Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

We're offering banner ads on our site from just $5!

1. Details HERE. 2. GDNet+ Subscriptions HERE. 3. Ad upload HERE.


Rogue, Hack,


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
18 replies to this topic

#1 Brett B.   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 13 February 2000 - 05:02 AM

I was in the mood for some nostalgia and loaded Rogue on my machine and wondered why am I playing such an old game? So my questions are: 1. Can games that are well designed and thought-out, regardless of age, stand-up against the “test of time”? 2. In certain situations, game play can greatly outweigh graphics and sound? Granted Rogue was done with ASCII characters and does not have an up-to-date GUI but it is still fun to play every once in awhile. I would like to know what you think. Thanks, Brett

Sponsor:

#2 Muse   Members   -  Reputation: 254

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 13 February 2000 - 05:49 AM

Absolutely! I still get a kick out of playing Planetfall or some of the other old Infocom games. When Pong and Tron reprised on TI-85''s back in high school, they were just as much fun to play, simply because they were great games. In fact, I think I am going to go play a little FFI. If you''ll excuse me....

#3 Sleepwalker   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 13 February 2000 - 08:00 AM

You made a good point there, Brett.
1. Positive. They sure can.
2. Positive. And not only in "certain" situations.

Why are older games often more fun even though the graphics are totally out of date ?

In my opinion, that''s exactly the point. The old games didn''t have graphics engine with trilinear filtering and 32bit color depth. Unreal makes you go "WOW" when you see the graphics engine. Games in former times had a maximum of 16 colors if you were *really lucky*. Because they didn''t have fancy or funky graphics they had to rely on gameplay rather than "8.2 billion polygons per second" to attract gamers...

Take Quake for example: It''s technology is awesome - but if you look behind the scenes the gameplay is more primitive than Pacman. I nPacman you sometimes where chased and had to run away and at other times you could go chasing them monsters. Now I am not saying that Quake sucks just because it dowsn''t have a gameplay, but it''s more a technology demo with a nice little game packed on top of it rather than a game that was designed to be a game. I read a nice saying about that once: "It''s the tail wagging the dog".
The developers simply were to busy with their 3D engine to think about much gameplay.

Imagine Quake with a roguelike engine Now, wouldn''t THAT be fun? Have some @ signs beat each other up ? You see my point: In Quake it''s the engine that makes the game, and not gameplay, as it should be. ASCIIQuake could never stand a chance against any roguelike.

A counter example is Halflife for example. They licensed the Quake II engine and actually made a real GAME on top of it. But even that is not as deep as a roguelike.

I myself am trying to develop a roguelikish game right now and I am trying to focus in gameplay (which also means that there''s not gonna me much graphics)
Anyway there''s a map prototype and a Treatment you might be interested in...
Well, take a look at it and tell me what you think about it...

I think it''s time for my daily dose of roguelike (mostly Moria and ADoM) - So happy rogueing...(Is there a word like that ?)

- Sleepwalker

#4 Ysaneya   Members   -  Reputation: 1247

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 13 February 2000 - 09:09 AM

To answer the original questions.. YES !
I have reinstalled the old Dungeon Master on my computer and i am playing it again. I must say, i enjoy it very, very much, and i have more fun with it than _all_ the games i bought since the last year.
Makes you ponder...

Y.


#5 SiCrane   Moderators   -  Reputation: 9662

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 13 February 2000 - 05:19 PM

Of course you can do a great game in just ASCII graphics. Just take a look (as long as we''re comparing Quake and ASCII graphics): http://webpages.mr.net/bobz/ttyquake/

Seriously, though, Great gameplay beats out flashy graphics for me, every time. *I* still play nethack, and have since I was about 11. One of the first PC games I ever had. Of course, not the same version all this time. Darn thing wasn''t Y2K compliant. ::mutter:: And I *still* haven''t beat the darn thing.

#6 Sleepwalker   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 14 February 2000 - 08:06 AM

I had some more thoughts on this topic...
So here it goes:

Who are the people that make games? Mostly very "scientific" people with knowledge of programming and often mathematics, too. That means that they know how to structurize a game process make algorithms and tweak the program.
The problem here is firstly that they oftentimes think to much "logic" and "mathematical", because they are trained to think that way. But this might not always be good for a game and its gameplay sometimes its like more of an unespected twist that you need.
Secondly I think that these people have too much knowledge of computers and the way they think. So they adapt to this way of thinking.

In my opinion games should be thought up by someone how has absolutely no idea how a computer works and only wants to play a fun game (but yet there might be a problem because people don''t know what they want to play...). These people cannot be influenced by the confines of the computer architecture.
Now don''t misunderstand what I said about programmers ( that they think too "structured"). Their job is to put all the ideas into a logical and structured order and make a game out of it.
And I am afraid you can''t do both...

To draw a little anylogy about this topic:
If these games nowadays were cars,
they would look COOL,
would be LIGHTNING-FAST,
EASY to use,
and you could go only FORWARD and BACKWARD.
(no corners, no sharp turns, no burned rubber, no powerslide, no fun)
- Imagine bumper cars only going forward and backward

That''s enough ranting for one day...

Over to more important matters
(and btw Happy Valentine''s day
((what about a poll "Do you have a girl/boyfriend (or are even "married")? Answers: a) Yes. b) No c) Yes, and (s)he''s got 800 MHz and 128 MB RAM - but I''ll upgrade her/him next week(It''s her/his birthday then...)))




- Sleepwalker

#7 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 14 February 2000 - 08:07 AM

I like quake 2 as much as I do quake 3 =)

#8 guybrush   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 14 February 2000 - 08:35 AM

one of the best examples of a perfect blend of fun and engine is Metal Gear Solid for the PlayStation. (have you played it yet? go! now!) aside from the fantastic coding that must have gone into the game (on a 2Mb machine with a 2x CDROM...poor thing streams a lot), there is a fantastic plot (albeit a bit linear), wonderful sense of environment, and great gameplay.

aaron
-----------------------------
LeChuck! GRRRRRR.

#9 Sleepwalker   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 14 February 2000 - 08:57 AM

That''s true guybrush...I saw it once...A good example of technology AND plot.

Well, I also liked playing MI for that matter

- Sleepwalker

#10 Brett B.   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 14 February 2000 - 09:30 AM

Sleepwalker, I think I see what you are trying to convey. As a programmer, sometimes you can''t see the forest for the trees. That while coding a game, it is very easy to loose the over-all intent and purpose of the game. Therefore, this is why it is important to have a project manager or one who is not directly involved with the coding per-say but in the larger scheme of things.

And SiCrane, I can''t wait to try out text quake. Thank you for the link.

Thanks,
Brett


Bend, but do not break.
Give, but do not yield.

-Some wise man from Kung Fu Theater

#11 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 14 February 2000 - 09:34 AM

Are you quoting John Carmack?

#12 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 14 February 2000 - 09:48 AM

I kind of get where sleepwalker''s coming from - since i started programming games, i always end up going through how events could be done in my head on a basic scale, with every game i play.

#13 Facehat   Members   -  Reputation: 696

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 14 February 2000 - 11:29 AM

Sleepwalker, I think your a bit off here. The programmers, the logical people, are not usually the designers of the game. They''re the implementors. Most games have designers who dont program the games.

That said, I''d also like to add that I think it''s a bad idea to have someone who doesn''t know how computers design the game. Why? Because they wont have the abitlity to actually figure out whats feasible to do.

--TheGoop

#14 Sleepwalker   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 14 February 2000 - 10:12 PM

Well, you are only partially right...

The designers say what they want to have,
and the developers see if it''s feasible.
If it''s not they MAKE it feasible.

I think the new Ultima is an example for that...
It''s quite a memory hog...hungrier than jaws himself...
They should have worked on that some more...

- Sleepwalker

#15 guybrush   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 15 February 2000 - 07:09 AM

they *did* spend a lot of time on it...it was 5 years (i think) in the making, with a 2-year hiatus to make ultima online.

(correct me if that''s wrong...well, i''m sure you would anyway)

i think it''s pretty impressive, but you need nutty hardware to really run it well...that''s why i have so much respect for console programmers...they don''t have a rapidly-moving hardware industry to play with, yet they still manage to make more impressive games with better engines, more depth, better graphics, etc.

the crash bandicoot series is a perfect example of this.


aaron
-----------------------------
LeChuck! GRRRRRR.

#16 fuzzyai   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 15 February 2000 - 08:11 AM

gameplay is definitely everything.. what are games for if not to play them?
sleepwalker, are you a game programmer putting down carmack? you must certainly be headed for the inner-most circle of hell
but seriously, good graphics can add alot to the gameplay, increase the immersion factor. of course, they shouldn''t replace the rest of the gameplay.
to say quake has no gameplay, though, i think is unfair. it has no plot, granted, but it''s more addictive than heroin. i think that, and the following it has, proves that it must have good gameplay.

#17 theRaskell   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 15 February 2000 - 09:00 AM

Think about this....

Imagine Moria (That''s the only Roguelike ascii game I ever played, but I played it to death) in it''s full beauty with all the visual and audible splendor of Q3 or UT.

That''s what every Game developer should ultimately aspire to, the perfect blend of gameplay and game presentation. The best games these days strike an excellent balance between just these two elements. We should never promote either one of these elements at the grave expense of the other.

#18 guybrush   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 15 February 2000 - 09:21 AM

is it possible that one of the reasons that those games were so much fun is that we needed imagination to get into them?

i certainly don''t think that gameplay and graphics are mutually exclusive, but as a previous poster pointed out, Q3 and UT would be terrible without the beautiful presentations. with FPS you don''t need imagination; in fact, sometimes it can take away from the experience. i don''t need to imagine a marine firing rockets at me from across the room; i can see him right there, along with the smoke trails, explosions, etc.

with rogue on the other hand, all you see is the little ASCII 2 character (i think that''s what it was) on the screen, running from k''s and b''s and such...not very easy to get into or enjoy unless you imagine that you really *are* being chased by a kestrel and that it''s life or death depending on how well you fight (or run).

i guess it comes down to what kind of imagination is required to get into a game, if any. pretty soon we won''t *need* any imagination...we can just `Plug and Play''.

does anyone agree or am i on crack?


-----------------------------------------
Look behind you! A three-headed monkey!

#19 Sleepwalker   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 15 February 2000 - 10:07 AM

Actually what I was referring to is Ultima 9 or 10 or 11 (the new one anyways) and not UO.

I agree that Quake and UT can be very addictive, although they don''t have a gameplay. It''s just fun to run around killing other avatars, and watch them gibs fly, splattering red liquid everywhere. It''s FUN but it''s not gameplay I think.

And I didn''t say tat Quake and friends was bad just ecause they use technology. Like theRaskell said, we should have both, and it is a saddening fact that although there are experts on both fields (technolgy and gameplay) and that they can''t bring their skills and ideas together to make a game with kick-ass graphics and gameplay.
If the moria (or any other roguelike developers) would team up with the UT team (or any other technology developers) they could make an awesome game. I think this would be the next generation of games.

Enough ranting...
(Hey a weird thought: What about having TWO computers playing Q one and Rogue on the other? Ooops, forgot I only have two hands...I''ll have to fix that)

- Sleepwalker




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS