Temple of The Roguelike Forums
Development => Programming => Topic started by: mariodonick on March 27, 2010, 09:12:26 AM
-
I'm still on my quest finding answers how to develop a roguelike that does not only appeal to some hundreds anonymous downloaders, but also to the core of roguelike players.
I know that we have already a thread about "How do you like your roguelike", but this one has a slightly different focus.
What is it, that makes Nethack, Angband, Dungeon Crawl SS, Adom, Powder to belong to the major ones?
-
There are a lot of factors.
All of the games you mentioned except powder have been around for a long time. With the quantity of roguelikes being much higher nowadays, it's harder to stand out.
But I don't think that's all there is, those games exceed most others in scale or quality. Most of them are easy to pick up and play, but very difficult to win.
With that said, each game is popular for its own reasons.
Nethack and Adom are chock full of surprises, easter eggs, unique situations, and all of that sort of thing. I don't believe any other roguelike can compete with them in that area. Maybe no other game period.
Despite this, the basics are still clear, and most players will be able to at least get past the first little while without too much trouble in Nethack. Getting past the first few floors of Adom is easy too, but doing so in the most optimal way for your character's future is a lot harder, but that doesn't matter. My point is a new player can get their bearings easily, and once they're interested in the game they can worry about picking up the more esoteric stuff.
I look at Angband as being sort of the opposite of NH and Adom's complexity. It's predictable. Each level is very similar to the last, there aren't really any item functions that will surprise the player. Most of the game comes down to knowing what you need your speed/hp/resistances at to clear any given area. Honestly I don't really like Angband, but it's easy to jump into.
Crawl is weird. I see the convenient interface and character customization as the main selling points. Most everything can be done with the mouse if you want to. What I don't understand is why they coupled their super convenient interface with a leveling system that goes out of its way to be inconvenient for no benefit. Again though, minmaxing your character is something you can worry about later. For getting started autoexplore and similar functions make it a snap for a new player to get their bearings.
And I haven't played Powder to be able to really say anything about it, so I'll just keep my mouth shut.
Bottom line though: they're all difficult without being hard to get into, they all have their own unique themes, and those themes have a strong presence all throughout the game, and they have the advantage of seniority.
-
Thanks for this bunch of thoughts.
Nethack and Adom are chock full of surprises, easter eggs, unique situations, and all of that sort of thing. I don't believe any other roguelike can compete with them in that area
I wonder how many Nethack players really make use of / find all these surprises and easter eggs. When I still played Nethack in the past, I always felt overwhelmed about all these possibilities and different commands. I was aware that I could do lots of things, but it was too much of work for me to try and figure it out. So I simply tried to get a nice weapon and enough food and to survive, not using any of the more complicated stuff. Thus, I died and died and died.
My point is a new player can get their bearings easily, and once they're interested in the game they can worry about picking up the more esoteric stuff.
So in these games, players seem to immediately know what they are expected to do and can start doing so?
This is of course a question I also thought in regard of LambdaRogue. (As I'm trying to figure out how to make LR better, I will always come back to this example.)
- Perhaps one problem with LR is that players think they can simply run down the dungeon, explore it quickly -- and then wonder when they die too soon or not really know where to go.
- I wonder how many of them actually talk to the priestess (NPC) in the first dungeon level who tells them what to do and what to look out for. I also wonder how many of them care about equipment and magic.
- Perhaps it would be better to just put them into the first random level and tell them "go down to level 20 and get the book of the stars, then return", without plot twists and the need to carry out quests and go back and forth between dungeon levels. However, the need for travels is a core part of the game, as well as the story.
I look at Angband as being sort of the opposite of NH and Adom's complexity. It's predictable. Each level is very similar to the last, there aren't really any item functions that will surprise the player. Most of the game comes down to knowing what you need your speed/hp/resistances at to clear any given area. Honestly I don't really like Angband, but it's easy to jump into.
Angband is a game I like very very much (along with its predecessor Moria). It's a rather straightforward and has a very consistent theme. I also like its big levels, although many people seem to find them (and the constant need of re-exploring) boring. Angband was the game I always had in mind when beginning to code LambdaRogue in 2006 (that's why LR's levels are regenerated every time and items are more important than dungeon interaction, and why the first level is a town level).
Again, thank you. Any other voices?
