Roguelike Incubator

[twpage]

Hey all!

Long time lurker on RT, first time poster. (Long time both on RGRD!) I have something I want to run past you guys...


I just finished listening to the last roguelike radio episode, on "coffee break" roguelikes. Great stuff as per usual. The part about smaller games and finding audiences really hit me though. I remembered having a similar conversation with Darren back during the 7DRL episode I did in March. I've been noodling on this problem ever since, but Darren's idea of a 'bundle' shook off some of the cobwebs.

My vision is some kind of roguelike "incubator" project. A handful of serious* developers looking to produce roguelikes that are medium or 'lunch-break' -sized games. My guess is Darren's Rogue Rage fits somewhere in this category, but there are no doubt plenty of others. Basically, we'd all be committed to being each others alpha testers. Sort of a give-and-get kind of deal. Since we are all bundled together, we share marketing (as much as anything done by amateur RL developers can be called "marketed") burdens and help spread exposure to other games.

All of this can be accomplished through something as simple as a rogue temple forum/thread, a google group, a simple deploy/comment website, or some combination there of. Non-bundle developers can be included or excluded... I'd feel weird turning away anyone that wants to help try a game, but on the other hand the crux of this project is the "incubator" part, which is by definition somewhat closed.

The goal of the project would be to release 4 or 5 new fun & playable roguelikes to the community. Roguelikes that are already (mostly) balanced and well criticized, and beta-worthy as a bare minimum. This relieves the average player of the burden of being an alpha/beta tester that goes along with trying out a brand new game (obviously plenty of people -- myself included -- find this fun at times, but probably not all the time). Sort of like a 'seal of approval' for the 5 games -- they are guaranteed to not totally suck (probably). The 7DRL judges scores serve a similar purpose. You can be fairly certain that the top 10-15 games are fun enough to be worth playing.

I realize some of this sounds a bit presumptuous and I assure you it is not intended that way. I have nothing but respect for my fellow roguelike developers. My goal is to foster the kind of atmosphere I see in other parts of the "indie" gaming community and form something that is very real and will have an impact.

That's all for now! Very curious to hear thoughts & feedback.

- Todd

* definition of this word considered too loaded for the current discussion

PS - I'm also aware of the Annual Roguelike Release Party (should be coming up this September?), and haven't figured out quote how (if at all) this idea relates to that.

[Darren Grey]

I very much like the idea. Would be a boost in development motivation whilst also getting good feedback and raising publicity for the games involved. Count me in!

[mariodonick]

It's a nice idea. Would you accept LambdaRogue as one of the included games? (But, it's not brand-new, as you say).

[Krice]

It's really easy to stay away from bad games already. Just don't play coffee break or 7DRL roguelikes. Wait until one of them becomes a real roguelike, which could happen in theory if the developer is interested to get real. It may not be a good game even then, but at least it IS a roguelike. Not some coffee break android ipad crap.

[mariodonick]

Not some coffee break android ipad crap.

Nethack is available for iPad. So Nethack = ipad crap?

[JeffLait]

Take the exclusionary principles and run with them... call it a roguelike cabal.

A cabal of roguelike developers forms with the intent of releasing a set of games.  Perhaps for a AARP as a destination?  They work internally, alpha/beta testing with each other to create something truly polished for the AARP deadline.  Failure to meet the deadline is encouraged: it is better to release nothing than to release something that reflects badly on the cabal.

Structured in this manner, there need not be a single cabal/incubator, but any group can spontaneously form one.

I quite like this idea as it helps promote more team-work in a field that is very solitary.  And it doesn't do so by forcing the developers to work together on the same projects (since they likely can't, being aforementioned solitary visions...)

[twpage]

@Krice, who said "Just don't play coffee break or 7DRL roguelikes. Wait until one of them becomes a real roguelike, which could happen in theory if the developer is interested to get real. "

That's kind of the point! We need more games to "graduate" from 7DRL or coffee break to a "real roguelike". 

@Jeff, for some reason Cabal sounds way too evil! But yeah, that's the idea I'm going for... less solitary, more collaborative. The problem is getting enough critical mass to make it worthwhile.

[Krice]

We need more games to "graduate" from 7DRL or coffee break to a "real roguelike.

I need a girlfriend myself, but yeah.. we need better roguelikes. It's only up to developers to create them. I think there is not much someone else can do to help in that, because as a developer you need to understand requirements and not settle for the usual 7DRL games. It looks like there are developers who make only these coffee break roguelikes while they maybe should aim higher. Still, it's easier said than done.

[XLambda]

We need more games to "graduate" from 7DRL or coffee break to a "real roguelike.

I need a girlfriend myself, but yeah.. we need better roguelikes. It's only up to developers to create them. I think there is not much someone else can do to help in that, because as a developer you need to understand requirements and not settle for the usual 7DRL games. It looks like there are developers who make only these coffee break roguelikes while they maybe should aim higher. Still, it's easier said than done.

