Guild - YABDR??

Antoine

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2003
241
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Hi RGRDers,

After finishing the Quickband project I've come back to Guild, and am
wondering what to do with it.

Guild is looking alarmingly like YABDR (yet another born dead
roguelike) at this stage. I'm not quite sure why, but it's received
very little attention since it was first released - no discussion on
RGRD or RGRM to speak of, only a few emails and not one single YAVP. In
fact, I'm not sure if anyone but me has ever actually completed the
whole game (or even the second quest???)

I'd appreciate any feedback on
-why Guild didn't take off
-from those who did try it, what they liked and/or disliked about it
-how the game could be improved to be more successful, or
-how the game could be marketed to be more successful...

A.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Antoine wrote:
> I'd appreciate any feedback on
> -why Guild didn't take off

I haven't tried Guild yet, but it is one of the games on my to-play
list. Ironically, the most recent RL I have played is QuickBand. Here
are my thoughts on why Guild may not have taken off.

- Yet another generic fantasy. I know there's probably more to Guild
than just blandly copied DnD-isms, but there was nothing on the web
page to really hook me into the game and make me interested in trying
it. In fact, looking through the Guild pages again, there is nothing
about the game world at all. In general background and story are less
important for RLs than other CRPGs but with so many other generic
fantasy games out there you need something for your own game to stand
out.

- What does it do? The big thing that attracted me to Guild is the fact
you can have an entire party of adventurers. However, other than this
one feature, there's not much information about what the game's like.
Some info about the character generation system could have been helpful
(races, classes, and other options), as it would inspire players to
download the game and try their hand at making a party.

- How complete is it? You do mention that there are several dungeons,
four quests, and advancement to level five, but it's not clear whether
this qualifies Guild as a limited but playable game or just a tech
demo. Maybe if some information could be provided about the dungeons
(are they different from one another or just sequentially difficult?)
or the quests (are they complicated endeavors or of the "slay me 13
goblins" variety?) potential players would have a better idea what to
expect.

Here are my suggestions: If you enjoy developing and playing Guild,
you'll need to promote it better. Highlight the things that are unique
about Guild, and also the reasons why Guild is fun to play. Until you
get a fan base started, people aren't going to know about the cool
things in Guild unless you tell them, so tell them about it. Write a
summary of Guild's features that can be used when making update notices
on usenet and elsewhere.

- JH.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Antoine wrote:
> I'm not quite sure why, but it's received
> very little attention since it was first released - no discussion on
> RGRD or RGRM to speak of, only a few emails and not one single YAVP.

Well, it's hard:) It doesn't even have an easy beginning like most
other roguelikes (or games). It requires tactical thinking that
I believe many rpg players aren't used to deal with. When I
repeatedly died in the _first_ level I stopped playing it:)
The learning curve could be easier, so you could become familiar
with the game.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Antoine wrote:
> Hi RGRDers,
>
> After finishing the Quickband project I've come back to Guild, and am
> wondering what to do with it.

You should keep playing and polishing it.

> Guild is looking alarmingly like YABDR (yet another born dead
> roguelike) at this stage. I'm not quite sure why, but it's received
> very little attention since it was first released - no discussion on
> RGRD or RGRM to speak of, only a few emails and not one single YAVP. In
> fact, I'm not sure if anyone but me has ever actually completed the
> whole game (or even the second quest???)

Well... It wasn't until the 62nd public release of POWDER that the
first victory post was posted. That was after two years of development
and eighteen months of it being available to the public.

Likewise, I'd safely state that Guild has sparked more threads in RGRD
than POWDER has - POWDER's only threads usually begin and end with a
post from me talking about how some current discussion point relates to
POWDER.

> I'd appreciate any feedback on
> -why Guild didn't take off

This sort of comment in rgrd always annoys me. I also think this sort
of mindset kills more roguelikes than anything else.

For the sake of @, stop chasing after "success"! Instead, concentrate
your energies on making a good game. An audience will find itself -
maybe not a huge audience, but if you make one person in addition to
yourself happy, no one can accuse you of being selfish. And, if you
only make yourself happy, the world is still a better place as a result
of your game being written.

> -from those who did try it, what they liked and/or disliked about it
> -how the game could be improved to be more successful, or
> -how the game could be marketed to be more successful...