-
I wonder how many Nethack players really make use of / find all these surprises and easter eggs. When I still played Nethack in the past, I always felt overwhelmed about all these possibilities and different commands. I was aware that I could do lots of things, but it was too much of work for me to try and figure it out. So I simply tried to get a nice weapon and enough food and to survive, not using any of the more complicated stuff. Thus, I died and died and died.
I suspect most nethack players develop a subset of the possible tricks that they use frequently. What's great is that the game seems to always allow possibility of figuring out new tricks. The other night I accidentally picked up a lodestone and wasn't carrying any holy water or scrolls of remove curse. I scratched my head for a while and ran through my inventory and noticed I was carrying a wand of cancellation. Hmm...may as well give it a try. I dropped all of my items I thought might be hurt by the wand, stepped to a clear square and zapped myself. I was hoping the wand would turn the lodestones into regular grey rocks. It didn't but it did remove its cursed status. Apparently the wand of cancellation removes blessed/cursed statuses!
So long story short, the appeal to nethack is multiple sometimes creative ways to solve problems you find yourself in and the possibility of finding some new trick.
Angband is a game I like very very much (along with its predecessor Moria). It's a rather straightforward and has a very consistent theme. I also like its big levels, although many people seem to find them (and the constant need of re-exploring) boring. Angband was the game I always had in mind when beginning to code LambdaRogue in 2006 (that's why LR's levels are regenerated every time and items are more important than dungeon interaction, and why the first level is a town level).
I think the part of Angband I like is the character development. It's fun to level up and find new cool items and artifacts. What I *do* find frustrating is how long it takes my characters to get to the point where they die :P Angband is the game I'm most tempted to save-scum on because I can play a character for several days before reaching the point where the monsters get too dangerous and I don't know the strategy/tactics to get further and die. This is usually around dungeon levels 35-40. So I'm more invested in these characters that day than in say, Nethack or Crawl, where if I die, it tends to be fairly quickly (in terms of play time).
I do like both games, although my first love is nethack.
-
What's great is that the game seems to always allow possibility of figuring out new tricks. ... It didn't but it did remove its cursed status. Apparently the wand of cancellation removes blessed/cursed statuses!
Hm ... this is surely rewarding. It all breaks down to a comparison of obstacles and means to overcome the obstacles. When I again think of LambdaRogue (sorry, folks ...), I can name just a few obstacles:
- monsters
- food issues
- bad status changes, caused by monsters, gods or items
- dead ends or otherwise bad structures in dungeons
- need for certain potions or items in certain situations
To overcome these obstacles, the player can use
- weapons, magic and divine assistance to kill monsters
- food, magic and praying to fight hunger
- potions and praying to remove bad status changes
- digging through rock, searching for hidden doors or teleporting to leave bad dungeon areas
- placing of rocks to build barriers against enemies
- sacrificing items or dipping them into wells to gain other items or status changes as reward
- digging through rock or searching crypts to find rare items
- ... and finding and selling lots of stuff to earn enough money to buy spell upgrades, better weapons, food etc.
These are all the major game elements. Nothing similar to Nethacks "The dev team thought of everything" approach, 'cause the existing possibilities are enough to survive in LambdaRogue. When I die, it's because I am unpatient and rush through a corridor, or forget to regenerate HP and PP (= mana).
Hm ... But this might as well perceived as boring by many players ... :-\
-
Hm ... this is surely rewarding. It all breaks down to a comparison of obstacles and means to overcome the obstacles. When I again think of LambdaRogue (sorry, folks ...), I can name just a few obstacles:
[snip]
These are all the major game elements. Nothing similar to Nethacks "The dev team thought of everything" approach, 'cause the existing possibilities are enough to survive in LambdaRogue. When I die, it's because I am unpatient and rush through a corridor, or forget to regenerate HP and PP (= mana).
Hm ... But this might as well perceived as boring by many players ... :-\
That doesn't sound boring to me. Your audience might be a little different than the people who are really focused on all the nethack trickery* but you can certainly make a fun and challenging game without those aspects. It just changes the sort of game you are aiming to make.
A lot of people do find Angband boring, but a lot of people find nethack too weird, silly and quirky.
-
What is it, that makes Nethack, Angband, Dungeon Crawl SS, Adom, Powder to belong to the major ones?
There are two factors. The first is scope and complexity - these are big games developed over years with a *lot* of content and complexity and interesting things. They all take years to truly master.
