glorg

[ido]

I'm thinking of nethack mostly, and there are quite a few rooms where you saunter over and that's it. It's different latter in nethack, but glorg isn't that long either. In terms of the earlier levels of nethack, glorg isn't far off from what is 80% of the early nethack play.

It sounds true that glorg is not a doomrl-like.

I don't understand why people feel the need to shoehorn every game with a couple of similar attributes to roguelikes into the genre.

There is nothing roguelike in glorg (a fine game by itself, for different reasons) except for it being a dungeon crawler (a separate genre, albeit with a significant overlap with the roguelike genre).

It isn't any more a roguelike than Ultima 5, Icewind Dale or Dwarf Fortress are (i.e. not at all).

[Fenrir]

I don't understand why people feel the need to shoehorn every game with a couple of similar attributes to roguelikes into the genre.

I think that, in this case, the OP was frustrated with roguelikes, so he decided to shoehorn something absurd into the roguelike definition to "discredit" the genre in an act of spite. A trolling attempt is the only way I could understand what is going on here.

[Darknoon]

Now now, there is no galactic council of jedi who have determined where the line is set for what is inside the idea of a roguelike. Where you set your line and where someone else sets there line can be miles apart without someone having some evil, mustache twirling intent.

I think rather than shaking your heads at what people apparently shoe horn in, writing out the physical requirements for what constitutes a roguelike would be better. You might even find that, shock horror, even if you agree glorg isn't a roguelike with someone, your requirements don't match each others? Are you trying to be trolls or just think in different ways? The latter.

[Ancient]

Now now, there is no galactic council of jedi who have determined where the line is set for what is inside the idea of a roguelike.

There is. Did not find it? No excuse for your ignorance.

Where you set your line and where someone else sets there line can be miles apart without someone having some evil, mustache twirling intent.

But it should make some sense? If not I could declare Diablo to be RTS like you are calling Glorg a roguelike now. Not applicable? Come on, Diablo is real time and you can produce units (as Necromancer, mana is your resource), command your hero unit (the main player character) and have a base in each act (the village where stuff gets bought). There are enemy bases too (Tristram, where you rescue hostage). Fits strategy game perfectly.

I think rather than shaking your heads at what people apparently shoe horn in, writing out the physical requirements for what constitutes a roguelike would be better. You might even find that, shock horror, even if you agree glorg isn't a roguelike with someone, your requirements don't match each others? Are you trying to be trolls or just think in different ways? The latter.

Many of us disagree on what a roguelike is but you are first person to actually disregard nature of this genre completely. Okay, I'll help you.

Here is what The Cabal (There Is No Cabal) thinks about what constitutes a RL game:
http://roguebasin.roguelikedevelopment.org/index.php?title=Berlin_Interpretation

And here another set of factors from a slightly different POV:
http://www.roguetemple.com/roguelike-definition/

[Slash]

No excuse for your ignorance.

Ancient one! I beg you to be patient with the newcomer to the temple, I don't see evil in his intentions!

[ido]

No excuse for your ignorance.

Ancient one! I beg you to be patient with the newcomer to the temple, I don't see evil in his intentions!

Darknoon's tone didn't strike as very appropriate for a new comer either.

[Ancient]

You both are right. Darknoon's certainty in his last post struck me as arrogant. A newbie would not state such things about genre he just got to know. On the other hand I did overreact with that remark Slash quoted.

[Fenrir]

Foolish young padawan, the Jedi council we ARE! Much to learn you have.

"Roguelike" does not mean "like Rogue" in a general sense. "Roguelike" is a single word defined by a community of which this temple is a part. It is a proper noun and should be capitalized, but we're not grammar Nazis, so we let that slide. We didn't invent the term, but this place was devoted to an established genre. When we say "Roguelike", we aren't referring to what you think is like Rogue. You can go to the Catholic church and tell them that your church is Catholic too because you have the same decor, but don't expect them to take it well, because they decide what "Catholic" means! It's their thing! The priest to which you're speaking didn't write the Bible or decide how it has been interpreted, but he has committed himself to a specific interpretation, and that is what he means when he says "Catholic". That is why you are being regarded as arrogant --whether it's true or not -- because you're coming in here and defining our genre for us.

Perhaps unlike the Catholic church, our ideals are determined more by majority and seniority than any centralized power, but, unless I'm reading the community wrong, the Berlin Interpretation is widely accepted.

The forum administrator tolerates games that aren't really Roguelikes by our own definition simply because he is a nice guy and doesn't want to drive anyone away.

On the other hand I did overreact with that remark Slash quoted.

I disagree, as you were referring to his ignorance of the Jedi council, not a general ignorance, unless I'm mistaken.

[pampl]

Perhaps unlike the Catholic church, our ideals are determined more by majority and seniority than any centralized power, but, unless I'm reading the community wrong, the Berlin Interpretation is widely accepted.

The forum administrator tolerates games that aren't really Roguelikes by our own definition simply because he is a nice guy and doesn't want to drive anyone away.

The definition can tell you which games are more Roguelike than others (well, it's a little blurry even there) but it doesn't tell you the cutoff point for really being a Roguelike or not. All we know that it's not necessary to meet all the criteria as some of the canonical Roguelikes don't. Glorg is clearly a stretch, but it does meet some of the Berlin Interpretation's criteria (about 1/3 of the high value factors and half the low value, by my reckoning) so shouldn't it be up for debate?

[Fenrir]

All we know that it's not necessary to meet all the criteria as some of the canonical Roguelikes don't.

Perhaps the Berlin Interpretation is wrong. It is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Which "canonical" Roguelikes break the criteria?

[pampl]

All we know that it's not necessary to meet all the criteria as some of the canonical Roguelikes don't.

Perhaps the Berlin Interpretation is wrong. It is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Which "canonical" Roguelikes break the criteria?

ADOM and to a lesser extent Nethack have infractions against the "randomly generated content" rule (plot and quests, Sokoban), ADOM's overworld and Angband and Crawl's shops violate the non-modal rule, IIRC ADOM violates the "hack 'n' slash" rule with monster-vs-monster combat, and at least Angband violates the player-is-a-monster rule as monsters don't have inventory or equipment or gain levels. I'm not sure any of them lets monsters gain levels through killing, actually.. maybe it makes things too hard for summoner PCs (and would be pointless in a game without summoner PCs or monster-on-monster combat).  That's clearly fewer violations than glorg, so I'm sure it's possible to draw the roguelike/non-roguelike line between glorg and the canonical RLs, I just want to see people explicitly making the argument I'm curious what people's threshold is before they consider something non-roguelike

[Fenrir]

Well, then, it would appear that our church requires reformation of its religious texts, as I would not consider a game not Roguelike because it added static elements to its randomly generated content (ADoM) or non-modal parts to its modal components (ADoM, Angband, Crawl). In fact, I'm not sure I would consider something not a Roguelike for having added anything. That, of course, leaves the rest of the violations standing, unfortunately.

[Ex]

Well, this is certainly an interesting discussion. I definitely believe that multiple definitions of "roguelike" can coexist peacefully.

My own personal definition is that the majority (preferably vast majority) of it's maps must be random. This stems from the idea that the core feature of roguelikes is to entertain the people who build them, which requires random maps. But that alone doesn't necessarily make something a roguelike. I think it's a combination of different factors that make something either more or less roguelike. The Berlin interpretation is great because it lists features which make something "more or less" roguelike without stating "this is a roguelike and all other things are not." There are features like ASCII, turn based, identification, and classes which make something "more roguelike," even though these features do not constitute a roguelike in and of themselves. And I think that's a good thing.

In terms of the Berlin interpretation being descriptive rather than proscriptive, that's generally also a good thing. The best definitions are descriptive rather than proscriptive. The modern study of linguistics insists on descriptive definitions rather than proscriptive definitions, as do many other formal sciences.

In terms of what clearly isn't a roguelike, maybe we've been a bit too quick to dismiss things as not roguelikes. This is probably due to a want to protect the genre, which is good. But, really, tile based games as a whole are not exactly a genre in and of themselves anymore. The roguelike community is probably among the last tile based RPG game communities there is, so perhaps we should accept tile based games as a whole, even if they lack many features of roguelikes. After all, where else are tile based games supposed to advertise and attract players these days? There is no temple of tile based RPGs, but there is a temple of the roguelike.

Having said that, it's still good to have some standard like the Berlin interpretation so that we can judge how many roguelike traits a game has aside from being a tile based RPG. And again, there's really no reason why multiple standards can't coexist. It would be easy to say things like "according to the Berlin interpretation, this is mostly a roguelike, while according to the X standard, this is entirely a roguelike."

Is glorg a roguelike? Well, it's a lot of fun, and it has random maps, which are a major feature of roguelikes. I'd rank it's "roguelikeness" as about 4 out of 10, with 10 being the max. 3 points for random maps, 1 point for fantasy-like dungeon exploration setting.

[Fenrir]

In terms of the Berlin interpretation being descriptive rather than proscriptive, that's generally also a good thing. The best definitions are descriptive rather than proscriptive. The modern study of linguistics insists on descriptive definitions rather than proscriptive definitions, as do many other formal sciences.

