List of Roguelikes?

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

What other roguelikes are there worth trying?

List of things that needn't be recommended follows:

Nethack/Slash'EM - Too much doesn't makes sense and just annoyes
(besides, I got bored with it).

Crawl - No maintenance and one bug too many (a jerk that can't post,
refuses to admit bugs, and arbitrairily decides the games's 'rules'
can't be called a maintainer).

Ragnarok - Has a time limit, bad screen management, bad
interface,... And isn't even a roguelike.

Adom - Too linear/restrictive. (Besides, the questions for character
creation are a stupid mis-feature.)

Angband (and variants) - Levels aren't kept, too monotonous.

Omega - needs a needless directory (C:\Tmp), also has some stupid
questions (and even stupider replies) for character creation, and
the doc says it doesn't remember all dungeons. Starting a game
despite that and looking around that 'town?' a bit didn't convince
me to give it a proper try.

--
Tina
65 answers Last reply
More about list roguelikes
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Tina_Hall@kruemel.org wrote:
    > What other roguelikes are there worth trying?

    Decker - http://www.caro.net/dsi/decker/

    Try Xenocide too. Still under development, but if you play a bit, post
    the comments here. They will be appreciated.

    http://xenocide.e-plan.pl (the website is down now, but there's a link
    to the game).

    regards,
    Jakub
    --
    "We're just toys in the hands of Xom"
    xenocide.e-plan.pl - SF roguelike in development
    www.graveyard.uni.cc - visit Roguelike Graveyard
    www.alamak0ta.republika.pl - my other projects.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    bork bork bork Tina Hall bork 5:19:00 AM bork 11/24/2004 bork bork:

    > What other roguelikes are there worth trying?
    >
    > List of things that needn't be recommended follows:
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Tina Hall wrote:
    > What other roguelikes are there worth trying?

    Don't know whether it fits your taste, but you could have a look into "3059"
    http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~jvight/mirror/3059/
    Didn't play it myself (yet), but I've read some "promising" comments. No
    guarantee, of course...

    > List of things that needn't be recommended follows:
    >
    > Nethack/Slash'EM - Too much doesn't makes sense and just annoyes
    > (besides, I got bored with it).

    Agreed. If I would have to eliminate all the annoying stuff from
    Nethack, a game very close to Crawl would be the result. ;-)

    > Crawl - No maintenance and one bug too many (a jerk that can't post,
    > refuses to admit bugs, and arbitrairily decides the games's 'rules'
    > can't be called a maintainer).

    Sure, no more maintenance is a sad story, but still - currently the best
    roguelike around, IMO (of course) and compared to the ones I know...

    > Ragnarok - Has a time limit, bad screen management, bad interface,...
    > And isn't even a roguelike.

    I also wasn't very impressed.

    > Adom - Too linear/restrictive. (Besides, the questions for character
    > creation are a stupid mis-feature.)

    Not that bad, but personally I found that I don't like static quests
    (the same goes for ToME, for instance).

    > Angband (and variants) - Levels aren't kept, too monotonous.

    If I wouldn't have found Crawl, I would still play it, Oangband in
    particular. I started playing Angband variants with ToME, because you
    actually can play it with (optional) persistant levels (same goes for
    Hengband IIRC). But after a while I found persistant levels just don't
    fit with the concept of Angband and finally I got used to the
    non-persistant levels. But I think I understand your point: it needs
    some patience, if you only played persistant roguelikes before...

    > Omega

    No comment (don't know anything about it).

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

    jakub@mks.com.pl wrote:
    > Tina_Hall@kruemel.org wrote:

    I'd recommend one more game - futuristic again:

    JauntTrooper - Mission: Thunderbolt
    http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?id=4199

    It has a few annoying elements (very limited FOV),
    but it's pretty fun.

    regards,
    Jakub
    --
    "We're just toys in the hands of Xom"
    xenocide.e-plan.pl - SF roguelike in development
    www.graveyard.uni.cc - visit Roguelike Graveyard
    www.alamak0ta.republika.pl - my other projects
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Tina_Hall@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote in message news:<MSGID_2=3A240=2F2199.13=40fidonet_2abc44d3@fidonet.org>...
    > What other roguelikes are there worth trying?
    >
    > List of things that needn't be recommended follows:
    >
    > Nethack/Slash'EM - Too much doesn't makes sense and just annoyes

    annoying puns aside, all the different commands in roguelikes can be
    annoying; why hasn't anyone created a smarter interface?
    !- meta-D for Dip. q for quaff. u for use. a for apply.
    how about "U"se !
    would you like to 1. drink 2. pour on another item 3.light 4. throw

    'T' ake off armor or 'R' remove accessories
    why not one command for both?
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Tina Hall <Tina_Hall@kruemel.org> wrote:
    >What other roguelikes are there worth trying?
    >List of things that needn't be recommended follows:
    [all major roguelikes and Ragnarok]

    Plenty of people enjoy all of these. Maybe the bug is in you?
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
    > [all major roguelikes and Ragnarok]
    >
    > Plenty of people enjoy all of these. Maybe the bug is in you?

    Everything is boring after some time.
    What is suprising in such kind of question?

    For me Nethack is nothing but annoying, but...
    de gustibus non est disputandum...

    regards
    Jakub
    --
    "We're just toys in the hands of Xom"
    xenocide.e-plan.pl - SF roguelike in development
    www.graveyard.uni.cc - visit Roguelike Graveyard
    www.alamak0ta.republika.pl - my other projects
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Jakub Debski <jakub@mks.com.pl> wrote:
    > Tina_Hall@kruemel.org wrote:

    >> What other roguelikes are there worth trying?

    > Decker

    What's that like? Why do you recommend it?

    > Try Xenocide too. Still under development, but if you play a bit,
    > post the comments here. They will be appreciated.

    Same questions here...

    [From your own followup-post:]

    > I'd recommend one more game - futuristic again:

    'Again' like what other one?

    > JauntTrooper - Mission: Thunderbolt

    What's that like?

    > It has a few annoying elements (very limited FOV),
    > but it's pretty fun.

    FOV?

    (To actually get a game I'd need a direkt link to a file for a DOS
    compilation, so far I only ask for what roguelikes there are,
    though.)

    --
    Tina - Living in the Twilight Zone.
    Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of an insane mind!!!!
    (Apologies to Terry Pratchett.)
    CrossPoint/FreeXP v3.40 RC3. Usenet/Fidonet gateway, no internet access.
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Tina Hall wrote:
    > What other roguelikes are there worth trying?
    >
    > List of things that needn't be recommended follows:
    >
    > Nethack/Slash'EM - Too much doesn't makes sense and just annoyes
    > (besides, I got bored with it).
    >
    > Crawl - No maintenance and one bug too many (a jerk that can't post,
    > refuses to admit bugs, and arbitrairily decides the games's 'rules'
    > can't be called a maintainer).
    >
    > Ragnarok - Has a time limit, bad screen management, bad
    > interface,... And isn't even a roguelike.
    >
    > Adom - Too linear/restrictive. (Besides, the questions for character
    > creation are a stupid mis-feature.)
    >
    > Angband (and variants) - Levels aren't kept, too monotonous.
    >
    > Omega - needs a needless directory (C:\Tmp), also has some stupid
    > questions (and even stupider replies) for character creation, and
    > the doc says it doesn't remember all dungeons. Starting a game
    > despite that and looking around that 'town?' a bit didn't convince
    > me to give it a proper try.
    >

    Try thelist.roguelikedevelopment.org for a list of roguelike sorted
    after most recent release. Many of the games on the list are actively
    being developed, some are in their earlier stage and some can be
    classified as "completed".

    --
    Björn Bergström
    roguelike development [http://roguelikedevelopment.org]
    dweller - cellphone roguelike [http://roguelikedevelopment.org/dweller]
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    bork bork bork Peter Borgmann bork 10:22:41 AM bork 11/24/2004 bork bork:

    While we're at this (I've thought every now and then of posting some thoughts
    on the "big four" myself)...

