Roguelike you like

[Al B. Sure!]

Um, yes?

Substance > visuals?

You can't have substance with a game like that. How complex can it be where you walk around on a map like that? The technical insophistication makes substance impossible.

[Elok]

An old-school RPG (and, afaict, "roguelike" refers to a VERY old-school type of RPG) is just a big pile of numbers getting modified and measured against each other. Even the most primitive computer can do oodles of mathematical operations per second. The only restrictions imposed by such a map, that I can think of, are that you can't have a character doing anything like snipe an enemy by lining up a cursor manually, or anything else involving 3-D motion. But that's the thing: when you're playing such a game, you're not you. You're a level whatever Elf Paladin with X strength and Y agility. Those stats determine your performance, not your reflexes. Now, you still retain your own decision-making abilities even if your character has an intelligence of 2. Presumptively the latest dungeon-crawlers have a censor to keep your Troll Berserker from doing anything too clever.

[onodera]

Maybe I should post a screeenshot of Dwarf Fortress, which also more or less counts as a roguelike
(at leats the part where you create your own adventurer and exlore the world ... in contrast to the other connected part of the game, which is one of the most complex fortress building games I know of)




For those who only see ASCII let me explain the scene:
You see a trading caravan with mules and caravan guards crossing a bridge over a river in order to approach the fortress on the right half of the screen.
Said fortress is guarded by 3 catapults next to the entrance (which btw. is adorned by 2 statues), as well as 2 ballistae behind arrow slits.
Within the forress you see a lot of single occupancy rooms (with a bed and a bag for the belongings of the occupant) a barracks, as well as a well, a canteen and a still, where a busy brewer is creating more booze to keep the dwarves happy.

The fortress is located in a hot location, as the pools have dried up. The entrance is also trapped, and it would be easier on the eyes if the architect turned detailed engravings off. DF

[Al B. Sure!]

An old-school RPG (and, afaict, "roguelike" refers to a VERY old-school type of RPG) is just a big pile of numbers getting modified and measured against each other. Even the most primitive computer can do oodles of mathematical operations per second. The only restrictions imposed by such a map, that I can think of, are that you can't have a character doing anything like snipe an enemy by lining up a cursor manually, or anything else involving 3-D motion. But that's the thing: when you're playing such a game, you're not you. You're a level whatever Elf Paladin with X strength and Y agility. Those stats determine your performance, not your reflexes. Now, you still retain your own decision-making abilities even if your character has an intelligence of 2. Presumptively the latest dungeon-crawlers have a censor to keep your Troll Berserker from doing anything too clever.

Restrictive movement, for one, Elok. There's less 'space' even not considering the lack of verticality. That area shown in the screenshot has 210 unit-sized spaces, though some of that are walls, stairs, and a doorway. Regardless, there is nothing smaller than a unit size. Every turn, you travel in denominations of unit size. It also doesn't look like there's any concept of 'facing' of units either.

Don't let your pride get to you and I realize it wasn't you that made the comment but let's not kid ourselves. There's only so much depth you can get if you use late 80's computer technology. The technology necessarily limits the complexity.

[Elok]

Restrictive movement, for one, Elok. There's less 'space' even not considering the lack of verticality. That area shown in the screenshot has 210 unit-sized spaces, though some of that are walls, stairs, and a doorway. Regardless, there is nothing smaller than a unit size. Every turn, you travel in denominations of unit size. It also doesn't look like there's any concept of 'facing' of units either.

1. There's no reason why that technology would be incompatible with facing, even if whatever game that is didn't implement it.
2. I don't see how the ability to travel fractions of a person/unit would open up radical gameplay options. Distances of less than two meters or so could be considered negligible by all but the most anal-retentive.

Don't let your pride get to you and I realize it wasn't you that made the comment but let's not kid ourselves. There's only so much depth you can get if you use late 80's computer technology. The technology necessarily limits the complexity.