The second factor, which I think stems from the first, is the size of their communities. They all have very active communities with dedicated wikis, forums, newsgroups, etc. When it comes to discussions of roguelikes these are the ones that are talked about most, because these are the ones with the most players. Of course as I said this is because they have the most complexity - they keep people attached to them for longer.
-
What is it, that makes Nethack, Angband, Dungeon Crawl SS, Adom, Powder to belong to the major ones?
I guess they are nice games people want to play. And what makes a great game? It's really THE question any game developer should ask. When I play games I try to think what are the features that I like. Then I make them better.
-
Pretty much to most all of the above. Visibility and word of mouth go a long ways....the likes of TIG pimping a game a time or so on the main page, likewise RockPaperShotgun, Bay12 forums, SomethingAwful, TalkingTime somewhat----these get the word out and tend to snowball. I've surely thought that LambdaRogue along with the likes of MageGuild, Triangle Wizard, and Ragnarok/Valhalla simply are not as "big" as they SHOULD be due to the above combined with the little communal lightbulb just not dinging "on" for some damn reason. Particularly Valhalla/Ragnarok as, barring some technological issues(?), is one of the Angband/Nethack era oldies that got quite a boost back in the day but then fell off the map before the big Internet Boom. I mean, at least a "uLarn" makes so much sense and add that one to the "should be big" list assuming the development remains as brisk and successful as it has thus far.
Otherwise, getting on every possible platform, polishing most every aspect(perhaps forming a team, though it'd really depend, to wrangle the big issues actively as Stone Soup tends to) and growing as things come up is about all that can be done. The other path though, one I never see talked about here, is for a developer to be a bit more strategic in what their game springs from aside from "just" language choice and whatnot. In the not incredibly distant future, for example, seemingly, the likes of Chaosforge/Neko(especially), Dwarf Fortress to an extent in this regard, and the whole Doryen thing(unless things just implode somehow) will be essentially "on fire" in terms of awareness/hype and all else. As such, and in keeping with the laws of nature, it is far easier and usually more dramatic to serve as an accelerant to an ongoing fire than to necessarily luck out on the means and knowhow to start up a blaze oneself.
-
Visibility and word of mouth go a long ways... ... not as "big" as they SHOULD be due to ... the little communal lightbulb just not dinging "on" for some damn reason.
This is an interesting perspective indeed. And I'd really like to know what this "damn" reason might be. I think the suggestions of the other postings in this thread are all part of the truth.
The other path though, one I never see talked about here, is for a developer to be a bit more strategic in what their game springs from aside from "just" language choice and whatnot. In the not incredibly distant future, for example, seemingly, the likes of Chaosforge/Neko(especially), Dwarf Fortress to an extent in this regard, and the whole Doryen thing(unless things just implode somehow) will be essentially "on fire" in terms of awareness/hype and all else. As such, and in keeping with the laws of nature, it is far easier and usually more dramatic to serve as an accelerant to an ongoing fire than to necessarily luck out on the means and knowhow to start up a blaze oneself.
I don't really understand your language here ... it reads all very beautiful, but could you explain this again for a stupid non-native speaker?
-
It's easier to hype the already successful than to try to get people to play a game nobody has head of.
-
It's easier to hype the already successful than to try to get people to play a game nobody has head of.
Ah. I see. :)
-
A lot of people do find Angband boring, but a lot of people find nethack too weird, silly and quirky.
Yes, but it doesn't matter how many people dislike them so long as a good number of people do like them. Nethack and Angband know their audience pretty well. Decide what your game's goals are, and what its "draw" will be, and then focus on getting those aspects as polished and complete as possible.
-
It's easier to hype the already successful than to try to get people to play a game nobody has head of.
Right, but in that case it is a bit more like making use of an existing audience. Take Chaosforge for example: Due primarily to somehow/luckily hitting just the right notes with DoomRL, the bounties, the new member influx, the post count---all these things have seen, and continue to see, tremendous growth. Even more than that, the earlier/other games are now seeing attention paid to them when they were moreso skipped over beforehand like Berserk, DiabloRL, and AliensRL I think. They've now got an entirely new framework coming, Neko, that DoomRL2 and various other projects to come will be organized around---and the hype will continue to rise meanwhile once the fully realized Tile version of DoomRL is on the scene and all is done and opened to modding.
