Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

[Ragnarok / Valhalla]

Tags:
  • Games
  • Video Games
Last response: in PC Gaming
Anonymous
August 15, 2004 1:27:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

Anyone remember this oldie? I'm making polish roguelike site and I
found two diffrent versions of this game...
Version 1.0 (Home of the Underdogs):
- Titled "Valhalla" on inviting screen
- Has sounds
- Over 6 MB large
Version 2.5 (Some other sites):
- Titled "Ragnarok" on inviting screen
- Hasn't sounds
- Over 5 MB large

So what we see here? Later version have slightly better looks but
hasn't sounds...

If I would copy sounds files from 1.0 directory into 2.5 directory,
will version 2.5 have sounds?

What are other differences between this two versions / games?

More about : ragnarok valhalla

Anonymous
August 15, 2004 9:53:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

Glen Wheeler wrote:

> "Shvagroz" <shvagroz@os.pl> wrote in message
> news:564e295c.0408142027.52da9417@posting.google.com...
>
>>Anyone remember this oldie? I'm making polish roguelike site and I
>>found two diffrent versions of this game...
>>Version 1.0 (Home of the Underdogs):
>>- Titled "Valhalla" on inviting screen
>>- Has sounds
>>- Over 6 MB large
>>Version 2.5 (Some other sites):
>>- Titled "Ragnarok" on inviting screen
>>- Hasn't sounds
>>- Over 5 MB large
>>
>>So what we see here? Later version have slightly better looks but
>>hasn't sounds...
>>
>>If I would copy sounds files from 1.0 directory into 2.5 directory,
>>will version 2.5 have sounds?
>>
>>What are other differences between this two versions / games?
>
>
> Actually, you have it backwards. Valhalla is the newer version of
> Ragnarok. If you read the readme, or their actual website (*cough* it's
> free now *cough*) you would find that out yourself.
>
> It's a good roguelike, one of the best for a newbie to get introduced to
> the genre.
>

Did you mean, that Valhalla 1.0 was released LATER than Ragnarok 2.5??
Anonymous
August 15, 2004 7:42:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

Tina Hall wrote:
> I haven't seen Valhalla, but Ragnarok doesn't appear to be a
> roguelike at all. First, no ASCII graphic, then you can re-load old
> saves after you got killed or made a mistake. Two features that are
> pretty much mandatory for roguelikes are missing.

For God's sake! Maybe you would say that IVAN, (megacrappy) Castle of
the Winds and other games that have no ASCII graphics aren't
Roguelikes too? I also don't think that no-backup save system
qualifies game to be Roguelike or not. Well, I don't want to insult
you, but all that you said above is simply... Stupid. Here are my
Roguelike conditions:
- isometric view
- randomly generated dungeons
- turn-based moving around the world
Won't you all agree with me...?

[Sorry for responding to main post, but I post it using
groups.google.com and most recent posts aren't here already but I read
them using read-only NNTP; also sorry for my poor english... If I made
some mistakes please send me mail about it on shvagroz@os.pl , I would
be thankful...]
Related resources
Anonymous
August 15, 2004 10:00:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

Damn... One more question... In Valhalla's directory there are some
executable files:

valhalla.bat

adlib.com
ibmsnd.com
sblaster.com
sbpro.com
source.com

norseman.exe
setup.exe

Norseman.exe runs the game without sounds...
Setup.exe It setups the sound card...
*.com files don't do anything special...
Valhalla.bat runs the game, and after playing any sound (after
starting new game or loading previously started) it simply hangs...
I'm using WinXP...