    > > Nethack/Slash'EM - Too much doesn't makes sense and just annoyes
    > > (besides, I got bored with it).
    >
    > Agreed. If I would have to eliminate all the annoying stuff from Nethack, a
    > game very close to Crawl would be the result. ;-)
    >
    If I had to eliminate all the stuff from Nethack that annoys ME, a game very
    close to a "now there's an @ and you can move it" pre-alpha demo would
    result. :-))) Still, it's obvious there are plenty of masoc... I mean users
    who enjoy it, since it's quite possible got more discussion than rgrm,
    rgradom, and rgrangband combined. Why they enjoy it, however, I do not know.
    Perhaps it was just their first call of port in the roguelike world, and they
    identify the things that are fun about roguelikes overall with Nethack in
    particular, and look no further. Ehm, no, proti gustu není žádný disputát, as
    someone else here wrote (in Latin, which I can't write). OK, OK... There's no
    accounting for taste. (In Czech: against taste there is no argument.)

    > > Crawl - No maintenance and one bug too many (a jerk that can't post,
    > > refuses to admit bugs, and arbitrairily decides the games's 'rules'
    > > can't be called a maintainer).
    >
    > Sure, no more maintenance is a sad story, but still - currently the best
    > roguelike around, IMO (of course) and compared to the ones I know...

    It's hard for me to say a roguelike is "best," because there are several I
    like quite a bit and usually whichever Roguelike I'm playing at a given
    moment seems "the best" at that moment. Unless it's NetHack, of course...

    On the other hand, until recently, I swore it would be years until I picked
    up Crawl again, it was just THAT frustrating for me. And then suddenly the
    barrier broke, somehow and I guess I started to picked up all the little
    tricks that get you through the opening. So maybe I will magically stop being
    bothered by Nethack's "read a cursed scroll of confusion while eating a
    leprachaun on a new moon and you'll get a wand of wishing" approach.

    > > Ragnarok - Has a time limit, bad screen management, bad interface,...
    > > And isn't even a roguelike.
    >
    > I also wasn't very impressed.

    Years ago, but I also also wasn't. ("AOL!")

    >
    > > Adom - Too linear/restrictive. (Besides, the questions for character
    > > creation are a stupid mis-feature.)
    >
    > Not that bad, but personally I found that I don't like static quests
    > (the same goes for ToME, for instance).

    Proti gustu...

    THE game that got me started playing roguelikes, and holds a dear place in my
    heart. After something like 2 years of non-stop play, I got really burnt out,
    though. I have some fairly advanced ADOM characters on the back burner that I
    hope I will be "recovered" enough to continue with some day.

    ADOM isn't really all that linear or restrictive. A few things must be done
    in order; the vast majority need not be. A few things must be done; the vast
    majority is optional.

    I'm really baffled by Tina's complaint about the opening question system.
    It's optional, it's non-default, and the sum total of the real estate it
    takes up for those of us who don't use it (which includes me) is one extra
    keypress when launching a character -- 'r'andom instead of 'a'sk....

    > > Angband (and variants) - Levels aren't kept, too monotonous.
    >
    > If I wouldn't have found Crawl, I would still play it, Oangband in
    > particular. I started playing Angband variants with ToME, because you
    > actually can play it with (optional) persistant levels (same goes for
    > Hengband IIRC). But after a while I found persistant levels just don't
    > fit with the concept of Angband and finally I got used to the
    > non-persistant levels. But I think I understand your point: it needs
    > some patience, if you only played persistant roguelikes before...
    >
    Not much for Vanilla Angband, not much for most variants either, but I REALLY
    REALLY enjoyed ToME (so much that I played it into the ground, burnt out on
    it and picked up Crawl again). Somehow ToME manages to overcome the "walking
    in a vague, monotonous, boring dream world" feeling I otherwise get from
    "tempadungeons". I might even recommend it to Tina if she hadn't informed
    everyone ahead of time not to bother with "the whole Angband family". "Give
    me advice, but don't tell me anything I don't want to hear..."

    > > Omega

    [no comment -- nothing to say]

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

    "Tina Hall" wrote:
    > What other roguelikes are there worth trying?
    >
    > List of things that needn't be recommended follows:

    [snip]

    > Crawl - No maintenance and one bug too many (a jerk that can't post,
    > refuses to admit bugs, and arbitrairily decides the games's 'rules'
    > can't be called a maintainer).

    [...delurking here...]

    Mang, what are you talking about? I find Brent's posts to be among the
    best and most interesting (both here and on r.g.r.development). Of
    course he may "arbitrarily decide the game's rules", but what else
    would you expect the maintainer to do? Seriously - have a look at the
    crawl source code - it is such a tangled mess that you have to come up
    with some rules or it just doesn't make sense.

    Bugs? Sure, crawl has loads (some of the 'features' are arguably
    bugs), but if you're talking about the 'unending transformation',
    that's *not* a bug, read the game message again!

    [snip more ineligible roguelikes]

    > Omega - needs a needless directory (C:\Tmp), also has some stupid
    > questions (and even stupider replies) for character creation, and
    > the doc says it doesn't remember all dungeons. Starting a game
    > despite that and looking around that 'town?' a bit didn't convince
    > me to give it a proper try.

    You may well enjoy it. I find it to be one of the most interesting
    (it has some very innovative ideas), but has a vastly different style
    of play to just about any other roguelike. Combat tends to be a bit
    ho-hum, but the quest and guild structure is fun and unusual. The
    'wildernes' is especially admirable as it is not just some vast plain
    of featureless terrain - and it makes 'getting lost' more realistic.


    Otherwise, I'd strongly suggest either of Joseph's more mature
    offerings - GearHead or DeadCold. DeadCold doesn't seem to be under
    active development at the moment, but GearHead is a great blend of
    anime and giant mecha robots stomping each other.

    I know you don't have web access, but the links are:

    GH: http://gearhead.roguelikedevelopment.org/gh-0900-doswin.zip

    and

    DC: http://www.geocities.com/pyrrho12/programming/deadcold/game.zip


    Cheers,
    Adam
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Erik Piper <efrniokr@sdky.cz> wrote:
    > bork bork bork Tina Hall bork 5:19:00 AM bork 11/24/2004 bork
    > bork:

    >> What other roguelikes are there worth trying?
    >>
    >> List of things that needn't be recommended follows:
    >>
    >>
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Tina_Hall@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:

    > What other roguelikes are there worth trying?

    > List of things that needn't be recommended follows:

    > Nethack/Slash'EM - Too much doesn't makes sense and just annoyes
    > (besides, I got bored with it).

    But they're fun, and when Gehennom and the end-game balance is
    fixed, they'll be even more fun.

    > Crawl - No maintenance and one bug too many (a jerk that can't
    > post, refuses to admit bugs, and arbitrairily decides the games's
    > 'rules' can't be called a maintainer).

    Looks like you're having a bad day. Brent Ross doesn't fit that
    description.

    > Adom - Too linear/restrictive. (Besides, the questions for
    > character creation are a stupid mis-feature.)

    For me it's the repetitive quests (I want to stop saving the
    carpenter, already) and the bugs, and the lack of source code so I
    can't even fix the bugs that keep crashing my games.

    The questions for character creation can be skipped, y'know.

    > Angband (and variants) - Levels aren't kept, too monotonous.

    I've often wondered whether I'd have liked the bands if I'd found,
    say, ToME before NetHack. As it is, the non-persistent levels keep
    putting me off badly.

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

    Erik Piper wrote:
    > bork bork bork Peter Borgmann bork 10:22:41 AM bork 11/24/2004 bork
    > bork:
    >
    > While we're at this (I've thought every now and then of posting some
    > thoughts on the "big four" myself)...
    >
    >>> Nethack/Slash'EM - Too much doesn't makes sense and just annoyes
    >>> (besides, I got bored with it).
    >>
    >> Agreed. If I would have to eliminate all the annoying stuff from
    >> Nethack, a game very close to Crawl would be the result. ;-)
    >
    > If I had to eliminate all the stuff from Nethack that annoys ME, a
    > game very close to a "now there's an @ and you can move it" pre-alpha
    > demo would result. :-)))

    Ok, I better should have add "if I could" ;-)

    > Still, it's obvious there are plenty of masoc... I mean users who
    > enjoy it, since it's quite possible got more discussion than rgrm,
    > rgradom, and rgrangband combined. Why they enjoy it, however, I do
    > not know. Perhaps it was just their first call of port in the
    > roguelike world, and they identify the things that are fun about
    > roguelikes overall with Nethack in particular, and look no further.

    Actually, Nethack was my very first roguelike and I played it for more
    than 4 years. I enjoyed the game very much, obviously... What I now find
    is wrong with Nethack is the kind of 'artificial' difficulty. Nethack is
    pretty hard for beginners, but not because of it's monsters, just
    because there are so much hidden and odd rules.

