthogonal. Something like "a big roguelike with randomly generated storyline" has lots of potential, but the core idea would be less fun and less enriching due to lack of originality.
You probably won't play HyperRogue for long, but hopefully you will have fun while playing it! Probably you would still have more fun with a major roguelike, and if you had a chance to recommend one roguelike to someone, you would probably pick something major, rather than a coffebreak. Bundling could indeed help here, by giving several small games a joint identity which could compete with majors. Playing such a bundle would be probably more fun and enriching than playing a major roguelike.
I wonder whether the bundled roguelikes would agree for a common interface? :)
-
Feedback is not the only thing that needs help from other people. For me, other things that I could use some help with are ports (I can produce Windows executable and portable sources on my own, but not compile for OSX, for example), music (I think my games, and probably most roguelikes, would benefit from a soundtrack, but I don't want to use anything generic, and I doubt that my skills in this area are good enough), and servers (I am thinking about creating a NotEye server on which you could play and watch many different roguelikes, but I don't want to organize the server myself).
All good points. A closeknit group of developers would have a lot to offer each other. It would of course work on the principle of mutual assistance - helping others with their games makes it more likely for them to help you.
It shouldn't just be 7DRLs wanting to be something else or new minimalist games in need of an audience. Bigger and more established games like LambdaRogue need attention too, especially with it's new straight dungeon crawler mode (coffeebreak mode is a poor term for it I think).
Organize a Roguelike Review Commitee similar to the 7DRL Review Committee which fills IRLDb with reviews, or whatever.
Bleh, far too subjective, and too big a scope for anyone to be able to do it effectively. The 7DRL reviews are hard enough, and a lot of those games can be judged fairly quickly. IRLDb just needs more pushing in people's faces.
I wonder whether the bundled roguelikes would agree for a common interface?
Heh, well if everyone wants to use the T-Engine then I'm in :)
-
My next game project is going to be a computer game. So I'd volunteer for the group. There are two issues though. First I'm not really a high level programmer type (and my work shows this) and also I always seem to miss the mark on 'roguelikeness'.
-
Good idea. I've been active in similar groups (in other disciplines), which was always very rewarding – not only getting feedback on your own project, but also scrutinizing the work of others with a critical mindset, is something all but the most accomplished would learn a lot from – given that there is good chemistry within the group.
Of course, now that the idea is out in the open, nothing prevents people from spontaneously forming groups like this, just working though e-mail or similar. One could also set up a more or less "official" RL developers' collective, with an open invitation for anyone to join. I'd imagine ground rules along the lines of these: To partake, you must submit a game as well as review (a certain number of) the other active projects in the collective. Before you are allowed to upload an updated version of your own project, you have to review (one or more) games that have been recently updated. New releases and reviews could be accessible in the form of a blog or news feed, and probably publicly visible. There could be deadlines (site updated with new reviews/games once every two months, or something like that), or the exchange could be allowed to flow naturally.
Just some stray thoughts. I certainly don't have the opportunity to take part in something like this right now.
As always,
Minotauros
-
Maybe there could be 2 (or more?) categories for this incubator-cabal-whatever-thing, based on (1) goal and (2) development status.
(1) The goal should be set by the author: Either by choosing a fixed category (7DRL, more comprehensive RL, roguelike-like), or even by defining certain goals to reach, in terms of estimated playing time, size, unique game mechanics to implement etc. So for each project it would be clear what the author wants to achieve, and also players could then judge the resulting games based on these goals -- and not on maybe wrong expectations.
(2) The development status should also be set, and could be simply "planning", "alpha", "beta" and "stable (but receiving updates)". Maybe (just an idea) we could include a voting system, where players or testers can vote if they believe if a game has reached a new step in this line: Sometime authors tend to say "my game is beta", but actually for players it feels like an alpha, or authors consider a game finished, although it still has massive bugs (at least I had this problem: I thought LambdaRogue was finished in version 1.0, but well, I still find bugs).
I also have something in mind like the structure used by the current SourceForge website. It has become very userfriendly for both users and project admins, and maybe such type of platform could be a technical basis.