I agree. I think part of that may be that many 7DRLs are based on a single aspect that separates them from existing games. They are often "like game X, only with aspect Y which makes it different". The small scope of the game allows you to put that single Y into the spotlight, and focus on its influence on the mechanics. It's hard to go beyond that when your given Y doesn't really change the gameplay that much. And if you do (usually by adding mechanics to the game), it's just not interesting enough because those additional mechanics aren't affected by it.

In the case of my 7DRL, I mostly focused on how the time system interacts with the quest for high scores. It kind of failed because it wasn't nearly hard enough for that to really matter, but the idea was that you'd avoid fights because the reward (both in score and stat improvements) wouldn't be worth the time you spend on them.
It's kind of hard to expand this concept into a larger game because the premise doesn't really change anything about the mechanics I left out. Anything else I could add would just be standard roguelike tropes, and that's not interesting.

[Z]

Long time lurker on RT, first time poster. (Long time both on RGRD!) I have something I want to run past you guys...

Welcome!

My vision is some kind of roguelike "incubator" project. A handful of serious* developers looking to produce roguelikes that are medium or 'lunch-break' -sized games. My guess is Darren's Rogue Rage fits somewhere in this category, but there are no doubt plenty of others. Basically, we'd all be committed to being each others alpha testers. Sort of a give-and-get kind of deal. Since we are all bundled together, we share marketing (as much as anything done by amateur RL developers can be called "marketed") burdens and help spread exposure to other games.

So that would be a kind of testing/feedback/review exchange project? Looks interesting and useful. The amount of feedback received for less known roguelikes is indeed quite low. I rarely play new roguelikes myself recently, since my free time is rather given to writing my own roguelikes and other projects... And such a feedback would be helpful for the other developer, and if I like the game, I would probably mention it whenever it is relevant for a discussion (currently I mostly mention either well known roguelikes or my own games, because I don't know the details about other minor ones), that would work as some kind of marketing (I would not like to do such marketing if I don't find the given game interesting, though). On the other hand it is sad that we need to go for this (there are some non-developers in the community after all, why don't they play everything and give the developers feedback, as a reward for their hard work? )

Feedback is not the only thing that needs help from other people. For me, other things that I could use some help with are ports (I can produce Windows executable and portable sources on my own, but not compile for OSX, for example), music (I think my games, and probably most roguelikes, would benefit from a soundtrack, but I don't want to use anything generic, and I doubt that my skills in this area are good enough), and servers (I am thinking about creating a NotEye server on which you could play and watch many different roguelikes, but I don't want to organize the server myself).

The goal of the project would be to release 4 or 5 new fun & playable roguelikes to the community. Roguelikes that are already (mostly) balanced and well criticized, and beta-worthy as a bare minimum. This relieves the average player of the burden of being an alpha/beta tester that goes along with trying out a brand new game (obviously plenty of people -- myself included -- find this fun at times, but probably not all the time). Sort of like a 'seal of approval' for the 5 games -- they are guaranteed to not totally suck (probably). The 7DRL judges scores serve a similar purpose. You can be fairly certain that the top 10-15 games are fun enough to be worth playing.

IRLDb attempts to perform the same 'seal of approval' role as 7DRL judge scores, but for all roguelikes in RogueBasin, and allowing all RogueTemple members to give ratings and reviews. Should be especially useful for less known roguelikes, as they would hopefully get a high rating (contrary to, say, the ROTY pool, which helps the popular roguelikes to become even more popular). Currently the top of the list is shared by the well-known gems of the genre and by underdogs with unfortunately currently have not enough votes to be reliable (although there are some surprises on the list, both positive and negative). Maybe it could be used somehow. Organize a Roguelike Review Commitee similar to the 7DRL Review Committee which fills IRLDb with reviews, or whatever.

[Z]

I agree. I think part of that may be that many 7DRLs are based on a single aspect that separates them from existing games. They are often "like game X, only with aspect Y which makes it different". The small scope of the game allows you to put that single Y into the spotlight, and focus on its influence on the mechanics. It's hard to go beyond that when your given Y doesn't really change the gameplay that much. And if you do (usually by adding mechanics to the game), it's just not interesting enough because those additional mechanics aren't affected by it.

Original ideas have varying potentials for further development. My two games (Hydra Slayer, HyperRogue) both started as small 7DRL games based on some original set of ideas, but I gradually found ideas which extended the original ideas instead of mindlessly stealing the standard tropes from other roguelikes. I don't think that they currently miss anything serious (well, gameplay related, as some polish is missing in both cases). If I have any generic roguelike idea which is not related to the core ideas of these two games, it would probably go into my third game (Vapors of Insanity), which is intended to be a relatively traditional major roguelike (where "major" is understood as an opposite to "coffebreak"). HyperRogue grew less than Hydra Slayer, which means that its concept has less potential.

In the case of my 7DRL, I mostly focused on how the time system interacts with the quest for high scores. It kind of failed because it wasn't nearly hard enough for that to really matter, but the idea was that you'd avoid fights because the reward (both in score and stat improvements) wouldn't be worth the time you spend on them.
It's kind of hard to expand this concept into a larger game because the premise doesn't really change anything about the mechanics I left out. Anything else I could add would just be standard roguelike tropes, and that's not interesting.

