Fate: How can they get away with it?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Fate is not a bad little game, but I can't help but wonder; How do they
get away with not being sued by BLizzard? It's not only "like" Diablo,
it's darn near identical, right down to socketed items, same names for
potions and even the same naming conventions for items (Superior,
etc...)

I am more than a little puzzled by this...anyone else?
75 answers Last reply
More about fate
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    tonij67@hotmail.com wrote:
    > Fate is not a bad little game, but I can't help but wonder; How do they
    > get away with not being sued by BLizzard? It's not only "like" Diablo,
    > it's darn near identical, right down to socketed items, same names for
    > potions and even the same naming conventions for items (Superior,
    > etc...)
    >
    > I am more than a little puzzled by this...anyone else?

    I noticed this too, and it was probably the reason I liked the demo.

    As for why Blizzard would allow it, how do you know they didn't work it
    out in advance?

    If that's not the case, then maybe they are confident that there's
    plenty of "prior art" available to cover them.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    I have no idea what Blizzards involvment (if any) with Fate is. I just
    find it amazing that the similarities are so striking. Whats
    interesting is, my son and I tried Diablo 2 once and he didnt like it.
    He tried Fate and fell in love with it. When I pointed out how similar
    they are, he decided he prefers Fate because its a little more
    "cartoony". So I guess that aspect helps to differentiate them a bit.

    I about fell off my chair laughing the first time I heard that troll
    Shaman guy squealing "ha ha ha ha HA ha"..... :D
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On what basis would Blizzard sue the maker of Fate? They can't
    copyright ideas. Remember that Microsoft won the case where Apple tried
    to sue them way back in the 90's for copying the "look and feel" of
    Macintosh when they designed Windows. As long as Fate doesn't use any
    of the code / art / resources of Diablo, there's no infringement.

    BTW if you like Fate, give Dungeon Siege 2 demo a try, it's a more
    "meaty" Diablo 2 clone and a well-made one. I can't wait for the full
    game because I want to play it multiplayer co-op.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    <tonij67@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1123511552.925528.260640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > Fate is not a bad little game, but I can't help but wonder; How do they
    > get away with not being sued by BLizzard? It's not only "like" Diablo,
    > it's darn near identical, right down to socketed items, same names for
    > potions and even the same naming conventions for items (Superior,
    > etc...)
    >
    > I am more than a little puzzled by this...anyone else?

    Firstly because Fate wasn't reverse engineered or copied from the source
    code of the Diablo games, and secondly, because Blizz haven't patented any
    of the mechanics, if indeed they're able to. It's the same reason anyone
    can make a spreadsheet application and call the user-editable datafields
    'cells', or what have you.

    You are right, though - they are very similar in terms of design, and it
    clearly wasn't an accident, although Fate does have it's own individual
    features that make it stand out from other games of its type.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On 8 Aug 2005 07:32:32 -0700, tonij67@hotmail.com wrote:

    >Fate is not a bad little game, but I can't help but wonder; How do they
    >get away with not being sued by BLizzard? It's not only "like" Diablo,
    >it's darn near identical, right down to socketed items, same names for
    >potions and even the same naming conventions for items (Superior,
    >etc...)

    Because 90%+ of the things in Diablo are blatently stolen from the
    rogue-like games that came before. "They can't steal our ideas - we
    stole them first!" rarely works as an argument in a court case.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    In article <1123511552.925528.260640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    tonij67@hotmail.com says...

    > Fate is not a bad little game, but I can't help but wonder; How do they
    > get away with not being sued by BLizzard? It's not only "like" Diablo,
    > it's darn near identical, right down to socketed items, same names for
    > potions and even the same naming conventions for items (Superior,
    > etc...)
    >
    > I am more than a little puzzled by this...anyone else?

    Copyright protects implementations of ideas, not ideas.

    Contrary to claims often made by enemies of IP, it doesn't restrict you
    from creating novel works that are similar to copyrighted ones.

    If they had copied sound, graphics, or code from Diablo, Blizzard could
    sue them and would win.

    - Gerry Quinn
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Thusly Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> Spake Unto All:

    >Contrary to claims often made by enemies of IP, it doesn't restrict you
    >from creating novel works that are similar to copyrighted ones.
    >
    >If they had copied sound, graphics, or code from Diablo, Blizzard could
    >sue them and would win.

    That is not necessarily true. Google copyright + "look and feel"


    --
    "Forgive Russia. Ignore Germany. Punish France."
    -- Condoleezza Rice, at the time National Security Adviser, on how to deal
    with european opposition to the war in Iraq. 2003.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    In article <ju5hf15eso8qp87icj3cs2kjs58bscs1kf@4ax.com>, mike_noren2002
    @NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk says...
    > Thusly Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> Spake Unto All:
    >
    > >Contrary to claims often made by enemies of IP, it doesn't restrict you
    > >from creating novel works that are similar to copyrighted ones.
    > >
    > >If they had copied sound, graphics, or code from Diablo, Blizzard could
    > >sue them and would win.
    >
    > That is not necessarily true. Google copyright + "look and feel"

    There's a bit of that (the issue is slightly fuzzy by nature) but 'look
    and feel' is not strong.

    The chance that Blizzard could successfully claim it against Fate is
    zero.

    - Gerry Quinn
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> writes:

    > That is not necessarily true. Google copyright + "look and feel"

    Not necessary: Some of us are old enough to remember Apple vs.
    Microsoft and Lotus vs. Borland: L&F is not protected by copyright.

    However, it can possibly be protected by trademark law; I am not sure
    what Apple use against the guys who made an Aqua-like shell for X11 or
    Windows or whatever it was.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    "Sam Jones" <sam.j.jones@spamnull.logicacmg.com> writes:

    > You are right, though - they are very similar in terms of design, and it
    > clearly wasn't an accident, although Fate does have it's own individual
    > features that make it stand out from other games of its type.

    And "of its type" is a large number. When Blizzard didn't go after Nox
    and all the others back then, why should they go after a clone this
    late? None of them were better than D2+LoD anyway.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:48:36 +0200, Mean_Chlorine wrote:

    > That is not necessarily true. Google copyright + "look and feel"

    Fate doesn't "look and feel" like Diablo or Diablo 2 to me. I feel much
    more reminded of traditional rogue-likes. What does "look and feel" the
    same to me are numerous shooters, and I don't see any sueing (suing?) going
    on in that genre.

    But the discussion is moot. Travis gave Blizzard a few copies of Fate at
    the E3, and the Blizzard guys liked the game and didn't have any problems
    with it whatoever (they even enjoyed playing it). And seriously, why should
    they? Fate doesn't even have multiplayer.

    M.
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
    >In article <ju5hf15eso8qp87icj3cs2kjs58bscs1kf@4ax.com>, mike_noren2002
    >@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk says...
    >> Thusly Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> Spake Unto All:
    >>
    >> >Contrary to claims often made by enemies of IP, it doesn't restrict you
    >> >from creating novel works that are similar to copyrighted ones.
    >> >
    >> >If they had copied sound, graphics, or code from Diablo, Blizzard could
    >> >sue them and would win.
    >>
    >> That is not necessarily true. Google copyright + "look and feel"
    >
    >There's a bit of that (the issue is slightly fuzzy by nature) but 'look
    >and feel' is not strong.
    >
    >The chance that Blizzard could successfully claim it against Fate is
    >zero.

    Look and feel is a trademark issue.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <jadedgamer@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> writes:
    >
    >> That is not necessarily true. Google copyright + "look and feel"
    >
    >Not necessary: Some of us are old enough to remember Apple vs.
    >Microsoft and Lotus vs. Borland: L&F is not protected by copyright.
    >
    >However, it can possibly be protected by trademark law; I am not sure
    >what Apple use against the guys who made an Aqua-like shell for X11 or
    >Windows or whatever it was.

    What about the guys who made the Dashboard thing that Apple ripped off?
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Michael Vondung <mvondung@gmail.com> wrote:
    >On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:48:36 +0200, Mean_Chlorine wrote:
    >
    >> That is not necessarily true. Google copyright + "look and feel"
    >
    >Fate doesn't "look and feel" like Diablo or Diablo 2 to me. I feel much
    >more reminded of traditional rogue-likes. What does "look and feel" the
    >same to me are numerous shooters, and I don't see any sueing (suing?) going
    >on in that genre.
    >
    >But the discussion is moot. Travis gave Blizzard a few copies of Fate at
    >the E3, and the Blizzard guys liked the game and didn't have any problems
    >with it whatoever (they even enjoyed playing it). And seriously, why should
    >they? Fate doesn't even have multiplayer.

    Warcraft = Dune 2.
    Blackthorne = Flashback.
    Diablo = Rogue.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    In article <csgkf1tp43odcr5lcmakh8aerfsoor0stg@4ax.com>,
    Gamera@work.stomping.aza says...

    > Diablo = Rogue.

    Some people like to claim that, but in point of fact Diablo wen t so
    far beyond the roguelike genre in terms of graphics that there is
    really no comparison.

    Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.

    Roguelikes have never succeeded in multiplayer versions.

    Diablo and its sequel introduced significant innovations. Too bad if
    that hurts anyone's feelings.

    - Gerry Quinn
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    tonij67@hotmail.com wrote:
    > Fate is not a bad little game, but I can't help but wonder; How do they
    > get away with not being sued by BLizzard? It's not only "like" Diablo,
    > it's darn near identical, right down to socketed items, same names for
    > potions and even the same naming conventions for items (Superior,
    > etc...)
    >
    > I am more than a little puzzled by this...anyone else?

    Someone (?) recently ran an interview with Travis Baldree (sp?) while
    he was at E3. He mentioned meeting several Blizzard
    representatives.... and from what I remember they got along great -- at
    least there was no mention of them suing him :)

    He even asked them how Diablo III was coming (they remained silent on
    the matter). I don't think Blizzard could sue Travis/WildTangent for
    anything... especially when you consider that Diablo ripped-off many
    elements of other games.

    -V
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:

    > Diablo and its sequel introduced significant innovations. Too bad if
    > that hurts anyone's feelings.

    Well, in that case, FATE introduces significant innovations over
    Diablo (e.g. hi-res 3D graphics instead of isometric sprites at
    640x400 or 800x600), so the argument that Blizzard should go after
    them is moot.
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On 8 Aug 2005 07:32:32 -0700, tonij67@hotmail.com wrotC:DRIVE_E

    >Fate is not a bad little game, but I can't help but wonder; How do they
    >get away with not being sued by BLizzard? It's not only "like" Diablo,
    >it's darn near identical, right down to socketed items, same names for
    >potions and even the same naming conventions for items (Superior,
    >etc...)
    >
    >I am more than a little puzzled by this...anyone else?

    You can't copyright a concept, only the code used to implement it.
    Assuming "Fate" uses no Diablo code (and it's highly doubtful they
    do), then, there's really nothing Blizzard can do. The only other
    thing would be trademark infringement, and I doubt Fate uses any
    Blizzard trademarks.

    It's worth noting that similair interface designs were protected in a
    court decision from the late 1980s, involving Lotus-123 and a
    competitor. (Name fades, sorry). Likewise, it was determined that
    programming languages cannot be copyrighted (This was a dBase case).
    *----------------------------------------------------*
    Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
    "I've heard of this thing men call 'empathy', but I've never
    once been afflicted with it, thanks the Gods." Bruno The Bandit
    http://www.mrlizard.com
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
    >In article <csgkf1tp43odcr5lcmakh8aerfsoor0stg@4ax.com>,
    >Gamera@work.stomping.aza says...
    >
    >> Diablo = Rogue.
    >
    >Some people like to claim that, but in point of fact Diablo wen t so
    >far beyond the roguelike genre in terms of graphics that there is
    >really no comparison.

    "in terms of graphics" is the punchline right?

    >Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.

    Not all of them.

    >Roguelikes have never succeeded in multiplayer versions.

    Sure they have. They just didn't sell millions of copies because they're
    not available for sale.

    >Diablo and its sequel introduced significant innovations. Too bad if
    >that hurts anyone's feelings.

    Like what?
    Hell I don't think I was suggesting that my feelings were hurt in my
    original post. But it's sure obvious that yours are. Fanboy.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Bateau <Gamera@work.stomping.aza> writes:

    > >Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.
    >
    > Not all of them.
    >
    > >Roguelikes have never succeeded in multiplayer versions.
    >
    > Sure they have. They just didn't sell millions of copies because they're
    > not available for sale.

    For an example of a real-time multiplayer roguelike, see Crossfire.

    http://crossfire.real-time.com/

    Remember to download both the server and client.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    In article <ull38fsjw.fsf@hotmail.com>, jadedgamer@hotmail.com says...
    > Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:
    >
    > > Diablo and its sequel introduced significant innovations. Too bad if
    > > that hurts anyone's feelings.
    >
    > Well, in that case, FATE introduces significant innovations over
    > Diablo (e.g. hi-res 3D graphics instead of isometric sprites at
    > 640x400 or 800x600), so the argument that Blizzard should go after
    > them is moot.

    That's not a real difference - the graphics in both are fairly similar.
    In practice it is simply a reflection of the advancement of graphic
    cards, which in recent years have eliminated the advantages of pre-
    calculated isometric graphics. The next Diablo won't use them either -
    very few games will.

    - Gerry Quinn
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    In article <q0dpf156dumci84lkv88bgcjerevh60ahu@4ax.com>,
    Gamera@work.stomping.aza says...
    > Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
    > >In article <csgkf1tp43odcr5lcmakh8aerfsoor0stg@4ax.com>,
    > >Gamera@work.stomping.aza says...
    > >
    > >> Diablo = Rogue.
    > >
    > >Some people like to claim that, but in point of fact Diablo wen t so
    > >far beyond the roguelike genre in terms of graphics that there is
    > >really no comparison.
    >
    > "in terms of graphics" is the punchline right?

    What's your point here?

    > >Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.
    >
    > Not all of them.

    It's a genre standard - many people will refuse to consider a non-turn-
    based roguelike as roguelike at all.

    > >Roguelikes have never succeeded in multiplayer versions.
    >
    > Sure they have. They just didn't sell millions of copies because they're
    > not available for sale.

    They aren't played in millions either, because they don't work.

    - Gerry Quinn
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <jadedgamer@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >Bateau <Gamera@work.stomping.aza> writes:
    >
    >> >Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.
    >>
    >> Not all of them.
    >>
    >> >Roguelikes have never succeeded in multiplayer versions.
    >>
    >> Sure they have. They just didn't sell millions of copies because they're
    >> not available for sale.
    >
    >For an example of a real-time multiplayer roguelike, see Crossfire.
    >
    >http://crossfire.real-time.com/
    >
    >Remember to download both the server and client.

    I used to play ToMENet.
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
    >In article <q0dpf156dumci84lkv88bgcjerevh60ahu@4ax.com>,
    >Gamera@work.stomping.aza says...
    >> Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
    >> >In article <csgkf1tp43odcr5lcmakh8aerfsoor0stg@4ax.com>,
    >> >Gamera@work.stomping.aza says...
    >> >
    >> >> Diablo = Rogue.
    >> >
    >> >Some people like to claim that, but in point of fact Diablo wen t so
    >> >far beyond the roguelike genre in terms of graphics that there is
    >> >really no comparison.
    >>
    >> "in terms of graphics" is the punchline right?
    >
    >What's your point here?

    Cloning a game and giving it pretty graphics is not going "so far beyond
    the genre that there is no comparison." It's not going anywhere.
    I suppose you'd agree that all the new Pac Man clones with 3d graphics
    would be so genre busting that they couldn't even be compared to Pac Man
    any more right?

    >> >Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.
    >>
    >> Not all of them.
    >
    >It's a genre standard - many people will refuse to consider a non-turn-
    >based roguelike as roguelike at all.

    Until they're presented with one.

    >> >Roguelikes have never succeeded in multiplayer versions.
    >>
    >> Sure they have. They just didn't sell millions of copies because they're
    >> not available for sale.
    >
    >They aren't played in millions either, because they don't work.

    No roguelikes are played in millions, because they're ugly.
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:

    > That's not a real difference - the graphics in both are fairly similar.

    No they aren't: There are significant differences between the low-res
    sprites in Diablo and the 3D models used in FATE. For instance, a
    isometric sprite animation consists of X frames times the eight
    directions each "sprite character" can face. The animation of a 3D
    model does not have this constraint.

    It's like saying Wolfenstein 3D is "fairly similar" to BF2.

    > In practice it is simply a reflection of the advancement of graphic
    > cards,

    .... and the choice to use a completely different graphics technology
    (3D instead of 2D). IIRC other Diablo clones like Nox also used 3D
    models instead of sprites.

    Other advantages FATE has over Diablo is: More quests (though just
    three different types of tasks it would seem), more variety of
    enemies, larger maps (but not compared to D2), the pet and its
    transformations, the open skill system as opposed to Diablo's
    classes...
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:

    > It's a genre standard - many people will refuse to consider a non-turn-
    > based roguelike as roguelike at all.

    Just like the "standard" of turn-based strategy games meant Dune II
    and Command and Conquer failed.

    Oh wait, they didn't! Instead they spawned a multitude of "real-time"
    strategy games.
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <jadedgamer@hotmail.com> looked up from reading the
    entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
    say:

    >Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:
    >
    >> That's not a real difference - the graphics in both are fairly similar.
    >
    >No they aren't: There are significant differences between the low-res
    >sprites in Diablo and the 3D models used in FATE. For instance, a
    >isometric sprite animation consists of X frames times the eight
    >directions each "sprite character" can face. The animation of a 3D
    >model does not have this constraint.
    >
    >It's like saying Wolfenstein 3D is "fairly similar" to BF2.
    >
    >> In practice it is simply a reflection of the advancement of graphic
    >> cards,
    >
    >... and the choice to use a completely different graphics technology
    >(3D instead of 2D). IIRC other Diablo clones like Nox also used 3D
    >models instead of sprites.

    And in fact the graphical look of Fate is far more like Darkstone than
    Diablo.
    The "going down levels into a deep dungeon" is more Diablo than
    Darkstone or Nox though - but then it also goes FAR deeper than Diablo -
    harkening back to the rogue-alikes.

    Hrm in that sense the multiple smaller dungeons and overland travel
    approach used in Nox, Darkstone and Diablo2 resemble Omega more than
    Rogue.

    >Other advantages FATE has over Diablo is: More quests (though just
    >three different types of tasks it would seem), more variety of
    >enemies, larger maps (but not compared to D2), the pet and its
    >transformations, the open skill system as opposed to Diablo's
    >classes...

    The Pet is certainly neat, although limited, but the magic system is
    pretty inferior to Diablo's. There's damn few spells, they aren't
    terribly effective and they aren't really boostable.
    Ranged combat also suffers from not being able to see far enough to make
    it really worthwhile.

    But, considering that this is a one-programmer amateur game, not a
    studio-of-pros release, those limitations aren't _that_ bad.

    Xocyll
    --
    I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
    a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
    Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
    FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    In article <ud8sf1h3soj3shrukn1ujbm33l6qm2mgl6@4ax.com>,
    Gamera@work.stomping.aza says...
    > Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
    > >In article <q0dpf156dumci84lkv88bgcjerevh60ahu@4ax.com>,
    > >Gamera@work.stomping.aza says...
    > >> Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
    > >> >In article <csgkf1tp43odcr5lcmakh8aerfsoor0stg@4ax.com>,
    > >> >Gamera@work.stomping.aza says...
    > >> >
    > >> >> Diablo = Rogue.
    > >> >
    > >> >Some people like to claim that, but in point of fact Diablo wen t so
    > >> >far beyond the roguelike genre in terms of graphics that there is
    > >> >really no comparison.
    > >>
    > >> "in terms of graphics" is the punchline right?
    > >
    > >What's your point here?
    >
    > Cloning a game and giving it pretty graphics is not going "so far beyond
    > the genre that there is no comparison."

    I did't say that - I said they went far beyond the genre in terms of
    graphics. They went considerably beyond it in other ways too. Diablo
    is not in any way a clone of rogue. [Examples of non-graphic elements
    in which Diablo far exceeds roguelikes are tactical balance, multi-
    player, and real-time.]

    > It's not going anywhere.

    You mean graphics are meaningless? I suppose you always listen to the
    radio rather than watch TV...

    > I suppose you'd agree that all the new Pac Man clones with 3d graphics
    > would be so genre busting that they couldn't even be compared to Pac Man
    > any more right?

    I don't know which games you mean, and how they compare. One can make
    comparisons between any games, in terms of graphics or other qualities.
    In this thread, however, I am talking not about Pacman but specifically
    about Diablo (in its current incarnation as D2), Fate, and current
    roguelikes. I enjoy them all - in threads where zeal so overcomes
    rationality that people assert that "Diablo = Rogue", I think it is
    only fair to point out the considerable limitations of roguelikes, some
    of which Diablo has overcome.
    >
    > >> >Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.
    > >>
    > >> Not all of them.
    > >
    > >It's a genre standard - many people will refuse to consider a non-turn-
    > >based roguelike as roguelike at all.
    >
    > Until they're presented with one.

    Well, yes. Until then.

    > >> >Roguelikes have never succeeded in multiplayer versions.
    > >>
    > >> Sure they have. They just didn't sell millions of copies because they're
    > >> not available for sale.
    > >
    > >They aren't played in millions either, because they don't work.
    >
    > No roguelikes are played in millions, because they're ugly.

    I would have thought that millions must have played them a bit. While
    ASCII roguelikes are so ugly that I would not consider playing one, I
    find tiled versions quite adequate, and today I should say the majority
    have tiles, at least as an option.

    - Gerry Quinn
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    In article <u8xz59bel.fsf@hotmail.com>, jadedgamer@hotmail.com says...
    > Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:
    >
    > > It's a genre standard - many people will refuse to consider a non-turn-
    > > based roguelike as roguelike at all.
    >
    > Just like the "standard" of turn-based strategy games meant Dune II
    > and Command and Conquer failed.
    >
    > Oh wait, they didn't! Instead they spawned a multitude of "real-time"
    > strategy games.

    Often a misnomer, since such games tend to have minimal strategy, and
    the tactics often depend more on mouse skills than organisational
    skills. Not always, of course. However, it's rather beside the point.

    Crossfire claims to be "influenced by Gauntlet and Roguelikes". It
    doesn't sound like even the authors are making the claim that it's a
    roguelike.

    - Gerry Quinn
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    In article <ud5oh9bif.fsf@hotmail.com>, jadedgamer@hotmail.com says...
    > Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:
    >
    > > That's not a real difference - the graphics in both are fairly similar.
    >
    > No they aren't: There are significant differences between the low-res
    > sprites in Diablo and the 3D models used in FATE. For instance, a
    > isometric sprite animation consists of X frames times the eight
    > directions each "sprite character" can face. The animation of a 3D
    > model does not have this constraint.

    I've played D2 and I've played Fate. The graphics *are* very similar,
    to my eyes at least.

    > It's like saying Wolfenstein 3D is "fairly similar" to BF2.

    I don't know what BF2 is, but Wolfenstein was hugely outlassed
    graphically by DOOM.

    > > In practice it is simply a reflection of the advancement of graphic
    > > cards,
    >
    > ... and the choice to use a completely different graphics technology
    > (3D instead of 2D). IIRC other Diablo clones like Nox also used 3D
    > models instead of sprites.

    A technology-driven choice. Both methods look somewhat similar. In
    the past, the pre-calculated isometric sprites gaver enhanced speed and
    stability, and Blizzard valued these important elements of gameplay.

    > Other advantages FATE has over Diablo is: More quests (though just
    > three different types of tasks it would seem), more variety of
    > enemies, larger maps (but not compared to D2), the pet and its
    > transformations, the open skill system as opposed to Diablo's
    > classes...

    Those are differences rather than advantages. Comparing D2, the one
    I'm familiar with, and in any case the current one, one can point to
    merits such as:
    More variety of quests (not just a standard fedex to the hightest level
    not reached), themed regions with different enemies, hireable henchmen
    of different kinds, a balanced skill system offering completely
    different play with seven different classes, detailed balancing of
    skills and enemies, absence of ridiculously valuable early drops...

    - Gerry Quinn
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
    >In article <ud8sf1h3soj3shrukn1ujbm33l6qm2mgl6@4ax.com>,
    >Gamera@work.stomping.aza says...
    >> Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
    >> >In article <q0dpf156dumci84lkv88bgcjerevh60ahu@4ax.com>,
    >> >Gamera@work.stomping.aza says...
    >> >> Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
    >> >> >In article <csgkf1tp43odcr5lcmakh8aerfsoor0stg@4ax.com>,
    >> >> >Gamera@work.stomping.aza says...
    >> >> >
    >> >> >> Diablo = Rogue.
    >> >> >
    >> >> >Some people like to claim that, but in point of fact Diablo wen t so
    >> >> >far beyond the roguelike genre in terms of graphics that there is
    >> >> >really no comparison.
    >> >>
    >> >> "in terms of graphics" is the punchline right?
    >> >
    >> >What's your point here?
    >>
    >> Cloning a game and giving it pretty graphics is not going "so far beyond
    >> the genre that there is no comparison."
    >
    >I did't say that - I said they went far beyond the genre in terms of
    >graphics.

    And how is that meant to refute "Diablo = Rogue"?
    I'm sorry for thinking you were attempting a logical argument.

    >They went considerably beyond it in other ways too. Diablo
    >is not in any way a clone of rogue. [Examples of non-graphic elements
    >in which Diablo far exceeds roguelikes are tactical balance, multi-
    >player, and real-time.]

    Tactical balance? You haven't played many roguelikes have you?
    I don't think you've played many video games at all. There are
    roguelikes that have all those elements.

    >> It's not going anywhere.
    >
    >You mean graphics are meaningless? I suppose you always listen to the
    >radio rather than watch TV...

    I mean if the graphics are functional making them prettier is
    meaningless. If you'd leave things in their proper context it would be
    clear to you.

    >> I suppose you'd agree that all the new Pac Man clones with 3d graphics
    >> would be so genre busting that they couldn't even be compared to Pac Man
    >> any more right?
    >
    >I don't know which games you mean, and how they compare. One can make
    >comparisons between any games, in terms of graphics or other qualities.
    >In this thread, however, I am talking not about Pacman but specifically
    >about Diablo (in its current incarnation as D2), Fate, and current
    >roguelikes. I enjoy them all - in threads where zeal so overcomes
    >rationality that people assert that "Diablo = Rogue", I think it is
    >only fair to point out the considerable limitations of roguelikes, some
    >of which Diablo has overcome.

    So now we're talking about Diablo 2? Stop moving the goalposts.
    Diablo is a roguelike. There is nothing about Diablo you can point to
    which suggests it isn't. Roguelikes have included features like sprite
    based graphics and real time multiplayer before. They have still been
    roguelikes.


    >> >> >Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.
    >> >>
    >> >> Not all of them.
    >> >
    >> >It's a genre standard - many people will refuse to consider a non-turn-
    >> >based roguelike as roguelike at all.
    >>
    >> Until they're presented with one.
    >
    >Well, yes. Until then.

    So now that you know of them will you admit that Diablo is a roguelike?

    >> >> >Roguelikes have never succeeded in multiplayer versions.
    >> >>
    >> >> Sure they have. They just didn't sell millions of copies because they're
    >> >> not available for sale.
    >> >
    >> >They aren't played in millions either, because they don't work.
    >>
    >> No roguelikes are played in millions, because they're ugly.
    >
    >I would have thought that millions must have played them a bit. While
    >ASCII roguelikes are so ugly that I would not consider playing one, I
    >find tiled versions quite adequate, and today I should say the majority
    >have tiles, at least as an option.

    You just said they aren't played in millions.
    The tiles are still ugly.
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    In article <ot91g19t6cmv9roebiaqekpuv9da6khos6@4ax.com>,
    Gamera@work.stomping.aza says...
    > Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:

    > >I did't say that - I said they went far beyond the genre in terms of
    > >graphics.

    > And how is that meant to refute "Diablo = Rogue"?

    If you actually play Rogue, you will find that it uses ANSI graphics,
    which are quite inferior to the graphics in Diablo. For example,
    monsters are represented by capital letters in Rogue. To give Rogue
    credit, it is superior graphically to the many ASCII roguelikes,
    despite being quite old.

    > >They went considerably beyond it in other ways too. Diablo
    > >is not in any way a clone of rogue. [Examples of non-graphic elements
    > >in which Diablo far exceeds roguelikes are tactical balance, multi-
    > >player, and real-time.]

    > Tactical balance? You haven't played many roguelikes have you?

    I have - their balance is often very poor.

    > >> It's not going anywhere.
    > >
    > >You mean graphics are meaningless? I suppose you always listen to the
    > >radio rather than watch TV...
    >
    > I mean if the graphics are functional making them prettier is
    > meaningless.

    Your lack of aesthethic sensibility is unfortunate - most of us are not
    crippled in this way.

    > >I don't know which games you mean, and how they compare. One can make
    > >comparisons between any games, in terms of graphics or other qualities.
    > >In this thread, however, I am talking not about Pacman but specifically
    > >about Diablo (in its current incarnation as D2), Fate, and current
    > >roguelikes. I enjoy them all - in threads where zeal so overcomes
    > >rationality that people assert that "Diablo = Rogue", I think it is
    > >only fair to point out the considerable limitations of roguelikes, some
    > >of which Diablo has overcome.
    >
    > So now we're talking about Diablo 2? Stop moving the goalposts.

    It's the current version of Diablo, and I compare it with current
    roguelikes. Also, D2 is the one I am familiar with.

