Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
El autor de este tema ha marcado un mensaje como la respuesta a su pregunta.
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
You're absolutely correct - the time-tested titans of the Roguelike family such as Nuclear Throne, Enter the Gungeon, Risk of Rain, Starward Rogue, etc., etc. leave this feeble attempt at the genre far behind, but you should keep an open mind and give Caves of Qud the benefit of the doubt - after all, making a videogame is not an easy task. Not every developer even grasps the concept correctly, so we have these weird-looking freaks of a game every now and then.
Sure, the lackluster turn-based system and overly complex character management options may strike you as retro and maybe even outdated at first, but after carefully studying the in-game controls and obtaining some background knowledge, hell, there's a chance you'll find some aspects of the game enjoyable! Sure, it's nowhere near the colourful fiesta of its twitch-reflex focused brethren, but not everyone can be a superhero in this harsh and competitive world of today.
Chiefly, you have a very much misguided sense of roguelikes as a genre. It's understandable. These days the word roguelike has, at least in mainstream gaming become little more than a buzzword describing procedural generation and something resembling perma-death.
BUT roguelikes are, in actuality, a very much specific genre of games, boasting tiles, turnbased combat, procedural generation, permadeath, and generally devilish difficulty. They do not play in real time, they do not require reflexes, and they most definitely aren't games like Binding of Isaac, or Enter the Gungeon.
This is not to knock on games like BoI or EtG, they are fabulous games, but that's not the point I'm making. These games are roguelites which are games which make use of roguelike elements, such as permadeath and procedural generation, but combine them with other elements which go against the core of what a roguelike is. That's not a bad thing, but it neccessitates the creation of a new genre. Roguelites, or Roguelikelikes.
So, in answer to your question, Caves of Qud is absolutely a roguelike, a brilliant one. But BoI, Don't Starve, and FTL are not, and if you really enjoyed those games, you may want to look elsewhere.
Caves of Qud is such a roguelike, that when they have roguelike conventions run by roguelike.club with the creators of the game Rogue as presenters, the developers of Caves of Qud are major guests and speakers.
As happened on this very day.
A "Roguelike" is a game that is "similar" to Rogue. Rogue, the granddaddy of the roguelike genre, is some really old game with ASCII graphics (Everything is represented with letters. Your character appears on the screen as a '@', a goblin might be a 'g', a dragon might be 'd', etc.). Nobody really plays Rogue anymore because it's really outdated, but many games have copied Rogue's basic formula and vastly improved it. These are roguelikes.
In order to qualify as a roguelike, in the traditional sense of the word, a game must:
* Have procedurally generated levels
* Have permanent death
* Be turn based
In recent days, however, game developers have been making "roguelikes" that constantly disobey these rules. It's gotten to the point where the roguelike community has effectively divided the roguelike category into two subcategories: traditional roguelikes/true roguelikes, and roguelites. Roguelites break one or two of those rules while traditional roguelikes break none.
Binding of Isaac and Don't Starve, for example, are roguelites, not traditional roguelikes. They aren't turn based, and that disqualifies them. Not that that's a bad thing, it just means they technically aren't true roguelikes. Many roguelites also break the permanent death rule. For instance, Rogue Legacy lets you buy permanent upgrades that apply to future runs. Are you really dying permanently? Or are you just respawning with big penalties? Many people argue that permanent upgrades means you're breaking the permanent death rule.
FTL is about as close to traditional roguelike as roguelites get. It's got real-time with pause, which is almost turn based. However, the combat is very different from most traditional roguelikes.
Games like Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, Brogue, Tales of Maj'Eyal, and of course, Caves of Qud, are true roguelikes. They have procedural generation, permanent death, and are turn based. They're roguelikes in every way.
So to answer your question, yes, Caves of Qud is a Roguelike. It's more of a roguelike than Binding of Isaac, FTL, or Don't Starve.
That seems as a lousy definition.
According to this, Windows Minesweeper is a roguelike, in the traditional sense of the word.
Seeing a hint of salt in past replies and definition provided above, I start to suspect that none of commentors above can explain what *exactly* makes Qud roguelike and Don't Starve not a roguelike.
I did research, however, and stumbled upon Berlin's version of definition, which is, probably, even more vague.
