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 but it's outdated...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 games are often implemented with *seriously* outdated technology like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 Sorry, my references are out of date- Doom 3 even.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 =].
yt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram