Author Topic: Zelda roguelike  (Read 18476 times)

mushroom patch

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda roguelike
« Reply #15 on: March 28, 2014, 05:51:39 AM »
No, we wouldn't get a roguelike.

And why do you think so. Where is the difference, exactly?

(I'm only answering this ridiculous question as substitute for counting sheep.)

The difference is that the game you propose would be some kind of broken version of a zelda game. The 2d zelda games have essentially nothing in common with roguelikes mechanically, except a top view-ish perspective (and it's debatable whether roguelikes are really top view vs. just an abstract map layout). Your bastardized version of zelda has the same issues, except it has some hacked up approximation to turn based play (which obviously wouldn't work right, but whatever).

re: your questions elsewhere in the thread: here's a thought experiment, have you ever played a zelda game and felt the need to stop the action to carefully consider what you should do next in battle (while not under the influence of some kind of drug or intoxicant)?


Why indeed. You think it would not work, but you are unable to explain why. Do you even know?

I am completely able to explain why this is ridiculous, no worries there.

LazyCat

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda roguelike
« Reply #16 on: March 28, 2014, 05:57:00 AM »
Red Rogue is not Zelda.

Animation and input in Red Rogue real-time mode is very much like Zelda, and that's what your comment was originally about. So if one works, why wouldn't the other? If you still think it would not work for some technical reason please be specific about what, why, and how.

LazyCat

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda roguelike
« Reply #17 on: March 28, 2014, 06:16:57 AM »
The difference is that the game you propose would be some kind of broken version of a zelda game. The 2d zelda games have essentially nothing in common with roguelikes mechanically, except a top view-ish perspective (and it's debatable whether roguelikes are really top view vs. just an abstract map layout). Your bastardized version of zelda has the same issues, except it has some hacked up approximation to turn based play (which obviously wouldn't work right, but whatever).

You again fail to point out even a single specific thing. What is the difference, exactly?

For example, we already have permadeath and random levels mentioned, but those are not relevant to whether this would work or not, and how much fun would actual gameplay be.

Vanguard

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 1112
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda roguelike
« Reply #18 on: March 28, 2014, 07:15:02 AM »
The Zelda series is execution-heavy.  Deciding on the best course of action is easier than carrying out that decision.  Your turn-based version completely removes the game's technical aspect and trivializes its tactical aspect.

Come on man, I shouldn't have to explain this.

LazyCat

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda roguelike
« Reply #19 on: March 28, 2014, 08:25:11 AM »
The Zelda series is execution-heavy.  Deciding on the best course of action is easier than carrying out that decision.  Your turn-based version completely removes the game's technical aspect and trivializes its tactical aspect.

So how is that any worse than some roguelike?


Quote
Come on man, I shouldn't have to explain this.

There is nothing to explain, just point out some specific difference you think would make turn based Zelda any worse than turn based roguelike. I don't even know what is your objection about.

a.) You think it would not translate well due to some technical reason

b.) You think it would make the game too easy and boring

Garadur

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Zelda roguelike
« Reply #20 on: March 28, 2014, 08:35:49 AM »

Quote
Come on man, I shouldn't have to explain this.

There is nothing to explain, just point out some specific difference you think would make turn based Zelda any worse than turn based roguelike. I don't even know what is your objection about.

a.) You think it would not translate well due to some technical reason

b.) You think it would make the game too easy and boring


The difference is that the game you propose would be some kind of broken version of a zelda game. The 2d zelda games have essentially nothing in common with roguelikes mechanically, except a top view-ish perspective (and it's debatable whether roguelikes are really top view vs. just an abstract map layout). Your bastardized version of zelda has the same issues, except it has some hacked up approximation to turn based play (which obviously wouldn't work right, but whatever).

You again fail to point out even a single specific thing. What is the difference, exactly?


The biggest technical/gameplay problem is precision, I think.