This isn't a formal science, but I don't really see what your point is anyway. The description can still be wrong.

In terms of what clearly isn't a roguelike, maybe we've been a bit too quick to dismiss things as not roguelikes. This is probably due to a want to protect the genre, which is good. But, really, tile based games as a whole are not exactly a genre in and of themselves anymore. The roguelike community is probably among the last tile based RPG game communities there is, so perhaps we should accept tile based games as a whole, even if they lack many features of roguelikes. After all, where else are tile based games supposed to advertise and attract players these days? There is no temple of tile based RPGs, but there is a temple of the roguelike.

Maybe there is a reason there isn't a tile-based RPG forum. If someone really cared, there would be a tile-based RPG forum. Maybe there is one and you just haven't found it. Either way, this isn't some halfway house for desperate developers to peddle their games.

I wouldn't mind so much if they would but put their posts in General Discussion and call their games what they are, but instead they slap the "Roguelike" label on it and put it lower in the forums. Coincidentally, someone did that while I was typing this very post. (http://roguetemple.com/forums/index.php?topic=1492.msg10832#new) Case and point.

Is glorg a roguelike? Well, it's a lot of fun, and it has random maps, which are a major feature of roguelikes. I'd rank it's "roguelikeness" as about 4 out of 10, with 10 being the max. 3 points for random maps, 1 point for fantasy-like dungeon exploration setting.

Glorg's maps aren't mechanically random maps. If the character didn't move at all, the game would be played exactly the same way. In Rogue or any real Roguelike, if the character didn't move and all enemies just appeared next to him, his life would be very short, for, as it has already been explained, the map is an important tactical element in a Roguelike.

[Ex]

In terms of the Berlin interpretation being descriptive rather than proscriptive, that's generally also a good thing. The best definitions are descriptive rather than proscriptive. The modern study of linguistics insists on descriptive definitions rather than proscriptive definitions, as do many other formal sciences.

This isn't a formal science, but I don't really see what your point is anyway. The description can still be wrong.

My point was that the best definitions are descriptive rather than proscriptive.

In terms of what clearly isn't a roguelike, maybe we've been a bit too quick to dismiss things as not roguelikes. This is probably due to a want to protect the genre, which is good. But, really, tile based games as a whole are not exactly a genre in and of themselves anymore. The roguelike community is probably among the last tile based RPG game communities there is, so perhaps we should accept tile based games as a whole, even if they lack many features of roguelikes. After all, where else are tile based games supposed to advertise and attract players these days? There is no temple of tile based RPGs, but there is a temple of the roguelike.

Maybe there is a reason there isn't a tile-based RPG forum. If someone really cared, there would be a tile-based RPG forum. Maybe there is one and you just haven't found it. Either way, this isn't some halfway house for desperate developers to peddle their games.

Is there something wrong with tile based game developers talking about their games on our websites? Are there downsides?

I wouldn't mind so much if they would but put their posts in General Discussion and call their games what they are, but instead they slap the "Roguelike" label on it and put it lower in the forums. Coincidentally, someone did that while I was typing this very post. (http://roguetemple.com/forums/index.php?topic=1492.msg10832#new) Case and point.

They shouldn't be calling their games roguelikes, but there isn't any damage done in posting their games here. In this example, witches and zombies looks like an interesting game, many of us may be interested in playing it. Maybe we shouldn't ban games from our sites just because they're not "roguelike enough."

Is glorg a roguelike? Well, it's a lot of fun, and it has random maps, which are a major feature of roguelikes. I'd rank it's "roguelikeness" as about 4 out of 10, with 10 being the max. 3 points for random maps, 1 point for fantasy-like dungeon exploration setting.

Glorg's maps aren't mechanically random maps. If the character didn't move at all, the game would be played exactly the same way. In Rogue or any real Roguelike, if the character didn't move and all enemies just appeared next to him, his life would be very short, for, as it has already been explained, the map is an important tactical element in a Roguelike.

Nethack and Angband can both be automated to the point that glorg is. Nethack bots are an example, they could be modified to provide a one button interface. Crawl even has an autoexplore feature very similar to what we're talking about. Even if the character in glorg didn't move, he would still encounter random events in a random order.

The map is an important tactical element of roguelikes, but like many roguelike features, a tactical map does not make a game roguelike. That's the beauty of the Berlin interpretation: it lists features which make something more roguelike, without stating that X, Y, and Z are required for a roguelike. There have been roguelikes which don't feature traditional tile maps, but are instead room based. As in, the player moves between whole rooms rather than between tiles, similar to glorg.