Bigger and more established games like LambdaRogue need attention too, especially with it's new straight dungeon crawler mode (coffeebreak mode is a poor term for it I think).
By the way, thanks Darren for the hint regarding the term "coffeebreak mode" -- I use it as some kind of working term, because in standard difficulty setting, it should be winnable in about 3 hours (by an experienced player), as all the quests are not shown, and also only 20 out of 27 dungeon levels are part of this mode. But maybe this term could mislead people to think that the game also lacks complexity, and this is not the case anymore since several versions. So maybe I really call it "dungeon crawler mode", or something similar. :)
-
I would suggest a separate sub-forum on RogueTemple (we all have access already, and a pubic forum invites normal players to join in on discussion), with a thread on each game, and an impulse for everyone to update by the end of the month and to critically analyse someone else's work by the end of each month. You may not succeed every month but you can at least try.
Focus should be on games with releasable material. Might be buggy and incomplete, but it needs to be playable. Open source and cross-platform is not required, but should be encouraged as it makes for easier feedback.
Every game must have goals on what it's trying to be, in terms of scope, novelty, desired content, etc. Of course we can suggest to each other a change of goals.
Emphasis on constructive criticism and suggestions for improvements. Can include suggestions for cutting, adding or editing material or mechanics. Devs should also highlight the goods things in the works, so that these aspects are preserved through the update process.
Membership should be open really, with the caveat that if you don't review other people's games then they're not likely to review yours. Operate on a quid pro quo basis. We can keep a Google Spreadsheet to tally who has reviewed what which months and determine if some people aren't pulling their weight, or if some games are getting too much attention at the expense of others.
As a developer looking at other people's works is always great (I always get loads of new games ideas from judging the 7DRLs), and having devs look at your work can provide some very insightful feedback.
As a near term aim getting a package of polished games for ARRP would be excellent.
I would like to formally submit Rogue Rage to this process. It is currently incomplete but very playable, and I'll look to get a more complete build ready before we properly start this.
-
I second the subforum idea, it is much easier, and maybe someone who is able to create such a forum can do this.) I also agree to the spreadsheet idea. Simple and easy.
I think the first post of a game's thread should have a clear structure, so everybody looking in this thread can see the current state. Thus, each author has to take care of keeping the first post up to date. More detailed progress information and replies to criticisms should of course be in the resp. places in the threads.
For example for LambdaRogue, I would start my post in a way like this:
Title: LambdaRogue - The Book of Stars (LR:TBS)
First release: 2006
Updated: May 27th 2012
Version: 1.6.3
Available for: Windows, Linux, MacOS Lion
Download: (link)
Short description: (max. 3 short sentences describing background and goal for the player)
Developer's goals: (some points the dev want to achieve, in my case: create a roguelike with detailed story and in-game quests; combine traditional roguelike UI with MMORPG-inspired UI; game mechanics focused on quick fights and item collection)
Somehow like this.
Postings with criticism should be stated very free, as each player has another style of expression. But the postings should clearly state which version was tested, and maybe also some technical things (such as OS).
-
A good format. I'd also add "known problems" and "feedback desired" to help those reviewing know where the dev's current efforts are focused.
-
Yes, this is useful, too.
Maybe someone (getter77? slashie?) can create that subforum and write an announcement for the roguetemple news (Michal?).
-
I'll bring this up at IRDC too.
-
That's good. (Oh, IRDC ... I wish I could take part. I try each year, but don't have the money to travel. Perhaps next IRDC should be in Germany again *g* )
-
So, what does twpage think about this?
And should we do this and initiate this, or will this thread and idea be forgotten?
-
It will not be forgotten! I brought it up at IRDC and there was a lot of positive thought about it. We just need to pester Slash or getter to set up the forum and get started.
-
slash would be the one I think as such powers are not mine to wield.
-
It will not be forgotten! I brought it up at IRDC and there was a lot of positive thought about it. We just need to pester Slash or getter to set up the forum and get started.
Sounds great! :) Hope you all have a good time at IRDC.
-
You guys don't seem to realize that we don't need forums or "incubators" to create games. I think it's going to be something like "deviantart for roguelike developers" where everyone is nice to everyone. It's possibly the worst that can happen.