- Add a link to guild from your signature.
- Update your entry in the RogueBasin
http://roguebasin.t-o-m-e.net/index.php/GUILD. Look at the POWDER
entry for an example of the sections you should have. Unique/rare
features and Versions/Platforms are important to direct people.
- While a Linux release is always good, it likely won't make a
difference. There is about a 10:1 windows:linux ratio among those that
download roguelikes.
- Stop worrying about popularity and uptake. Worry about making a game
that you enjoy playing. No one is paying you for this, so there is no
reason to cater to the masses.
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Jeff Lait wrote:
> - While a Linux release is always good, it likely won't make a
> difference. There is about a 10:1 windows:linux ratio among those that
> download roguelikes.

My experience with that is different. When I release a new version of
GearHead, I get more clicks from HappyPenguin.org than I do from any
other game news site. Of course this might have more to do with the
other game news sites that report on GearHead than it does with the
relative number of Linux users playing roguelikes, but still I think
it's significant.

> - Stop worrying about popularity and uptake. Worry about making a game
> that you enjoy playing.

Agreed.

- JH.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

> Hi RGRDers,
>
> After finishing the Quickband project I've come back to Guild, and am
> wondering what to do with it.
>
> Guild is looking alarmingly like YABDR (yet another born dead
> roguelike) at this stage. I'm not quite sure why, but it's received
> very little attention since it was first released - no discussion on
> RGRD or RGRM to speak of, only a few emails and not one single YAVP. In
> fact, I'm not sure if anyone but me has ever actually completed the
> whole game (or even the second quest???)
>
> I'd appreciate any feedback on
> -why Guild didn't take off
> -from those who did try it, what they liked and/or disliked about it
> -how the game could be improved to be more successful, or
> -how the game could be marketed to be more successful...
>
> A.

Echoing what some of the other posters are saying regarding promotion, you
didn't include a link in this post! I thought, "Hey, I was going to check
that out! Now where is it?"

The reason I didn't look at it before is that I find the concept of a
party-based game offputting, even before I've looked at the game. It makes
me think: "complex and fiddly turns, probably an inventory nightmare...
aaaagh!" I'm sure this is all utterly unjustified, but considering how much
I enjoyed DoomRL, perhaps it's a sign that my brain is deteriorating to the
point where I can only deal with simple things.

However, I wouldn't be put off. A prod is probably a good idea.



🙂
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Antoine <mail@guildgame.com> wrote:
> I'd appreciate any feedback on
> -why Guild didn't take off

Absence of source code and/or Linux binary slowed me down. On the
upside, it was an interesting enough idea to finally prompt me to set up
WINE so I could try it.

> -from those who did try it, what they liked and/or disliked about it

I am the wrong audience because I don't like Angband.

I don't like non-persistent dungeons.

I do like Rogue, but that's because you have only one choice of
direction to travel in. I get bored if I'm not forced deeper, and I
prefer a game which has been balanced to make this necessary and
desirable. In *band, I have the choice of being bored or dying.

I do like the feature of not healing within the dungeon.

I do like the small level size.

I do like the idea of having a party, but I would prefer to begin alone
or with one companion (preferably a pet rather than a humanoid), and
then pick up interesting individuals in my travels.

I didn't play many games, because I quickly got the "this feels like
Angband" problem. Obviously not a problem if you like Angband. And it
felt less like Angband than most of the games derived from that
codebase, a big positive in my mind, but the whole game balance set up
by the non-persistent dungeons is a really big issue for me.

> -how the game could be improved to be more successful, or

The things which would make it a more enjoyable game for me are probably
not things which you want in your game: persistent dungeons and a game
balance to match.

> -how the game could be marketed to be more successful...

I like the website frontpage.
I looked at it about five times before I ever downloaded it, though,
because I hit the "Oh, it's only got a Windoze installer" wall. Clearly
again, I am not part of the target audience and this won't be a problem
for most people.

I'm not suggesting you modify your game to suit my desires, just
explaining that while I think it's a very promising idea, I'm very
unlikely to spend more than half an hour (if even that) on a game
which has that *band feel to it.

--
--jude hungerford.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

This is sort of unrelated, but twice now I've had crashes (with generic
guild.exe-has-crashed messages) when hitting the 'w' key to wear
something. The first time I thought it might just be a coincidence,
but it just happened again. It doesn't happen *every* time I hit 'w',
of course; it's only happened twice so far. I don't think that's why
it hasn't taken off, though, since this is the first crash I'd heard
reported and I played for a while before it happened; but I thought I
should report it. I'm playing under Windows ME if it makes a
difference (ugh).

