Installer Steam
connexion
|
langue
简体中文 (chinois simplifié)
繁體中文 (chinois traditionnel)
日本語 (japonais)
한국어 (coréen)
ไทย (thaï)
Български (bulgare)
Čeština (tchèque)
Dansk (danois)
Deutsch (allemand)
English (anglais)
Español - España (espagnol castillan)
Español - Latinoamérica (espagnol d'Amérique latine)
Ελληνικά (grec)
Italiano (italien)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonésien)
Magyar (hongrois)
Nederlands (néerlandais)
Norsk (norvégien)
Polski (polonais)
Português (portugais du Portugal)
Português - Brasil (portugais du Brésil)
Română (roumain)
Русский (russe)
Suomi (finnois)
Svenska (suédois)
Türkçe (turc)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamien)
Українська (ukrainien)
Signaler un problème de traduction
Ce sujet a été verrouillé 
Procédures à suivre et règles des discussions
Signaler ce message
I'm sure you'll learn some things about human interaction and in time learn that for the most part the terminology used by most people is incorrect in just about any media you care to mention.
You might as well be shouting into a tornado. :)
Im not upset, just bored and spending five minutes educating the children.
Oh wait, I'm going to go back to playing my favorite "WoW-Like" at the moment, then maybee later I am going to go play my favorite "Doom Clone". Talk to you later.
Nah. You're an opinionated twit who's looking for some quick dose of self-importance.
Spoken as one old geezer to another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roguelike
* Procedural level generation (check)
* Turn-based gameplay (check)
* Tile-based graphics (check)
* Permanent death (check)
* Typically based on a high fantasy narrative (check)
* Usually single player (check)
* Identity of items is unknown, often subject to alteration (enchantments/curses) - check
Dungeonmans ticks all those boxes, no?
Why even bring up the fact that most current Roguelike players haven't played Rogue? They can't help when they were born, or started to play computer games. I've played Rogue, Hack, Nethack, Angband, and other classic Roguelike games, but I don't go around being all hipster about it.
From the way you attempt to argue, OP, I'd be surprised if you were even around in 1980 to play Rogue. You just seem too immature for me to believe otherwise. I only bring that up because it seems very important to you that people know about Rogue before they use the widely-accepted term Roguelike to describe a game that has its roots firmly embedded in the style of gameplay that Rogue laid out (listed above by [OCR]zircon, and Dungeonmans definitely fits the criteria)
It also doesn't look very mature or friendly of you to start a flame-baiting thread like this, then just claim later that you were "trying to educate the children".. that just makes you look like a condescending prick more than anything else.
Anyway, long story short, just because you find it strange that games with numerous key gameplay features similar to Rogue are called Roguelike, doesn't mean it's gonna change anytime soon. Yes it's a little weird that a whole genre ended up being named after one game, but It's a widely-accepted term, people understand it, and it works.
Even not *strictly* adhering to the Berlin Interpretation, if I want to describe Dungeonmans, Brogue or ToME to someone, I say "Roguelike" and they understand.
What other word would I use?
1. Some games (like Dungeonmans) are CLEARLY roguelike -- you can look at the original Rogue, and at the games in question and see a lot of features and ideas in common. There may still be people who dispute that such a game is a roguelike, because it doesn't have one or two features that they personally feel is necessary, but they will be in the minority. Why? Because the game FEELS like a roguelike. These are titles that are not all that controversial. As I said, you may get the odd person here and there objecting, but there is a clear consensus.
2. Then there are games that have clear differences but still retain a roguelike flavor through SOME common aspects, but definitely have differences. IT may be that they do have a bit in common with Rogue, but for this or that reason, they are more controversial. IT could be that they are action games (eg. The Binding of Isaac) or platformers (eg. Spelunky), or are more puzzle-like in nature (eg. Desktop Dungeons), or where you are not simply controlling a single character (egs. FTL, or Bionic Dues). It's those games which is where a lot of the more interesting discussions and controversies take place. Some people will call these games roguelikes, others roguelike-likes or rogue-lites.