Choasforge is on a trajectory to become the very first Roguelike Dynasty of sorts, at least as far as I know unless one counts the myriad of *BANDS in the same league. If somebody with skills were to be contemplating some robust RL development and wanted to minimize the chances of getting passed over, I'd surely encourage them to try and get involved with the likes Chaosforge.
I mean, common wisdom is something like "language doesn't matter much, just get things done." right? By that token, one might as well then pick a place already very visible and work from that "local flavor".
Oh, as to "damn reason", that's mainly my bitter old man side showing. Unlike most here, I see a GREAT deal to this historical side of the world of Roguelikes in terms of accomplishments outright deserving preservation, merit, accolades, and so forth---not terribly unlike in import of preserving classical music, works of art, and so on. Best example on here is my long ranting pleas about the Jaunt Trooper series situation---something ahead of its time that deserved so much more, but due to people not necessarily realizing just what they have, such things tend to fall on deaf ears. Because Roguelikes, and videogames outright, are so very "young" in this context---even most aware people simply don't have the proper conditioning towards the subject in this way.
-
Rogue had the first dynasty - there were a lot of variations and expansions made, though most are now forgotten. Hack then had a small dynasty of its own, and so did Nethack for a while (most got integrated into the mothertitle). Crawl has had a line of single descendents instead of a real family tree. The *Bands obviously are the most extensive and branching of the dynasties, with the most inbreeding and the most diversity. Chaosforge's community may be producing a new dynasty, but it's certainly not the first, nor the only modern one. I think libtcod could spark a great dynasty if ever one of its developers produces a major game instead of faffing about with graphical effects for ages.
You're right about the communities helping the dynasties, but this has gone on for a long time, with each new title in these chains being helped by the existing community around it. I guess it's not so bad an idea to try to latch on to an existing community to get more players interested in your game, though there are other methods (participating in the 7drl competition for instance).
-
I think by now two perspectives have emerged:
- Krice said, if its a good game, people will become aware of it
- getter77 and Darren said that belonging to a community of other developers (which gather around 1 hype project) will support people's awareness of the game
The conclusion would be: You need both. It's not enough to have a good game, you also need some people who spread the word about it, to initiate a hype. If you only have a good game, but not these people, or other means to promote your game actively, ... well, then you have a good game, but only a hand full of players.
An article at IndieGames is a good example for Krice's view of being a good game itself is sufficient, combined with Darren's view that 7DRL participation might help. They write about the 7DRL "Madness".
On the other hand: A new series in the (great) @play column at GameSetWatch is a good example for the second view. In January they started a series about Crawl, which is nothing bad, but they wrote:
This is the beginning of a sequence of articles on the popular roguelike game Dungeon Crawl. We've covered it once before, but considering the game's importance and continued development we have not discussed it nearly as much as it deserves. Hopefully this and the next few articles will go some way towards remedying this tragic situation!
Here one can clearly see a goal of the column: Covering games people already know about, because they're considered to be important -- and as a Crawl fan I would surely appreciate this view.
I think part of my LR problem is that I never really got any in-depth feedback on the game. I got helpful comments by some players, but these cover only single aspects of the game. Nobody (perhaps except Krice) ever told me "your game is or is not worth playing, BECAUSE ..." So from single positive player messages ("great game", even "best roguelike I ever played") I get the impression that somebody actually might like what I've done, but it does not help me to improve, or to fix, etc.
This reminds me of a paper by Microsoft-research guy R. Harper. At an HCI conference (I think in 2009) he told about the view of the teams in which he worked ... they develop things, but have no clear view of people who might actually use these things. This is a core problem, and it is also a problem of my PhD thesis -- who is the user, how does your views and the user's views differ from each other?
-
I think by now two perspectives have emerged:
- Krice said, if its a good game, people will become aware of it
I doubt this. There are like a gazillion game developers out there nowadays making a gazillion new games. People have a hard time finding good games (I know since I'm actually looking for games that would interest me, and I downloaded a lot of things just to find out it's been a waste of time).
I think, once you have a core group of players they will spread the word how great the game is. But it can take long to find this core group of players. And it will take even longer to spread the word.
I think you need to advertise, too. Publish about the game where you seem fit to do so. Explain why it is better than other, related games. Explain what is new, unique, exciting in this one project.