Anyway. Other people have touched on several of the reasons why it
might not have taken off--the steep difficulty curve, the generic
setting, the description on the webpage which says you can only advance
to level 5 and gives the sense that the game is incomplete (I wasn't
even aware it was possible to win yet until you mentioned not seeing
any YAVPs.) I'm not a big fan of the Angband non-saved-dungeon system
myself, but I suppose that's a design choice, and there must be people
out there who like it.

Another possibility that occured to me, though, is the lack of party
generation. A roguelike where you control a 4-person party has lots of
opportunites for interesting character generation at the beginning; but
Guild just hands you a generic 4-person party. There are 4 party
members, and (as far as I can tell) only 4 classes, so the player
doesn't even get to make any choices about who they bring unless they,
say, want to skip having a thief to get two clerics or something.

I don't think character generation should be *too* detailed; manually
rolling up stats on all 4 people would be too much. But it might be
interesting if there were a few more classes, even if they were just
small varients on the existing ones, and the player got to choose the
composition of their initial party. This would also make it less
frustrating to get wiped out--I stopped playing Guild for a while when
one of my parties got killed, since I knew that if I started a new game
I'd have to take an identical party and would basically just be doing
the exact same things over again in a slightly different dungeon.

For class ideas... Some class varients could just differ in their
starting equipment and spells. For instance, an Illusionist might be a
mage who starts with illusion-related spells and a wand that supports
them, while an Enchanter would focus on enchantments. Additionally,
they could get bonuses with spells related to their specialty, and
their spell lists could differ somewhat, with each having some spells
unique to them and others they can never learn.

There could be a "berzerker" class, a tough warrior who wears light
armor and scorns shields, but sometimes goes berzerk in combat, getting
even more bonuses to toughness and damage. Naturally, they can't be
controlled while berzerk, and wouldn't listen to orders.

A Sage is a priest who can learn mage spells, although they can't
memorize as many of them as a true mage and get their priest spells
more slowly. They are as weak as a mage, with the same equipment
restrictions, and use holy symbols to cast spells instead of wands (so
they can't wield wands and don't get the wand bonuses). However, they
are better at avoiding magical wards, and can tell more things about
items when examining them.

Extra classes like these would also make checking the tavern for new
party members a little more interesting.

Other suggestions, let's see... The AI that controls thieves needs
some working on. The other party members are at least half-decent;
fighters will fight on their own, mages and clerics cast their spells,
etc. Thieves don't do what they're supposed to at all. There's no way
to ask them to scout around for traps without manually sending them
from point-to-point; they won't disarm traps on their own even if they
find them; they'll never sneak unless you order them to; and even when
they do sneak, I've never seen my thief backstab or pick pockets under
their own initative. This basically means that the player has to
control their thief almost 24/7 if they want to get any use out of
them.

Does Guild's system allow thieves to spot traps at a distance? I
haven't seen it happen, but now that I think about it it's almost
essential. The thief can't really help the rest of the party with
traps if they have to walk on every single space in a room in order to
make sure that it's safe; that's fine in a single-character roguelike,
but doesn't work for a party.

Allowing the party to have a pet might be an interesting idea, too...
A little dog or some other animal that follows them into dungeons feels
like it would fit into the game's theme.

Anyway, just some suggestions. Maybe I'll think of more later.

--Aquillion
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Antoine wrote:
> Hi RGRDers,
>
> After finishing the Quickband project I've come back to Guild, and am
> wondering what to do with it.
>
> Guild is looking alarmingly like YABDR (yet another born dead
> roguelike) at this stage. I'm not quite sure why, but it's received
> very little attention since it was first released - no discussion on
> RGRD or RGRM to speak of, only a few emails and not one single YAVP. In
> fact, I'm not sure if anyone but me has ever actually completed the
> whole game (or even the second quest???)
>
> I'd appreciate any feedback on
> -why Guild didn't take off
> -from those who did try it, what they liked and/or disliked about it
> -how the game could be improved to be more successful, or
> -how the game could be marketed to be more successful...
>

No source.
No linux binary.
Doesn't work on any of my machines.

Bear
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net> writes:

> Antoine wrote:
>> I'd appreciate any feedback on
>> -why Guild didn't take off
>
> No source.
> No linux binary.
> Doesn't work on any of my machines.

