Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Roguelikes: the Misnamed Genre

Posted by Soulskill on from the addictive-frustration dept.

ZorbaTHut writes "I've been playing a lot of Dungeon Crawl: Stone Soup lately. It's a great example of a roguelike (and open source, too). But I can't stop thinking that perhaps 'roguelike' is the wrong term for the genre. 'Roguelikes aren’t about dungeons. They’re not about text-based graphics, or random artifacts, or permadeath. ... Roguelikes are about using an unpredictable toolkit with complex interactions in order to overcome unpredictable challenges.'"

29 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. Nethack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Roguelikes are about incomprehensible control schemes utilizing every single key on your keyboard, twice!

    1. Re:Nethack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      So vi and emacs are roguelike?

    2. Re:Nethack by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know it is a joke, but the connection is there. The original rogue is vi-like, adopting the cursor keys of vi.

    3. Re:Nethack by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2

      No. You also need pedals and a joystick to get the full functionality from vi and emacs.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    4. Re:Nethack by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2

      Amen.

      You know, there are always debates raging online about whether keyboard and mouse, or controllers are a better control scheme. And while keyboards have advantages, you have to admire how the restricted amount of buttons on a controller forces designers to rationalise their control schemes.

      Keyboard based developers on the other hand never really have to face the problem of running out of buttons, and as such tend to designate every command to its own button, sometimes without any thought at all. Sometimes, out of necessity, the control scheme can be somewhat egonomicised , particularly for FPS games and the like. But for "roguelike" games, sometimes it feels like the developers matched keys to commands by rolling a dice. A little thought could drastically reduce the and rationalise the amount and kind of keys being used.

      Sometimes, the controls for games like Nethack and Dwarf Fortress are so bad that I think the developers never actually sit down and play the game themselves; eat their own dog food so to speak. i think if they did, alternative control schemes would emerge very quickly. Then again, maybe they play a lot, and have just become inured to their own creations.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    5. Re:Nethack by Elbereth · · Score: 3, Informative

      NetHack isn't that bad, once you get used to it. Sure, you might think that q is an entirely random key to choose for drinking a potion (and you'd be right), but there's an mnemonic associate with it -- quaffing a potion. Once you start thinking in terms of the mnemonic, it's a lot easier, rather than struggling to remember which key is for drinking. The same is true of z, used for activating a wand. Again, this must seem entirely random, and you'd be right. However, the associated mnemonic is zapping a wand. Other commands are less defensible, such as Z, used to cast a spell. Once you've become familiar with zapping wands, however, it makes a little more sense.

      Play enough times and it'll become second nature to you.

    6. Re:Nethack by bhaak1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Roguelikes have a long history and some of those old decisions don't fit well into the modern computer environments. For example vi-keys (although almost all modern roguelikes support numpad) are such a case. Without tradition, developers probably would use a solution base on the nowadays more common WASD.

      But there's also a reason for not changing. You've already got a lot of people familiar with certain concepts.

      As a NetHack fork developer I don't want to alienate the large Vanilla player base by introducing new keys that would confuse them. Even though I know that it isn't the best possible interface for beginners.

      Luckily you can try to improve an interface without completely overhaul it. It's not the best possible solution but a good compromise.

      With Vanilla NetHack you've got the problem that it really hasn't changed much since mid-90s and is dormant since 2003. I wouldn't hold my breath for a version with a better interface from the DevTeam.

      --
      UnNetHack: NetHack Improved!
    7. Re:Nethack by Imagix · · Score: 2

      Based on your UID number, you probably remember... but the keyboards at the time Rogue (and vi) came out didn't _have_ cursor keys. It would make sense that Rogue would adopt the "cursor" keys of the popular text editor of that time since everybody would be used to them.

    8. Re:Nethack by hey+hey+hey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Based on your UID number, you probably remember... but the keyboards at the time Rogue (and vi) came out didn't _have_ cursor keys.

      You can't tell by my UID, but I was actually AT Berkeley when Rogue and vi came out. The ADM-3A terminal (which was by far the most common terminal there, and lots of other places) had a left arrow on the H, a down arrow on the J, a up arrow on the K and a right arrow on the L. Not cursor keys per-se, but a dang strong hint.

    9. Re:Nethack by iampiti · · Score: 2

      I love slashdot because of comments like this. Where else are you going to find such delicious mostly useless information of old computers? :)

  2. maybe to you... by waddgodd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To the rest of us, rougelikes are just that, clones of rogue. Clearly Star Trek isn't a roguelike, yet it's "about using an unpredictable toolkit with complex interactions in order to overcome unpredictable challenges.", no?

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
  3. "Roguelike" means "like Rogue" by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Roguelike" means "like Rogue", no more and no less. There's no need to try to seek some deeper meaning in there. If the game has top-down view, intricate RPG-like stats, but mostly consists of slaying things rather than heavy NPC interaction and advanced storyline, it's a roguelike. All of these are necessary components - e.g. Stonekeep is not a roguelike, because it's first-person.

    As for the "new" definition in TFS/TFA, it's so vague as to be meaningless. Heck, it's broad enough to match contraption games (like Crazy Machines).

    1. Re:"Roguelike" means "like Rogue" by SharpFang · · Score: 2

      What about Dwarf Fortress?
      In the "adventurer mode" it is a clear-cut roguelike with a vast world to explore.
      In the "fortress mode" it becomes a strategy game (freely switchable between RTS and turn-based.) But still it utilizes the same game mechanics, the same world (to a degree where your adventurer may find and explore your fortress), and generally is just a different mode of the same game.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:"Roguelike" means "like Rogue" by arkenian · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Roguelike" means "like Rogue", no more and no less. There's no need to try to seek some deeper meaning in there. If the game has top-down view, intricate RPG-like stats, but mostly consists of slaying things rather than heavy NPC interaction and advanced storyline, it's a roguelike. All of these are necessary components - e.g. Stonekeep is not a roguelike, because it's first-person.

      As for the "new" definition in TFS/TFA, it's so vague as to be meaningless. Heck, it's broad enough to match contraption games (like Crazy Machines).

      While I mostly agree with your definition, I'd have to add 'random dungeon generation' as a key point. In some ways THE key point, more so I'd argue than 'top-down view'. (Although 'what will the red potion do to me this time?' was always fun. Also for those who think permadead is critical, I'll point out that there were workarounds....)

    3. Re:"Roguelike" means "like Rogue" by kikito · · Score: 2

      "Like" implies "more or less". Don't you know SQL?

      Something "like Rogue, but no more and no less", should be roqueequals, not roguelike.

  4. This is a SPAM submission by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Its a dupe from an earlier submission that was not deemed fit to become a story

    http://games.slashdot.org/submission/1543364/Roguelikes-The-Misnamed-Genre

    So its actually someone writing a story and then spamming the slashdot submission to get it in here.

    Sadly it's not better then the last time this sad story was submitted - can it please die - don't comment please.

    --
    Just saying it like it are.
  5. Re:wtf is roguelike? by ryansherwood · · Score: 2

    I share your sentiments, however, prepare to be trolled.

  6. Re:One essential question... by rasmusneckelmann · · Score: 2

    Diablo is clearly heavily inspired by roguelikes, but there's really not that much of the original gameplay left. It would be like if I made a real-time strategy game with units like "pawn", "queen", and "king" and said it was a chesslike.

  7. Re:"Fucking hard", RPG? by bmo · · Score: 2

    >It's just too fucking hard!

    I think the "giant's drink" game in Ender's Game is nethack.

    I could be wrong. But I've never seen the balrog so I can't say that the balrog is /not/ the giant.

    --
    BMO

  8. Re:"Fucking hard", RPG? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sheesh, God forbid anyone actually try to play the game as it was intended, rather than use every bit of fun-draining information available on the net to make the game into an 'achievement' instead of 'fun'.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  9. Re:wtf is roguelike? by the_enigma_1983 · · Score: 2

    The very article explains that it is hard to define "rogue-like" as anything except "similar to the game Rogue". I'm not sure what better description can be given, and if you want one linked, then TFA does actually go over what a Rogue-like game is.

  10. That's not what roguelikes are! by Urkki · · Score: 2

    Roguelikes are games that are like Rogue both in game play and in appearance (IMHO graphical tiles and even isometric or 3rd person 3D are allowed, as long as it doesn't affect game play, though purists may disagree).

    The summary tries to imply there's some deeper meaning behind the word, but really, there isn't.

  11. Re:One essential question... by Vintermann · · Score: 2

    In particular, it's inspired by Angband and Angband variants. There's not much of Nethack in there.

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  12. Re:"Fucking hard", RPG? by Vintermann · · Score: 2

    Nethack isn't really intended to be winnable without spoilers. DCSS is, though, but still a good deal of the fun is talking about it, exchanging strategies and ideas.

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  13. Re:"Fucking hard", RPG? by mcvos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Roguelikes don't have anywhere near enough roleplaying (none whatsoever, generally) to be RPGs. They're basically simple hack & slash games, but what makes them interesting is the tactical problem solving. You encounter a monster, swarm of monsters or other situation that's just too hard to overcome by your usual methods, so you need to think of something clever. You need to think, and you need time to think (which you don't have in an action game).

    This is something all true roguelikes (nethack, moria, angband, adom) have in common. They are incredibly challenging and almost impossible to win. (I only managed to finish adom once through outrageous save scumming.) They require thinking and creativity. They need to be turn based and have a ridiculous number of options. They have to be fucking hard. It's about overcoming the challenges, not about experiencing some story (because there is none).

  14. What roguelikes are by cgomezr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That the term "roguelike" is vague is a well-known fact, but there are definitions around much better than the one in the article: http://roguebasin.roguelikedevelopment.org/index.php?title=What_a_roguelike_is

    The distinguishing features of roguelikes are random world generation, permadeath, complexity of item interaction, RPG-like stats, killing scores of monsters, grid-based motion, turn-based mechanics and arguably ASCII interface. A game may be a roguelike and not have all of these, but if it has, say, all but two, it is undoubtedly a roguelike.

    The reasoning in the article that leads into calling "Super Smash Bros Brawl" a roguelike is just ludicrous. Of course there is no limit to how one can redefine a term, but one should not expect to be taken seriously after saying that every animal with four paws should be called a dog. Saying that "Super Smash Bros Brawl" is a roguelike because it is complex in some way goes against the common use of the word. The author of the article should find a different name for what he means.

  15. Re:Seriously? by Ackmo · · Score: 2

    He's hallucinating.

  16. Re:Nethack on handhelds by bhaak1 · · Score: 2

    There are several ports of NetHack on Android and iPhone. But in any case just search in the market places / app stores of your device. Don't expect an official version from the DevTeam.

    But especially with NetHack the amount of keys normally used is a real problem for a good port. NetHack's interface isn't easily translated on a hand held device.

    You might want to try POWDER for a NetHack inspired roguelike that has been designed specifically for running on consoles. Which made it much easier to port to handhelds and smartphones.

    --
    UnNetHack: NetHack Improved!
  17. Re:"Fucking hard", RPG? by geminidomino · · Score: 2

    "I met a goblin and I killed it. Then I met an orc and I killed it. Then I saw a troll and I ran away. My dog got killed."

    Go back to the Country Music Channel!