Is there any way to run this game with sounds and prevent it from
hangs after playing sounds? Maybe on other OS?
Anonymous
August 15, 2004 11:15:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

"Shvagroz" <shvagroz@os.pl> wrote in message
news:564e295c.0408142027.52da9417@posting.google.com...
> Anyone remember this oldie? I'm making polish roguelike site and I
> found two diffrent versions of this game...
> Version 1.0 (Home of the Underdogs):
> - Titled "Valhalla" on inviting screen
> - Has sounds
> - Over 6 MB large
> Version 2.5 (Some other sites):
> - Titled "Ragnarok" on inviting screen
> - Hasn't sounds
> - Over 5 MB large
>
> So what we see here? Later version have slightly better looks but
> hasn't sounds...
>
> If I would copy sounds files from 1.0 directory into 2.5 directory,
> will version 2.5 have sounds?
>
> What are other differences between this two versions / games?

Actually, you have it backwards. Valhalla is the newer version of
Ragnarok. If you read the readme, or their actual website (*cough* it's
free now *cough*) you would find that out yourself.

It's a good roguelike, one of the best for a newbie to get introduced to
the genre.

--
Glen
L:p yt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 1:28:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

Tina Hall wrote:
> Roguelike graphic is efficient and no flimsy nonsense, which is the
> reason I ended up playing Nethack (yet another rant against useless
> graphic and no games had someone suggest that) and from there other
> roguelikes.
>
> It's the difference between reading a book and watching a movie.
> Reading a book requires your own imagination. You might like both,
> but a movie is not the same as a book.

If you want to have fun playing computer games - have fun playing
computer games.
If you want to play RPG using your imagination - play classic RPG's
like AD&D or Vampire.
If you want fully use human's ability of imagination - go on bed,
close your eyes and imagine what you want.

Of course, I don't say that there is no need to imagine everything
when playing Roguelike game with ASCII graphics. Imagination make
playing Roguelike games with ASCII graphics more fun, but it's
outdated... Are there any commercial games today with ASCII graphics?
No. New productions don't move back to ASCII graphics, they move on to
better, 3D graphics.

Rogue hasn't graphics, because when it was created real graphics were
hard to implemen
t into computer games. So Rogue's creator used ASCII graphics in his
game. That's logical.

Today programmers make Roguelikes with ASCII graphics because they
make all they efforts to make their games inventive, not game
graphics. But I bet that all Roguelike programmers would like their
games to have brilliant graphics if they would met some genie or
wish-fulfilling faerie that would offer making so graphics for their
games.

I think, that cleverness is better than simplicity.
I also think, that graphics are better than symbols.
Many people think like me.
You think otherwise. But your thinking doesn't determine any game to
be this kind or another.

Finally, some quotes:

Underdogs:
"Ragnarok (or Valhalla as some might know it) is a Rogue- like game
(...)"

Mobygames:
"This might as well be a total upgrade from the game Rogue: The
Adventure Game as it duplicates a lot of detailed features from that
game."

Open-site.org:
"Ragnarok is a turn-based roguelike with minimal graphics."

www.oldgamez.it forum:
"Una nuova segnalazione: Ragnarok (a.k.a. Valhalla)
Si tratta di uno dei roguelike più belli e complessi in cui sono stati
innestati elementi dei primi quattro episodi della serie "Ultima"."



> If you actually like corrections (not everybody does, but I'm one of
> those that do, too), I'd suggest 'grateful' instead of 'thankful' in
> this case. I won't nitpick on grammar. :) 

You know, I would better like to correct my grammar. Teacher will
nitpick on it (if I my supposition of meaning of word "nitpicking" is
correct, I didn't found it in dictionary :p ).

Anyway, I think that my english is better than your polish :p .
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 7:50:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

Shvagroz <shvagroz@os.pl> buzzed:
> Tina Hall wrote:

>> I haven't seen Valhalla, but Ragnarok doesn't appear to be a
>> roguelike at all. First, no ASCII graphic, then you can re-load
>> old saves after you got killed or made a mistake. Two features
>> that are pretty much mandatory for roguelikes are missing.

> For God's sake! Maybe you would say that IVAN, (megacrappy)
> Castle of the Winds and other games that have no ASCII graphics
> aren't Roguelikes too?

I don't know these games, but ASCII graphic is part of what defines
a roguelike. Just because something has three wheels doesn't mean
it's a plane, when wings and flying ability are missing, too.

> I also don't think that no-backup save system qualifies game to be
> Roguelike or not.

It's also part of what defines a roguelike.

Both is pretty much 2/3 of what makes them different to normal
CRPGs, the third is the random nature of the dungeon.

You can't call something _rogue_ _like_ when it's nothing like
rogue. It's the opposite of "When it quacks like a duck and walks
like a duck,..."; it's "When it doesn't quack like a duck, and
doesn't walk like a duck,...
  • ".

    Reloading an old savegame is ok for wizard or explore mode, but
    takes away the nature of a roguelike in a real game: you only have
    one chance to do it right, if you get your character killed it's
    <blinking red huge letters> 'GAME OVER'. That's a feature of
    roguelikes, the main feature what make them so difficult. Without
    that, there's no danger, no point.

    And Ragnarok's graphic is a misfeature. The _optional_ tiles in
    Nethack are at least cute and it actually saves you having to use
    the awkward 'look' command in a lot of cases, and it doesn't
    interfere with gameplay, but I found half the screen in Ragnarok
    taken up with some useless graphics and commands for mouse use
    rather offensive.

    Roguelike graphic is efficient and no flimsy nonsense, which is the
    reason I ended up playing Nethack (yet another rant against useless
    graphic and no games had someone suggest that) and from there other
    roguelikes.

    It's the difference between reading a book and watching a movie.
    Reading a book requires your own imagination. You might like both,
    but a movie is not the same as a book.

    > Well, I don't want to insult you, but all that you said above is
    > simply... Stupid.

    You can't insult me; that's just your opinion.

    > Here are my Roguelike conditions:
    > - isometric view
    > - randomly generated dungeons
    > - turn-based moving around the world
    > Won't you all agree with me...?

    No. Your definition would make Master of Magic a Roguelike.

    > [Sorry for responding to main post, but I post it using
    > groups.google.com and most recent posts aren't here already but I
    > read them using read-only NNTP;

    Trying to fly with a car?

    > also sorry for my poor english...

    Poor English doesn't need to be excused, it's not everyone's native
    language. As long as you're understood, it's quite sufficient, IMAO.

    > If I made some mistakes please send me mail about it on
    > shvagroz@os.pl , I would be thankful...]

    If you actually like corrections (not everybody does, but I'm one of
    those that do, too), I'd suggest 'grateful' instead of 'thankful' in
    this case. I won't nitpick on grammar. :) 

  • ,... it's probably not the local cat. <g> Sorry, that's just a
    joke; the fluffball does quack a lot and walks rather oddly
    sometimes.

    --
    Tina the Chopper - a Priest of the Rigorous National Gremlin
    Anonymous
    August 16, 2004 7:50:01 AM

    Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 03:50:00 GMT+1, Tina_Hall@kruemel.org (Tina Hall)
    wrote:

    >I don't know these games, but ASCII graphic is part of what defines
    >a roguelike. Just because something has three wheels doesn't mean
    >it's a plane, when wings and flying ability are missing, too.

    So, Rogue isn't a roguelike then. At least not if you play the Amiga
    or Atari versions.

    Richard Daniel Henry
    danhenry@inreach.com
    Anonymous
    August 16, 2004 11:08:49 AM

    Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 21:28:45 -0700, Shvagroz wrote:

    > If you want to have fun playing computer games - have fun playing
    > computer games.
    > If you want to play RPG using your imagination - play classic RPG's
    > like AD&D or Vampire.
    > If you want fully use human's ability of imagination - go on bed,
    > close your eyes and imagine what you want.

    That's true enough.

    > Imagination make playing Roguelike games with ASCII graphics more fun,
    > but it's outdated...

    Well these roguelike games "chess" and "cards" are pretty old, and the
    games are often implemented with *seriously* outdated technology like
    "wood" and "paper", but a lot of people still play them.