    I tend to call chess a reference to a perfect game: it has one of the
    easiest rules I can think of, but is still one of of the most complex
    games (probably only beaten by Go). And that's the problem with Nethack.
    Once you've learned all the silly rules (as in 'reading all the spoilers
    around'), the game is much less difficult and tends to become boring.
    That's what I like with Crawl: the monsters have to be a never ending
    challenge while the rules are as easy and straight forward as possible.

    >> Sure, no more maintenance is a sad story, but still - currently the
    >> best roguelike around, IMO (of course) and compared to the ones I
    >> know...
    >
    > It's hard for me to say a roguelike is "best," because there are
    > several I like quite a bit and usually whichever Roguelike I'm
    > playing at a given moment seems "the best" at that moment. Unless
    > it's NetHack, of course...

    Same goes for me, that's why I even tried to relativate with "IMO",
    something I usually don't since IMO is some kind of a 'globale context'
    for all my statements.
    Or in other words: AOL! ;-)

    > On the other hand, until recently, I swore it would be years until I
    > picked up Crawl again, it was just THAT frustrating for me.

    Strange enough, I don't have any problems with this. Most of the time I
    even play random characters which, as you can imagine, highly increases
    my death-rate even more. And though most of my chars have a lifespan
    shorter than flies, I still enjoy exploring new features/items on the
    first few levels. (Currently I stray from this path by playing a
    (choosen) HECj which, now at clvl 10, actually seems to have some
    potential). But I'm always assuming to die behind the next corner,
    everything else I take as a welcome surprise.

    >> If I wouldn't have found Crawl, I would still play it, Oangband in
    >> particular.
    >> [...]
    >
    > Not much for Vanilla Angband, not much for most variants either, but
    > I REALLY REALLY enjoyed ToME (so much that I played it into the
    > ground, burnt out on it and picked up Crawl again).
    > [...]

    ToME was my entry to the Angband family, mainly because of it's optional
    persistant levels, a pretty half-hearted implementation of persistant
    levels which, in this form, doesn't make much sense in a 'bandish
    environment. In the end I was somewhat disapointed by the (so
    promising!) concept of the weapon- and sub-mastery skill system. It just
    doesn't feel right to me if I concentrate on axemastery for instance,
    but still doing significantly better with a chaotic long sword for more
    than half of the game (though I already had one of the best axes around,
    the 'Great Axe of Durin'.

    I've also found ToME the most unbalanced (_not_ as in 'difficulty
    against the player') of any 'bands I played after ToME (Oangband by the
    way probably is the best balanced of all 'bands). With '98 quests' for
    instance you can scum until the doctor comes, having a full developed
    character with still half of the game in front. Ok, you can skip most of
    the remaining part then, but does it make sense?

    Or just compare the good available weapons for polearm- and axemasters:
    though it even was unbalanced in favour to polearms, they decided to
    declare even more axes (e.g. the Lochaber Axes) into the polearm group.
    Discussions in the ToME forum ended with a "if you don't like it, then
    don't play axemasters". That silly comment (from the co-developer) was
    the final show-stopper for me.

    Besides, a game being not maintained anymore is one thing. A game of
    which new versions are released about every 6 month, but with known bugs
    still remaining along 3 or more versions is just another story...

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

    Jason Northrup <jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >annoying puns aside, all the different commands in roguelikes can be
    >annoying; why hasn't anyone created a smarter interface?
    >!- meta-D for Dip. q for quaff. u for use. a for apply.
    >how about "U"se !
    >would you like to 1. drink 2. pour on another item 3.light 4. throw

    Replacing one keystroke with two may help novice players, but it hardly
    helps players who are accustomed to the interface.

    >'T' ake off armor or 'R' remove accessories
    >why not one command for both?

    That's just a historical oddity from Rogue, to be fair, and should
    probably be corrected.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    "Tina Hall" <Tina_Hall@kruemel.org> wrote in message
    news:MSGID_2=3A240=2F2199.13=40fidonet_2abc44d3@fidonet.org...
    > What other roguelikes are there worth trying?
    >
    > List of things that needn't be recommended follows:
    >
    > Nethack/Slash'EM - Too much doesn't makes sense and just annoyes
    > (besides, I got bored with it).
    >

    I also become irritated by nethack.

    > Crawl - No maintenance and one bug too many (a jerk that can't post,
    > refuses to admit bugs, and arbitrairily decides the games's 'rules'
    > can't be called a maintainer).
    >

    I respect Brent Ross as the current maintainer. He posts well, and makes
    coherent easy to follow arguments. I'm not sure I can say the same for you
    however. The maintainer decides the rules and the bugs, this is a fact.
    You don't, so if he states something is not a bug: it's not. This is not a
    fault on his part. If you're riled up about that necromutation thing, may I
    refer you to every other Crawler here who experiences no such problem.

    > Ragnarok - Has a time limit, bad screen management, bad
    > interface,... And isn't even a roguelike.
    >

    It isn't? Why?
    I quite enjoy Ragnorak on the rare occasion. One of the easier roguelikes
    to finish.

    > Adom - Too linear/restrictive. (Besides, the questions for character
    > creation are a stupid mis-feature.)
    >

    Adom irritates me similarly to nethack.

    > Angband (and variants) - Levels aren't kept, too monotonous.
    >

    Angband is rather monotonous. But I quite enjoy it, especially the
    variants: Sangband, Oangband, Posband and NPPAngband. Oh, and Unangband,
    but it's been a while since I've seen Andrew update.

    > Omega - needs a needless directory (C:\Tmp), also has some stupid
    > questions (and even stupider replies) for character creation, and
    > the doc says it doesn't remember all dungeons. Starting a game
    > despite that and looking around that 'town?' a bit didn't convince
    > me to give it a proper try.
    >

    The questions on character creation always throw me off. Ogre Battle
    should have seen the end of those...

    --
    Glen
    L:Pyt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
    W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Darshan Shaligram <scintilla@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Tina_Hall@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:

    >> What other roguelikes are there worth trying?

    >> List of things that needn't be recommended follows:

    >> Nethack/Slash'EM - Too much doesn't makes sense and just annoyes
    >> (besides, I got bored with it).

    > But they're fun,

    There's no fun left with all the things that don't make sense and
    just annoy.

    >> Crawl - No maintenance and one bug too many (a jerk that can't
    >> post, refuses to admit bugs, and arbitrairily decides the
    >> games's 'rules' can't be called a maintainer).

    > Looks like you're having a bad day.

    Why are you suddenly so condescending? Are you having a bad day?

    > Brent Ross doesn't fit that description.

    Of course he does, on every count. I'm not interested in wasting my
    time on him, though, which includes discussing his attitude.

    Where's your recommendation of something else? I just see you
    criticising my opinion, which isn't even open for discussion, just
    an explanation for why these games need not be recommended, to help
    make actually useful recommendations.

    --
    Tina - Living in the Twilight Zone.
    Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of an insane mind!!!!
    (Apologies to Terry Pratchett.)
    CrossPoint/FreeXP v3.40 RC3. Usenet/Fidonet gateway, no internet access.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Tina Hall <Tina_Hall@kruemel.org> wrote:
    >Darshan Shaligram <scintilla@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>Brent Ross doesn't fit that description.
    >Where's your recommendation of something else? I just see you
    >criticising my opinion, which isn't even open for discussion,

    It was posted. Hence it is open for discussion. You don't control the
    thread.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    bork bork bork Tina Hall bork 5:48:00 PM bork 11/24/2004 bork bork:

    > Erik Piper <efrniokr@sdky.cz> wrote:
    > > bork bork bork Tina Hall bork 5:19:00 AM bork 11/24/2004 bork
    > > bork:
    >
    > >> What other roguelikes are there worth trying?
    > > >
    > >> List of things that needn't be recommended follows:
    > > >
    > >>
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Tina_Hall@kruemel.org wrote:
    > > Decker
    >
    > What's that like? Why do you recommend it?

    I could say... "go and try it by yourself", but... ok...

    It's interesting and innovative - the game is strictly cyber-punk.
    The action takes place mainly in virtual reality, where you have to pass
    by security structure to finnish taken contracts.

    > > Try Xenocide too. Still under development, but if you play a bit,
    > > post the comments here. They will be appreciated.
    >
    > Same questions here...

    Well... Try it, because I'm the author :)
    Xenocide can be described as a hard-SF survival game. I recommend you to
    read The Story from manual to understand what is going on.
    It has a lot of unique ideas and some people like the game very much,
    even in dev state.