If I understand you correctly, you just want to stop a standard Zelda game every second or so, in which the player can make an input - which is then performed in the next second.
So, let's say, you stand just outside of reach with your sword, maybe even a bit to the side of it, so you can't just move straight up to it. So you press diagonally on the D-pad. But what do the monsters do? Do they stand there? Do they move in some random direction? Do they start an attack, just the moment after the game pauses? You don't know! You might as well bump into one - which damages you! - as well as being in no better position to attack than before. Swords would probably be utterly useless.
In regular roguelikes, when you bump into a monster you attack them automatically. That has a reason! Zelda is not made to be played turn-by-turn, it's purely designed to be real-time!
So why don't we just make the intervall shorter? How short? When will it become too tedious? And if we have to drop to an inpt every frame, or maybe even every second or third frame, why don't we just spare ourselves the agony and just play, like it was intended?

I don't know RedRogue, but I'm pretty sure if it can handle both turn-based and realtime gameplay, it was designed that way from the get-go. Zelda just wasn't!

LazyCat

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda roguelike
« Reply #21 on: March 28, 2014, 10:59:05 AM »
The biggest technical/gameplay problem is precision, I think.

If I understand you correctly, you just want to stop a standard Zelda game every second or so, in which the player can make an input - which is then performed in the next second.

Game freezes if you are not holding any key, if you do press some key game runs for a second. There are two ways to do it, plus variations. One is to NOT make turns last set amount of time, but as long as you are pressing any key, that's what Red Rogue does in its turn based mode. The other way, what I actually proposed, is to make turns last some set amount of time - for example time that would move character exactly one tile, or half a tile maybe. This should work for games that are not using diagonal movement, but for those that do it would possibly require different timing for diagonals so character stays in sync with tile graphics grid.


Quote
So, let's say, you stand just outside of reach with your sword, maybe even a bit to the side of it, so you can't just move straight up to it. So you press diagonally on the D-pad. But what do the monsters do? Do they stand there? Do they move in some random direction? Do they start an attack, just the moment after the game pauses? You don't know! You might as well bump into one - which damages you! - as well as being in no better position to attack than before. Swords would probably be utterly useless.

How is that different than turn based roguelike? You seem to describe situation where turns last too long, but if 1 second makes the game too hard we could always make that time shorter.

In any case I'm glad you noticed a game would not necessarily become easier in every way. Imposing turn time intervals with only one action per turn brings some new challenges on its own, makes the game more tactical.


Quote
In regular roguelikes, when you bump into a monster you attack them automatically. That has a reason! Zelda is not made to be played turn-by-turn, it's purely designed to be real-time!

I think roguelikes on consoles mostly use action button instead of simple bumping. It adds to immersion, especially together with sound effects. Bumping is not better, just very slightly simpler. But with Zelda controls you could execute different moves, and wouldn't that actually be more fun?

It's not made to be played turn-by-turn doesn't mean it would be any worse than any other turn-based roguelike.


Quote
So why don't we just make the intervall shorter? How short? When will it become too tedious? And if we have to drop to an inpt every frame, or maybe even every second or third frame, why don't we just spare ourselves the agony and just play, like it was intended?

How is that any worse than some roguelike? Interval can be adjusted.


Quote
I don't know RedRogue, but I'm pretty sure if it can handle both turn-based and realtime gameplay, it was designed that way from the get-go. Zelda just wasn't!

It's just normal real-time game that can pause itself when no key is pressed. You have to try it. Then you will realize the same could be done with any game just the same, and that game can still stay challenging and fun, maybe even more enjoyable if you are into turn-based games already.



P.S.
I finally managed to find some emulator with source code I could actually compile. It's some crappy NES emulator without sound, but it should be enough for gameplay demonstration. I think in a day or two we will be able to actually try out the original Legend of Zelda for NES in this new amazingly fabulous turn based mode. Until then I still welcome all the bets.