    > Are there any commercial games today with ASCII graphics? No.

    That's a bad argument. Commercial games have to, by definition, make
    money. So they have to be designed to have instant appeal to as many
    people as possible. I think at least 80% of people would not even bother
    with the *graphical* roguelikes, because they *look* so rubbish. Those
    people matter to companies, because they are where the money is.

    So what commercial games do has no bearing on what is good, rather it
    is a guide to what makes companies most money. NOT the same thing.

    > New productions don't move back to ASCII graphics, they move on to
    > better, 3D graphics.

    Maybe you would rather play the very popular roguelike game "Quake".
    Sorry, my references are out of date- Doom 3 even. BTW, I think you'll
    find that many people think that today's games industry is stagnant
    because all they care about is the graphics. First impressions are what
    sell games, who cares if people like them once they get them?

    > Rogue hasn't graphics, because when it was created real graphics were
    > hard to implement into computer games. So Rogue's creator used ASCII
    > graphics in his game. That's logical.

    Yes, that much is true. Well, not *quite* the reason, more like hardly
    anybody had the hardware for real graphics.

    > Today programmers make Roguelikes with ASCII graphics because they
    > make all they efforts to make their games inventive, not game graphics.

    There is something to be said for that argument, but it is not the
    whole story.

    > But I bet that all Roguelike programmers would like their
    > games to have brilliant graphics if they would met some genie or
    > wish-fulfilling faerie that would offer making so graphics for their
    > games.

    No. I for one would not accept graphics for my roguelike game, because
    apart from liking the way roguelike games look, I think that graphical
    tiles make them actually look worse, as I explained in a forum elsewhere:

    Roguelike games are constrained to a grid, which looks normal enough if
    you've already accepted that it's an ASCII based game. Once you replace
    everything with graphical tiles, that system begins to look truly
    ridiculous and out of place.

    Having said that, I think the Fallout games managed pretty well with its
    isometric system, but it was often hard to see where you could or couldn't
    go. FWIW I'd say that games like Fallout, Ragnarok (which FWIW I liked
    in *parts*), etc could perhaps be described as *similar* to rogue.

    But if you show them to practically anybody and say "do these games
    seem similar to you?" they'd say "of course not"... Would those people
    be experts on roguelikes? Unlikely, but neither would many of the people
    you quoted.

    > I think, that cleverness is better than simplicity.
    > I also think, that graphics are better than symbols.
    > Many people think like me.

    Very true, but many people think like Tina or myself as well.

    > You think otherwise. But your thinking doesn't determine any game to
    > be this kind or another.

    Well everybody is entitled to an opinion. You say it's a roguelike,
    others of us say it isn't. It's certainly similar, but really not that
    similar. Why would you care whether it's called a roguelike or not? Most
    people would accept it's an RPG of sorts. What's wrong with that?

    -Tomble
    --
    ---------------Contact Info-------------------
    $(USER)=tomble $(DOMAIN)=usermail.com
    Email Address= $(USER)@$(DOMAIN)
    (Address also in "About" section of my website
    http://www.angelfire.com/super2/duologue/
    along with other semi-random nonsense)
    Anonymous
    August 16, 2004 3:07:12 PM

    Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    "Shvagroz" <shvagroz@os.pl> wrote in message
    news:564e295c.0408151700.130d874b@posting.google.com...
    > Damn... One more question... In Valhalla's directory there are some
    > executable files:
    >
    > valhalla.bat
    >
    > adlib.com
    > ibmsnd.com
    > sblaster.com
    > sbpro.com
    > source.com
    >
    > norseman.exe
    > setup.exe
    >
    > Norseman.exe runs the game without sounds...
    > Setup.exe It setups the sound card...
    > *.com files don't do anything special...
    > Valhalla.bat runs the game, and after playing any sound (after
    > starting new game or loading previously started) it simply hangs...
    > I'm using WinXP...
    >
    > Is there any way to run this game with sounds and prevent it from
    > hangs after playing sounds? Maybe on other OS?

