Category talk:Games by development status
This page is reduntant. "Categories" already lists the official categories. The description on this page conflict with those descriptions. Oh and the page looks like a total mess. All categories are listed twice, there is lots of white space in the middle for some reason ... Delete this crap already --Copx 04:59, 2 Apr 2006 (CEST)
I think that the "stable" category should be split into two subcategories. There is a difference between a stable game still in development and an old game which is no longer developed. If anyone agrees, please do relevant edit :)
- Stable games are roguelikes that the authors have believed reached a level of maturity that allows them to be judged as games in themselves. Development is still ongoing, as rogue-likes are hardly ever finished.
- Finished games are roguelikes which are complete games and their development has ceased. It is unlikely that we will see updated versions of them. Many older roguelikes, and also 7DRLs, fall into this category. --User:R
I can understand the motivation behind this. It sounds like a good idea, but I do not think it is practical idea:
- "Finished" vs "Stable" has an emotional difference - some authors may argue against being categorized as "merely" stable when a buggier, less fun, roguelike is "Finished"/
- Trying to draw the line between Finished and Stable? Good luck! In some cases, it seems obvious: 7DRLs are usually by definition Finished. You Only Live Once still saw two additional releases, and likely one more bug fix release thanks to copx. This is the zombie problem - how can we tell when someone has stopped working on a roguelike? It is quite common for a roguelike to go dormant for a year and then see additional work. Avanor just did this, for example.
I wouldn't split active vs non-active development status here. Games by developments status is something that should be useful to end users. If you put your game in the stable category, it is saying you are finished and are willing to let it be judged on its own merits, not on its potential.
--JeffLait 02:34, 1 Oct 2005 (CEST)
My initial thoughts were that Moria, for example, could be classified as defunct. But the current classification covers things well, and many of the things in the infobox should be mentioned and expanded upon within the first paragraph. [[User:M|–MT]] 06:30, 1 Oct 2005 (CEST)