Difference between revisions of "Talk:Tree of roguelike evolution"
(→Larn) |
Marikvulpina (talk | contribs) (→Modern roguelikes: new section) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Larn is listed as released in 1986, Rogue in 1980. It may be Larn was developed entirely independently of Rogue. This is where building a classificaton tree based on matching characteristics conflicts with building one based on "inspiration" or "source code". It is convenient to put *something* at the root of the tree to be a concrete example of a Roguelike and define everything as variants of that thing. It is imperialistic to give Rogue this honour for merely being (one of?) the first and most popular, but I really can't get that worked up over it. --[[User:JeffLait|JeffLait]] 22:49, 30 Sep 2005 (CEST) | Larn is listed as released in 1986, Rogue in 1980. It may be Larn was developed entirely independently of Rogue. This is where building a classificaton tree based on matching characteristics conflicts with building one based on "inspiration" or "source code". It is convenient to put *something* at the root of the tree to be a concrete example of a Roguelike and define everything as variants of that thing. It is imperialistic to give Rogue this honour for merely being (one of?) the first and most popular, but I really can't get that worked up over it. --[[User:JeffLait|JeffLait]] 22:49, 30 Sep 2005 (CEST) | ||
== Modern roguelikes == | |||
I'm quite surprised that one of the most mainstream modern roguelikes isn't on this tree: the Diablo series. now, i know they have a wildly different graphical style than these classics(and even some of the ones that are still under development), but isn't there a precedent for graphical difference set by the fact that a lot of these have tileset versions? | |||
the diablo games seem to me to be in every way a less keyboard-intestive zangbandlike style roguelike. especially in diablo II, where you can do a 'hardcore' character that is lost when dead, like oldschool roguelikes. the fact that it's optional just seems to me to be a way to get more casuals to play. | |||
Revision as of 21:05, 26 July 2009
Larn
I don't thing that Larn originates from Rogue :/ Of course, it's nice and tidy to have a single predescor, but it's not that simple, I'm afraid. --The Sheep 10:20, 10 Jul 2005 (CEST)
My opinion is that the link between Rogue and the roguelikes on the second line of the tree is more influencial than actual succession. It's there to show Rogue was the first one and Moria, Larn and such defined gameplay. - Poulpy 17:00, 10 Jul 2005 (CEST)
Err, but the Rogue wasn't the first one. If was merely the most popular one (probably because it was included in the BSD distribution). --The Sheep 08:31, 11 Jul 2005 (CEST)
Larn is listed as released in 1986, Rogue in 1980. It may be Larn was developed entirely independently of Rogue. This is where building a classificaton tree based on matching characteristics conflicts with building one based on "inspiration" or "source code". It is convenient to put *something* at the root of the tree to be a concrete example of a Roguelike and define everything as variants of that thing. It is imperialistic to give Rogue this honour for merely being (one of?) the first and most popular, but I really can't get that worked up over it. --JeffLait 22:49, 30 Sep 2005 (CEST)
Modern roguelikes
I'm quite surprised that one of the most mainstream modern roguelikes isn't on this tree: the Diablo series. now, i know they have a wildly different graphical style than these classics(and even some of the ones that are still under development), but isn't there a precedent for graphical difference set by the fact that a lot of these have tileset versions?
the diablo games seem to me to be in every way a less keyboard-intestive zangbandlike style roguelike. especially in diablo II, where you can do a 'hardcore' character that is lost when dead, like oldschool roguelikes. the fact that it's optional just seems to me to be a way to get more casuals to play.