    Try fiddling with the DOS mode environment settings. If you remember the
    DOS days, when you had to alter config.sys and autoexec.bat to get things
    like this to work, nowadays we have a custom ``config.sys'' and
    ``autoexec.bat'' for each console.

    HTH.

    --
    Glen
    L:p yt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
    W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
    Anonymous
    August 16, 2004 3:47:11 PM

    Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Shvagroz wrote:

    > Damn... One more question... In Valhalla's directory there are some
    > executable files:
    >
    > valhalla.bat
    >
    > adlib.com
    > ibmsnd.com
    > sblaster.com
    > sbpro.com
    > source.com
    >
    > norseman.exe
    > setup.exe
    >
    > Norseman.exe runs the game without sounds...
    > Setup.exe It setups the sound card...
    > *.com files don't do anything special...
    > Valhalla.bat runs the game, and after playing any sound (after
    > starting new game or loading previously started) it simply hangs...
    > I'm using WinXP...
    >
    > Is there any way to run this game with sounds and prevent it from
    > hangs after playing sounds? Maybe on other OS?

    If you want to run it in "real" dos mode under WinXP;
    http://sourceforge.net/projects/dosbox/
    Anonymous
    August 16, 2004 8:17:32 PM

    Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Tom Barnes-Lawrence <address_given@my_signature_below.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.08.16.06.08.46.788433@my_signature_below.com>...
    > On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 21:28:45 -0700, Shvagroz wrote:
    >
    > > If you want to have fun playing computer games - have fun playing
    > > computer games.
    > > If you want to play RPG using your imagination - play classic RPG's
    > > like AD&D or Vampire.
    > > If you want fully use human's ability of imagination - go on bed,
    > > close your eyes and imagine what you want.
    >
    > That's true enough.
    >
    > > Imagination make playing Roguelike games with ASCII graphics more fun,
    > > but it's outdated...
    >
    > Well these roguelike games "chess" and "cards" are pretty old, and the
    > games are often implemented with *seriously* outdated technology like
    > "wood" and "paper", but a lot of people still play them.
    >
    > > Are there any commercial games today with ASCII graphics? No.
    >
    > That's a bad argument. Commercial games have to, by definition, make
    > money. So they have to be designed to have instant appeal to as many
    > people as possible. I think at least 80% of people would not even bother
    > with the *graphical* roguelikes, because they *look* so rubbish. Those
    > people matter to companies, because they are where the money is.
    >
    > So what commercial games do has no bearing on what is good, rather it
    > is a guide to what makes companies most money. NOT the same thing.
    >
    > > New productions don't move back to ASCII graphics, they move on to
    > > better, 3D graphics.
    >
    > Maybe you would rather play the very popular roguelike game "Quake".
    > Sorry, my references are out of date- Doom 3 even. BTW, I think you'll
    > find that many people think that today's games industry is stagnant
    > because all they care about is the graphics. First impressions are what
    > sell games, who cares if people like them once they get them?
    >
    > > Rogue hasn't graphics, because when it was created real graphics were
    > > hard to implement into computer games. So Rogue's creator used ASCII
    > > graphics in his game. That's logical.
    >
    > Yes, that much is true. Well, not *quite* the reason, more like hardly
    > anybody had the hardware for real graphics.
    >
    > > Today programmers make Roguelikes with ASCII graphics because they
    > > make all they efforts to make their games inventive, not game graphics.
    >
    > There is something to be said for that argument, but it is not the
    > whole story.
    >
    > > But I bet that all Roguelike programmers would like their
    > > games to have brilliant graphics if they would met some genie or
    > > wish-fulfilling faerie that would offer making so graphics for their
    > > games.
    >
    > No. I for one would not accept graphics for my roguelike game, because
    > apart from liking the way roguelike games look, I think that graphical
    > tiles make them actually look worse, as I explained in a forum elsewhere:
    >
    > Roguelike games are constrained to a grid, which looks normal enough if
    > you've already accepted that it's an ASCII based game. Once you replace
    > everything with graphical tiles, that system begins to look truly
    > ridiculous and out of place.
    >
    > Having said that, I think the Fallout games managed pretty well with its
    > isometric system, but it was often hard to see where you could or couldn't
    > go. FWIW I'd say that games like Fallout, Ragnarok (which FWIW I liked
    > in *parts*), etc could perhaps be described as *similar* to rogue.
    >
    > But if you show them to practically anybody and say "do these games
    > seem similar to you?" they'd say "of course not"... Would those people
    > be experts on roguelikes? Unlikely, but neither would many of the people
    > you quoted.
    >
    > > I think, that cleverness is better than simplicity.
    > > I also think, that graphics are better than symbols.
    > > Many people think like me.
    >
    > Very true, but many people think like Tina or myself as well.
    >
    > > You think otherwise. But your thinking doesn't determine any game to
    > > be this kind or another.
    >
    > Well everybody is entitled to an opinion. You say it's a roguelike,
    > others of us say it isn't. It's certainly similar, but really not that
    > similar. Why would you care whether it's called a roguelike or not? Most
    > people would accept it's an RPG of sorts. What's wrong with that?
    >
    > -Tomble