    > Diablo is a roguelike. There is nothing about Diablo you can point to
    > which suggests it isn't. Roguelikes have included features like sprite
    > based graphics and real time multiplayer before. They have still been
    > roguelikes.

    If Diablo were a roguelike, how come lots of people play it who
    wouldn't be bothered with ordinary roguelikes? Is it that it is by far
    the best roguelike (refuting your claim that "Diablo = Rogue") or that
    it isn't a roguelike?

    Sprite graphics and real-time multiplayer may have been tried in some
    roguelikes, but not with any degree of success.

    > >> >> >Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Not all of them.
    > >> >
    > >> >It's a genre standard - many people will refuse to consider a non-turn-
    > >> >based roguelike as roguelike at all.
    > >>
    > >> Until they're presented with one.
    > >
    > >Well, yes. Until then.
    >
    > So now that you know of them will you admit that Diablo is a roguelike?

    I don't know of them.. The only one mentioned claims to be "influenced
    by Gauntlet and Roguelikes". An experimental one has been discussed on
    the roguelike development newsgroup, but does not appear to have been
    successfully implemented yet. And even if they were, it would not make
    Diablo a roguelike, although it also is influenced by them. And even
    if one categorised computer games in a manner that placed Diablo among
    the roguelikes, the assertion that "Diablo=Rogue" would remain moronic.

    > >I would have thought that millions must have played them a bit. While
    > >ASCII roguelikes are so ugly that I would not consider playing one, I
    > >find tiled versions quite adequate, and today I should say the majority
    > >have tiles, at least as an option.
    >
    > You just said they aren't played in millions.
    > The tiles are still ugly.

    Depends on what tense you assign to 'played'. Millions have played
    them. As for your assertion that the tiles are ugly, you have already
    admitted to being so aesthetic dysfunctional that you see no value in
    graphics beyond functionality.

    - Gerry Quinn
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:

    > If you actually play Rogue, you will find that it uses ANSI graphics,
    > which are quite inferior to the graphics in Diablo.

    Yes, but that's presentation only. The underlying game is the same:
    Whack mobs for loot as you descend a randomly-generated dungeon.

    > Your lack of aesthethic sensibility is unfortunate - most of us are not
    > crippled in this way.

    We bow to your superiority, Master. ^_^

    > It's the current version of Diablo,

    No, it's a sequel to Diablo. What you are doing is akin to saying that
    since Return to Castle Wolfenstein is a modern FPS, the original
    Wolfenstein 3D is not a derivate of 3D Maze.

    > and I compare it with current roguelikes. Also, D2 is the one I am
    > familiar with.

    Which means you are not familiar with Diablo, which is the game we
    discuss. D2 is closer to ADOM or Omega, since it has open areas. Which
    roguelikes do you compare with?

    > If Diablo were a roguelike, how come lots of people play it who
    > wouldn't be bothered with ordinary roguelikes?

    Straw man: You cannot buy traditional roguelikes in stores (unlike the
    Diablos), so people aren't exposed to them. And just because someone
    who likes one roguelike doesn't like another (I didn't much fancy
    Omega, but love Cthangband for instance) doesn't mean the disliked
    game isn't in the same genre or vice versa.

    > Sprite graphics and real-time multiplayer may have been tried in some
    > roguelikes, but not with any degree of success.

    Plenty of people played Crossfire back in the day.
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:

    > Diablo is not in any way a clone of rogue.

    Not a clone, but certainly inspired by the roguelike family. The ways
    in which it resembles Angband is kind of uncanny.

    > [Examples of non-graphic elements in which Diablo far exceeds
    > roguelikes are tactical balance, multi-player, and real-time.]

    Tactical balance between classes is intentionally ignored in most
    roguelikes -- some classes are actually meant to be harder than
    others. That's a reasonable design decision if the game isn't
    multiplayer.

    Some people don't actually consider real-time to "exceed" turn-based
    gameplay.

    > I would have thought that millions must have played them a bit.

    I wonder... How would we find out?

    > While ASCII roguelikes are so ugly that I would not consider
    > playing one,

    That seems kind of prejudiced. :^)

    Traditional turn-based roguelikes are nice in some ways that the
    Diablos are not. For example, Nethack has much more complex and
    interesting uses for non-combat items, and really smart monsters in
    comparison (they pick up and use dungeon items, and so forth).

    > find tiled versions quite adequate, and today I should say the majority
    > have tiles, at least as an option.

    I've never found tiles to be better than ASCII, but then I still
    prefer using the rogue/vi key layouts, so maybe I'm coming at this
    from a different direction from you.

    I do love D2, BTW. Other than free roguelikes, no other game has given
    me more gameplay per dollar. But as much as I enjoy it, I don't think
    it totally pwns the traditional roguelikes, especially in the areas
    you are focused on.

    Nick

    --
    #include<stdio.h> /* sigmask (sig.c) 20041028 PUBLIC DOMAIN */
    int main(c,v)char *v;{return !c?putchar(* /* cc -o sig sig.c */
    v-1)&&main(0,v+1):main(0,"Ojdl!Wbshjti!=ojdlAwbshjti/psh?\v\1");}
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:

    > If Diablo were a roguelike, how come lots of people play it who
    > wouldn't be bothered with ordinary roguelikes?

    Because most roguelikes are very frustrating for new players -- and
    sometimes for experienced players! They are intentionally difficult,
    especially at low levels, and death is permanent (unless you save
    scum, which I admit I do with Angband).

    Prettyness certainly is a factor, too.

    > Is it that it is by far the best roguelike (refuting your claim that
    > "Diablo = Rogue") or that it isn't a roguelike?

    I'd say it's the most accessible roguelike ever, and comes from a
    hugely successful company with a large marketing budget.

    Diablo 2 doesn't really qualify as a roguelike to me, basically
    because of the real-time thing. But it's so heavily influenced by them
    that it's a direct offspring as far as I'm concerned.

    Nick

    --
    #include<stdio.h> /* sigmask (sig.c) 20041028 PUBLIC DOMAIN */
    int main(c,v)char *v;{return !c?putchar(* /* cc -o sig sig.c */
    v-1)&&main(0,v+1):main(0,"Ojdl!Wbshjti!=ojdlAwbshjti/psh?\v\1");}
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
    >In article <ot91g19t6cmv9roebiaqekpuv9da6khos6@4ax.com>,
    >Gamera@work.stomping.aza says...
    >> Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
    >
    >> >I did't say that - I said they went far beyond the genre in terms of
    >> >graphics.
    >
    >> And how is that meant to refute "Diablo = Rogue"?
    >
    >If you actually play Rogue, you will find that it uses ANSI graphics,
    >which are quite inferior to the graphics in Diablo. For example,
    >monsters are represented by capital letters in Rogue. To give Rogue
    >credit, it is superior graphically to the many ASCII roguelikes,
    >despite being quite old.

    That isn't the BEST argument you have is it? That's a pretty superficial
    difference.

    >> >They went considerably beyond it in other ways too. Diablo
    >> >is not in any way a clone of rogue. [Examples of non-graphic elements
    >> >in which Diablo far exceeds roguelikes are tactical balance, multi-
    >> >player, and real-time.]
    >
    >> Tactical balance? You haven't played many roguelikes have you?
    >
    >I have - their balance is often very poor.

    Too hard?

    >> >> It's not going anywhere.
    >> >
    >> >You mean graphics are meaningless? I suppose you always listen to the
    >> >radio rather than watch TV...
    >>
    >> I mean if the graphics are functional making them prettier is
    >> meaningless.
    >
    >Your lack of aesthethic sensibility is unfortunate - most of us are not
    >crippled in this way.

