What makes "major" roguelikes different from the smaller ones ...

[mariodonick]

I think by now two perspectives have emerged:

• Krice said, if its a good game, people will become aware of it
• getter77 and Darren said that belonging to a community of other developers (which gather around 1 hype project) will support people's awareness of the game

The conclusion would be: You need both. It's not enough to have a good game, you also need some people who spread the word about it, to initiate a hype. If you only have a good game, but not these people, or other means to promote your game actively, ... well, then you have a good game, but only a hand full of players.

An article at IndieGames is a good example for Krice's view of being a good game itself is sufficient, combined with Darren's view that 7DRL participation might help. They write about the 7DRL "Madness".

On the other hand: A new series in the (great) @play column at GameSetWatch is a good example for the second view. In January they started a series about Crawl, which is nothing bad, but they wrote:

This is the beginning of a sequence of articles on the popular roguelike game Dungeon Crawl. We've covered it once before, but considering the game's importance and continued development we have not discussed it nearly as much as it deserves. Hopefully this and the next few articles will go some way towards remedying this tragic situation!

Here one can clearly see a goal of the column: Covering games people already know about, because they're considered to be important -- and as a Crawl fan I would surely appreciate this view.


I think part of my LR problem is that I never really got any in-depth feedback on the game. I got helpful comments by some players, but these cover only single aspects of the game. Nobody (perhaps except Krice) ever told me "your game is or is not worth playing, BECAUSE ..." So from single positive player messages ("great game", even "best roguelike I ever played") I get the impression that somebody actually might like what I've done, but it does not help me to improve, or to fix, etc.

This reminds me of a paper by Microsoft-research guy R. Harper. At an HCI conference (I think in 2009) he told about the view of the teams in which he worked ... they develop things, but have no clear view of people who might actually use these things. This is a core problem, and it is also a problem of my PhD thesis -- who is the user, how does your views and the user's views differ from each other?

[Etinarg]

I think by now two perspectives have emerged:

• Krice said, if its a good game, people will become aware of it

I doubt this. There are like a gazillion game developers out there nowadays making a gazillion new games. People have a hard time finding good games (I know since I'm actually looking for games that would interest me, and I downloaded a lot of things just to find out it's been a waste of time).

I think, once you have a core group of players they will spread the word how great the game is. But it can take long to find this core group of players. And it will take even longer to spread the word.

I think you need to advertise, too. Publish about the game where you seem fit to do so. Explain why it is better than other, related games. Explain what is new, unique, exciting in this one project.

If I look for new games I have a usually a rough idea what I want. It helps me to have lists of features, to decide if I try a new game. I know LambdaRogue is around since a long time. maybe I already heard about it, 2004? Not sure there ... but I know I never felt tempted to try it, since I had no idea why I should do so. I'd assume this means you must advertise more aggressively, and explain why the game is fun to play, to make lazy people like me actually try it.

[mariodonick]

Since 2006. In summer, it's LR's 4th birthday  ...

Explain why it is better than other, related games. Explain what is new, unique, exciting in this one project.

I know this marketing approach from the jobs I'm working in, but I wanted to avoid it in my personal life ...

It helps me to have lists of features, to decide if I try a new game

Well ... LR has a list of features on its website. But this list starts with a text that admits the following:

LambdaRogue's feature set, esp. the number of different monsters and items, is rather small compared to many other roguelike games. However, all features are chosen in a "less is more" manner by me with clear concepts in mind.

It _might_ be that this is not very clever ...? 

[Etinarg]

I also hope that my projects will market themselves. But they don't

It's ok if you make games for yourself mostly, or for your friends. But if you want to compete with NetHack, Crawl  and Angband, you must create a reach similar to those.

I'm a very lazy person if it's about other people projects ... I had to google your website. The first thing I got to see was a list of patches. I needed to look where there might be an explanation of the game ... I clicked "features". I got a list of features that reads much like all the other RPGs that I see on the web ... 3 difficulty levels, 5 gods, 10 skills, 4 characters, 25 levels ...

... so it is just another dungeon crawl with nothing new? (Most likely you would have lost me as player by now)

Sorry to sound so mean. But I try to explain why you might lose more people as players than needed. So I play devils advocate.

What does it have, let's say, Angband does not have? What does it have that Crawl does not have or NetHack? It has quests, that I see from the list. I think Zangband has quests too, like "kill x of y on level z" or so. Are your quests better?

"Carefully handcrafted" items sounds good. Does it have ego items, too, magic items, or is it the same each time I play? On the other hand, I'd assume that unique items in all RL projects were carefully hand crafted, except an RL has randarts, which I, personally, find a very interesting approach.

[mariodonick]

I had to google your website.

Mm... It's also linked at RogueBasin ... hm ...

The first thing I got to see was a list of patches

If you directly went to lambdarogue.net, you got to see the development blog. ...perhaps not the best decision for the home page of the website, is it? 

I got a list of features that reads much like all the other RPGs that I see on the web ... 3 difficulty levels, 5 gods, 10 skills, 4 characters, 25 levels ... ... so it is just another dungeon crawl with nothing new?

Hm, you are right. It sounds very generic. But actually, it IS generic, if one looks at the game mechanics. There are some little tweaks here and there that make it differ from other games, but in general

What does it have, let's say, Angband does not have? What does it have that Crawl does not have or NetHack?

Hard to answer, because I never went far enough in these games -- or tried enough creative action -- to know what they actually have. Often, I just fight my way with my weapon.

I think it's mainly the atmosphere, which is hard to describe in a list of facts. It's conveyed by the texts of the story, the documents one can find and read ingame, by the choice of enemies, by item descriptions and names, by the background music ... The gods have their own stories, there exists even a time line of important events in the history of the game's world.

Side note: In humanities, there exist two approaches in discussing games: the narrativist approach, which focuses on what a game narrates, i.e. its story. and the ludologists, which focus on the game mechanics and tend to perceive narration as totally irrelevant. I think I'm more on the narrativist's path...

However, it's the combination of roguelike and RPG that makes the game unique.

I think Zangband has quests too, like "kill x of y on level z" or so. Are your quests better?

I don't know. Mechanically, it's the same, it's always kill or deliver or collect something. However, many of the quests are woven into a story (either the main plot, or the second long sideplot, or smaller side plots). Ah, you can win the game in 2 different ways / i.e. it has 2 different endings. I think this might be another distinct feature (?)

*sigh*

Thanks for your questions, Hajo. Made me think very much.

[Etinarg]

I hope I didn't make you sad. It is really hard to make games popular these days, with all the competition around. Rogue, Moria, Angband and NetHack all had it easier, since at the time when they started, they were pretty special right away. Today it's hard to be that special.

As a hobby, game development seems works best if you can enjoy the project and do not need much feedback from outside. or have a few friends to work with, and enjoy it as a small group. Once you try a step more, it really becomes rough water. I'm struggling there too, to find a good balance between self-sustained projects, and bigger projects that would need more publicity. But there are successful and sufficiently small projects like DoomRL, which show that it can be done, even as lone wolf developer.

I have "parked" at least two RPG projects since I felt I cannot add something to them, to make them interesting for other people. In case of LambdaRogue this could either be to advance some of the mechanics beyond what is found in other roguelikes, or try to invent some features which are genuinely new. Or, to make a mix of existing features and point out that this mix is a particularly interesting mix, and not found in other projects this way.

Good luck with LambdaRogue

[mariodonick]

No, you didn't. In fact it was good to get a first impression by a person who never cared about the game before. This made me think both about the game's presentation (should the blog entries really be directly at the home page, or should there be a positive, interesting presentation of the game?) and the game's possible uniqueness.

So, thanks again

[Fenrir]

I think this thread can lead to the conclusion that you should take what is unique about your game, and improve it above all else. Those elements that LambdaRogue shares with other games won't be able to compete with the major roguelikes that have had far more development time and hype than your game, so, if most of your game is comprised of them, the player might as well go play something that is already well established.

If you're going in the narrative direction, I would definitely suggest that at least the subplots be randomly generated (à la Gearhead), being that re-playability is a major (if not the major) element of roguelikes. I am, of course, assuming that you haven't already; I must confess that I haven't played in a while.

Another idea that I had (which may prove useless, but there is no harm in sharing) is to see if you can't make every creature in the dungeon possibly tied to a plot somehow. Killing "monsters" without knowing who they are and what they are doing here might ruin a plot that would have yielded more reward if followed, or not. Maybe *every* monster in the dungeon could be tied to a plot -- at least the intelligent ones. They certainly didn't just appear in the dungeon; surely they must have a reason to be there, and events must be happening to them while they're there.

[mariodonick]

Fenrir, I like your thoughts on procedural plot generation. This is something I have in mind since a while, but I am not yet sure in which way this should go. It must certainly be more than just random quests.

My thoughts went in the direction to take the pre-made questlines, single quests and story elements (there exist several and not all are accessable under every condition) and create, with a start of a new game, a random questline.

So the builtin quests/story is considered to be the "big events", while subplots would have references to the big events (both player-visible and internally), but follow their own path.

Currently, if you're playing an Enchanter, you aren't able to get the quest offered by Centurio Clavius in the Catacombs. On the other hand, if you're playing a Soldier, you will be able to access Clavius' quest, but not the quest offered by Ian, the temple servant, 'cause this one is reserved to Enchanters.

I integrated such profession- and religion-bound subquests to motivate players to try out the different profession/religion-combinations.

I could, however, create a context model, containing all game events that occured to the player, and then use this model as a basis for creating follow-up events which are coherent to the premade contents.

If I managed to implement this idea as a working system, I would throw out most single pre-made quests (of course except the big questlines) and replace them with randomly generated questlines.

This could be a nice addition for 1.6.

[Darren Grey]

Sounds like you definitely need to advertise your game as a quest and story based roguelike with graphics and sound.  Few RLs go down this route, so it's a unique enough feature.

ADOM has many quest and story elements (and multiple endings) and is well-known for its good writing, but ultimately leaves more unsaid than said.  GearHead is well-known for its procedural quests, though I don't know how much real story it has.  Legerdemain is the only title really known for focussing entirely on the story.  I think LambdaRogue may be fairly unique in its place as a roguelike that plays much like a regular computer RPG in terms of graphics and story.