    Well, I think I agree with you =P... Anyway, I was saying that
    imagination is outdated thing in cRPG's, but not in other aspects of
    gaming... And saying outdated I didn't say it's bad, stupid or
    something like that. No, no, no... And saying, that new, popular games
    have brilliant graphics I didn't say that brilliant graphics are
    absolutely better than imagination. But you have to agree with me,
    that we live in times of that brilliant graphics, even if we don't
    subordinate to them - because we don't need to. But mainly I agree
    with you =P... Especially with that, that it isn't really important if
    some game is roguelike, or roguelike-like or similar to roguelike or
    something like that... But we don't need to make our opinion the one
    and only law...

    Just have fun playing what you want and calling it how you want, oh
    People =].
    Anonymous
    August 16, 2004 8:27:06 PM

    Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    One more thing...
    Yes, I said, that I think that graphics are better than symbols, and
    later I said that I didn't said that graphics are *absolutely* better
    than ASCII...
    First, I was saying about my own preferences...
    And later I was saying that that my preferences aren't that
    one-and-only-law...

    I think I explained my words... I don't want to make any more needless
    quarrels and go back to gaming :p 
    Anonymous
    August 16, 2004 9:19:41 PM

    Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Elethiomel <kkkk.lllll.mmmm> wrote in message news:<4120828d@news.broadpark.no>...
    > If you want to run it in "real" dos mode under WinXP;
    > http://sourceforge.net/projects/dosbox

    Thanks...
    I tried it, in DOSBox Valhalla plays sound without hanging the game,
    but it requires to raise frameskip or the sounds will stutter... And
    raising the frameskip makes the game slightly unplayable... I have
    Duron 900 and 512 MB RAM...

    If you know any other way to make Valhalla play sounds and doesn't
    hang, I will be *grateful* =P
    Anonymous
    August 17, 2004 7:45:27 AM

    Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Shvagroz wrote:
    > If you know any other way to make Valhalla play sounds and doesn't
    > hang, I will be *grateful* =P

    Try VDMSound, maybe that does the trick for you.

    http://www.ece.mcgill.ca/~vromas/vdmsound/
    Anonymous
    August 17, 2004 7:45:28 AM

    Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    "Falk W." <CCDSoftware@web.de> wrote in message news:<cfrnvi$kcn$07$1@news.t-online.com>...
    > Shvagroz wrote:
    > > If you know any other way to make Valhalla play sounds and doesn't
    > > hang, I will be *grateful* =P
    >
    > Try VDMSound, maybe that does the trick for you.
    >
    > http://www.ece.mcgill.ca/~vromas/vdmsound/

    Yeah, this one helps =D!
    Thanks!