    I appreciate pretty things as much as anyone else. I can just see beyond
    them to the nature of things.

    >> >I don't know which games you mean, and how they compare. One can make
    >> >comparisons between any games, in terms of graphics or other qualities.
    >> >In this thread, however, I am talking not about Pacman but specifically
    >> >about Diablo (in its current incarnation as D2), Fate, and current
    >> >roguelikes. I enjoy them all - in threads where zeal so overcomes
    >> >rationality that people assert that "Diablo = Rogue", I think it is
    >> >only fair to point out the considerable limitations of roguelikes, some
    >> >of which Diablo has overcome.
    >>
    >> So now we're talking about Diablo 2? Stop moving the goalposts.
    >
    >It's the current version of Diablo, and I compare it with current
    >roguelikes. Also, D2 is the one I am familiar with.

    It's a sequel.

    >> Diablo is a roguelike. There is nothing about Diablo you can point to
    >> which suggests it isn't. Roguelikes have included features like sprite
    >> based graphics and real time multiplayer before. They have still been
    >> roguelikes.
    >
    >If Diablo were a roguelike, how come lots of people play it who
    >wouldn't be bothered with ordinary roguelikes? Is it that it is by far
    >the best roguelike (refuting your claim that "Diablo = Rogue") or that
    >it isn't a roguelike?

    If it was "the best roguelike" it would prove my argument that it was a
    roguelike you noob. Lots of people play it because it's easier, faster,
    and prettier than other roguelikes. All roguelikes differ in difficulty,
    speed and graphics but it doesn't mean they can't all be roguelikes.

    >Sprite graphics and real-time multiplayer may have been tried in some
    >roguelikes, but not with any degree of success.

    And not with any comparable budget.

    >> >> >> >Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Not all of them.
    >> >> >
    >> >> >It's a genre standard - many people will refuse to consider a non-turn-
    >> >> >based roguelike as roguelike at all.
    >> >>
    >> >> Until they're presented with one.
    >> >
    >> >Well, yes. Until then.
    >>
    >> So now that you know of them will you admit that Diablo is a roguelike?
    >
    >I don't know of them.. The only one mentioned claims to be "influenced
    >by Gauntlet and Roguelikes". An experimental one has been discussed on
    >the roguelike development newsgroup, but does not appear to have been
    >successfully implemented yet. And even if they were, it would not make
    >Diablo a roguelike, although it also is influenced by them. And even
    >if one categorised computer games in a manner that placed Diablo among
    >the roguelikes, the assertion that "Diablo=Rogue" would remain moronic.

    Which one was that? I mentioned TomeNET which is very openly a
    roguelike. The only thing moronic is your failure to take notice of the
    context of my statement. I said that Fate is to Diablo as Diablo is to
    roguelikes.

    >> >I would have thought that millions must have played them a bit. While
    >> >ASCII roguelikes are so ugly that I would not consider playing one, I
    >> >find tiled versions quite adequate, and today I should say the majority
    >> >have tiles, at least as an option.
    >>
    >> You just said they aren't played in millions.
    >> The tiles are still ugly.
    >
    >Depends on what tense you assign to 'played'. Millions have played
    >them. As for your assertion that the tiles are ugly, you have already
    >admitted to being so aesthetic dysfunctional that you see no value in
    >graphics beyond functionality.

    I never said that. I said graphics are irrelevant when you're
    categorizing gameplay.
  37. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    In article <uk6imhqzr.fsf@hotmail.com>, jadedgamer@hotmail.com says...
    > Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:
    >
    > > If you actually play Rogue, you will find that it uses ANSI graphics,
    > > which are quite inferior to the graphics in Diablo.
    >
    > Yes, but that's presentation only. The underlying game is the same:
    > Whack mobs for loot as you descend a randomly-generated dungeon.

    Different mobs, different dungeon, different abilities, realtime,
    multiplayer. Why are they not part of "the underlying game"?

    > > It's the current version of Diablo,
    >
    > No, it's a sequel to Diablo. What you are doing is akin to saying that
    > since Return to Castle Wolfenstein is a modern FPS, the original
    > Wolfenstein 3D is not a derivate of 3D Maze.
    >
    > > and I compare it with current roguelikes. Also, D2 is the one I am
    > > familiar with.
    >
    > Which means you are not familiar with Diablo, which is the game we
    > discuss. D2 is closer to ADOM or Omega, since it has open areas. Which
    > roguelikes do you compare with?

    The version of Rogue that is usually considered definitive was not the
    first. Again, why should "open areas" suddenly assume overwhelming
    importance? Indeed, surely the main difference between 'open areas'
    and 'dungeons' is the graphics?

    > > If Diablo were a roguelike, how come lots of people play it who
    > > wouldn't be bothered with ordinary roguelikes?
    >
    > Straw man: You cannot buy traditional roguelikes in stores (unlike the
    > Diablos), so people aren't exposed to them.

    OTOH, they are free, which would surely be an advantage if people were
    interested. People pay to play Diablo.

    > And just because someone
    > who likes one roguelike doesn't like another (I didn't much fancy
    > Omega, but love Cthangband for instance) doesn't mean the disliked
    > game isn't in the same genre or vice versa.

    > > Sprite graphics and real-time multiplayer may have been tried in some
    > > roguelikes, but not with any degree of success.
    >
    > Plenty of people played Crossfire back in the day.

    The authors claim only "influenced by Gauntlet and Roguelikes".

    - Gerry Quinn
  38. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    In article <iha4g1lenc43vu8pjo0stud4nuv854mhrh@4ax.com>,
    Gamera@work.stomping.aza says...
    > Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:

    > >> And how is that meant to refute "Diablo = Rogue"?
    > >
    > >If you actually play Rogue, you will find that it uses ANSI graphics,
    > >which are quite inferior to the graphics in Diablo. For example,
    > >monsters are represented by capital letters in Rogue. To give Rogue
    > >credit, it is superior graphically to the many ASCII roguelikes,
    > >despite being quite old.
    >
    > That isn't the BEST argument you have is it? That's a pretty superficial
    > difference.

    It's the biggest and most obvious reason why "Diablo=Rogue" is a
    moronic assertion. Of course it's not thye only one - there are many
    more differences.

    And I would hardly call the creation of detailed animated graphics,
    compared to throwing a few letters and dots on the screen, to be a
    superficial difference anyway.

    > >> >They went considerably beyond it in other ways too. Diablo
    > >> >is not in any way a clone of rogue. [Examples of non-graphic elements
    > >> >in which Diablo far exceeds roguelikes are tactical balance, multi-
    > >> >player, and real-time.]
    > >
    > >> Tactical balance? You haven't played many roguelikes have you?
    > >
    > >I have - their balance is often very poor.
    >
    > Too hard?

    Sometimes - or too easy, rewarding boring play. Rogue, the one we
    refer to, is poorly balanced, in that if you don't find and identify
    the ring of slow digestion, you will need a miraculous number of food
    drops to win, and wearing any other ring may be considered well-nigh
    suicidal.

    > >Your lack of aesthethic sensibility is unfortunate - most of us are not
    > >crippled in this way.
    >
    > I appreciate pretty things as much as anyone else. I can just see beyond
    > them to the nature of things.

    Clearly you don't appreciate them, or you wouldn't be making this
    ridiculous argument.

    > >> So now we're talking about Diablo 2? Stop moving the goalposts.
    > >
    > >It's the current version of Diablo, and I compare it with current
    > >roguelikes. Also, D2 is the one I am familiar with.
    >
    > It's a sequel.