Of course that's not what everyone wants out of a game.  Indeed I've seen many hardcore roguelikers complain that ADOM is far too text heavy (when in fact you can get through the game without chatting to anyone).  Many consider RLs to represent pure gameplay, separate from all graphics and story - Nethack and Crawl being the ultimate examples.  It may be that LR could have more appeal from the less hardcore elements of the roguelike crowd, or to people who are new to roguelikes and want something that feels a bit more familiar.

I must say that your game title also doesn't give much away about the game.  Most roguelikes have something to infer about their content in their name.  LambdaRogue?  Sounds cool, but it doesn't really mean anything.

Just my thoughts anyway - take them as you will.

[mariodonick]

With both ...

Sounds like you definitely need to advertise your game as a quest and story based roguelike with graphics and sound.  Few RLs go down this route, so it's a unique enough feature.

and

I must say that your game title also doesn't give much away about the game.  Most roguelikes have something to infer about their content in their name.  LambdaRogue?  Sounds cool, but it doesn't really mean anything

has been taken care of this night, in advert terms, in a website update/enhancement  lambdarogue.net (probably need to refresh browser cache). I think now the uniquenesses are presented clearer, and also what the game's about.

Concerning the game's name, I discusses here and in the blog and at RPGCodex with some people, and got really nice suggestions, such as Star-Led, Rogue: Ascension, Book of Stars: Ascension or Per Libris, Ad Astra.

I decided, though, to keep the original, long title "LambdaRogue: The Book of Stars" and use "Per Libris, Ad Astra" as an in-game slogan, but also present at the website.

Your thoughts about "not everyone wants out of a game" are true, of course

[Krice]

I hope I didn't make you sad. It is really hard to make games popular these days, with all the competition around. Rogue, Moria, Angband and NetHack all had it easier, since at the time when they started, they were pretty special right away. Today it's hard to be that special.

No, it's hard to make a good game. Nethack is good now, as it was then! Nethack from start to the Quest is the best roguelike gaming ever, even the user interface of NH is not very good. It's fast paced and surprising, it has good learning curve and lots of things to do. What I find funny is how no one has beaten that to this day. It just tells how difficult game design in top level really is. You have to know what makes a great game and then there is the actual development side which can take insanely long time.

Advertising in roguelike genre means nothing, really. If someone makes a good roguelike it will be found first by roguelike nuts and then other people.

[Etinarg]

Another idea that I had (which may prove useless, but there is no harm in sharing) is to see if you can't make every creature in the dungeon possibly tied to a plot somehow. Killing "monsters" without knowing who they are and what they are doing here might ruin a plot that would have yielded more reward if followed, or not. Maybe *every* monster in the dungeon could be tied to a plot -- at least the intelligent ones. They certainly didn't just appear in the dungeon; surely they must have a reason to be there, and events must be happening to them while they're there.

I like this idea. I had followed a similar route in an older project. It had several dungeons, like the necromancers lair, a temple, castle ruins and each dungeon was supposed to have a boss.  It should be easy to ties such a  structure to stories and quests - and also already solves the question why the boss monsters are there, at least makes the answer much easier.

Fenrir's idea to have every monster a quest or story monster means a more radical change in game design. There will be only few battles, but those can be very special. I think this would be a nice experiment for a roguelike.

@Fenrir:

I've added your idea to my library, with a link to your original message and forum profile for attribution:

http://www.funkelwerk.de/library/index.php?n=Library.UniqueMonsters

I hope this was alright, if not, please let me know what you want changed. Thanks for sharing the idea

[Fenrir]

Fenrir grins broadly, which is especially broad by human standards, due to the great size of his jaws. His massive tail wags with delight.

Thanks, Hajo. I've never gotten a mention on any kind of Wiki, or any webpage, for that matter. It all looks great to me!

One step closer to immortality.

The great wolf chuckles.

[Ex]

I hope I didn't make you sad. It is really hard to make games popular these days, with all the competition around. Rogue, Moria, Angband and NetHack all had it easier, since at the time when they started, they were pretty special right away. Today it's hard to be that special.

No, it's hard to make a good game. Nethack is good now, as it was then! Nethack from start to the Quest is the best roguelike gaming ever, even the user interface of NH is not very good. It's fast paced and surprising, it has good learning curve and lots of things to do. What I find funny is how no one has beaten that to this day. It just tells how difficult game design in top level really is. You have to know what makes a great game and then there is the actual development side which can take insanely long time.

Advertising in roguelike genre means nothing, really. If someone makes a good roguelike it will be found first by roguelike nuts and then other people.

I totally disagree. Many good games aren't played by a lot of people, simply because a lot of people don't know about them. Advertising is important even for a roguelike. Nethack is popular because it's been around so long that it's had an enormous amount of exposure. There have been many Top 10 games of all time lists that have included nethack, not to mention all the webcomic references. That's a lot of advertising. It is not enough to simply have a good game, that game has to get out there somehow, usually through some form of advertising.