Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Ex

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 21
Off-topic (Locked) / Re: Looking for an RL for me
« on: April 26, 2013, 10:11:11 AM »
Currently my favorite is crawl. There isn't really a list of reasons why I like it the most. It's just the one I enjoy the most right now, but you know I still play a lot of other roguelikes. I play nethack very seriously from time to time, and really enjoy it. I used to really love ZAngband, but that was many versions ago back when the overworld was still fixed rather than random.

I don't actually like TOME. I've always preferred ZAngband since the beginning, but most people seem to love TOME and I don't blame them.

Probably 90% of my roguelike playing is Crawl, and 9% is nethack, and 1% is everything else. That sounds bad, but it's more of a reflection of the sheer amount of time I waste in crawl. The worst part is, I've gotten much further in Nethack than in Crawl...

Traditional Roguelikes (Turn-based) / Re: Multiplayer online roguelike
« on: April 26, 2013, 04:09:28 AM »
I can't believe no one has mentioned Mangband, which is probably the first true multiplayer roguelike. And it's a pretty good game too, if you can get past the user interface. Correction, someone did mention Mangband. I need better reading skills.

Anyway, what is and isn't a roguelike has been debated for a long time, and different people come down on different sides of the debate. Back when most roguelikes were traditional roguelikes, I was on the more experimental and lenient side. I used to believe that if it had random levels, it was probably a roguelike. But then roguelikes got huge mainstream attention, and everyone wanted to call everything a roguelike. These days I believe in a strict definition of roguelikes. I feel like so many games that aren't roguelikes at all try to call themselves roguelikes just to cash in on the name, and that defeats the whole purpose of the genre.

I wanted to support the development of more experimental roguelikes during a time when there weren't that many. Now, it's just the opposite situation. Experimental games inaccurately calling themselves "roguelikes" outnumber traditional real roguelikes by at least a 10 to 1 ratio. If you ask me, in this time of a flood of games calling themselves "roguelikes" that have very little to do with the genre, we need to get back to the original core of the genre. We need more traditional, real roguelikes.

Having said that, everyone is free to have their own opinion about it. This is just how I personally feel right now. Also, I'm still opposed to permadeath, but that's the only traditional feature I oppose.

Off-topic (Locked) / Re: Looking for an RL for me
« on: April 24, 2013, 02:14:58 AM »
here's some roguelikes I recommend, but they don't meet your specifications entirely:
Crawl, TOME, Angband, ZAngband.

Thanks Elig, could you please tell me which one of these has more random content and is easiest to pick up?

By random content I mean dungeon level maps, always different, not only mobs and objects/loot

All of them have random levels. Random dungeon levels are the most core aspect of any roguelike. If it doesn't have random levels, it's really not a roguelike. Like Jo said, procedural generation is the cornerstone of the entire genre.

As for easiest to pick up, it's a draw between Crawl and TOME. TOME is probably technically more complicated, but Crawl has a lot of nuances. I find Angband very easy to pick up because the gameplay is so straightforward, but it's not quite as self explanatory as Crawl. Angband requires a certain knowledge of roguelike tropes, but otherwise is very straight forward.

I also second the suggestion of powder. I've never played it personally, but always heard very good things. IVAN is also a quality roguelike.

Programming / Re: Picking The Right Language/Game Engine For My Idea
« on: April 24, 2013, 02:12:13 AM »
There is no way to know what is the right language or game engine for you.
I pretty much agree with this. It's really ultimately a matter of personal preference. I've seen good roguelikes in almost every language.

For example, I develop in C++ because I really enjoy programming in C++. I've tried lots of other methods of game development, but it comes down to the fact that I enjoy programming in C++ the most, so that's what I use. I would say develop in whatever you most enjoy developing in. That's what I do.

Off-topic (Locked) / Re: Looking for an RL for me
« on: April 23, 2013, 11:28:50 AM »
Good morning everyone!

I have been playing a few RL a few years ago (mainly Castle in the Winds, for Windows 3.11) and recently came back with gems like Dungeons of Dredmor, FTL and Binding of Isaac (I know these two aren't real RL, but still...)

So I decided to dig in the genre with games like Pixel Dungeon (android version of Brogue), but looking for something slightly more complex.

This is a list of what I want:

- Random generated levels (dungeons at least, all world too if possible)
- Extreme randomness in items (new unidentified items every game)
- If possible, tileset (not a graphics whore, but need to admit that ASCII is a bit of an eye-sore)
Pretty much every roguelike has these three. If you want a tileset in a roguelike that doesn't have one, try noteye.
- Easy to pick up, but mainly no need for an external guide/forum/wiki to understand what's going on or what do I need to do
- (not mandatory) No class system, I need to feel customization without finding myself "locked" to a spec/build
These two are pretty much impossible to find, especially in combination. There are very few roguelikes without class systems.

All roguelikes are randomly generated when you play them, so "highest amount of random generated content" is kindof meaningless since they all randomly generate their content. There are a few that have some static content like ADOM's overworld, but they're rare and the static content is usually confined to a single area or two.

Anyway, here's some roguelikes I recommend, but they don't meet your specifications entirely:
Crawl, TOME, Angband, ZAngband.

Programming / Re: info files
« on: April 23, 2013, 07:36:41 AM »
I use plain text for any game data files I have, and I don't use a library for it. Also, I hard code monster and item data, so those don't rely on outside files. The only thing I use outside files for is settings, and saved games.