What he said, basically - no source + no Mac binary = I don't get to play.

sherm--

--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

edward@lore.net wrote:
> Antoine <mail@guildgame.com> wrote:
>
>>I'd appreciate any feedback on
>>-why Guild didn't take off

> I do like the idea of having a party, but I would prefer to begin alone
> or with one companion (preferably a pet rather than a humanoid), and
> then pick up interesting individuals in my travels.

This is the only point in the post I disagree with; Starting up with a
party allows you to have characters that aren't very survivable on their
lonesome, and have that be balanced all the way from the start. Buffers
partly fall in this category (especially if they primarily have group
buff spells), powerful ranged attackers with no defense definitely fall
in this category.

>>-how the game could be improved to be more successful, or
>
> The things which would make it a more enjoyable game for me are probably
> not things which you want in your game: persistent dungeons and a game
> balance to match.

That would make it a more enjoyable game for me, too.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

"Joe Hewitt" <pyrrho12@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125848483.497771.180780@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Jeff Lait wrote:
> > - While a Linux release is always good, it likely won't make a
> > difference. There is about a 10:1 windows:linux ratio among those that
> > download roguelikes.
>
> My experience with that is different. When I release a new version of
> GearHead, I get more clicks from HappyPenguin.org than I do from any
> other game news site. Of course this might have more to do with the
> other game news sites that report on GearHead than it does with the
> relative number of Linux users playing roguelikes, but still I think
> it's significant.
[...]

While there is probably a 20:1 (or even bigger) Windows:Linux ratio among
gamers in general, there is easily a 3:1 Windows:Linux ratio on RL players.
Obviously this is not an exact statistic, but it is based on some realistic
assumptions about the community of RL players:

- Many RL players have very likely been around since Rogue, before Windows
existed.
- Many programmers are attracted to Linux; the algorithmic/random nature of
Roguelikes appeal largely to other programmers/game developers.
- Linux gamers don't have as broad a market of recently published games
available to them, so indie games like RLs that are compiled for Linux get a
lot of attention.

A game can obviously be successful being exclusively for Windows, but at
least at the development phase, before the game builds up a large enough
fanbase, there will be a lot of interest coming from Linux users.

--Nolithius
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Hey Antoine,

As you probably remember, I was very interested in the development of Guild
when you first started to provide playable versions. I am still deeply
interested, but since I got a job as of a few months ago I have, as my
friend said, "dropped off the face of the earth", and definitely not been
able to keep up with RGRD discussions. But now that I am back at school and
working less I have a little more time for this kind of stuff.

My main problem with Guild was the difficulty, as was mentioned earlier. You
should have some beginning dungeons to get the players accustomed to the
style.

Also remember that you are doing quite a few things differently from the
standard RL or RPG in general. Because of this, it will require more
iteration and heachaches to get it right. For example:

- No healing within the dungeon: While this is an interesting choice, it
pushes up the difficulty of the game by quite a few notches. This also
forces the player to go in and out of the dungeon several times thereby
automatically forcing the player to adhere to a specific playing style. If
some players prefer going deeper and deeper and visiting the town sparsely
(and most do) they will find themselves at a huge disadvantage. This can
easily translate into tedium.

- No leveling within the dungeon: Same issue as described above.

- Clumsy inventory management: In the bit of time I've had lately I picked
up Dungeon Siege II, a game that far surpassed my expectations and that,
surprisingly, has very satisfactory party AI. Now, in that game, each
character has his own inventory just like Guild-- but switching items
between two characters is as easy as dragging it into the other character's
portrait, as you would expect. Because of the technical limitations of RLs
(although they can use the mouse, but often choose not to), it would not be
a bad idea to have a shared party inventory, where the total amount of
encumberance is the sum of each of the party members'. This obviously brings
up the issue of how to handle characters being encumbered, for which you
have two options: 1) Inventory space is rigid, that is, characters cannot
pick up any more than what their max weight allows (effectively removing the
encumbered state). or 2) Encumbering everyone equally, which might not be
horribly elegant, but at least will ensure your characters all keep the same
pace. Yet another option you have is to keep the individual inventories, but
to list your whole party's inventory like:

Guybrush
- A knife
- A skull
- A piece of tofu

Lothar
- An axe
- A piece of meat

etc.

All in one screen, and allowing easy switching of items from one inventory
to another by means of some menu with options like Examine, Equip, Give,
Drop.

Clumsy party management: I guess the DS2 AI comment should be here instead
😉. For some reason, and I can't quite put my finger on it, the party AI is
somewhat hard to control effectively.