-
A sub forum... how is that different than early development feedback? Except maybe we add some karma system for people to game/cry about?
The original proposal seemed bolder.
There should be no diffusion of responsibility. The people in a cabal should feel beholden to each other to test and produce. This ties into the branding idea - the set of games produced by a cabal are in some ways a product of the cabal as a whole, so each member should want to require those games to be good enough to represent them! As I said, a sign of success is if games within the cabal are killed/not released as they do not pass muster! If this doesn't happen, you just have a what Krice rightly fears.
This is why it is an essentially elitist proposal. "Serious" is a serious word. Think of it more of a busking troupe, each member of a troupe develops their own act, but the troupe as a whole does not want shoddy acts!
Why it is not wholly elitist is because there is no monopoly on the idea of forming a such a team. Any group of devs can form a cabal at any time for any duration mutually agreed upon.
I really think roguelike development suffers for not being team activities. There are certainly teams, but they seem the minority. So I understood this idea to be one of trying to leverage the advantages of team development but without actually trying to get a bunch of developers to agree on a single game.
I guess the first stage is for people to self identify with serious projects that they think they could get somewhere with by ARRP? Then within that group people can decide if there are subgroups that want to band together.
It's a short timeline, so I'll have to do some thinking to see if I have a viable path to join such a group or not.
-
A sub forum... how is that different than early development feedback? Except maybe we add some karma system for people to game/cry about?
The original proposal seemed bolder.
There should be no diffusion of responsibility. The people in a cabal should feel beholden to each other to test and produce. This ties into the branding idea - the set of games produced by a cabal are in some ways a product of the cabal as a whole, so each member should want to require those games to be good enough to represent them! As I said, a sign of success is if games within the cabal are killed/not released as they do not pass muster! If this doesn't happen, you just have a what Krice rightly fears.
Yes, Jeff, and the proposed subforum(s) for this group(s) would be the place where things you suggest take place. It's easier to start this here on RL than wasting time and motivation by setting up own websites, forums, etc.
But I'm not sure if the goal is clear.
I see the goal as "Individuals develop their games and agree on giving detailed feedback to the other individual's games. They release their games together at a certain point in time, but it is still clear who from the team is responsible for which game."
When reading your post, I get the feeling that you'd like to have it in a way that ultimately breakes down to "1 team, 1 game".
Edit: It's not only "1 team, 1 game" vs. "1 team, several games", but also about "creating NEW games" vs. "also improving existing games".
-
Nice to see this idea has gained some traction! Obviously I brought it up for a reason. I do like Jeff's take on it, though. This IS a somewhat elitist proposal, but not in a bad way. The "cabal" is indeed beholden to each other. It should at MOST be 4-6 games, I think. A sub-forum would be great but I think the majority of it could be done over e-mail, chat, google docs, etc. The sub-forum would allow others not in the cabal to participate, at least with the playing and testing, and watching us fail miserably. ;)
So, Darren is in. Obviously, I am in. Who else? Drop me a message here.
- Todd
-
As I said, I am (basically) in, too -- but first (as you're the one who brought up the idea and should organize it :D ) please clarify what exactly the cabal now will be:
1. Individual developers working on individual games, giving input and feedback to each other?
2. Teams, where each team creates one game?
3. Both is possible?
??
-
In terms of the "bundle" theme, here are my ideas:
(1) "definitely a roguelike" -- obviously up to some interpretation but I think we all know it when we see it
(2) multi-platform -- no one feels left out
(3) new-player friendly -- no player left behind, Darren's guidelines are a good place to start, although I don't agree with 100% of them: clear interface, simplified key mappings, mouse (less Nethack, more Brogue)
(4) "lunch break" sized -- medium sized RL. Heftier than a 7DRL, but not super-dense. Not remaking Crawl or ADOM.
In terms of setting or genre, I don't think we need or want a restriction. (e.g. the 'space roguelike bundle!!' is not necessary, but would certainly be amusing)
-
@mariodonick:
> As I said, I am (basically) in, too -- but first (as you're the one who brought up the idea and should organize it ) please clarify what exactly the cabal now will be:
> 1. Individual developers working on individual games, giving input and feedback to each other?
> 2. Teams, where each team creates one game?
> 3. Both is possible?
3 seems fine to me! The point is basically to 'guarantee' (as much as we can) a nice, friendly bunch of folk to test your game. You do the same to them. Honest feedback is all that is required!
-
I think it's more about individual games, but with an understanding that since we're releasing in a bundle anything bad in one game reflects badly on the whole bundle. We have a prerogative to strongly encourage each other to improve and polish our games.
-
Right. I wouldn't want ALL teams. But if the make up is say, 4 individuals, and 1 team of 2, I don't see the big difference. If we are talking a team of 5 working on one game, then, maybe that would be good for a different kind of bundle. Although if you have 5 guys making a game you hopefully don't have to try as hard to get feedback ;)
-
Okay. In general, I'm fine with this, and I would really like to receive and to give feedback.
But I'm not sure if it really made sense for the whole cabal thing, if LambdaRogue was included -- it may affect the rest of the games badly, maybe. Hm...
Edit: I think "affect badly" was unclear said. My main concern is that some games might be completely new, while others are more mature, and esp. the new games deserve much feedback. Games which exist for a long time probably can't include all suggestions given in the feedbacks, besides bug, interface and balancing reports. Conceptual changes would be more difficult.
-
I was thinking "new" games. Or at least, games that may exist in some alpha/7drl stage, but desire to be bigger and better! So, we'd all help each other get to that point, instead of each individual developer flailing around by themselves.
-
Somewhat stratified groups might make sense in this way you lot are doing it...one for the young and hungry, one for the generally established, one for the mature/mega looking to break beyond perceived limits, and perhaps one for projects yet to be aiming to reach any of the above levels all the way through the process. Each group would have a vantage point to offer unto the others, aside from the inner group mingling of ideas, feedback, etc.
-
I think stratified groups may come later once the idea takes off more. Personally I'm okay with the initial bundle being a mix of different sized games. The joining factor would really be motivation and a desire to improve one's work, coupled with willingness to help others in the same task.
On top of the multi-platform suggestion, I'd maybe also say open source should be encouraged. It's a roguelike trope, and if we wanted to publicise the bundle in the wider indie community it'd be a nice one-up on the existing indie bundles. And "easy to get running" should be an important part. Players should be able to download a zip with the games in it and straight away play each of them.
Regarding medium of communication, I prefer forum to e-mails/chat because it's more open and lets others comment. Players should be free to participate in feedback at will. Google Docs is good for keeping track of participation etc.
-
Okay, I'm in with LambdaRogue 1.7. (But before that, a 1.6.5 update will conclude the current 1.6 branch.)
-
Y'know thinking about this a bit more, I think something big could be made of this along the lines of the indie bundles - a sort of headline thing to attract people into the genre with a group of polished free games. I can set us up a dedicated site and host the games in one package, and we could maybe have a charity donation link that would serve to track player enthusiasm. Could make headlines on other indie and gaming sites. Amidst the various commercial roguelikes and roguelikelikes it would be good to point out that there's a big resource of cool free games to play as well. There have been a couple of free indie bundles already, but this would be a bit more focussed.
-
I agree, Darren. Maybe something in spirit of the "Humble Bundle" :)
-
I've registered http://roguelikebundle.blogspot.com - we can decorate and populate it later. I have some contacts that might be able to do us some nice looking art.
Hmm, really need to Slash to set us up a subforum - I'll go harass him on Facebook...
-
Thanks for registering that blog. Is this for development updates of the individual games, or for general bundle news? (What if I already have my own dev blog?)
-
Bundle news. More for a web-site function than general updates. Everyone should have their own blogs, which I'll get linked at the side.
-
Now obviously the subforum is available, thanks to whoever did create it! :)
-
Slash did after I prodded him on Facebook (the best way to get in touch with him lately). I'll get some starter threads up.
-
I registered "andMyAt.com" because it was super nerdy and made me laugh.
I like the enthusiasm! And Darren's site looks like a good start. I also have webspace that I'm not really using and am happy to host downloads, or put up a site down the road. (I did http://roguelikechallenge.appspot.com/)
While I was not originally considering open source, I'll think about it. Since I am doing web-based technically all of the javascript/html is "open" anyways, but not the server side stuff. However, I think it does send a nice message when you can stick "100% open" on there.
Thanks guys!
- Todd
-
I've also got plenty of server space I can make use of thanks to a friend (that's where all the Roguelike Radio eps are at the mo).
I'm not too keen on the "and my @", but whatever makes you laugh :P
I suppose we could get into semantics of what you call open, but I'm not sure why you wouldn't offer it open anyway, licensed under GPL v3 or similar (protects your IP, allows you to commercialise in future, etc). It's more in the roguelike community spirit to be 100% open, and it's a nice one-up on every other bundle out there.
I also like the "100% free" with donations to charity thing, since other free indie bundles have clearly been thin veils for donation requests. I want it to be clear that we're releasing serious, polished games for the sake of the games themselves. People can have donation links on their own personal sites, but the only such link on the main site will be to some standard charity (with a little tracker for our project to see how much we encourage people to donate, so we can feel all warm and fuzzy inside).
-
Agreed. I'm not interested in making money. I think asking for donations at this point is obviously a little premature, but I like the idea of doing that down the road. The obvious one is Child's Play, but the humble indie bundles have that well-covered. I'm sure there are plenty of others out there worthy of consideration.
As for open source... it's nothing against it, philosophically. It's more just that I don't want to have to maintain clean code. ;)
-
No one actually looks at the code :P And those clever enough to see it's not clean might offer tips of how to improve it. Plus it's good for development in general. Others can learn from it, however bad it may be, and it can help with debugging during the development process.
-
Hey, I do too look at the code!!
That one time.. with Brogue.
Yeah... ;)
So who else do we got?
-
Regarding the dontation thing: I already ask for donations since some months at LambdaRogue's websites, just because creating all the graphical stuff costs rather much money. However, obviously so far nobody seems to think that it's worth it ;) But I'm glad I can keep my own donation link.
-
PRIME could enter the incubator but first two things need to be sorted out. I need to discuss it with Psiweapon *and* 100% accessible (http://roguetemple.com/forums/index.php?topic=2443.msg19025#msg19025) needs to be redefined. I think multitude of keys is Darren's definition of bad UI, not the real problem. I am not going to discuss my stand here, refer to recent rgrd discussion why I think such view is fundamentally flawed.
If the accessibility thing stands as it is I back out. Not going to compromise my game for misnamed "pick up and play". Less keys does not a better game make.
Oh, if you need some announcement written on the front page of RogueTemple when incubator lifts off I can do that. Remember Darren also has posting privileges.
-
Wow, a huge rgrd thread (https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/rec.games.roguelike.development/9leesIK3ijg) - thanks for pointing it out, Ancient. I'll note some interesting points here.
In my opinion HyperRogue II was a "truly accessible ASCII game" (HyperRogue III has ASCII as option only), agreeing with most of Darren's points, but somehow Game Hunter did not notice that you can get tooltips by mousing over stuff.
Ancient and Darren don't remember what game informs you how to use stairs when you step on them. Just for the record: Hydra Slayer has this, thanks to Ancient, as it was actually his suggestion, and I think he suggested it only because Hydra Slayer uses "g" for "go" instead of ">".
I wonder whether there is some cultural difference. I mean, Darren's experiences with showing roguelikes to newcomers are quite different than that of Ancient, Sheep, or me. Also roguelikes seem to be much more popular in Poland than in UK...
I have to say that Dungeons of Dredmor has nice traps indeed. Another game with good traps that you can use for your advantage is Spelunky.
As for the first bundle, I do not agree with the notion of freeness used (I think that in an ideal world an artist should be able to get a significant income without being forced to do immoral things such as restricting access to their works, and while practices such as nagging or placing too many ads are immoral and should be discouraged, subtle hints about donations or other ways of supporting the devs are a good thing IMO), I don't like the broad spectrum (Rogue Rage and LambdaRogue seem to be completely different things), and I have no ideas about what to work on (VoI is too large, HyperRogue is too complete, Hydra Slayer could get some usability improvements and minor features but I think that it is too established, and I have no new ideas currently).
-
PRIME could enter the incubator but first two things need to be sorted out. I need to discuss it with Psiweapon *and* 100% accessible (http://roguetemple.com/forums/index.php?topic=2443.msg19025#msg19025) needs to be redefined. I think multitude of keys is Darren's definition of bad UI, not the real problem. I am not going to discuss my stand here, refer to recent rgrd discussion why I think such view is fundamentally flawed.
*downloads PRIME and has a gander* Um, man, this is quite excellent for interface actually! There really aren't that many keys. And the contextual help is very good. Certainly far better than Nethack and the like. I would consider this acceptable for the accessibility standard for the bundle. Just be mindful that there will be suggestions for improvement (first request: make items usable from within the inventory screen - it's frustrating to look at an item to see what it does, then have to go out into the main view to actually do something with it). Up to you how you want to change the game, but have an open mind to suggestions.
What are your development goals for the game? It looks quite fleshed out already.
-
In my opinion HyperRogue II was a "truly accessible ASCII game" (HyperRogue III has ASCII as option only), agreeing with most of Darren's points, but somehow Game Hunter did not notice that you can get tooltips by mousing over stuff.
Because he played with keys :) Anyone playing with mouse would have quickly noticed.
As for the first bundle, I do not agree with the notion of freeness used (I think that in an ideal world an artist should be able to get a significant income without being forced to do immoral things such as restricting access to their works, and while practices such as nagging or placing too many ads are immoral and should be discouraged, subtle hints about donations or other ways of supporting the devs are a good thing IMO), I don't like the broad spectrum (Rogue Rage and LambdaRogue seem to be completely different things), and I have no ideas about what to work on (VoI is too large, HyperRogue is too complete, Hydra Slayer could get some usability improvements and minor features but I think that it is too established, and I have no new ideas currently).
What's wrong with a broad spectrum? Especially for a first bundle I think it's nice to have a range of different scoped games. If this takes off then future bundles can be more tightly themed.
As for donations, I was envisaging a page which would point out that the devs aren't directly asking for money through the bundle, but with links to their individual sites if people feel strongly enough to donate. The original idea behind this cabal was just to improve a bunch of games and make them more well known amongst the roguelike community. It's not like we're somehow losing money through this. Plus roguelikes have a history of being free and open source - it's nice to emphasise this.
-
As for donations, I was envisaging a page which would point out that the devs aren't directly asking for money through the bundle, but with links to their individual sites if people feel strongly enough to donate. The original idea behind this cabal was just to improve a bunch of games and make them more well known amongst the roguelike community. It's not like we're somehow losing money through this. Plus roguelikes have a history of being free and open source - it's nice to emphasise this.
That's perfect then, but the current wording implies something different: "all donations" means "all donations related to the games in the bundle" not "all donations through the bundle". At least that's how I see it.
-
Ancient and Darren don't remember what game informs you how to use stairs when you step on them. Just for the record: Hydra Slayer has this, thanks to Ancient, as it was actually his suggestion, and I think he suggested it only because Hydra Slayer uses "g" for "go" instead of ">".
In LambdaRogue, the status line also shows which key you should press to interact with the current tile. Very often, it's just ENTER, based on context (Enter for using stairs, Enter for drinking from wells, Enter for using altars etc.)
I wonder whether there is some cultural difference. I mean, Darren's experiences with showing roguelikes to newcomers are quite different than that of Ancient, Sheep, or me. Also roguelikes seem to be much more popular in Poland than in UK...
In computer science, there's an (unfortunately rather small) research field about cultural differences in the use of software. This not only relates to interface (and obvious things like language, color, writing direction etc.), but also to core concepts of software. Google for Gregory Kersten and his team; they published some good papers about this.
In my PhD thesis, I'm taking on this account and observe people how they use software. Not from this well-known perspective we have in usability tests, but from the view of communication science and sociology (Luhmann). Very exciting topic. Roguelikes are actually one example I'm writing about.
-
I don't like the broad spectrum (Rogue Rage and LambdaRogue seem to be completely different things)
I disagree here. I think it's GOOD that the spectrum is broad, because this shows the different directions roguelikes can take, instead of just more of the same. By the way, I also want to encourage Kraflab and his game "Epilogue" to participate. (I suggested this in his latest Epilogue thread). Edit: Okay, Epilogue is commercial and closed-source, so Kraflab won't participate. Pity.
-
Maybe the problem is just the name. "Roguelike Incubator" suggests that it is for roguelikes early in development, and that's why you should not enter with LambdaRogue, and I should not enter with Hydra Slayer.
-
At the first page of the thread, someone (I think Darren) even explicitly mentioned LambdaRogue as one of the RLs that could participate. However, if there are more voices saying I should not, I won't force myself on it. LR development continues anyway.
-
I think the point has to be on how much you expect the game to change over the next few months. With LambdaRogue I'm guessing there's a lot of scope for the new crawler mode to actually change quite a bit. Plus feedback can inspire significant alternations. But if it doesn't work out like this then I guess it may not be suitable for it to stay in.
There could be a separate strand for more mature roguelikes to polish up, add features, etc. But I'd say it's best to start inclusive and split into sub-groups later if we feel it appropriate. The balance should definitely be more towards new games, but developing established games is certainly not to be discouraged.
-
Remember folks: "new" and "new to me" are vastly different things, and given the aim of the bundle in large part is to make some noise in the wider gaming world when it comes to this niche---rather sure the like of LambdaRogue and others will far and away count enough on the latter in volume effectively transmute into the former, especially should some game media outlets give the bundle some due notice when the time comes. 8)
The aim of a varied mix in particular seems wise given how most bundles have gone---you can have variety, even randomness, without dooming the lot of it to off-putting dissonance or cacophony. Whatever games somebody gets in a bundle, they are more inclined to sample the whole after perhaps the one game that hooked them in originally as per their current state of perceived preferences----just human nature.
-
In my mind, while the idea of releasing a free bundle is nice, I think we (meaning the roguelike community) should be trying to release a really nice commercial bundle. Show the world that you can release something worth paying for. In my opinion, free games devalue the genre. Even something like a pay-what-you-want might work if you don't want to put a number on it. I realize this sounds silly but I am much more likely to try out a game with a price tag because it leads me to believe that there is something of value there. Ever seen the photo of the huge line of people for $5 hugs and the empty line at the free hugs stand? Same principle.
-
I have no interest in commercialisation myself and am quite happy that this is my hobby and not something I feel the need to make more appealing for commercial purposes. I just want people to play my games and enjoy them, and the lowest barrier for entry on that is freedom. Plus I don't believe many of the wider public would really fork out for ASCII games before they play them.
But I have nothing against there being a commercial roguelike bundle if someone wants to go through the financial mess of sorting that out.
-
*downloads PRIME and has a gander* Um, man, this is quite excellent for interface actually! There really aren't that many keys. And the contextual help is very good. Certainly far better than Nethack and the like. I would consider this acceptable for the accessibility standard for the bundle.
Thank you for the kind words!
Just be mindful that there will be suggestions for improvement (first request: make items usable from within the inventory screen - it's frustrating to look at an item to see what it does, then have to go out into the main view to actually do something with it). Up to you how you want to change the game, but have an open mind to suggestions.
What are your development goals for the game? It looks quite fleshed out already.
There is a department PRIME loses in both to LambdaRogue and Hydra Slayer + NotEye. Please be patient. I have written mail to Psi and need his feedback on the whole idea first. The thread in appropriate forum is going to have goals listed. Perhaps tomorrow it will appear.
Ancient and Darren don't remember what game informs you how to use stairs when you step on them. Just for the record: Hydra Slayer has this, thanks to Ancient, as it was actually his suggestion, and I think he suggested it only because Hydra Slayer uses "g" for "go" instead of ">".
Yes, thats the game! Its me who made that suggestion? Oh wow. We seem to be agreeing with Darren much more than it is apparent to me. Or even both of us.
What I think the incubator will force me to do is to improve the PRIME website. It could use some extra content and up-to-date screenshots.