The hard coded stuff I do is pretty simple. I start with a function that spawns a base template, then another function calls the first and takes the output and modifies it in some way. This repeats for a certain number of times, like so:
SpawnBaseMonster (calls SpawnBaseObject and modifies the resulting object)
SpawnSpellCastingMonster (calls SpawnBaseMonster and modifies the resulting object)


SpawnBaseItem (calls spawn base object)
SpawnBaseArmor (calls spawn base item)
SpawnMagicArmor (calls spawn base armor)

Then I use these functions to create a list of templates that all the monsters and items in game are copied from. The templates are stored as vector<Object *> Templates, and are copied into the game as needed. Randomization of properties of monsters and items happens immediately after the objects are copied.

Programming / Re: Another Crash and Burn
« on: April 21, 2013, 07:45:17 PM »
Yeah, this happens to me from time to time. I'll have a great idea that I think is going to be the most fun game ever. Then I'll implement it and it's no fun at all.

So what was the game you were developing? Any screenshots?

My tastes really change over time. So, this is just what I feel right now, and it'll probably be different later:

2 Game isn't a roguelike. I used to be okay with experimental "roguelikes", but that was back when most roguelikes were traditional. Now adays there are so many games trying to jump on the "roguelike" bandwagon that have nothing to do with roguelikes, and it really, really bothers me. Sci fi is fine, but make sure it's a ROGUELIKE.

3 Too difficult. I want a game I can play, not a game that is going to make me pull my hair out in frustration. So many games treat ease of difficulty as a bug, and that's a HUGE mistake in my mind. Games should be playable.

3 Building from source. I'm just not going to, sorry. Nothing against your game, but give me binaries.

1 vi keys. They make me want to break my keyboard. I recommend wasd instead.

3 Ego. Some developers make it very clear that they think that their title is going to be the next minecraft, only better and more popular. It really bothers me. I don't mean advertising. I like advertising: it's clever and fun and we all have to do it, but nothing turns me off of a roguelike more than a developer with a massive ego about how important and successful and great their game is/will be.

Programming / Re: The Purpetual Development Cycle
« on: April 18, 2013, 02:36:22 AM »
I go back and forth between long term projects and short term projects. Probably 90% of the projects that I start are never finished, but the remaining 10% I tend to work on for years. My standard long term development cycle seems to be about 4 years of total development time for serious long term projects. I'd like to get that down, obviously, but it's not something that I plan on to begin with. I just end up looking back and realizing that it's been 4 years. For every one long term project like that though I easily start 9 projects that go nowhere. It's all something I'd like to change, but there it is.

I also agree that game design is more about what you can remove rather than what you can put in, but it's a very hard decision because often you end up removing so much that you take out what makes the game fun.

Stone soup pretty much IS dungeon crawl. I don't think anyone plays the "original" anymore, that'd be like playing an old version of nethack. I'm sure if Linley popped up, he'd agree. Stone soup is much more of the modern version of crawl than it is a fork.

Programming / Re: Most popular IDE and curses library?
« on: April 15, 2013, 07:50:43 AM »
I use MSVC. It's my favorite environment to develop in because it allows me to be very lazy while still writing code at a fast pace. The way that it automatically shows what variables and functions are a part of a class whenever you put in a . or -> is very, very nice. Also the ease of debugging, finding of every reference to anything with two clicks, and other such features are nice. I've also used it for so long that I know the ins and outs of configuring it pretty well. Having said that, emacs is a damn nice development environment, but it lacks the user friendliness that MSVC has.

Anyway, I've used both pdcurses and libtcod with MSVC. It's the same as using any other library. Just include the library in the project settings, and set up the include directories for the library and the headers in the project settings, and you're pretty much good to go. Remember to copy the DLLs to the debug and release directory. Of course, you might need to alter how you're declaring main, or what type of thing you're compiling (multithreaded dll, console project vs. windows, etc.), but that's pretty minor. Look at the library documentation if you run into trouble.

I would recommend libtcod over pdcurses. Pdcurses works, but it's slow and antiquated. Libtcod is one of the best libraries I've ever used. It is really, really nice.

Programming / Re: pedantic object oriented question
« on: April 14, 2013, 08:12:34 PM »
I think using the word 'Map' is kind of naive.
Have you looked at the source for many video games? Try Crawl, Nethack, Angband, Doom, Wolfenstein, or Quake some time.

Programming / Re: pedantic object oriented question
« on: April 12, 2013, 08:24:44 PM »
If you ask me, objects should control themselves and their own variables. Every time I've ever implemented a function outside of an object that directly controls or affects an object I've always regretted it. That means move() inside the object, along with anything else that affects the object similarly being inside the object. Of course, it's a matter of taste, but it follows one of the most common principles of object oriented design.

Move especially makes sense for being inside an object because as Krice said, objects move, the map does not. Further, let's say you have a function in an object that wishes to move the object. If the object doesn't contain it's own move function, then it has to ask the map to move it. That's like asking the map to rename an object from a function inside the object being renamed... Once you start having functions like that, objects start to become C style structs which defeats the purpose of using objects in the first place.

I also disagree with the idea that there are wrong ways. Better ways, absolutely, but not wrong ways. It's only wrong if it doesn't work.

Traditional Roguelikes (Turn Based) / Re: Rodney Post 7DRL development
« on: April 11, 2013, 03:26:24 PM »
The game is still running, the animation for the charge ability is still playing, but I can't select anything or even change the selection on the menu. I just tried it again, still nothing.

Traditional Roguelikes (Turn Based) / Re: Rodney Post 7DRL development
« on: April 11, 2013, 04:02:10 AM »
My keyboard doesn't seem to do anything once I'm past the name entry screen. I haven't tried it since a few versions back, so it may not be a bug specific to this version. The moment it gets past the name entry, none of my keys do anything. Also, clicking on the buttons that say up/down/etc doesn't do anything for me either. I can however type things into the chat box and press enter just fine, but even trying to chose the default skill by pressing enter does nothing.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 21