wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (06/20/84)
This is just a throwout question, but has anyone ever given any thought to converting rogue to eliminate the so-called graphics? I find that the little squiggles, dots, and such are a great hinderence to playing the game and have thus not gone into it. I like to imagine where I am when I play adventure or dungeon type games. Zork and a few others were great for the imagination. Given the interesting complexity of rogue, why couldn't it be converted to play like one of the no-graphics games? Most of the real information is in the text. The graphics only tell you about some dangers. This could be handled very easily in text, plus it would force the player to map his progress and think a little more. I just though I would throw this out for discussion. Rogue seems to be very complicated game, but the graphics, to me at least, seem too simple to do the complexity justice. Think of how challenging the game would be if you didn't have to rely on the blinking characters? I believe, though this is just my understanding, that an all text game would work on more machines and terminals. How about it rogueites, does anyone care? T. C. Wheeler
ab3@stat-l (Rsk the Wombat) (06/21/84)
Actually, since rogue uses the Termcap descriptions of terminals,
it runs out just about any old terminal...
...and I think the orignal idea of rogue was to create a
graphics-oriented "dungeon" type game...since there are already a lot
of text-oriented adventures around.
Can you imagine trying to map the mazes in Rogue 5.3 when there
can be several on a level, several levels with mazes in a game, and they
*change* every game? Geez, it'd take forever.
'course, it already takes forever. :-)
--
Rsk the Wombat
UUCP: { allegra, decvax, ihnp4, harpo, teklabs, ucbvax } !pur-ee!rsk
{ allegra, cornell, decvax, hplabs, ihnp4, ucbvax} !purdue!rsk
"Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature."rh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (06/21/84)
I can't believe that anyone would consider requesting such a thing!!! The only reason I started playing Rogue is because I found the concept to be about 1000 times as clever as that of Bork (excuse me, Zork). Sorry, I'm not that impressed with the concept of text adventure (I know a bunch of the people who wrote the original Zork, they're okay guys, I suppose....). Call me jaded. Call me spoiled. I played D&D for a while until I got bored by the incredibly long cycle time. I played Zork for a very short time until I got bored with the fact that it's the same problem/situation forever. If any of my (probably former after this note) friends at InfoComm see this, sorry guys... -- Randwulf (Randy Haskins); Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh
barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (06/22/84)
I think that a non-graphic version of rogue would be extremely boring. The original mentioned that rogue takes away the fun of mapping. I think that you would spend most of your time drawing on graph paper, doing exactly what rogue spends its time doing for you. Rogue is fun the way it is because you can quickly run around the maze. If you had to do all the bookkeeping yourself it would take forever. Twenty-six levels and back would be a project for a week's vacation, rather than a way to waste a night. -- Barry Margolin ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar
johnc@dartvax.UUCP (John Cabell) (06/22/84)
I realize that some people may not like the idea of a non-graphic
rogue, but I think it's a good idea. It wouldn't be anything like
Zork or any of those games, because it would be a different dungeon
every time.
"In front of you is a 7 by 10 hex room. Over in the corner can be seen
a sleeping Ice monster. On the floor is a ring."
Try that on for size. :->
--johnc
[ astrovax, linus, decvax, cornell ] ! dartvax ! johncnonh@utzoo.UUCP (Chris Robertson) (06/24/84)
If you produce non-graphic rogue, it will no longer be rogue. The main attraction is that it builds the dungeon right before your eyes! Having to map it yourself would be such a drag most addicts would be cured at once ... ulp! What have I SAID ...! :-) --chris
grw@fortune.UUCP (Glenn Wichman) (06/26/84)
>The only reason I started playing Rogue is because I found the concept >to be about 1000 times as clever as that of Bork (excuse me, Zork). >Sorry, I'm not that impressed with the concept of text adventure >(I know a bunch of the people who wrote the original Zork, they're >okay guys, I suppose....). Call me jaded. Call me spoiled. I played >D&D for a while until I got bored by the incredibly long cycle time. >I played Zork for a very short time until I got bored with the fact >that it's the same problem/situation forever. >-- >Randwulf (Randy Haskins); Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh Interesting -- that's exactly the reason we WROTE rogue in the first place. By the way, those of you out there tired of D&D due to long cycle time should play IMPROMTU. I'll send rules of the game to those interested, or post them if there is enough interest. It really is a different sort of role- playing game from D&DChampionsTravelerRuneQuestBlahblahblah. -Glenn