    > > I'd recommend one more game - futuristic again:
    > 'Again' like what other one?

    These two mentioned above.

    > > JauntTrooper - Mission: Thunderbolt
    >
    > What's that like?

    "Save the world beeing a space trooper".
    The game has simple but clear graphics, can be controlled by mouse,
    which is helpful.
    Look at that website for more info:
    http://members.aol.com/mrwiz/thunderbolt.html

    > > It has a few annoying elements (very limited FOV),
    > > but it's pretty fun.
    >
    > FOV?

    "Field of view", usually you see in that game only near cell,
    later you find some items to incrase it.
    The other thing is level generator, that sometimes produces too
    labirynthic levels.

    > (To actually get a game I'd need a direkt link to a file for a DOS
    > compilation, so far I only ask for what roguelikes there are,
    > though.)

    Come on, Yoda says: "use the google, Luke".

    regards
    Jakub
    --
    "We're just toys in the hands of Xom"
    xenocide.e-plan.pl - SF roguelike in development
    www.graveyard.uni.cc - visit Roguelike Graveyard
    www.alamak0ta.republika.pl - my other projects
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    "Darshan Shaligram" <scintilla@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns95AB6281ACE3Edarshansaztecsoftnet@130.133.1.4...
    > Tina_Hall@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Angband (and variants) - Levels aren't kept, too monotonous.
    >
    > I've often wondered whether I'd have liked the bands if I'd found,
    > say, ToME before NetHack. As it is, the non-persistent levels keep
    > putting me off badly.
    >

    Why? I'm curious as to what exactly you don't like about non-persistent
    levels.

    --
    Glen
    L:Pyt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
    W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Glen Wheeler <gew75@uow.edu.au> wrote:
    >"Darshan Shaligram" <scintilla@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >>Tina_Hall@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
    >>>Angband (and variants) - Levels aren't kept, too monotonous.
    >>I've often wondered whether I'd have liked the bands if I'd found,
    >>say, ToME before NetHack. As it is, the non-persistent levels keep
    >>putting me off badly.
    >Why? I'm curious as to what exactly you don't like about non-persistent
    >levels.

    I can't speak for Darshan, but I think they tend to go hand-in-hand with
    endlessly repeated scumming of the kinds the 'bands promote, because any
    sticky situation can be left behind forever and replaced with a fresh
    level full of goodies.

    NetHack falls prey to this in the middle game, which could use a clock;
    Crawl avoids it by making the non-persistent levels highly dangerous
    almost all the time.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    bork bork bork David Damerell bork 1:17:22 AM bork 11/25/2004 bork bork:

    > Jason Northrup <jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > > annoying puns aside, all the different commands in roguelikes can be
    > > annoying; why hasn't anyone created a smarter interface?
    > > !- meta-D for Dip. q for quaff. u for use. a for apply.
    > > how about "U"se !
    > > would you like to 1. drink 2. pour on another item 3.light 4. throw
    >
    > Replacing one keystroke with two may help novice players, but it hardly
    > helps players who are accustomed to the interface.

    I tend to agree more with Jason. Rather than criticizing, the approach
    suggested could be refined. To name just one example of how to refine it:

    'u' - show inventory list, user picks letter, game does default action for
    that object in the current context. For most objects, this should be dead
    obvious to anyone with the intelligence to program a roguelike. Default
    actions for given contexts (I_am_wearing_it, I_am_wielding_it,
    I_am_buck_naked, whatever) can be configured in an ini file, natch. Dialog is
    fundamentally visually different from 'U' below, to avoid "but I wanted to
    DROP it" complaints.

    'U' - show inventory list. User picks letter. Full list of actions, valid and
    invalid (to avoid spoiling), to apply to object is shown. Optional quick
    filters based on "common sense" can't/shouldn't-do-thats can be applied at
    the user's request: nothing but don/doff/drop for a helmet, for example,
    rather than the whole shebang. This with the caveat that the user may be
    hiding useful options from herself. Spoiled users can build their own more
    elegant filters, and spoil-hungry beginners download them from advanced
    players of our hypothetical game.

    Ideally every action is additional further user-mappable to a key of its own,
    with a few universal actions already mapped (it probably wouldn't make sense
    to eliminate 'd'rop because of the universal key, for example).

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

    Jason Northrup schrieb:
    > Tina_Hall@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote in message news:<MSGID_2=3A240=2F2199.13=40fidonet_2abc44d3@fidonet.org>...
    >
    >>What other roguelikes are there worth trying?
    >>
    >>List of things that needn't be recommended follows:
    >>
    >>Nethack/Slash'EM - Too much doesn't makes sense and just annoyes
    >
    >
    > annoying puns aside, all the different commands in roguelikes can be
    > annoying; why hasn't anyone created a smarter interface?

    I have ;)
    You don't need to remember thousands of different commands to play my game:

    http://todoom.sourceforge.net/

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

    "Erik Piper" <efrniokr@sdky.cz> wrote in message news:<30lsm9F314qe0U1@uni-berlin.de>...
    > bork bork bork David Damerell bork 1:17:22 AM bork 11/25/2004 bork bork:
    >
    > > Jason Northrup <jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > > > annoying puns aside, all the different commands in roguelikes can be
    > > > annoying; why hasn't anyone created a smarter interface?
    > > > !- meta-D for Dip. q for quaff. u for use. a for apply.
    > > > how about "U"se !
    > > > would you like to 1. drink 2. pour on another item 3.light 4. throw
    > >
    > > Replacing one keystroke with two may help novice players, but it hardly
    > > helps players who are accustomed to the interface.
    >
    > I tend to agree more with Jason. Rather than criticizing, the approach
    > suggested could be refined. To name just one example of how to refine it:
    >
    > 'u' - show inventory list, user picks letter, game does default action for
    > that object in the current context. For most objects, this should be dead
    > obvious to anyone with the intelligence to program a roguelike. Default
    > actions for given contexts (I_am_wearing_it, I_am_wielding_it,
    > I_am_buck_naked, whatever) can be configured in an ini file, natch. Dialog is
    > fundamentally visually different from 'U' below, to avoid "but I wanted to
    > DROP it" complaints.

    I did this approach for POWDER. It essentially turns it from a Verb -
    Noun order to a Noun - Verb order. People's usualy complaint is you
    can't have "hidden" commands, like reading t-shirts.

    Being more graphical, what happens is:
    1) Hit inventory key, inventory pops up.
    2) If you select an item, you get a pop up menu with the available
    commands. Most logical is shown first.
    3) In SDL versions you can hit the verb-key over the item and bypass
    the popup menu.

    Selecting them item requires cursor movement which wouldn't work as
    well in a text environment as you couldn't have a 2d array.

    I also argue that "bump" should do the most logical command in all
    cases. Bump to open is a no-brainer, IMHO, because it avoids having
    to teach newbies how to open doors. I often have seen it argued that
    this is "too dangerous". I always find this humorous as I often saw
    Nehack's "drown self in water with no prompt" being justified as
    reasonable.
    --
    Jeff Lait
    (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    bork bork bork Rubinstein bork 10:10:29 PM bork 11/24/2004 bork bork:

    > Erik Piper wrote:
    > > bork bork bork Peter Borgmann bork 10:22:41 AM bork 11/24/2004 bork
    > > bork:

    Here we go again. ;-) I feel like I've been really spamming rgrm these past
    few weeks, and so I carefully consider most posts (even though it doesn't
    look like it), but it's a pleasure to converse with you, so...

    [...]

    > Actually, Nethack was my very first roguelike and I played it for more
    > than 4 years. I enjoyed the game very much, obviously... What I now find
    > is wrong with Nethack is the kind of 'artificial' difficulty. Nethack is
    > pretty hard for beginners, but not because of it's monsters, just because
    > there are so much hidden and odd rules.

    Indeed. I find it hard to not go around the spoilers minimaxing when playing
    Nethack, since I find it so damned hard (probably because of my love for
    protection-gambit wizards), so I end up playing "learn the rules of Nethack"
    instead of Nethack itself. Likewise I don't enjoy Sokoban much, but I feel so
    weak already as it is that I feel compelled to "do" it. Etc. etc.

    > I tend to call chess a reference to a perfect game: it has one of the
    > easiest rules I can think of, but is still one of of the most complex games
    > (probably only beaten by Go). And that's the problem with Nethack. Once
    > you've learned all the silly rules (as in 'reading all the spoilers
    > around'), the game is much less difficult and tends to become boring.
    > That's what I like with Crawl: the monsters have to be a never ending
    > challenge while the rules are as easy and straight forward as possible.

    Well, it could be simpler. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say: it's
    just simple enough AND just complicated enough to be fun.

    For me, Crawl wins da prize for:

    * Fun innovation. Sure, ADOM brought a lot of innovations (new and successful
    IMO approach to interface, innovative in how seriously it takes Narration [1]
    in a medium so hostile to it, etc.), but since I guess in my heart I'm a
    Gamist, the innovations in Crawl do much more for fun. Just to name one
    example of the kind of innovation in Crawl I have in mind: the food issue. A
    beautiful marriage of realism (who on earth would eat chunks of MONSTER flesh
    even cooked, let alone, shiver, RAW) with gameplay (culinary attitudes as
    mutations, as racial attributes, as the core of a cool-ohmygodohmygod-factor
    item, and as part of the next point below)

    * Very few motivations and very many demotivations for scumming, that is,
    repetitive, boring, low-risk activities that bring some reward, or even a
    huge reward. Examples: nurse/foocubi dancing, etc., in Nethack, many players'
    entire play style in Vanilla Angband ;-), WAY TOO MANY examples in ADOM to
    list in-line [2]. Now in *Crawl*... wanna collect-and-sell? You simply can't.
    Wanna collect-and-sac? OK, there's a god specifically for that (and he even
    lends you a portable altar), and you can use him if you want... but there are
    other fine gods too. There are other gods who don't mind a little
    collect-and-sac, but you can ignore that if you wish, happy in the knowledge
    that you have more food than you would if you did. OK, how about
    collect-and-kewl? I myself tried that sort of scumming at first, having come
    from an ADOM background, and was weaned of it, despite my strong resistance
    to learning my lesson, by a good dozen game-ending trips to the Abyss. OK,
    how about foo-dancing? You simply can't foo-dance, and even if you could, you
    would be spending lots of precious food doing it. Ahh, *precious* *food*.
    Those two beautiful little words, that Sword of Damocles over every
    non-Mummy's head, are perhaps the core of Crawl's delicious anti-scumminess.
    Wanna scum? Thought of a new way? Go ahead, and bon appetit... ;-)

    (That said, such a gamist game does tend to attract brilliant minimaxers, and
    thus scummovators, and it must be said that while implementing a scumming
    technique is boring, the thrill of innovating it is always a lure, and thus
    Crawl too has IIRC seen its Nemelex scummer with insane stats from decks of
    cards, and its Alter Self scummer with insanely advantageous mutations, at
    the very least.)

    [...]

    > > On the other hand, until recently, I swore it would be years until I
    > > picked up Crawl again, it was just THAT frustrating for me.
    >
    > Strange enough, I don't have any problems with this. Most of the time I
    > even play random characters which, as you can imagine, highly increases
    > my death-rate even more.

    Hats off. I usually can't stand the frustration of random characters, even
    though it's often an inspiration when I use them -- for example, last weekend
    I came home quite tipsy from the pub at 2 a.m. and, not wanting to risk
    anything with my advanced character, decided there was nothing to lose by
    running some randoms. That introduced me to sludge elves, which introduced me
    to transmuting, and now I'm trying to launch a non-shapechanging MeTr, which
    is quite fun.

    > And though most of my chars have a lifespan
    > shorter than flies, I still enjoy exploring new features/items on the
    > first few levels.

    Hats off again, as after a while, I just get, or at least got, bored with it.
    The sheer DEPRESSION of knowing that even if I got beyond them, I would die
    once again somewhere in the Bermuda Triangle (early OC, early Lair,
    corresponding section of main dungeon) just drove me away from Crawl for a
    really long time.

    > (Currently I stray from this path by playing a (choosen)
    > HECj which, now at clvl 10, actually seems to have some potential).

    Taking a look at the skill aptitude spoilers, I see that of all the elves,
    High Elves are the best fitted to be magic-enhanced swashbucklers and the
    worst fitted to be pure conjurers. If he's still alive, you're interested in
    a playing a strange game, and you're not too high in level, you might
    consider turning off most or all of your magic and turning him towards melee.
    Take that as you may, of course.

    > But I'm always assuming to die behind the next corner, everything else I
    > take as a welcome surprise.

    The first sign that a player is beginning to understand how to play Crawl ;-)

    >
    >
    > >> If I wouldn't have found Crawl, I would still play it, Oangband in
    > >> particular.
    > >> [...]
    > >
    > > Not much for Vanilla Angband, not much for most variants either, but
    > > I REALLY REALLY enjoyed ToME (so much that I played it into the
    > > ground, burnt out on it and picked up Crawl again).
    > > [...]
    >

    oof, sorry, I'm at work and I've already stolen enough time. A shame, but
    this topic will have to wait...

    Erik

    [1] For more on what I mean by "Narration" (and a really fun read), see
    http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/ and the rest of the website as well.

    [2] Gem scumming, stone giant scumming, starvation/sickness scumming, DD8
    scumming for lightning/acid immunity, BDC scumming, VD scumming for !oEH
    (think nurse dancing), ID scumming, herb scumming, in some players'
    (understandable) opinion even the core game institution of precrownings, etc.
    etc. etc. ...
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Erik Piper <efrniokr@sdky.cz> wrote:
    >Indeed. I find it hard to not go around the spoilers minimaxing when playing
    >Nethack, since I find it so damned hard (probably because of my love for
    >protection-gambit wizards), so I end up playing "learn the rules of Nethack"
    >instead of Nethack itself.

    It does seem to me rather as if you have fallen into a trap of your own
    making.

    More conventionally one starts out playing Valks with little or no
    understanding of the underlying obscurities - and that's an enjoyable
    game, albeit not one that can be won - and then reads spoilers and plays
    what is essentially an entirely different game where a fully informed
    player pulls out all the stops to win the game.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Erik Piper <efrniokr@sdky.cz> wrote:
    > Tina Hall
    >> Erik Piper <efrniokr@sdky.cz> wrote:

    >>> and do a quite enjoyable roguelike-like puzzle game?
    >>
    >> What kind of puzzle? The ones I can think of aren't anything to
    >> do for a significant length of time, if at all.

    > [...] The puzzles are predefined, by the original author or, if
    > you wish, fan authors as well. Good luck...

    What kind of puzzle? The ones I can think of aren't anything to do
    for a significant length of time, if at all.

    --
    Tina - Living in the Twilight Zone.
    Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of an insane mind!!!!
    (Apologies to Terry Pratchett.)
    CrossPoint/FreeXP v3.40 RC3. Usenet/Fidonet gateway, no internet access.
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Jakub Debski <jakub@mks.com.pl> wrote:
    > Tina_Hall@kruemel.org wrote:

    >>> Decker

    >> What's that like? Why do you recommend it?

    > I could say... "go and try it by yourself", but... ok...

    > It's interesting and innovative - the game is strictly
    > cyber-punk. The action takes place mainly in virtual reality,
    > where you have to pass by security structure to finnish taken
    > contracts.

    This produces no pictures that I can match with 'roguelike'.

    >>> Try Xenocide too. Still under development, but if you play a
    >>> bit, post the comments here. They will be appreciated.
    >>
    >> Same questions here...

    > Well... Try it, because I'm the author :)
    > Xenocide can be described as a hard-SF survival game.

    What's hard speculative fantasy? Or do you mean sci-fi? Do you mean
    there's lots of annoying tenchomumblejumble?

    > I recommend you to read The Story from manual to understand what
    > is going on.

    I tend to at least look at the manual before playing a game, anyway.

    > It has a lot of unique ideas and some people like the game very
    > much, even in dev state.

    What's it like? Dungeon, skills-system, items,...?

    >>> JauntTrooper - Mission: Thunderbolt
    >>
    >> What's that like?

    > "Save the world beeing a space trooper".
    > The game has simple but clear graphics,

    Do you mean it doesn't have ASCII graphic?

    > can be controlled by mouse,

    That's not a feature.

    >> (To actually get a game I'd need a direkt link to a file for a
    >> DOS compilation, so far I only ask for what roguelikes there
    >> are, though.)

    > Come on, Yoda says: "use the google, Luke".

    Eh?

    --
    Tina - Living in the Twilight Zone.
    Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of an insane mind!!!!
    (Apologies to Terry Pratchett.)
    CrossPoint/FreeXP v3.40 RC3. Usenet/Fidonet gateway, no internet access.
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    On 24 Nov 2004 17:42:27 GMT, Darshan Shaligram <scintilla@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    >Tina_Hall@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:

    >> Adom - Too linear/restrictive. (Besides, the questions for
    >> character creation are a stupid mis-feature.)
    >
    >For me it's the repetitive quests (I want to stop saving the
    >carpenter, already)

    So stop saving the carpenter. Most of the quests are optional. I don't
    like ADOM "story elements" much, but it is true that it isn't much
    more linear than any other roguelike and some very different games can
    be tried.

    >and the bugs, and the lack of source code so I
    >can't even fix the bugs that keep crashing my games.

    This is what got me to quit ADOM.

    My advice to Tina: take up Tetris or something. You seem to be burnt
    out on roguelikes for now, not because you are tired of all these
    games, but the pettiness of some of your complaints makes it
    impossible to guess what you might actually like and hints at an
    underlying problem, which I would guess to be burnout. If you insist
    on trying another game in the genre, I suggest actually playing Rogue
    for awhile.

    R. Dan Henry
    danhenry@inreach.com
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    "Tina Hall" <Tina_Hall@kruemel.org> wrote in message
    news:MSGID_2=3A240=2F2199.13=40fidonet_2ac45576@fidonet.org...
    > Darshan Shaligram <scintilla@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> Tina_Hall@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
    >
    >>> What other roguelikes are there worth trying?
    >
    >>> List of things that needn't be recommended follows:
    >
    >>> Nethack/Slash'EM - Too much doesn't makes sense and just annoyes
    >>> (besides, I got bored with it).
    >
    >> But they're fun,
    >
    > There's no fun left with all the things that don't make sense and
    > just annoy.
    >

    Why? Are you going to explain your opinions, or just assume everyone can
    read your mind?

    >>> Crawl - No maintenance and one bug too many (a jerk that can't
    >>> post, refuses to admit bugs, and arbitrairily decides the
    >>> games's 'rules' can't be called a maintainer).
    >
    >> Looks like you're having a bad day.
    >
    > Why are you suddenly so condescending? Are you having a bad day?
    >

    Doesn't sound condescending to me.

    >> Brent Ross doesn't fit that description.
    >
    > Of course he does, on every count. I'm not interested in wasting my
    > time on him, though, which includes discussing his attitude.
    >

    Care to justify it then? Oh no, wait...you're *not interested* in
    jusifying sweeping statements, simply making them.

    > Where's your recommendation of something else? I just see you
    > criticising my opinion, which isn't even open for discussion, just
    > an explanation for why these games need not be recommended, to help
    > make actually useful recommendations.
    >

    This is Usenet. Everything is open for discussion.

    --
    Glen
    L:Pyt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
    W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    "David Damerell" <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
    news:MOE*KKuAq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
    > Jason Northrup <jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>annoying puns aside, all the different commands in roguelikes can be
    >>annoying; why hasn't anyone created a smarter interface?
    >>!- meta-D for Dip. q for quaff. u for use. a for apply.
    >>how about "U"se !
    >>would you like to 1. drink 2. pour on another item 3.light 4. throw
    >
    > Replacing one keystroke with two may help novice players, but it hardly
    > helps players who are accustomed to the interface.
    >

    Eh, if we are actually going to talk about designing an effective
    interface, how about discussing exactly why all these extraneous confusing
    commands even exist in the first place?
    If the goal is to help novices, how about just drinking potions...?
    Although I guess if it's an important part of the gameplay then go ahead.
    Please include a detailed tutorial and make it very visible to the newbies.

    --
    Glen
    L:Pyt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
    W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Glen Wheeler <gew75@uow.edu.au> wrote:
    >"David Damerell" <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
    [The usual "use" key suggestion]
    >>Replacing one keystroke with two may help novice players, but it hardly
    >>helps players who are accustomed to the interface.
    >Eh, if we are actually going to talk about designing an effective
    >interface, how about discussing exactly why all these extraneous confusing
    >commands even exist in the first place?

    Because (in a certain game dear to my heart) potions can be quaffed or
    applied (to light oil) or dipped or dipped into or have their inventory
    slot adjusted or be thrown or dropped (and notice that the need to drop
    stuff almost immediately introduces an oddity into the "use" key fanatics'
    paradise...)

    >If the goal is to help novices, how about just drinking potions...?

    If it seems like a good idea to compromise gameplay forever for the sense
    of easy learning, Diablo is -> thataway.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Tina Hall wrote:
    > What other roguelikes are there worth trying?

    <snip>

    > Crawl - No maintenance and one bug too many (a jerk that can't post,
    > refuses to admit bugs, and arbitrairily decides the games's 'rules'
    > can't be called a maintainer).

    Oh please, Brent's a better, more active maintainer than all of the
    roguelikes you just listed. That he doesn't respond to your childhish
    behaviour is hardly a slight on his part.
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    bork bork bork Tina Hall bork 4:36:00 PM bork 11/25/2004 bork bork:

    > Erik Piper <efrniokr@sdky.cz> wrote:
    > > Tina Hall
    > >> Erik Piper <efrniokr@sdky.cz> wrote:
    >
    > >>> and do a quite enjoyable roguelike-like puzzle game?
    > > >
    > >> What kind of puzzle? The ones I can think of aren't anything to
    > >> do for a significant length of time, if at all.
    >
    > > [...] The puzzles are predefined, by the original author or, if
    > > you wish, fan authors as well. Good luck...
    >
    > What kind of puzzle? The ones I can think of aren't anything to do
    > for a significant length of time, if at all.

    The kind that I just spent half a page describing to you. Sigh. What color is
    Bach...

    If you weren't so closed towards trying new things, you would already simply
    have downloaded it, for chrissakes.

    As it is, I can on the contrary tell you in advance that you'll most likely
    reject it, because it would force you to use a GUI, and ISTR that you refuse
    (that word again) to play anything that's not in DOS.

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

    Hehe

    > If you weren't so closed towards trying new things, you would already
    simply
    > have downloaded it, for chrissakes.

    Oh what fun, watching this thread----
    [leaning back]
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Tina_Hall@kruemel.org wrote:
    > > It's interesting and innovative - the game is strictly
    > > cyber-punk. The action takes place mainly in virtual reality,
    > > where you have to pass by security structure to finnish taken
    > > contracts.
    >
    > This produces no pictures that I can match with 'roguelike'.

    I think that you have a really bad day ;) Or a week :)
    You were asking about something new. I gave you the list.
    Moreover - I gave you short descriptions and you don't even want to
    download the games and try them.

    > > Well... Try it, because I'm the author :)
    > > Xenocide can be described as a hard-SF survival game.
    >
    > What's hard speculative fantasy? Or do you mean sci-fi?

    Sci-Fi.

    > Do you mean there's lots of annoying tenchomumblejumble?

    Why don't you run the game?

    > I tend to at least look at the manual before playing a game, anyway.

    I used to read manuals when everything other fails.

    > > It has a lot of unique ideas and some people like the game very
    > > much, even in dev state.
    >
    > What's it like? Dungeon, skills-system, items,...?

    Dungeon: I try to expand idea from Crawl - connected unique areas.
    Skill system: is similar to the one from Crawl too, with unallocated
    experience.
    Items: a lot of tools to help player survive. Enemies can use them too,
    so what out.

    > > "Save the world beeing a space trooper".
    > > The game has simple but clear graphics,
    >
    > Do you mean it doesn't have ASCII graphic?

    Yes.

    > > can be controlled by mouse,
    >
    > That's not a feature.

    It's.

    regards,
    Jakub
    --
    "We're just toys in the hands of Xom"
    xenocide.e-plan.pl - SF roguelike in development
    www.graveyard.uni.cc - visit Roguelike Graveyard
    www.alamak0ta.republika.pl - my other projects
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    "David Damerell" <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
    news:XHF*gmyAq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
    > Glen Wheeler <gew75@uow.edu.au> wrote:
    >>"David Damerell" <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
    > [The usual "use" key suggestion]
    >>>Replacing one keystroke with two may help novice players, but it hardly
    >>>helps players who are accustomed to the interface.
    >>Eh, if we are actually going to talk about designing an effective
    >>interface, how about discussing exactly why all these extraneous confusing
    >>commands even exist in the first place?
    >
    > Because (in a certain game dear to my heart) potions can be quaffed or
    > applied (to light oil) or dipped or dipped into or have their inventory
    > slot adjusted or be thrown or dropped

    I feel I need to explain my point of view here.
    I'm developing a graphical roguelike in Python with Pygame. To use your
    inventory, or interact with anything, click on it. A menu appears. Choose
    something. Stuff happens.
    This interface, although it did take a few days to construct, is only for
    the first ten minutes or for ``advanced'' commands which are reasonably
    rare. One of these advanced commands is to eat anything. People don't
    usually eat spears, but if you use the mouse menu then feel free to try it.
    Given the correct anatomy, we could have something useful (but probably
    not). If there are any hidden advantages to using these obscure commands
    then NPCs will divulge it in some way.
    Anyway, the main mode of controlling the game is through the keyboard.
    The catch is that the keys execute the most common usage for an item.
    Again, as with most things, they are more complicated than this. The keys
    can be used to completely substitute for the mouse, if the player learns all
    commands. The keys can also be used for thesed obscure commands (but the
    mouse is the preferred method of learning).

