Temple of The Roguelike Forums
Development => Design => Topic started by: LazyCat on March 28, 2014, 12:36:33 AM
-
Let's take some 2D Zelda for Gameboy or SNES and tweak the emulator so to run the game only if some button is pressed, but for a minimum of, say 60 frames, that is 1 second. We get simultaneous turn-based game, we get a roguelike. Don't we? Does that sound like something you would like to play?
-
It would be interesting to try it out, but usually these kinds of things don't make a great game. What I would be more interested to see would be a game specifically made to be ZeldaRL
-
It would be interesting to try it out, but usually these kinds of things don't make a great game.
Do you actually see any reason why would it be less good than a regular roguelike?
I agree it needs to be tried out first, but so far I see no particular difference.
What I would be more interested to see would be a game specifically made to be ZeldaRL
There is! You can google it easily, exactly that: "ZeldaRL".
This all reminds me there is also turn based Pac-Man and Bomberman, orginally arcade games. They are perhaps rather boring, but with our special emulator any game could be made turn based, and I have a feeling many games would actually still preserve some of their original challenge and thus still be interesting and playable. Perhaps even more playable on mobile phones where they are otherwise really unplayable via touch-screen.
-
The major problem with going from real-time to turn-based is that the game was designed to work in very small steps (eg 30 fps). When you break that up into one second intervals, you will probably get behavior that doesn't work well.
Maybe I'm wrong. Either way, you should definitely try it out and see what happens.
-
Let's take some 2D Zelda for Gameboy or SNES and tweak the emulator so to run the game only if some button is pressed, but for a minimum of, say 60 frames, that is 1 second. We get simultaneous turn-based game, we get a roguelike. Don't we? Does that sound like something you would like to play?
No, we wouldn't get a roguelike. No, it doesn't sound like something I would like to play. And no, let's not do that.
I hope this post is supposed to be some kind of parody of other threads or something...
Do you actually see any reason why would it be less good than a regular roguelike?
This is a better question. I think you have to clarify what you mean by "regular." If you mean what I usually mean, i.e. "real roguelikes," games that have a certain level of feature completeness with theme and mechanics in the vein of the original examples of the genre, then I would say obviously some hacked up junk made by lobotomizing an emulator and loading a zelda rom is going to be worse than, e.g. crawl or angband. If you mean will it be better than an average 7DRL, idk, maybe.
There is! You can google it easily, exactly that: "ZeldaRL".
This all reminds me there is also turn based Pac-Man and Bomberman, orginally arcade games. They are perhaps rather boring, but with our special emulator any game could be made turn based, and I have a feeling many games would actually still preserve some of their original challenge and thus still be interesting and playable. Perhaps even more playable on mobile phones where they are otherwise really unplayable via touch-screen.
I'm surprised by the tone of your response to CaptainKraft, given the spirit of charity in which he responded to your initial post. It seems apt to refer to the emulator you propose as "special" though. You seem to have your finger on the pulse of a certain misbegotten branch of the genre in which people take their favorite 80s or 90s video game and add "RL" to the end as the name/design of their 7DRL (or worse, long term project). I mean, at that point, why not just use the LazyCat arcade emulator (written by people inspired by his forum post, natch) to convert, say, Lode Runner into Lode RunnerRL?
-
The major problem with going from real-time to turn-based is that the game was designed to work in very small steps (eg 30 fps). When you break that up into one second intervals, you will probably get behavior that doesn't work well.
Maybe I'm wrong. Either way, you should definitely try it out and see what happens.
Can you be more specific, what would not work, why it would not work? Where is the difference, exactly?
-
Do you actually see any reason why would it be less good than a regular roguelike?
Zelda wasn't designed to function with turn-based rules in mind. It wouldn't work even if we ignore problems caused by the lack of fine movements and the inability to make multiple inputs at once.
Most of the actions you perform in Zelda games are based around timing and precision. The more tactically interesting situations are only interesting because you don't have unlimited time to think about them. A better idea would be to adapt the things you like about Zelda into an original game with mechanics designed for turn-based play.
-
I would say obviously some hacked up junk made by lobotomizing an emulator and loading a zelda rom is going to be worse than [...] angband.
I wouldn't go that far.
-
No, we wouldn't get a roguelike.
And why do you think so. Where is the difference, exactly?
-
And why do you think so. Where is the difference, exactly?
No randomized content. Persistent saves/no permadeath.
Roguelikes are more than just turn-based adventure games.
-
Zelda wasn't designed to function with turn-based rules in mind. It wouldn't work even if we ignore problems caused by the lack of fine movements and the inability to make multiple inputs at once.
What would not work, and why exactly? What is the problem with "lack of fine movements"? Why would multiple inputs at once not be possible?
There is already one game that works like this, Red Rogue. Amazing game. You know?
Most of the actions you perform in Zelda games are based around timing and precision. The more tactically interesting situations are only interesting because you don't have unlimited time to think about them.
Ok, worse than normal Zelda, but is it any worse than average roguelike? There would still be tactical challenge where to move, what enemy to attack first, what weapons and what items to use, as usual. What's the difference?
Take Red Rogue for example, "turn based mode" does not make it any less fun or even much easier. Same game, same design, and it works for both real-time and turn based mode, equally well I'd say. Wouldn't you agree?
-
No randomized content. Persistent saves/no permadeath.
I don't think that's much important to how fun or good would game be to play. This is not about labels and classifications, what "roguelike" means or not. This is about people who generally love playing roguelikes, and would they find Zelda games more appealing if they were turn based.
-
Red Rogue is not Zelda.
-
lol, this thread is classic. "Wouldn't roguelike players like Zelda games better if you hacked an emulator to insert artificial pauses in which to ponder the next move?" "WHY?? WHY WOULDN'T THIS WORK???"
I would say obviously some hacked up junk made by lobotomizing an emulator and loading a zelda rom is going to be worse than [...] angband.
I wouldn't go that far.
lol, touché.
-
Why indeed. You think it would not work, but you are unable to explain why. Do you even know?
-
No, we wouldn't get a roguelike.
And why do you think so. Where is the difference, exactly?
(I'm only answering this ridiculous question as substitute for counting sheep.)
The difference is that the game you propose would be some kind of broken version of a zelda game. The 2d zelda games have essentially nothing in common with roguelikes mechanically, except a top view-ish perspective (and it's debatable whether roguelikes are really top view vs. just an abstract map layout). Your bastardized version of zelda has the same issues, except it has some hacked up approximation to turn based play (which obviously wouldn't work right, but whatever).
re: your questions elsewhere in the thread: here's a thought experiment, have you ever played a zelda game and felt the need to stop the action to carefully consider what you should do next in battle (while not under the influence of some kind of drug or intoxicant)?
Why indeed. You think it would not work, but you are unable to explain why. Do you even know?
I am completely able to explain why this is ridiculous, no worries there.
-
Red Rogue is not Zelda.
Animation and input in Red Rogue real-time mode is very much like Zelda, and that's what your comment was originally about. So if one works, why wouldn't the other? If you still think it would not work for some technical reason please be specific about what, why, and how.
-
The difference is that the game you propose would be some kind of broken version of a zelda game. The 2d zelda games have essentially nothing in common with roguelikes mechanically, except a top view-ish perspective (and it's debatable whether roguelikes are really top view vs. just an abstract map layout). Your bastardized version of zelda has the same issues, except it has some hacked up approximation to turn based play (which obviously wouldn't work right, but whatever).
You again fail to point out even a single specific thing. What is the difference, exactly?
For example, we already have permadeath and random levels mentioned, but those are not relevant to whether this would work or not, and how much fun would actual gameplay be.
-
The Zelda series is execution-heavy. Deciding on the best course of action is easier than carrying out that decision. Your turn-based version completely removes the game's technical aspect and trivializes its tactical aspect.
Come on man, I shouldn't have to explain this.
-
The Zelda series is execution-heavy. Deciding on the best course of action is easier than carrying out that decision. Your turn-based version completely removes the game's technical aspect and trivializes its tactical aspect.
So how is that any worse than some roguelike?
Come on man, I shouldn't have to explain this.
There is nothing to explain, just point out some specific difference you think would make turn based Zelda any worse than turn based roguelike. I don't even know what is your objection about.
a.) You think it would not translate well due to some technical reason
b.) You think it would make the game too easy and boring
-
Come on man, I shouldn't have to explain this.