3. Then there are the games that have almost nothing in common with Rogue, except for maybe one or two aspects (pick any 1 or 2 of permadeath or turn-based mechanics or dungeon exploration, or procedural content).
Games that fall into category 1 or 3 are not worth discussing, imho. The consensus wins out. Category 2 is where the fun is.
I argue that for games in category 2, the term Roguelike should be used subjectively. If you play the game and it strongly illicits memories of Rogue or other Roguelike games (ie. games in category 1) because of a common feel to the game, then you should call it a roguelike. Otherwise, it's a Rogue-lite.
For me, Bionic Dues strongly captures the feeling of playing a roguelike game, so in spite of the fact that it lacks permadeath, that you control robots, are capturing blocks in a city, and it has a strategic level, its tactical level strongly illicits the same kind of feeling that you get when playing a roguelike game.
A game like Diablo, on the other hand, while clearly having a lot in common with roguelike games, at least for me, does not at all feel the same way as playing, for example, Rogue.
To me it's logical. How can I argue that a game is a roguelike if it doesn't actually feel like a roguelike? On the other hand, how can I argue that someone else is wrong if they DO get the feeling of playing a roguelike when they play the same game? I may not feel the same way, but I also can't tell someone that they are lying if I can't feel what its like from their point of view.
As far as marketing is concerned, I only have problems with games in category 3 that are labeled as roguelikes.
You need to calm down. There are times when things become popular and the name sticks because it has become a brand.
Kinda like Guinness World Records, it used to be about the the beer, then it transcended that brand and became something else. Another example is Michelin-starred restaurants, is it about how a tire company likes restaurants? No. It became something else. Roguelike used to mean similar to Rogue, but it became something else. It became a brand for a particular type of game experience.
the good thing about this new annoying classification is that it has given you an easier wasy of finding what it is you are looking for..
2 annoying music flavor of the month classifications that occured, annoyed and stuck: grunge
- obviously when Nirvana became megalithically huge in the 90s the genre nazis had to come up with something new and annoying, at the time it was different and it spawned a million copycats...before you knew it everything was angsty and screamy and distorted and if your music was any one of those things chances are the masses were calling you grunge..
triphop - Massive Attack and Portishead and their ilk arrived, turned heads, were hard to classify and again led to annoying new genre names that seemed to spill out of every wannabes mouth
again easier to look in the 'triphop' section of the music store then it was to look in the electronic music section and guess...
the other annoying thing you touch on is bandwagonning...bandwagonning fans because something is new and popular and trendy...bandwagonning devs/musicians/artitsts (w/e) because its easy to 'catch a wave' as it happens and ride it to prosperity...why try and break moulds when you can copy something that just did and if you did early enough appear to break moulds yourself?
mostly though the word 'fan' itself answers all this behaviour...fan shortform of 'fanatic'...fanatical behaviour is just that, fanatic...all the band wagonners no matter which side of the spectrum they are on are fans and are just being fanatical of something new in a scene that may seem stagnant..
back to your thread...yes most gamers werent alive to play Rogue..this means they were deprived of that...somewhere in the not so distant past a game, I dont know who it was or what title (looks at FTL and Dungeons of Dredmor), struck a chord with the current generation of gamers...it opened up the eyes of this generation and gave them a fresh new (old to the older guys who played rogue) experience...they like it,became fanatical and began frothing at the mouth for more and immediately looked for more examples..in steps bandwagonning devs to fill that gap (and thankfully so)
the incorrectly defined rogue-likes? well they are just giving the genre nazis (you op) fits as they are being hard to define..leading to more genres...like rogue-lite or w/e...MEH
also I'm 35 years old and consider myself 'too young' to have experienced Rogue in it's prime...is your thread aimed at anyone less than 50?