    > (and notice that the need to drop
    > stuff almost immediately introduces an oddity into the "use" key fanatics'
    > paradise...)

    Well, it requires another letter. I wouldn't call myself a fanatic.

    >
    >>If the goal is to help novices, how about just drinking potions...?
    >
    > If it seems like a good idea to compromise gameplay forever for the sense
    > of easy learning, Diablo is -> thataway.

    Note here, that Diablo *is* extremely easy to learn. I don't think a
    clunky UI (the beginning of this discussion) is required for good gameplay.
    Diablo, in my opinion, has a clunky UI.

    --
    Glen
    L:Pyt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
    W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
    >Jason Northrup <jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>annoying puns aside, all the different commands in roguelikes can be
    >>annoying; why hasn't anyone created a smarter interface?
    >>!- meta-D for Dip. q for quaff. u for use. a for apply.
    >>how about "U"se !
    >>would you like to 1. drink 2. pour on another item 3.light 4. throw
    >Replacing one keystroke with two may help novice players, but it hardly
    >helps players who are accustomed to the interface.

    This seems as good a place as any to insert the usual observations - this
    is an old rgr.dev thread.

    Pretty soon (as has happened here) the "use" key types decide what they
    want is a "use" key _as well_ as a conventional keyboard interface.

    Now that's fine; there's nothing wrong with that; but in practice it's a
    largely pointless addition, because the action-specific commands make it
    easier to review the pertinent parts of the inventory and select an item.

    The "drop" key is well worth considering; if "drop" was rolled into "use"
    it would be an infernal nuisance, and if there was a separate "drop" key
    one would always use that. _That_ ought to suggest why a "use" key would
    not in practice be widely used.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    bork bork bork David Damerell bork 11:43:40 AM bork 11/26/2004 bork bork:

    > David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
    > >Jason Northrup <jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > > > annoying puns aside, all the different commands in roguelikes can be
    > > > annoying; why hasn't anyone created a smarter interface?
    > > > !- meta-D for Dip. q for quaff. u for use. a for apply.
    > > > how about "U"se !
    > > > would you like to 1. drink 2. pour on another item 3.light 4. throw
    > > Replacing one keystroke with two may help novice players, but it hardly
    > > helps players who are accustomed to the interface.
    >
    > This seems as good a place as any to insert the usual observations - this
    > is an old rgr.dev thread.
    >
    > Pretty soon (as has happened here) the "use" key types decide what they
    > want is a "use" key _as well_ as a conventional keyboard interface.
    >
    > Now that's fine; there's nothing wrong with that; but in practice it's a
    > largely pointless addition, because the action-specific commands make it
    > easier to review the pertinent parts of the inventory and select an item.
    >
    > The "drop" key is well worth considering; if "drop" was rolled into "use"
    > it would be an infernal nuisance, and if there was a separate "drop" key
    > one would always use that. That ought to suggest why a "use" key would
    > not in practice be widely used.

    Fair enough. But an equally infernal nuisance for me is to be required, as a
    player, to remember numerous separate commands for toggling weapon, armor,
    and jewelry worn/unworn status. Crawl and Nethack, for example, both do this,
    and both exacerbate the problem by requiring the use of Shift with some, but
    not all, of the commands. I find the ADOM paper-doll solution more elegant,
    and the *band solution fine too (though ToME, at least, confusingly requires
    you to 'z'ap rods, 'a'im wands, 'u'se rods, 'U'se racial powers, and
    'A'ctivate item powers, grr...). Since for some reason that entirely escapes
    me, the bashing of ADOM and anything related to it is quite fashionable on
    rgr*, I won't go into that further.

    Seems to me the following would also be just fine:

    w - wield/unwield/wear/unwear weapon/armor/jewellery (three classes, so
    picking the intended member at a glance should still not be THAT difficult);
    press * as in Nethack/Crawl to expand to all items
    u - use an item's default action or show its action menu; press * as in
    Nethack/Crawl to expand to all items
    d - drop, , - pick up.

    There's not THAT much more you do with items in a roguelike, really...

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

    Erik Piper <efrniokr@sdky.cz> wrote:
    >Fair enough. But an equally infernal nuisance for me is to be required, as a
    >player, to remember numerous separate commands for toggling weapon, armor,
    >and jewelry worn/unworn status.

    The separate armour and jewelry commands are a pure hangover from Rogue.
    I'm not defending that oddity. Wielding is enough of an odd case that it
    could use some special commands - for example, swap weapons.

    >Crawl and Nethack, for example, both do this,
    >and both exacerbate the problem by requiring the use of Shift with some, but
    >not all, of the commands.

    NetHack has the problem that the keyboard is full. Some commands will
    necessarily require Shift.

    >and the *band solution fine too (though ToME, at least, confusingly requires
    >you to 'z'ap rods, 'a'im wands, 'u'se rods, 'U'se racial powers, and
    >'A'ctivate item powers, grr...).

    The *bands have inherited from Moria exactly the same problem as the
    separate armour and jewelry commands; item-activation commands work on
    exactly one class of item.

    >me, the bashing of ADOM and anything related to it is quite fashionable on
    >rgr*, I won't go into that further.

    These days one sees more people talking about the bashing than actually
    doing it, unless one regards the factual observation that ADOM's source
    cannot be inspected as bashing.

    >u - use an item's default action or show its action menu; press * as in
    >Nethack/Crawl to expand to all items

    You've still got that enormous list of items to pick through, so you still
    need the read/quaff/zap commands; which are also faster than picking
    through the action menu when you want an unconventional action.

    >d - drop, , - pick up.
    >There's not THAT much more you do with items in a roguelike, really...

    Throw springs to mind - or destroy, in *bands...
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message news:<Byw*hgDAq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>...
    > Erik Piper <efrniokr@sdky.cz> wrote:
    >
    > >Crawl and Nethack, for example, both do this,
    > >and both exacerbate the problem by requiring the use of Shift with some, but
    > >not all, of the commands.
    >
    > NetHack has the problem that the keyboard is full. Some commands will
    > necessarily require Shift.

    But isn't the keyboard is full because excessive commands are present?
    If you aren't defending 'T'ake off, then you should be open to a more
    streamlined mapping that could avoid a full keyboard.

    > >u - use an item's default action or show its action menu; press * as in
    > >Nethack/Crawl to expand to all items
    >
    > You've still got that enormous list of items to pick through, so you still
    > need the read/quaff/zap commands; which are also faster than picking
    > through the action menu when you want an unconventional action.

    Um... Read, quaff, and zap I think would be the conventional action,
    thus not require picking through an action menu?

    The enormous list of items is easily solved by having filtering.
    u - Open inventory for using default actions
    / - Filter wands as you don't remember the letter.
    f - Select wand 'f'

    Compare to:
    z - Zap an item
    ? - List the wands as you don't remmeber the letter
    f - Select wand f

    If you already know what wand you want to zap, it is just uf rather
    than zf.

    The only valid argument about this is that you may end up reading a
    spell book when you thought you were zapping a wand of death. But
    that says more about the perils of using fixed letter assignments.

    When I play any roguelike, I often find myself staring at the
    inventory screen to figure out some escape. The verb-oriented
    approach is annoying here. I find my wand of death, leave the screen,
    hit z, and have to remember what letter it was (or go look it up
    again). Why couldn't I have zapped from the inventory menu itself?

    > >d - drop, , - pick up.
    > >There's not THAT much more you do with items in a roguelike, really...
    >
    > Throw springs to mind - or destroy, in *bands...

    The right ergonomics for throw is really a Quiver/Fire approach.
    Quiver can easily be an Unconventional command as you only set it when
    you first acquire the desired projectile. Throw likewise can be
    unconventional as ranged combat is done with fire.