There is nothing to explain, just point out some specific difference you think would make turn based Zelda any worse than turn based roguelike. I don't even know what is your objection about.
a.) You think it would not translate well due to some technical reason
b.) You think it would make the game too easy and boring
The difference is that the game you propose would be some kind of broken version of a zelda game. The 2d zelda games have essentially nothing in common with roguelikes mechanically, except a top view-ish perspective (and it's debatable whether roguelikes are really top view vs. just an abstract map layout). Your bastardized version of zelda has the same issues, except it has some hacked up approximation to turn based play (which obviously wouldn't work right, but whatever).
You again fail to point out even a single specific thing. What is the difference, exactly?
The biggest technical/gameplay problem is precision, I think.
If I understand you correctly, you just want to stop a standard Zelda game every second or so, in which the player can make an input - which is then performed in the next second.
So, let's say, you stand just outside of reach with your sword, maybe even a bit to the side of it, so you can't just move straight up to it. So you press diagonally on the D-pad. But what do the monsters do? Do they stand there? Do they move in some random direction? Do they start an attack, just the moment after the game pauses? You don't know! You might as well bump into one - which damages you! - as well as being in no better position to attack than before. Swords would probably be utterly useless.
In regular roguelikes, when you bump into a monster you attack them automatically. That has a reason! Zelda is not made to be played turn-by-turn, it's purely designed to be real-time!
So why don't we just make the intervall shorter? How short? When will it become too tedious? And if we have to drop to an inpt every frame, or maybe even every second or third frame, why don't we just spare ourselves the agony and just play, like it was intended?
I don't know RedRogue, but I'm pretty sure if it can handle both turn-based and realtime gameplay, it was designed that way from the get-go. Zelda just wasn't!
-
The biggest technical/gameplay problem is precision, I think.
If I understand you correctly, you just want to stop a standard Zelda game every second or so, in which the player can make an input - which is then performed in the next second.
Game freezes if you are not holding any key, if you do press some key game runs for a second. There are two ways to do it, plus variations. One is to NOT make turns last set amount of time, but as long as you are pressing any key, that's what Red Rogue does in its turn based mode. The other way, what I actually proposed, is to make turns last some set amount of time - for example time that would move character exactly one tile, or half a tile maybe. This should work for games that are not using diagonal movement, but for those that do it would possibly require different timing for diagonals so character stays in sync with tile graphics grid.
So, let's say, you stand just outside of reach with your sword, maybe even a bit to the side of it, so you can't just move straight up to it. So you press diagonally on the D-pad. But what do the monsters do? Do they stand there? Do they move in some random direction? Do they start an attack, just the moment after the game pauses? You don't know! You might as well bump into one - which damages you! - as well as being in no better position to attack than before. Swords would probably be utterly useless.
How is that different than turn based roguelike? You seem to describe situation where turns last too long, but if 1 second makes the game too hard we could always make that time shorter.
In any case I'm glad you noticed a game would not necessarily become easier in every way. Imposing turn time intervals with only one action per turn brings some new challenges on its own, makes the game more tactical.
In regular roguelikes, when you bump into a monster you attack them automatically. That has a reason! Zelda is not made to be played turn-by-turn, it's purely designed to be real-time!
I think roguelikes on consoles mostly use action button instead of simple bumping. It adds to immersion, especially together with sound effects. Bumping is not better, just very slightly simpler. But with Zelda controls you could execute different moves, and wouldn't that actually be more fun?
It's not made to be played turn-by-turn doesn't mean it would be any worse than any other turn-based roguelike.
So why don't we just make the intervall shorter? How short? When will it become too tedious? And if we have to drop to an inpt every frame, or maybe even every second or third frame, why don't we just spare ourselves the agony and just play, like it was intended?
How is that any worse than some roguelike? Interval can be adjusted.
I don't know RedRogue, but I'm pretty sure if it can handle both turn-based and realtime gameplay, it was designed that way from the get-go. Zelda just wasn't!
It's just normal real-time game that can pause itself when no key is pressed. You have to try it. Then you will realize the same could be done with any game just the same, and that game can still stay challenging and fun, maybe even more enjoyable if you are into turn-based games already.
P.S.
