Hi Nolithius, thanks for taking the time to read my criticisms and to respond.
Were you able to participate in this 4DRL challenge? I ask because it is worth pointing out, as jim alluded to, that there is a marked difference between sitting back/armchair designing/backseat driving/recklessly criticizing vs. understanding firsthand the realities of participating in a challenge.
(Un?)Fortunately, I am gainfully employed as a game programmer (one whose game recently shipped, no less) and it takes up the bulk of my time. The spare programming cycles I do end up with all go towards a game that won't be n-Day. I can assure you, however, that my criticisms were very pointed and directed - a fact apparently lost on the people 'rising to your defense' - and it's this defense I find both amusing and befuddling. It's as if by my questioning the roguelikeness of your game I somehow deemed it...inferior? Case and point:
What the developers are doing is more important than all the stuff being said about what they're doing.
...I mean really? Nomenclature be damned, it's hard work?
If you were unable to participate, I strongly suggest that you do so the next time around. It is a humbling experience and will break down many of your assumptions about game design, game development, the essence of a roguelike, and what degree of fun, completion, or depth can be achieved within 4 days.
As true as that all may be, it is completely irrelevant to my criticism. If I set out to build a house-like structure in 4 days, and I end up with a stake of wood in some concrete, do I honestly have the right to call it house-like? I mean, it might be the coolest wood statue around, but it's still not like a house. (No, I don't know why I feel compelled to keep writing these analogies. I'm obviously not getting through the emotional baggage people are throwing in the way...)
I made a choice for this challenge to stay away from cloning Rogue. As corremn mentioned, I did not feel that four days was sufficient to make a stock standard roguelike that was better than forgettable. There also was not any standard roguelike feature/trope that I wanted to put out in a smaller format that I would not rather spend the time working into my larger-format roguelike Dance of Death.
There's a loaded question I could be baited into asking about nDRLs based on this paragraph (and bits of others), but it's not worth being answered.
Few, if any of the 4DRL participants have either depth or variant gameplay. The spirit if a 4DRL challenge is not to put together a complex, ever-changing epic game. 4 days is enough to tweak an engine, set up some basic rules and controls, and provide some mild variation where possible. And if you are working with any new techniques you had not tackled before, like facing, or non-rectangular multiple-tile characters that rotate and precisely collide with projectiles, or turn-based missile trail effects, or a stitched/continuous world: those will take the bulk of the already tight timeline. Add to that playtesting, bug fixing, and polishing up for release.
So why call it a roguelike? THIS is what I was getting at. THIS is ALL I was getting at. You're attached to the concept. Fine. You're exploring potential for future (actual) roguelike work. Super. The game you created is fun. Excellent! So why burden it with the roguelike epitaph? Why broadcast to everyone "hey, come play my game even thought it's not what I'm telling you it is". Why set a level of expectation, only to have that expectation not met? Why not just write "inspired by roguelikes" or "in the mode of a roguelike" or something that gives you that linguistic out that would make my single, pointed criticism never possible?
One last attempt at a thought experiment: What if you changed your title screen to read "Chronophase: A 4 Day Star Trek Game" but left the rest as is? Does that illustrate my point any better?
Continued success,
-scott