Only WRT things not at all relevant to a hardcore RPGer. You couldn't do anything like aim arrows, as in later Legend of Zelda games, but that's not desired here. You can have extremely complex models of player health, complex damage formulas, complex spell effects, complex battle systems, complex crop rotation systems for your orc plantation, or any number of other things unrelated to graphics or perspective. You just can't have them together with flashy FX in this case.

Moreover, the bad graphics strike me as something of a plus, from a certain perspective. You can easily draw a 16 square pixel (or whatever) representation of a medusa or a werewolf in about two minutes. Rendering one in 3D and plotting its different animations takes ages and is likely to come out looking like crap in the end anyway. Lots of people, it seems, like the gameplay and don't care about the graphics. Neglecting eye candy allows good/clever programmers with no artistic talent to do their thing, and speeds up game development a good deal to boot. I mean, compare Civ2 modding to Civ4 modding. Civ4's greater gameplay possibilities have nothing to do with the far superior graphics, but the far superior graphics do make it harder to create custom art.

[N35t0r]

You can't have substance with a game like that. How complex can it be where you walk around on a map like that? The technical insophistication makes substance impossible.

Chess: the most insubstantial game ever. It must be even simpler than checkers.

Modern Warfare is an FPS where most of the time enemies spawn endlessly, until you reach the next 'checkpoint', and most of the time (if not all of the time) the only choices you'll be making is between two or three possible avenues of advance. The rest is just shooting said enemy lemmings and ducking behind cover. You seriously believe that this game has more 'substance' than a rougelike or dwarf fortress, because of the graphics and the fact that you are not limited to being in a 'square' of terrain (even if you still have less real alternatives to go through)?

[Al B. Sure!]

Chess: the most insubstantial game ever. It must be even simpler than checkers.

Modern Warfare is an FPS where most of the time enemies spawn endlessly, until you reach the next 'checkpoint', and most of the time (if not all of the time) the only choices you'll be making is between two or three possible avenues of advance. The rest is just shooting said enemy lemmings and ducking behind cover. You seriously believe that this game has more 'substance' than a rougelike or dwarf fortress, because of the graphics and the fact that you are not limited to being in a 'square' of terrain (even if you still have less real alternatives to go through)?

Single player Call of Duty blows. It's just a barely interactive movie. Multiplayer is a little better but usually comes down to who gets the drop on someone first.

But I'm sorry. Did I somewhere hold Call of Duty as the paradigm of complex game design? No, I didn't. Call of Duty is pretty simple and straight-forward. Way to create a strawman.

Strawman #2: Chess: the most insubstantial game ever. It must be even simpler than checkers.

No, by virtue of different unit types, chess is more complex than checkers.

[Tuberski]

Why don't you try a roguelike before you denigrate it , Al.

Of course you won't because they have simple graphics.

Dwarf fortress would kick your ass, repeatedly.

ACK!

[N35t0r]

You can't have substance with a game like that. How complex can it be where you walk around on a map like that? The technical insophistication makes substance impossible.

But I'm sorry. Did I somewhere hold Call of Duty as the paradigm of complex game design? No, I didn't. Call of Duty is pretty simple and straight-forward. Way to create a strawman.

But it's technically sophisticated!

Strawman #2: Chess: the most insubstantial game ever. It must be even simpler than checkers.

No, by virtue of different unit types, chess is more complex than checkers.

Let me refer you to what you yourself said up there.

[Al B. Sure!]

Chess has more unit types than checkers. Are you being stupid?

[N35t0r]

Chess has more unit types than checkers. Are you being stupid?

They're still more insubstantial than Call of Duty?

[Al B. Sure!]

They're still more insubstantial than Call of Duty?

Call of Duty isn't a similar sort of game. Starcraft is potentially more complex than chess.

[Proteus_MST]

Is Starcraft also potentially more complex than Go? (which even has less unit types compared to chess)