I finally managed to find some emulator with source code I could actually compile. It's some crappy NES emulator without sound, but it should be enough for gameplay demonstration. I think in a day or two we will be able to actually try out the original Legend of Zelda for NES in this new amazingly fabulous turn based mode. Until then I still welcome all the bets.
I bet 5,000 points it will be pretty cool actually. Place your bets please.
-
Wow. This kind of thread really makes me appreciate stackexchange style sites. My God.
-
Wow. This kind of thread really makes me appreciate stackexchange style sites. My God.
There is no reason for this attitude. Please try to be constructive or, at the very least, don't be destructive.
-
Wow. This kind of thread really makes me appreciate stackexchange style sites. My God.
You make no point and give no reason or explanation for your statements. Whatever strange reason is bothering you about this topic you could always simply be elsewhere.
-
Bomberman. Could Bomberman work as a roguelike? I submit that it would make more sense than Zelda.
I mean OP's question is just... good lord, are you people really willing to have a multi-paragraph, quote-and-response debate about this?
-
Wow. This kind of thread really makes me appreciate stackexchange style sites. My God.
You make no point and give no reason or explanation for your statements. Whatever strange reason is bothering you about this topic you could always simply be elsewhere.
I think I do make a point. In a stackexchange site, this thread would've been closed in a matter of minutes for the lazy way in which the questions were posed, the general lack of merit in the idea behind the questions, and later the argumentative way in which answers were addressed. Constructive discussion occurs only accidentally in a thread like this.
It damages the focus of discussion forums to indulge nonsensical lines of conversation, especially ones like this where the only one who stands to learn anything from the discussion is the OP and he seems unwilling to take on board the points made by other posters.
-
LazyCat, I wish you good luck. Maybe we really don't understand, what you try to accomplish. But I'm still betting against you.
Anyway, why bother with halting gameplay at all, if it's just going in realtime, as long as you push a button? Could it still be considered turn based? I wouldn't.
In Baldurs Gate combat was real time, but you could pause at any time to give new commands.
In a similar vein in the RTS series Warlords Battlecry you could also pause the game in single player at any time to give commands.
The only difference to your suggestion would be, that in yours the game stops automatically without input. Not a very big difference imo.
I still wouldn't call either series turn based.
-
Interesting experiment but it has nothing to do with roguelikes..
Turn-based action adventure? maybe.
-
So anyway, it's done. It turned out to be pretty simple as the code was very readable.
Turn based Legend of Zelda for NES:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/2d8cp841amf4ixa/ZeldaRL.zip
CTRL = START
SHIFT= SELECT
Z = BUTTON B
X = BUTTON A
1. start ZeldaRL.bat
2. hold down A or B button or otherwise game will not start, whole game is paused without input
3. press CTRL to select and start the game, keep holding A or B button until you can move and start playing
Don't forget to keep some key pressed when changing screens or talking to NPC as without input the emulator freezes the whole game and all those "cut-scenes". It's unfortunate side-effect I failed to foresee and it can not be fixed, but it's not too bad and is easy to get used to. More importantly now, the good news is that gameplay is still there and it's fun, the game is still pretty damn hard though. It's definitively how I want to play this game on my phone. Playing it in real-time via touch-screen was really impossible.
That's my opinion anyway, but you be the judge. Fun or not fun, which is it? And is there any room for improvement?
-
Bomberman. Could Bomberman work as a roguelike? I submit that it would make more sense than Zelda.
I mean OP's question is just... good lord, are you people really willing to have a multi-paragraph, quote-and-response debate about this?
What? What are you trying to say? What are you complaining about? Do you even know?
-
Wow, this game is incredible. I was completely wrong to doubt this concept. It's even better than the original. It really connects with my love of turn based play.
In all honesty, I don't think there's any way to improve on your offering.
-
I think I do make a point. In a stackexchange site, this thread would've been closed in a matter of minutes for the lazy way in which the questions were posed, the general lack of merit in the idea behind the questions, and later the argumentative way in which answers were addressed. Constructive discussion occurs only accidentally in a thread like this.
It damages the focus of discussion forums to indulge nonsensical lines of conversation, especially ones like this where the only one who stands to learn anything from the discussion is the OP and he seems unwilling to take on board the points made by other posters.
Stop mumbling and go away if this topic is of no interest to you. Shooo-shooo!