Going by one of his other posts, he's around your age. Just apparently assumes that it gives him some special privileged status when discussing computer games.
Also, his self-claimed age makes it unlikely he actually played Rogue in its infancy/early development, either - if at all.
Dungeonmans is clearly a Roguelike. Yes it's a strange term because most genres aren't named after a game, but it's the term we use, and that's just the way it is. Doesn't matter if a lot of people weren't alive in 1980 to play the original, that is completely irrelevant. There's probably 100's of games now that are classified as "roguelikes" and a few people who think that's silly aren't gonna change it.
So the inherent problem is these games are a specific genre but what do we name that genre? Well apparently the term "Rogue-Like" has been very widely adopted as the name for this ever expanding and ressurrected genre of games. So where I see your logic in comparing the "Rogue-Like" name to "Doom-Clones" it just doesn't matter. Because Doom and Wolfenstein clones had a different genre name that could be used - First Person Shooters, that was more defining and specific as a genre name.
So if not "Rogue-Like" as the genre name then what do you propose we call this genre of games that are clearly in their own unique genre? Just because the genre name was derived from an actual game title that was basically the originator of the genre does not mean it can't be used as the genre name. Rogue-Like works perfectly for the genre name and has already been widespread accepted. So just get over it already and get off your high horse because most modern gamers weren't old enough to have played the original Rogue. Who the ♥♥♥♥ cares? Oh, right you do for some reason. The name works, like it or not.
As for this game, yes it is a true "Rogue-Like" genre entry and deserves the distinction. Also for your claim this is the only modern mainstream Rogue-Like? Total BS. The Rogue-Like genre is more popular than ever right now and is on a HUGE resurgence. This is just one of numerous good mainstream Rogue-Likes to come out recently:
- Sword of the Stars: The Pit
- Dungeons of Dredmor
- Cardinal Quest 1 & 2
- 1Quest
- Tales of Maj'Eyal
- Dungeonmans
- Claustrophobia: The Downward Struggle
- The Depths of Tolagal
And that's just completely off the top of my head. I'm sure I could find and name numerous more games that are true Rogue-Likes. Rather than ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and whining you should be happy and grateful there are so many great Rogue-Like genre games available these days. The name has been adopted for the genre, just get over it already or think of a better name for the genre and then good luck trying to get millions of gamers to convert what has already been established as the genre name.
The one thing I will give you in all your sobbing, whining rants about being an old, elitist gamer who played Rogue is that, yes the term "Rogue-Like" is over used by games that do not fit the genre simply because they have one or two mechanics aped from the genre. But guess what? That's common place in gaming these days. Almost every game that comes out tries to tag itself as part of every cool, buzzword genre. And Rogue-Like is a very hot genre right now that devs and publishers want to try and boost their game sales with by claiming they are part of the genre. So yes, that's annoying but you know what? Go cry about it on the discussion boards for one of those games. You're preaching to the choir here on an actual Rogue-Like game discussion board.
Get off your high horse sir, you sound like a fool.
I was gonna say something similar myself. I'm pushing 31 and feel ancient on game boards talking about this kind of stuff and I wasn't even born when Rogue first came out. So who is he aiming this flak at? Does he really expect Rogue-Like fans to be 40+ years old? He does realize he's talking to gamers right? Which are a group of people dominated by age ranges 12-35, all of which would be too young to have really played Rogue when it first came out. I've played Rogue but obviously not in 1980 when it came out. This guy is ludicrous in his claims and rants. He thinks he is some kind of elitist for being an old as dirt gamer? I don't get it.
A person's age may or may not suggest something about his opinions, but only on a purely statistical level (Older people are more likely to have encountered Rogue itself, younger people's introductions to the genre are more likely to have come from more modern games). We are talking about preferences and so it wouldn't matter if we were talking about roguelike games, or pizza or music. You are going to have unresolvable differences. You can disagree with an opinion, but you can't dispute that it is an opinion.