Still, you claim that roguelikes are "similar" to Rogue, yet you easily dismiss the fact that Qud is not using ACSII art "similar" to Rogue. Which, as I was led to believe after my research, is considered as a core feature of roguelikes. And yet you are easy to strike a game out as a roguelike if it does not match, for example provided above, turn-based criteria.
Now, I predict that counter-argument to this would be justifying using ACSII by the era Rogue was developed. And that modern technologies allow us to develop Proper Roguelikes with fancy graphics.
To which I already reply that turn-based gameplay seems as limitation of era during which Rogue was developed and real-time gameplay allows for challenge of seeking optimal solution to the tactical problem under the pressure of imminent danger.
Which is basicly what happens in *your* roguelikes when, for instance, you encounter enemy that you have no chance to defeat and, seemingly, no way out of this situation. Challenge of seeking optimal solution to the tactical problem under the pressure of imminent danger is still there. What changed is the time limit to seek out and apply said solution - be it infinite or limited. If player desires to constaint himself with time limits to think or not - it is his business and I find that particular remark:
>colourful fiesta of its twitch-reflex focused brethren
To be made by someone who clearly sees pleasure in biding his time and carefully considering all available options. And to suffer yet another stupid death, for which he would not blame time limit but himself. That is good. That is his preference.
Thus I assume that *turn-based* is optional requirment for a roguelike.
Question still stands - what makes Qud a roguelike?
And really, I don't see why you're still looking for an answer to that question. ♥♥♥ objectively hews closer to the traditional roguelike than any of the games you held up as examples of roguelikes.
I do think your assertion that real-time gameplay makes for "proper" roguelikes isn't without merit. It can certainly be considered an evolution of the genre, and I don't believe in the rigorous distinction between "real roguelikes" and "rougelites" or "rougelikelikes".
But still, ♥♥♥ is with absolutely no ambiguity a roguelike.
But even without that - just compare it to, say, nethack, nuclear throne, zangband, binding of isaac, dredmor and ToME. It's clearly more a classic roguelike than the modern competition.
But above all, don't go around assuming Roguelikes are literally just games like Rogue. The genre name is terrible, and misleading. Roguelikes as a term started as just describing games like rogue, but the term has evolved. It's hard to quantify genres, hard to reduce them to a set of traits, but that set of traits was further defined by games like Hack, Moria, or Angband.
ASCII is a terrible requirement, as it's purely an art style, and graphics will never determine any genre.
And Nullfinger's definition is missing a few things, and so, indeed was my earlier one. But, as CHOO CHOO CoqAuFeu! said, just by comparing these games, you can most definitely see a difference between nethack and nuclear thone. The nethack-likes got the name roguelike first, and do indeed fit the moniker better, therefore they get the name. BoI and FTL are very much different, and in many ways more similiar to eachother.
♥♥♥ is much more a roguelike, in the true sense of the word.
also your roguelike experience is seriously lacking. Where's your Nuclear Throne? Crypt Of The Necrodancer? Spelunky? You're not fit to be called a roguelike expert until you can do eggplant Coda loops.
>In point of fact, the orignial version of ♥♥♥ did indeed use an ACSII tileset.
It does not now, does it?
>And really, I don't see why you're still looking for an answer to that question.
Because no one actually provided the answer.
>♥♥♥ objectively hews closer to the traditional roguelike than any of the games you held up as examples of roguelikes.
>♥♥♥ is with absolutely no ambiguity a roguelike.
Why?
@CHOO CHOO CoqAuFeu!
>According to http://bp.io/howroguelike/ it's very very solidly a roguelike.
According to http://bp.io/howroguelike/ Windows Minesweeper is a Roguelikelike, but if someone to release the same exact thing named as Roguesweeper and in ACSII - it will be a true roguelike.
>just compare it to
>It's clearly more a classic roguelike than the modern competition.
Frankly, I fail to see a connection here. And you are just confusing me.
So those games I provided above are modern roguelikes and Qud is classic roguelike?
Good. Why?
@AlphaBeard
>I can't tell fiction from reality any more.
Hey! Gift me your game!
@My name can't be thirtytwo chara
> in the true sense of the word.
And this sense of the word is?
It shares many design elements with the oldest generation of roguelikes, while having more modern RPG elements such as interactive NPCs and conversations, quests, an overworld, etc.
No, it does not particularly resemble the newer generation of games styling themselves, as "roguelikes, roguelites, roguelike-likes," or "with roguelike elements," which OP mentioned having played.
Can we move on now?