-
It's too bad this project of yours is encumbered by copyright and licensing issues, because if you got this thing onto mobile phones, you'd be blowing up the app stores. I haven't felt this way since Flappy Bird.
-
Yeah, better than I expected. I still don't like it. Could be because I don't know Zelda 1 that well (and therefore suck at it), could be because the controls are not suited for a german qwertz keyboard (y and z are swapped). Could also be, that the emulator is so basic, that many of the graphics don't work properly.
Maybe it's better on a smartphone, I didn't try.
How do you use that emulator on a phone anyway? Does it only work on an iPhone? Does it work on Android? Do you have to jailbreak/root them?
At least I didn't play about equally bad in real time and "turn based". (I still wouldn't call it that)
I don't really like that the game continues for a second, until it finally stops, when you do nothing. Sure, that way you can block the shots of octorocs and the like, but it seems to be more complicated, han it needs to be.
I think it would be better, if it stopped immediately, or if it just stayed real time, like it was designed to.
As for the bet, I would call it a draw, until more people show me, that it's just my personal bias.
-
Yeah, better than I expected. I still don't like it. Could be because I don't know Zelda 1 that well (and therefore suck at it), could be because the controls are not suited for a german qwertz keyboard (y and z are swapped). Could also be, that the emulator is so basic, that many of the graphics don't work properly.
The important thing is the challenge is still there, it's playable. Surely there must be other roguelikes where characters could move in pixel size resolution grid instead of usual coarse grid with character sized cells?
Maybe it's better on a smartphone, I didn't try.
How do you use that emulator on a phone anyway? Does it only work on an iPhone? Does it work on Android? Do you have to jailbreak/root them?
I only tweaked that one NES emulator for PC, as a test. In the meantime I also found GBC emulator for Android (gbcoid) I am able to compile, but I am not sure if it's worth the trouble. Having to hold a key to navigate menus, pass through conversation screens and cut-scenes, while perhaps not too much inconvenient, it's just not good enough for overall game experience. Beside I'm not sure if I would be able to play background music while the rest of the game is paused, and if not, that would really make the game feel broken and likely be irritating.
It doesn't matter, it's still interesting example roguelike developers could possibly learn something from. If not from the gameplay, then at least how to manage inventory and different actions with only two buttons.
At least I didn't play about equally bad in real time and "turn based". (I still wouldn't call it that)
Technically it is identical to classic roguelike simultaneous turn-based mechanics, only the grid is smaller (pixel size) and characters are bigger than a cell in that grid. This could be adjusted by increasing turn time interval thus making grid cells larger and turns more discrete. By making grid cells larger the game becomes harder, less action and more tactical.
I don't really like that the game continues for a second, until it finally stops, when you do nothing. Sure, that way you can block the shots of octorocs and the like, but it seems to be more complicated, han it needs to be.
I think it would be better, if it stopped immediately, or if it just stayed real time, like it was designed to.
I tried different things and at the end didn't quite implement it as I first suggested, it works more like Red Rogue does it. The difference is it continues to run for 15 frames, but AFTER you made your last input, to give monsters a little a bit of advantage in return for the pause. This roughly corresponds to disadvantage you would have in real-time due to reflex delay, it's a convenient way to directly impact the difficulty of this turn-based variant. While you are holding some key it actually plays normally in real-time, but note that even regular roguelike plays in real-time if you are holding a key.
-
Would this qualify as entry for 7DRL challenge?
-
Would this qualify as entry for 7DRL challenge?
Absolutely. In fact, I'd say this should be the standard approach to making <your favorite 8-bit video game>RL. Just download LazyCat's emulator and pop in a rom. 7 day roguelike? More like 7 minute roguelike!
-
Absolutely. In fact, I'd say this should be the standard approach to making <your favorite 8-bit video game>RL. Just download LazyCat's emulator and pop in a rom. 7 day roguelike? More like 7 minute roguelike!
Yes. I have to admit I was thinking of you when I posted that. What I was really meaning to ask is if I made myself something like that, from scratch, but with the same gameplay.
Now we are talking about labels and classifications, what is and what is not "roguelike". But I'm talking only about gameplay here, not about any Zelda game or anything else. It's simultaneous turn-based mechanics, so it would not disqualify a game from being a roguelike. Isn't that right?
-
Right