I bet 5,000 points it will be pretty cool actually. Place your bets please.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 11:37:20 AM by LazyCat »

mushroom patch

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda roguelike
« Reply #22 on: March 28, 2014, 02:24:32 PM »
Wow. This kind of thread really makes me appreciate stackexchange style sites. My God.

CaptainKraft

  • 7DRL Reviewer
  • Rogueliker
  • *
  • Posts: 60
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda roguelike
« Reply #23 on: March 28, 2014, 03:08:17 PM »
Wow. This kind of thread really makes me appreciate stackexchange style sites. My God.

There is no reason for this attitude. Please try to be constructive or, at the very least, don't be destructive.
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day.
Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

LazyCat

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda roguelike
« Reply #24 on: March 28, 2014, 03:20:48 PM »
Wow. This kind of thread really makes me appreciate stackexchange style sites. My God.

You make no point and give no reason or explanation for your statements. Whatever strange reason is bothering you about this topic you could always simply be elsewhere.

awake

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 43
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda roguelike
« Reply #25 on: March 28, 2014, 03:31:14 PM »
Bomberman. Could Bomberman work as a roguelike? I submit that it would make more sense than Zelda.

I mean OP's question is just... good lord, are you people really willing to have a multi-paragraph, quote-and-response debate about this?

mushroom patch

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda roguelike
« Reply #26 on: March 28, 2014, 03:36:57 PM »
Wow. This kind of thread really makes me appreciate stackexchange style sites. My God.

You make no point and give no reason or explanation for your statements. Whatever strange reason is bothering you about this topic you could always simply be elsewhere.

I think I do make a point. In a stackexchange site, this thread would've been closed in a matter of minutes for the lazy way in which the questions were posed, the general lack of merit in the idea behind the questions, and later the argumentative way in which answers were addressed. Constructive discussion occurs only accidentally in a thread like this.

It damages the focus of discussion forums to indulge nonsensical lines of conversation, especially ones like this where the only one who stands to learn anything from the discussion is the OP and he seems unwilling to take on board the points made by other posters.

Garadur

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Zelda roguelike
« Reply #27 on: March 28, 2014, 03:46:05 PM »
LazyCat, I wish you good luck. Maybe we really don't understand, what you try to accomplish. But I'm still betting against you.

Anyway, why bother with halting gameplay at all, if it's just going in realtime, as long as you push a button? Could it still be considered turn based? I wouldn't.

In Baldurs Gate combat was real time, but you could pause at any time to give new commands.
In a similar vein in the RTS series Warlords Battlecry you could also pause the game in single player at any time to give commands.
The only difference to your suggestion would be, that in yours the game stops automatically without input. Not a very big difference imo.

I still wouldn't call either series turn based.

reaver

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda roguelike
« Reply #28 on: March 28, 2014, 04:03:29 PM »
Interesting experiment but it has nothing to do with roguelikes..
Turn-based action adventure? maybe.

LazyCat

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda roguelike
« Reply #29 on: March 28, 2014, 04:06:48 PM »
So anyway, it's done. It turned out to be pretty simple as the code was very readable.

Turn based Legend of Zelda for NES:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/2d8cp841amf4ixa/ZeldaRL.zip

CTRL = START
SHIFT= SELECT
Z = BUTTON B
X = BUTTON A

1. start ZeldaRL.bat
2. hold down A or B button or otherwise game will not start, whole game is paused without input
3. press CTRL to select and start the game, keep holding A or B button until you can move and start playing

Don't forget to keep some key pressed when changing screens or talking to NPC as without input the emulator freezes the whole game and all those "cut-scenes". It's unfortunate side-effect I failed to foresee and it can not be fixed, but it's not too bad and is easy to get used to. More importantly now, the good news is that gameplay is still there and it's fun, the game is still pretty damn hard though. It's definitively how I want to play this game on my phone. Playing it in real-time via touch-screen was really impossible.


That's my opinion anyway, but you be the judge. Fun or not fun, which is it? And is there any room for improvement?