    There are certainly good arguments to have seperate meta commands for
    commonly stringed actions. Extended Drop commands, for example, are a
    good idea. This is a per-roguelike issue, however, and doesn't at all
    contradict the argument that a lot of mappings could be cleaned up
    with a noun oriented use command.
    --
    Jeff Lait
    (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Erik Piper <efrniokr@sdky.cz> wrote:
    > Tina Hall
    >> Erik Piper <efrniokr@sdky.cz> wrote:

    >>> [...] The puzzles are predefined, by the original author or, if
    >>> you wish, fan authors as well. Good luck...
    >>
    >> What kind of puzzle? The ones I can think of aren't anything to
    >> do for a significant length of time, if at all.

    > The kind that I just spent half a page describing to you.

    You did no such thing. You described what could have been anything,
    no mention of what kind of puzzle is to be solved.

    --
    Tina - Living in the Twilight Zone.
    Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of an insane mind!!!!
    (Apologies to Terry Pratchett.)
    CrossPoint/FreeXP v3.40 RC3. Usenet/Fidonet gateway, no internet access.
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Jakub Debski <jakub@mks.com.pl> wrote:
    > Tina_Hall@kruemel.org wrote:

    >>> It's interesting and innovative - the game is strictly
    >>> cyber-punk. The action takes place mainly in virtual reality,
    >>> where you have to pass by security structure to finnish taken
    >>> contracts.
    >>
    >> This produces no pictures that I can match with 'roguelike'.

    > I think that you have a really bad day ;) Or a week :)

    You think wrong.

    > You were asking about something new. I gave you the list.
    > Moreover - I gave you short descriptions and you don't even want
    > to download the games and try them.

    That phrasing just shows that you can't read and don't know what
    you're talking about.

    You still haven't provided a direct link that I could pass on for
    someone to get it for me.

    >> Do you mean there's lots of annoying tenchomumblejumble?

    > Why don't you run the game?

    Because even if I wanted to, I can't do that without having a DOS
    binary on my hard drive.

    >>> It has a lot of unique ideas and some people like the game very
    >>> much, even in dev state.
    >>
    >> What's it like? Dungeon, skills-system, items,...?

    > Dungeon: I try to expand idea from Crawl - connected unique
    > areas. Skill system: is similar to the one from Crawl too, with
    > unallocated experience.
    > Items: a lot of tools to help player survive. Enemies can use
    > them too, so what out.

    Sounds good, but it's odd that you don't feel like pointing anything
    else out. If this is your game, why does every bit of info have to
    be dragged out of your nose?

    --
    Tina - Living in the Twilight Zone.
    Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of an insane mind!!!!
    (Apologies to Terry Pratchett.)
    CrossPoint/FreeXP v3.40 RC3. Usenet/Fidonet gateway, no internet access.
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    In article <MSGID_2=3A240=2F2199.13=40fidonet_2acc75e6@fidonet.org>,
    Tina Hall <Tina_Hall@kruemel.org> wrote:
    // Erik Piper <efrniokr@sdky.cz> wrote:
    // > The kind that I just spent half a page describing to you.
    //
    // You did no such thing. You described what could have been anything,
    // no mention of what kind of puzzle is to be solved.

    Erik: Tina missed the fact that you're talking about DROD.
    Tina: You apparently missed his link to www.drod.net in his first post.

    DROD is pretty cool.

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

    On 26 Nov 2004 12:07:16 -0800, torespondisfutile@hotmail.com (Jeff
    Lait) wrote:

    >When I play any roguelike, I often find myself staring at the
    >inventory screen to figure out some escape. The verb-oriented
    >approach is annoying here. I find my wand of death, leave the screen,
    >hit z, and have to remember what letter it was (or go look it up
    >again). Why couldn't I have zapped from the inventory menu itself?

    That's a completely different issue from a unified 'u'se command and I
    think it would be great to support selecting an item from the
    inventory list and getting a "Do what with this?" prompt which would
    allow you to 'z'ap your wand of death (or 'd'rop it or 'b'reak it or
    'D'ip it in a Potion of Energy) directly from there.

    I would not, however, want to replace the verb-oriented commands with
    this, as if I already know what I want to do, it is far easier to
    'z'ap and select from a small menu of wands than search a full
    inventory (especially if the game lets one carry more than a screen's
    worth).

    R. Dan Henry
    danhenry@inreach.com
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    Erik Piper wrote:

    > bork bork bork Rubinstein bork 10:10:29 PM bork 11/24/2004 bork bork:
    >
    >> Erik Piper wrote:
    >> > bork bork bork Peter Borgmann bork 10:22:41 AM bork 11/24/2004 bork
    >> > bork:
    >
    > Here we go again. ;-) I feel like I've been really spamming rgrm these past
    > few weeks, and so I carefully consider most posts (even though it doesn't
    > look like it), but it's a pleasure to converse with you, so...
    >
    > [...]

    [The Big Snip, all stuff which I greatly agree with, even like my own
    thoughts, only far better expressed than I ever could]

    >> (Currently I stray from this path by playing a (choosen) HECj which,
    >> now at clvl 10, actually seems to have some potential).
    >
    > Taking a look at the skill aptitude spoilers, I see that of all the
    > elves, High Elves are the best fitted to be magic-enhanced swashbucklers
    > and the worst fitted to be pure conjurers. If he's still alive, you're
    > interested in a playing a strange game, and you're not too high in
    > level, you might consider turning off most or all of your magic and
    > turning him towards melee. Take that as you may, of course.

    But this one was a real surprise to me!
    Meanwhile there are two HECj placed on No.2 and 3 of my highscore list.
    Both died in the Lair (level 8 and 2) and both surely not because of that
    certain combo. No.2 was actually doing so well, that I became cocky (looks
    like I'm losing immediately, as soon as I lose my paranoia) and made a
    fatal triple-fault, so stupid, that I'm just too ashamed to make public.

    Regardless of what the aptitude spoilers say and regardless of my
    stupidity: I could bet my first winner will be HECj! ;-)

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

    Jeff Lait <torespondisfutile@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
    >>Erik Piper <efrniokr@sdky.cz> wrote:
    >>>Crawl and Nethack, for example, both do this,
    >>>and both exacerbate the problem by requiring the use of Shift with some, but
    >>>not all, of the commands.
    >>NetHack has the problem that the keyboard is full. Some commands will
    >>necessarily require Shift.
    >But isn't the keyboard is full because excessive commands are present?

    Not really, no. Even the W/T/P/R distinction is useful to distinguish
    classes of objects; as I've said on rgrn, I want to make it optional, not
    remove it.

    It seems completely unfeasible not to have some Shift-commands with vi
    keys in use.

    >The enormous list of items is easily solved by having filtering.
    >u - Open inventory for using default actions
    >/ - Filter wands as you don't remember the letter.
    >f - Select wand 'f'
    >Compare to:
    >z - Zap an item
    >? - List the wands as you don't remmeber the letter
    >f - Select wand f

    Well, now you've got an item-specific keystroke either way, so I don't see
    any improvement. Furthermore, after pressing 'z', it is possible I'll
    remember the wand letter from seeing the list of all wand letters - it
    happens to me.

    >When I play any roguelike, I often find myself staring at the
    >inventory screen to figure out some escape.

    .... I can't see any reason why the inventory should not accept item
    letters as a route into a use-style interface.

    >>>There's not THAT much more you do with items in a roguelike, really...
    >>Throw springs to mind - or destroy, in *bands...
    >The right ergonomics for throw is really a Quiver/Fire approach.

    Throwing food to (prospective) pets? Throwing potions? Throwing junk away?
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

    bork bork bork Rubinstein bork 11:45:58 PM bork 11/27/2004 bork bork:

    [R. mentions recent choice of HECj, E. mentions that skill-wise, they're more
    a Crusader type]
    >
    > Regardless of what the aptitude spoilers say and regardless of my
    > stupidity: I could bet my first winner will be HECj! ;-)
    >
    > Rubinstein

    I certainly understand the love of unusual or even tough combos, and the idea
    of a FVP with them -- my first ADOM win was the allegedly quite hard (though
    really only hard-to-launch) Hurthling Mindcrafter combo, and because I've
    gotten bored with my DECj, there's a small chance that my first win in Crawl
    will be a HuWa! :-O (Got the Snake Pit rune and seem to be on the way to
    getting the Swamp rune -- I am weak, but Okawaru is strong...)

    Erik
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games