Your 7DRL was based on a very different theme, which IMO has lots of potential. It should be possible (although difficult) to create a bigger roguelike based on it, with many original features, and without the "standard roguelike tropes", since the theme is so different. The time limit would probably have to go in such a bigger roguelike, though (less potential). So it would be probably a new game based on that theme, not a continuation

But low development potential does not mean a bad game. Actually, I think the two things are orthogonal. Something like "a big roguelike with randomly generated storyline" has lots of potential, but the core idea would be less fun and less enriching due to lack of originality.

You probably won't play HyperRogue for long, but hopefully you will have fun while playing it! Probably you would still have more fun with a major roguelike, and if you had a chance to recommend one roguelike to someone, you would probably pick something major, rather than a coffebreak. Bundling could indeed help here, by giving several small games a joint identity which could compete with majors. Playing such a bundle would be probably more fun and enriching than playing a major roguelike.

I wonder whether the bundled roguelikes would agree for a common interface?

[Darren Grey]

Feedback is not the only thing that needs help from other people. For me, other things that I could use some help with are ports (I can produce Windows executable and portable sources on my own, but not compile for OSX, for example), music (I think my games, and probably most roguelikes, would benefit from a soundtrack, but I don't want to use anything generic, and I doubt that my skills in this area are good enough), and servers (I am thinking about creating a NotEye server on which you could play and watch many different roguelikes, but I don't want to organize the server myself).

All good points.  A closeknit group of developers would have a lot to offer each other.  It would of course work on the principle of mutual assistance - helping others with their games makes it more likely for them to help you.

It shouldn't just be 7DRLs wanting to be something else or new minimalist games in need of an audience.  Bigger and more established games like LambdaRogue need attention too, especially with it's new straight dungeon crawler mode (coffeebreak mode is a poor term for it I think).

Organize a Roguelike Review Commitee similar to the 7DRL Review Committee which fills IRLDb with reviews, or whatever.

Bleh, far too subjective, and too big a scope for anyone to be able to do it effectively.  The 7DRL reviews are hard enough, and a lot of those games can be judged fairly quickly.  IRLDb just needs more pushing in people's faces.

I wonder whether the bundled roguelikes would agree for a common interface?

Heh, well if everyone wants to use the T-Engine then I'm in 

[guest509]

  My next game project is going to be a computer game. So I'd volunteer for the group. There are two issues though. First I'm not really a high level programmer type (and my work shows this) and also I always seem to miss the mark on 'roguelikeness'.

[AgingMinotaur]

Good idea. I've been active in similar groups (in other disciplines), which was always very rewarding – not only getting feedback on your own project, but also scrutinizing the work of others with a critical mindset, is something all but the most accomplished would learn a lot from – given that there is good chemistry within the group.

Of course, now that the idea is out in the open, nothing prevents people from spontaneously forming groups like this, just working though e-mail or similar. One could also set up a more or less "official" RL developers' collective, with an open invitation for anyone to join. I'd imagine ground rules along the lines of these: To partake, you must submit a game as well as review (a certain number of) the other active projects in the collective. Before you are allowed to upload an updated version of your own project, you have to review (one or more) games that have been recently updated. New releases and reviews could be accessible in the form of a blog or news feed, and probably publicly visible. There could be deadlines (site updated with new reviews/games once every two months, or something like that), or the exchange could be allowed to flow naturally.

Just some stray thoughts. I certainly don't have the opportunity to take part in something like this right now.

As always,
Minotauros

[mariodonick]

Maybe there could be 2 (or more?) categories for this incubator-cabal-whatever-thing, based on (1) goal and (2) development status.

(1) The goal should be set by the author: Either by choosing a fixed category (7DRL, more comprehensive RL, roguelike-like), or even by defining certain goals to reach, in terms of estimated playing time, size, unique game mechanics to implement etc. So for each project it would be clear what the author wants to achieve, and also players could then judge the resulting games based on these goals -- and not on maybe wrong expectations.

(2) The development status should also be set, and could be simply "planning", "alpha", "beta" and "stable (but receiving updates)". Maybe (just an idea) we could include a voting system, where players or testers can vote if they believe if a game has reached a new step in this line: Sometime authors tend to say "my game is beta", but actually for players it feels like an alpha, or authors consider a game finished, although it still has massive bugs (at least I had this problem: I thought LambdaRogue was finished in version 1.0, but well, I still find bugs).

I also have something in mind like the structure used by the current SourceForge website. It has become very userfriendly for both users and project admins, and maybe such type of platform could be a technical basis.

Bigger and more established games like LambdaRogue need attention too, especially with it's new straight dungeon crawler mode (coffeebreak mode is a poor term for it I think).

By the way, thanks Darren for the hint regarding the term "coffeebreak mode" -- I use it as some kind of working term, because in standard difficulty setting, it should be winnable in about 3 hours (by an experienced player), as all the quests are not shown, and also only 20 out of 27 dungeon levels are part of this mode. But maybe this term could mislead people to think that the game also lacks complexity, and this is not the case anymore since several versions. So maybe I really call it "dungeon crawler mode", or something similar.