If I look for new games I have a usually a rough idea what I want. It helps me to have lists of features, to decide if I try a new game. I know LambdaRogue is around since a long time. maybe I already heard about it, 2004? Not sure there ... but I know I never felt tempted to try it, since I had no idea why I should do so. I'd assume this means you must advertise more aggressively, and explain why the game is fun to play, to make lazy people like me actually try it.
-
Since 2006. In summer, it's LR's 4th birthday ...
Explain why it is better than other, related games. Explain what is new, unique, exciting in this one project.
I know this marketing approach from the jobs I'm working in, but I wanted to avoid it in my personal life ...
It helps me to have lists of features, to decide if I try a new game
Well ... LR has a list of features on its website. But this list starts with a text that admits the following:
LambdaRogue's feature set, esp. the number of different monsters and items, is rather small compared to many other roguelike games. However, all features are chosen in a "less is more" manner by me with clear concepts in mind.
It _might_ be that this is not very clever ...? ::)
-
I also hope that my projects will market themselves. But they don't ;)
It's ok if you make games for yourself mostly, or for your friends. But if you want to compete with NetHack, Crawl and Angband, you must create a reach similar to those.
I'm a very lazy person if it's about other people projects ... I had to google your website. The first thing I got to see was a list of patches. I needed to look where there might be an explanation of the game ... I clicked "features". I got a list of features that reads much like all the other RPGs that I see on the web ... 3 difficulty levels, 5 gods, 10 skills, 4 characters, 25 levels ...
... so it is just another dungeon crawl with nothing new? (Most likely you would have lost me as player by now)
Sorry to sound so mean. But I try to explain why you might lose more people as players than needed. So I play devils advocate.
What does it have, let's say, Angband does not have? What does it have that Crawl does not have or NetHack? It has quests, that I see from the list. I think Zangband has quests too, like "kill x of y on level z" or so. Are your quests better?
"Carefully handcrafted" items sounds good. Does it have ego items, too, magic items, or is it the same each time I play? On the other hand, I'd assume that unique items in all RL projects were carefully hand crafted, except an RL has randarts, which I, personally, find a very interesting approach.
-
I had to google your website.
Mm... It's also linked at RogueBasin ... hm ... :D
The first thing I got to see was a list of patches
If you directly went to lambdarogue.net, you got to see the development blog. ...perhaps not the best decision for the home page of the website, is it? :-\
I got a list of features that reads much like all the other RPGs that I see on the web ... 3 difficulty levels, 5 gods, 10 skills, 4 characters, 25 levels ... ... so it is just another dungeon crawl with nothing new?
Hm, you are right. It sounds very generic. But actually, it IS generic, if one looks at the game mechanics. There are some little tweaks here and there that make it differ from other games, but in general
What does it have, let's say, Angband does not have? What does it have that Crawl does not have or NetHack?
Hard to answer, because I never went far enough in these games -- or tried enough creative action -- to know what they actually have. Often, I just fight my way with my weapon.
I think it's mainly the atmosphere, which is hard to describe in a list of facts. It's conveyed by the texts of the story, the documents one can find and read ingame, by the choice of enemies, by item descriptions and names, by the background music ... The gods have their own stories, there exists even a time line of important events in the history of the game's world.
Side note: In humanities, there exist two approaches in discussing games: the narrativist approach, which focuses on what a game narrates, i.e. its story. and the ludologists, which focus on the game mechanics and tend to perceive narration as totally irrelevant. I think I'm more on the narrativist's path...
However, it's the combination of roguelike and RPG that makes the game unique.
I think Zangband has quests too, like "kill x of y on level z" or so. Are your quests better?
I don't know. Mechanically, it's the same, it's always kill or deliver or collect something. However, many of the quests are woven into a story (either the main plot, or the second long sideplot, or smaller side plots). Ah, you can win the game in 2 different ways / i.e. it has 2 different endings. I think this might be another distinct feature (?)
*sigh*
Thanks for your questions, Hajo. Made me think very much.
-
I hope I didn't make you sad. It is really hard to make games popular these days, with all the competition around. Rogue, Moria, Angband and NetHack all had it easier, since at the time when they started, they were pretty special right away. Today it's hard to be that special.
As a hobby, game development seems works best if you can enjoy the project and do not need much feedback from outside. or have a few friends to work with, and enjoy it as a small group. Once you try a step more, it really becomes rough water. I'm struggling there too, to find a good balance between self-sustained projects, and bigger projects that would need more publicity. But there are successful and sufficiently small projects like DoomRL, which show that it can be done, even as lone wolf developer.
I have "parked" at least two RPG projects since I felt I cannot add something to them, to make them interesting for other people. In case of LambdaRogue this could either be to advance some of the mechanics beyond what is found in other roguelikes, or try to invent some features which are genuinely new. Or, to make a mix of existing features and point out that this mix is a particularly interesting mix, and not found in other projects this way.
Good luck with LambdaRogue :)
-
No, you didn't. In fact it was good to get a first impression by a person who never cared about the game before. This made me think both about the game's presentation (should the blog entries really be directly at the home page, or should there be a positive, interesting presentation of the game?) and the game's possible uniqueness.
So, thanks again ;)
-
I think this thread can lead to the conclusion that you should take what is unique about your game, and improve it above all else. Those elements that LambdaRogue shares with other games won't be able to compete with the major roguelikes that have had far more development time and hype than your game, so, if most of your game is comprised of them, the player might as well go play something that is already well established.
If you're going in the narrative direction, I would definitely suggest that at least the subplots be randomly generated (à la Gearhead), being that re-playability is a major (if not the major) element of roguelikes. I am, of course, assuming that you haven't already; I must confess that I haven't played in a while.
Another idea that I had (which may prove useless, but there is no harm in sharing) is to see if you can't make every creature in the dungeon possibly tied to a plot somehow. Killing "monsters" without knowing who they are and what they are doing here might ruin a plot that would have yielded more reward if followed, or not. Maybe *every* monster in the dungeon could be tied to a plot -- at least the intelligent ones. They certainly didn't just appear in the dungeon; surely they must have a reason to be there, and events must be happening to them while they're there.
-
Fenrir, I like your thoughts on procedural plot generation. This is something I have in mind since a while, but I am not yet sure in which way this should go. It must certainly be more than just random quests.
My thoughts went in the direction to take the pre-made questlines, single quests and story elements (there exist several and not all are accessable under every condition) and create, with a start of a new game, a random questline.
So the builtin quests/story is considered to be the "big events", while subplots would have references to the big events (both player-visible and internally), but follow their own path.
Currently, if you're playing an Enchanter, you aren't able to get the quest offered by Centurio Clavius in the Catacombs. On the other hand, if you're playing a Soldier, you will be able to access Clavius' quest, but not the quest offered by Ian, the temple servant, 'cause this one is reserved to Enchanters.
I integrated such profession- and religion-bound subquests to motivate players to try out the different profession/religion-combinations.
I could, however, create a context model, containing all game events that occured to the player, and then use this model as a basis for creating follow-up events which are coherent to the premade contents.
If I managed to implement this idea as a working system, I would throw out most single pre-made quests (of course except the big questlines) and replace them with randomly generated questlines.
This could be a nice addition for 1.6.
-
Sounds like you definitely need to advertise your game as a quest and story based roguelike with graphics and sound. Few RLs go down this route, so it's a unique enough feature.
ADOM has many quest and story elements (and multiple endings) and is well-known for its good writing, but ultimately leaves more unsaid than said. GearHead is well-known for its procedural quests, though I don't know how much real story it has. Legerdemain is the only title really known for focussing entirely on the story. I think LambdaRogue may be fairly unique in its place as a roguelike that plays much like a regular computer RPG in terms of graphics and story.
Of course that's not what everyone wants out of a game. Indeed I've seen many hardcore roguelikers complain that ADOM is far too text heavy (when in fact you can get through the game without chatting to anyone). Many consider RLs to represent pure gameplay, separate from all graphics and story - Nethack and Crawl being the ultimate examples. It may be that LR could have more appeal from the less hardcore elements of the roguelike crowd, or to people who are new to roguelikes and want something that feels a bit more familiar.
I must say that your game title also doesn't give much away about the game. Most roguelikes have something to infer about their content in their name. LambdaRogue? Sounds cool, but it doesn't really mean anything.
Just my thoughts anyway - take them as you will.
-
With both ...
Sounds like you definitely need to advertise your game as a quest and story based roguelike with graphics and sound. Few RLs go down this route, so it's a unique enough feature.
and
I must say that your game title also doesn't give much away about the game. Most roguelikes have something to infer about their content in their name. LambdaRogue? Sounds cool, but it doesn't really mean anything
has been taken care of this night, in advert terms, in a website update/enhancement lambdarogue.net (http://lambdarogue.net) (probably need to refresh browser cache). I think now the uniquenesses are presented clearer, and also what the game's about.
Concerning the game's name, I discusses here and in the blog and at RPGCodex with some people, and got really nice suggestions, such as Star-Led, Rogue: Ascension, Book of Stars: Ascension or Per Libris, Ad Astra.
I decided, though, to keep the original, long title "LambdaRogue: The Book of Stars" and use "Per Libris, Ad Astra" as an in-game slogan, but also present at the website.
Your thoughts about "not everyone wants out of a game" are true, of course :)
-
I hope I didn't make you sad. It is really hard to make games popular these days, with all the competition around. Rogue, Moria, Angband and NetHack all had it easier, since at the time when they started, they were pretty special right away. Today it's hard to be that special.
No, it's hard to make a good game. Nethack is good now, as it was then! Nethack from start to the Quest is the best roguelike gaming ever, even the user interface of NH is not very good. It's fast paced and surprising, it has good learning curve and lots of things to do. What I find funny is how no one has beaten that to this day. It just tells how difficult game design in top level really is. You have to know what makes a great game and then there is the actual development side which can take insanely long time.
Advertising in roguelike genre means nothing, really. If someone makes a good roguelike it will be found first by roguelike nuts and then other people.
-
Another idea that I had (which may prove useless, but there is no harm in sharing) is to see if you can't make every creature in the dungeon possibly tied to a plot somehow. Killing "monsters" without knowing who they are and what they are doing here might ruin a plot that would have yielded more reward if followed, or not. Maybe *every* monster in the dungeon could be tied to a plot -- at least the intelligent ones. They certainly didn't just appear in the dungeon; surely they must have a reason to be there, and events must be happening to them while they're there.
I like this idea. I had followed a similar route in an older project. It had several dungeons, like the necromancers lair, a temple, castle ruins and each dungeon was supposed to have a boss. It should be easy to ties such a structure to stories and quests - and also already solves the question why the boss monsters are there, at least makes the answer much easier.
Fenrir's idea to have every monster a quest or story monster means a more radical change in game design. There will be only few battles, but those can be very special. I think this would be a nice experiment for a roguelike.
@Fenrir:
I've added your idea to my library, with a link to your original message and forum profile for attribution:
http://www.funkelwerk.de/library/index.php?n=Library.UniqueMonsters
I hope this was alright, if not, please let me know what you want changed. Thanks for sharing the idea :)
-
Fenrir grins broadly, which is especially broad by human standards, due to the great size of his jaws. His massive tail wags with delight.
Thanks, Hajo. I've never gotten a mention on any kind of Wiki, or any webpage, for that matter. It all looks great to me!
One step closer to immortality.
The great wolf chuckles.
-
I hope I didn't make you sad. It is really hard to make games popular these days, with all the competition around. Rogue, Moria, Angband and NetHack all had it easier, since at the time when they started, they were pretty special right away. Today it's hard to be that special.
No, it's hard to make a good game. Nethack is good now, as it was then! Nethack from start to the Quest is the best roguelike gaming ever, even the user interface of NH is not very good. It's fast paced and surprising, it has good learning curve and lots of things to do. What I find funny is how no one has beaten that to this day. It just tells how difficult game design in top level really is. You have to know what makes a great game and then there is the actual development side which can take insanely long time.
Advertising in roguelike genre means nothing, really. If someone makes a good roguelike it will be found first by roguelike nuts and then other people.
I totally disagree. Many good games aren't played by a lot of people, simply because a lot of people don't know about them. Advertising is important even for a roguelike. Nethack is popular because it's been around so long that it's had an enormous amount of exposure. There have been many Top 10 games of all time lists that have included nethack, not to mention all the webcomic references. That's a lot of advertising. It is not enough to simply have a good game, that game has to get out there somehow, usually through some form of advertising.
-
Advertising in roguelike genre means nothing, really. If someone makes a good roguelike it will be found first by roguelike nuts and then other people.
Perhaps Krice wanted to say: "You don't necessarily need to advertise the game yourself. If it's really good, the 'roguelike nuts' will do the advertising for you / spread the word even to non-roguelike sites" ;)
-
I agree - a bright enough flame will spark a fire. Dwarf Fortress is a great example I think of a game that came from nowhere and soon rose to huge popularity, all because it got people talking.
-
I've never played DF much, but I guess it's really something else than average 7DRL. You need that something else. Advertising alone doesn't help if the game sucks.
-
Not strictly true - look at the modern games market...
-
The difference between this case and the modern games market is that, in the market, they only need you to buy a copy of the game, then they've succeeded. If you find out that the game sucks, they still have made their money. Here, we aren't selling anything; we're trying to build a community. If players don't like what we've made, they'll delete it off their hard drive and never look our way again.
We need some of both: good advertising to bring players, and good games to keep them.
-
You need that something else. Advertising alone doesn't help if the game sucks.
I do think this is true. Even in the commercial game industry, you can hype something all you want, but if the game sucks and the reviews show it, sales will drop off rapidly. Daikatana is a perfect example. Awful game, horrible reviews and it sold very poorly, despite massive amounts of marketing.
I just think the reverse is true, too. There can be an absolutely amazing game with great features, but without advertising no one will know that it exists. The game doesn't help if the advertising sucks or isn't there. In the case of DF, they got a lot of advertising through the SA forums and other associated high volume forums. I think DF is used as an example a lot because Toady is making a lot of money in donations. But I think this has more to do with a handful of consistent high dollar value donors, rather than the total number of DF players.
For me, Underhall received a ton of downloads when the 7DRL completion thread was at the top of r.g.r.d, and while Underhall was listed as a recently updated roguelike on Roguebasin. The moment that those two ended, so did the downloads.
-
There's an interesting interview with the developer of "Desktop Dungeons" (apparently the current big, although small, thing in roguelike-likes...) at GameSetWatch @Play column.
They talk about the role of promotion and communities in game design. The author esp. acknowledges the importances of IndieGames Blog for getting publicy. Interesting read (and nice game).
http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2010/04/play_interview_enjoy_a_coffee_break_of_victory.php#more (http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2010/04/play_interview_enjoy_a_coffee_break_of_victory.php#more)
Besides, there are 2 roguelike news mentioned at the end of the article: the release of DCSS 0.6, and the latest update on Dwarf Fortress -- apparently the only relevant news to mention in the blog.
-
Probably Harris just mentioned those due to prior topics related to them within his various articles---he's surely spent many of his recent articles on Stone Soup in particular. I figured it was only a matter of time until he had a piece of some sort on Desktop Dungeons considering how well it is going. If Biskup and such actually DO manage to get an iADOM of sorts going in the near future on the iPad then I'd suspect that's also lead to an article on such news.
That the Harris columns are only semi-regular kinda lend itself poorly to shining lots of spotlights down on various games---hence he tends to shine on ones that are already shining save odd cases like with Legerdemain back when it first came out.
-
That the Harris columns are only semi-regular kinda lend itself poorly to shining lots of spotlights down on various games---hence he tends to shine on ones that are already shining save odd cases like with Legerdemain back when it first came out.
To publish new, in-depth articles on a regular basis is of course very difficult, and thus it seems reasonable for the author to stick with the games he knows best, or is able to learn pretty well (such as Desktop Dungeons). However, I still believe a dedicated roguelike blog / magazine is needed, although my own attempt in 2007 (magazine.roguelike.us , still online) failed after issue 2, and although that nice blog that was started some months ago ... don't remember the URL right now, seems to be dead, too.
-
I still believe a dedicated roguelike blog / magazine is needed
I would love to see a roguelike magazine, but magazines are very hard things to keep going. With how slow the RL community is, it could never be monthly, it would have to be more like a literary magazine and print only twice to four times a year. Still, it's a lot of work, especially to attract and keep writers to write the articles. Maybe if it accepted more than just articles on roguelikes. We could also accept poetry, essays, art and other things like that are based on roguelikes, which could attract more people. Maybe. I'd love to see one happen, though! Oh, maybe we could even include a CD with the latest releases of things. :)
-
Elig, I second your suggestions, and I agree to the problems you've mentioned. It does not work if one person alone tries to accomplish it -- and with other persons, it's the same as in many other dead projects: for some moments, there's lots of enthusiasm, but shortly the whole team breaks apart, because members don't take the project as seriously as the person who initiated it. And motivating members which you don't really know except from forums or blogs is very hard ;)
The most realistic thing I can imagine to produce is a magazine that is based on one particuliar roguelike, similar to the World of Warcraft official magazine (published 4 times a year), but include an "What else happened in the roguelike world (in the last 4 months)?" section.