    So is the version of Rogue we normally talk about.

    > >Sprite graphics and real-time multiplayer may have been tried in some
    > >roguelikes, but not with any degree of success.
    >
    > And not with any comparable budget.

    True, but such efforts as have been made have had limited success.

    > >I don't know of them.. The only one mentioned claims to be "influenced
    > >by Gauntlet and Roguelikes". An experimental one has been discussed on
    > >the roguelike development newsgroup, but does not appear to have been
    > >successfully implemented yet. And even if they were, it would not make
    > >Diablo a roguelike, although it also is influenced by them. And even
    > >if one categorised computer games in a manner that placed Diablo among
    > >the roguelikes, the assertion that "Diablo=Rogue" would remain moronic.
    >
    > Which one was that? I mentioned TomeNET which is very openly a
    > roguelike. The only thing moronic is your failure to take notice of the
    > context of my statement. I said that Fate is to Diablo as Diablo is to
    > roguelikes.

    No you didn't. And if you had it would still be moronic. Fate doesn't
    advance much on the Diablo games in any significant way and is behind
    them overall - whereas Diablo has quite distinctive features compared
    to roguelikes, and vastly surpasses them in some respects.

    > >Depends on what tense you assign to 'played'. Millions have played
    > >them. As for your assertion that the tiles are ugly, you have already
    > >admitted to being so aesthetic dysfunctional that you see no value in
    > >graphics beyond functionality.
    >
    > I never said that. I said graphics are irrelevant when you're
    > categorizing gameplay.

    We were talking about identifying games as clones, not categorising
    gameplay. And graphics, in any case, are still perfectly relevant to
    the latter.

    - Gerry Quinn
  39. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> looked up from reading the
    entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
    say:

    >In article <iha4g1lenc43vu8pjo0stud4nuv854mhrh@4ax.com>,
    >Gamera@work.stomping.aza says...
    >> Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
    >
    >> >> And how is that meant to refute "Diablo = Rogue"?
    >> >
    >> >If you actually play Rogue, you will find that it uses ANSI graphics,
    >> >which are quite inferior to the graphics in Diablo. For example,
    >> >monsters are represented by capital letters in Rogue. To give Rogue
    >> >credit, it is superior graphically to the many ASCII roguelikes,
    >> >despite being quite old.
    >>
    >> That isn't the BEST argument you have is it? That's a pretty superficial
    >> difference.
    >
    >It's the biggest and most obvious reason why "Diablo=Rogue" is a
    >moronic assertion. Of course it's not thye only one - there are many
    >more differences.
    >
    >And I would hardly call the creation of detailed animated graphics,
    >compared to throwing a few letters and dots on the screen, to be a
    >superficial difference anyway.

    But really it is.

    You, represented by your letter, icon, sprite or 3d multi-thousand
    polygon figure, attack the monster that is likewise represented.

    The underlying mechanics are basically the same.

    Does it really matter if the magic missile you shoot is represented as a
    "/" as it shoots northeast of you or is a fantastically animated, light
    casting, extravaganza; when in the final analysis, it's you causing 1d4
    points of damage to the critter with a spell?

    The only real thing that increasing graphics have done is _seriously_
    limit the scope of the games.

    Diablo may look nicer, but it's a tiny fraction of a Rogue-alike.

    Take Diablo2.
    With it's graphic engine and layout, it would have to be something like
    20 times bigger to encompass everything that's in Omega.
    [Not to mention have a lot of code changes to take into account
    modifying items, getting blessed/cursed by gods, genocide scrolls,
    etc,etc,etc.]

    Diablo2 is a nice-looking simple gamer, Omega is a VASTLY bigger and
    more complicated game but with only simple ANSI graphics.

    Xocyll
    --
    I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
    a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
    Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
    FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
  40. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    In article <87u0hp1cm0.fsf@localhost.localdomain>,
    nav+posts@bandersnatch.org says...
    > Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:

    > > I would have thought that millions must have played them a bit.
    >
    > I wonder... How would we find out?

    If we added up the number of students in university departments that
    are computer orientated, did a straw poll to find the percentage who
    played roguelikes, and multiplied by a fudge factor, we might get
    somewhere. Counting internet downloads might be an option too.

    > > While ASCII roguelikes are so ugly that I would not consider
    > > playing one,
    >
    > That seems kind of prejudiced. :^)

    No, it's just unacceptable for me. It's ugly and different monsters
    look the same.

    > Traditional turn-based roguelikes are nice in some ways that the
    > Diablos are not. For example, Nethack has much more complex and
    > interesting uses for non-combat items, and really smart monsters in
    > comparison (they pick up and use dungeon items, and so forth).

    Sure, there are some features that they have that Diablo doesn't.

    > I do love D2, BTW. Other than free roguelikes, no other game has given
    > me more gameplay per dollar. But as much as I enjoy it, I don't think
    > it totally pwns the traditional roguelikes, especially in the areas
    > you are focused on.

    Actually, I never mentioned 'complex item interactions' etc. at all. I
    agree that NetHack wins out over Diablo there.

    - Gerry Quinn
  41. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:

    > If we added up the number of students in university departments that
    > are computer orientated, did a straw poll to find the percentage who
    > played roguelikes, and multiplied by a fudge factor, we might get
    > somewhere.

    We could just count the number of Comp Sci grads that flunk out...
    Nethack used to be called "Gradekiller" by the CS folks when I was in
    college.

    > No, it's just unacceptable for me. It's ugly and different monsters
    > look the same.

    Different monsters look the same in the Diablos too, just
    palette-shifted. Most roguelikes use one character for a class of
    monsters, and vary the color depending on the discrete type. Seems
    like similar approaches to me.

    Lots of people think Diablo2 is ugly because it's sprite-based and not
    polygonal...

    Cheers,

    Nick

    --
    #include<stdio.h> /* sigmask (sig.c) 20041028 PUBLIC DOMAIN */
    int main(c,v)char *v;{return !c?putchar(* /* cc -o sig sig.c */
    v-1)&&main(0,v+1):main(0,"Ojdl!Wbshjti!=ojdlAwbshjti/psh?\v\1");}
  42. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    In article <87pssd1cc7.fsf@localhost.localdomain>,
    nav+posts@bandersnatch.org says...
    > Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:

    > Prettyness certainly is a factor, too.
    >
    > > Is it that it is by far the best roguelike (refuting your claim that
    > > "Diablo = Rogue") or that it isn't a roguelike?
    >
    > I'd say it's the most accessible roguelike ever, and comes from a
    > hugely successful company with a large marketing budget.
    >
    > Diablo 2 doesn't really qualify as a roguelike to me, basically
    > because of the real-time thing. But it's so heavily influenced by them
    > that it's a direct offspring as far as I'm concerned.

    But... but... Diablo was also realtime! I don't remember it well, but
    I did play the demo years ago!


    - Gerry Quinn
  43. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Gerry Quinn wrote:
    > In article <vbs7g11ef9hrmp7igk6rig55n88bmau02q@4ax.com>,
    > Gamera@work.stomping.aza says...
    > > Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
    >
    > > >But... but... Diablo was also realtime! I don't remember it well, but
    > > >I did play the demo years ago!
    >
    > > Then please cease arguing that it is not a roguelike when you do not
    > > remember it at all. No wonder you are so desperate to push your lame
    > > "Diablo = Diablo 2" case.
    >
    > If, as you seem to be asserting, Diablo was turn-based, it is clear
    > that I remember it even more poorly than I thought - which only
    > underlines my wisdom in sticking to discussing the version with which I
    > am familiar.

    > But I am almost certain it was in fact real-time. I believe it is you
    > who is making the error, and if so you should retire from the debate
    > before embarrassing yourself further.

    Diablo 1 was certainly real-time, but I'm not sure that's what this
    argument is about, not that I really care. Was Diablo 1 a rogue-like?
    In many respects, yes. However, in one major respect, it was not, in
    that when you die in most rogue-likes, you're dead. Restart. Diablo
    didn't have that "feature". And of course, the graphics in Diablo 1
    were light years ahead of any other graphical rogue-like that existed
    at the time. And very few rogue-likes are real-time (I know of none,
    but then I don't know all of the rogue-likes, just the major ones). You
    could argue that Diablo has almost as much in common with Gauntlet as
    it does rogue-likes.

    --
    Knight37
    http://knightgames.blogspot.com
    Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer!
  44. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
    >In article <87pssd1cc7.fsf@localhost.localdomain>,
    >nav+posts@bandersnatch.org says...
    >> Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:
    >
    >> Prettyness certainly is a factor, too.
    >>
    >> > Is it that it is by far the best roguelike (refuting your claim that
    >> > "Diablo = Rogue") or that it isn't a roguelike?
    >>
    >> I'd say it's the most accessible roguelike ever, and comes from a
    >> hugely successful company with a large marketing budget.
    >>
    >> Diablo 2 doesn't really qualify as a roguelike to me, basically
    >> because of the real-time thing. But it's so heavily influenced by them
    >> that it's a direct offspring as far as I'm concerned.
    >
    >But... but... Diablo was also realtime! I don't remember it well, but
    >I did play the demo years ago!

    Then please cease arguing that it is not a roguelike when you do not
    remember it at all. No wonder you are so desperate to push your lame
    "Diablo = Diablo 2" case.
  45. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    In article <31j6g1t974nk4o3d5pntpoips3rns64ej4@4ax.com>,
    Xocyll@kingston.net says...
    > Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> looked up from reading the
    > entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
    > say:

    > >And I would hardly call the creation of detailed animated graphics,
    > >compared to throwing a few letters and dots on the screen, to be a
    > >superficial difference anyway.
    >
    > But really it is.
    >
    > You, represented by your letter, icon, sprite or 3d multi-thousand
    > polygon figure, attack the monster that is likewise represented.
    >
    > The underlying mechanics are basically the same.

    It's like saying that a stick figure with a weird smile is basically
    the same as the Mona Lisa.

    > Does it really matter if the magic missile you shoot is represented as a
    > "/" as it shoots northeast of you or is a fantastically animated, light
    > casting, extravaganza; when in the final analysis, it's you causing 1d4
    > points of damage to the critter with a spell?

    Real-time and restricted views make a huge difference even in your
    terms. But yes, it matters - otherwise why not play a game in which
    you start with 100 points and win if you're still alive after
    subtracting 40d4? After all, there are no critters, really. Why not
    call the monster "Spreadsheet Row 30" with normal attack behaviour and
    2d3 damage?

    > The only real thing that increasing graphics have done is _seriously_
    > limit the scope of the games.
    >
    > Diablo may look nicer, but it's a tiny fraction of a Rogue-alike.

    This is the sort of bias I am objecting to - a grotesque overvaluation
    of the advantages of a niche genre, combined with completely ignoring
    the advantages of others.

    > Take Diablo2.
    > With it's graphic engine and layout, it would have to be something like
    > 20 times bigger to encompass everything that's in Omega.
    > [Not to mention have a lot of code changes to take into account
    > modifying items, getting blessed/cursed by gods, genocide scrolls,
    > etc,etc,etc.]
    >
    > Diablo2 is a nice-looking simple gamer, Omega is a VASTLY bigger and
    > more complicated game but with only simple ANSI graphics.

    It's also unfinished, unbalanced, and ugly.

    - Gerry Quinn
  46. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    In article <vbs7g11ef9hrmp7igk6rig55n88bmau02q@4ax.com>,
    Gamera@work.stomping.aza says...
    > Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:

    > >But... but... Diablo was also realtime! I don't remember it well, but
    > >I did play the demo years ago!

    > Then please cease arguing that it is not a roguelike when you do not
    > remember it at all. No wonder you are so desperate to push your lame
    > "Diablo = Diablo 2" case.

    If, as you seem to be asserting, Diablo was turn-based, it is clear
    that I remember it even more poorly than I thought - which only
    underlines my wisdom in sticking to discussing the version with which I
    am familiar.

    But I am almost certain it was in fact real-time. I believe it is you
    who is making the error, and if so you should retire from the debate
    before embarrassing yourself further.

    - Gerry Quinn
  47. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:

    > It's like saying that a stick figure with a weird smile is basically
    > the same as the Mona Lisa.

    No, it's like saying the Mona Lisa and a sumple drawing of a face are
    both portraits.

    Noone here is saying Diablo is the same as e.g. Angband. But the two
    games are in the same genre: Roguelikes.

    But a certain individual is fighting this by trying to argue that a
    game cannot belong to genre X if it has features that weren't in the
    games present when the genre X term was first used. The same way he'll
    probably argue that Civilization IV is not a 4X since it uses 3D
    graphics instead of sprites.

    > Real-time and restricted views make a huge difference even in your
    > terms.

    Yes, but on a cosmetic scale, not relative to a genre. When Quake used
    3D, people didn't say it couldn't be called a FPS because its
    predecessors like Doom were 2D.

    > But yes, it matters - otherwise why not play a game in which
    > you start with 100 points and win if you're still alive after
    > subtracting 40d4? After all, there are no critters, really. Why not
    > call the monster "Spreadsheet Row 30" with normal attack behaviour and
    > 2d3 damage?

    How is representing a "monster" with a 3D model any more "real" than
    representing it symbolically? It's all numbers. Not real.
  48. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Gerry Quinn wrote:
    > The FPS genre has hybridised and we often tend not to call games FPS's
    > if they have other more significant features. For example, WOW is not
    > considered an FPS. We think of Half-Life as an FPS, but we note that
    > there is a degree of hybridisation with the adventure game. The
    > boundaries are malleable and not easily defined.

    WoW is not an FPS because it's an RPG. An MMORPG in fact. It's not even
    remotely an FPS.

    And Half-Life is the epitome of FPS. It's not an "adventure" hybrid,
    it's a pure FPS, through and through. When someone asks "what is the
    best FPS of all time" Half-Life will get mentioned more often than not.
    Half-Life's only expansion of the FPS genre was to add scripted events,
    which made it a better STORY, but as far as actual game play, Half-Life
    is more or less the same as Doom or Quake.

    I'm not sure what your point is except if you're trying to say genres
    are meaningless in which case I'd completely disagree. Genres are
    extremely useful in describing games. And while some games are
    "hybrids" that fall into more than genre, most are pretty easily
    classifiable.

    Knight37
  49. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Mean_Chlorine wrote:
    > Thusly "Knight37" <knight37m@gmail.com> Spake Unto All:
    >
    > >WoW is not an FPS because it's an RPG.
    >
    > Just because I'm feeling evil right now, I must point out that neither
    > of those two concepts have been adequately defined, and hence any
    > appeal to those two categories void.

    FPS and RPG are genres of games that have been previously defined and
    are in common use prior to this debate. I do not feel the need to
    redefine commonly used terms. You didn't expect me to spell out what
    the word "is" means, did you? I know you're trying to be "cute" but
    you really DO know what the hell I was talking about.
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Games IBM RPG Video Games