Angband-like feel, specially towns: I haven't played the latest release, so
I don't know if you restructured the towns, but this is something that both
ABCGi and I pointed out a while back: If you push for the players to surface
from the dungeons very often and to visit the town, at least make the towns
interesting, not a numbered list of options.

If I think of anything else I'll let you know. Sorry if I seem overly
critical but I really would like for your project to succeed, and well, you
asked for what people thought 😉.

Regards, and please don't give up,

--Nolithius
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

> I'd appreciate any feedback on
> -why Guild didn't take off
> -from those who did try it, what they liked and/or disliked about it

I played Guild, and enjoyed it enough to play it a number of times,
although I never got very far. I definately think there are some things
you could do to increase its appeal, especialy to first time players.
(last version played, 1.0)

- The Town
The Guild town always seemed somewhat of an obstacle to gameplay. Its
list-like nature makes it tedious to operate, and a first time player
is going to be put off by the number of options presented. He lacks a
clear sense of purpose. Should he skip the town and go straight to the
dungeon? Or is it necessary to stock up on equipment and visit some of
the other buildings first? Guild's party oriented gameplay is what
makes it fun. The player shouldn't be forced to worry about too many
factors before getting into combat. I would even advocate starting the
player immediately in the dungeon, with some cheesy but plausible
backstory, and giving him access to the town later. Adding town
functions over time would also streamline things.

- The Party
As someone suggested, having the player by himself or with a single
companion or pet at the beginning would definately help to not
overwhelm him. Perhaps a mandatory first quest where the player goes to
rescue an animal or person who joins his team. You could also use this
to set the story or goal for the rest of the game. The player should
have to play for some time before having a full 4 or even 3 person
party. This is also important because a first time player will have
trouble managing a large party. The party memebers also need to
remember their orders from last dungeon. Having to reorder everyone
each time you enter the dungeon is annoying.

Other suggestions:
-Persistant dungeons
-larger dungeons, more open space and/or double wide cooridors
(to accomadate the party)
-less Angband like dungeon structure/feel (personal preference)
-parties that are different from game to game

Main recomendations:
-Make the game simpler towards the beginning, and gradually introduce
features.
-Give the player a sense of direction and purpose, which may require
making the game more linear.
-Sometimes removing things can be has helpful to a game (or any work of
art) as adding things. This tends to be a difficult thing for
developers to do, however.
-Dont give up! Definately not Born Dead.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Seco One wrote:
> Main recomendations:
> -Make the game simpler towards the beginning, and gradually introduce
> features.

Although I can see an advantage to this, one big problem with it is
that this is a roguelike. Sooner or later (at least under the current
system), the player's party will be wiped out and they'll have to start
the game over again. Having to go through the "simplified" section each
time could be a major annoyance.

One possibility is to make that section take the form of a tutorial,
which is offered to the player when they start: After they've created
their characters, a little old man comes up to them and offers to teach
them the basics of dungeoneering. If they agree, they're taken (alone
and blindfolded) into a 1-level practice dungeon, which they have to
escape from with the old man shouting instructions from outside. Along
the way they encounter their teammates and learn how to command them
and so forth. At the end of the practice dungeon, the old man could
offer to show them what the town has to offer adventurers, too.

--Aquillion
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

At 3 Sep 2005 19:25:13 -0700,
Antoine wrote:

> Hi RGRDers,
>
> After finishing the Quickband project I've come back to Guild, and am
> wondering what to do with it.
>
> Guild is looking alarmingly like YABDR (yet another born dead
> roguelike) at this stage. I'm not quite sure why, but it's received
> very little attention since it was first released - no discussion on
> RGRD or RGRM to speak of, only a few emails and not one single YAVP. In
> fact, I'm not sure if anyone but me has ever actually completed the
> whole game (or even the second quest???)

Don't panic, it's normal. Give it some time.
I've never heard anybody finished Z-Day either, even when it only takies
20 minutes of play to finish it ^^).

You've got to choose now, whether you want to continue development and
turn this game into a game of your dreams (people with similar dreams
will gather eventually), or just leave it and let it die.

On a side note, I don't think the r.g.r.d is the best place to look for
audience -- everybody is usually busy with their own games. Altrough it's
true that developers make very good beta-testers, because they will
usually be able to describe th problems well... or maybe not 😉

And what's that you don't like in your game?

--
Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
(`') 3 Grrr!
. . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

In article <1125800713.947776.10180@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
mail@guildgame.com says...
> Hi RGRDers,
>
> After finishing the Quickband project I've come back to Guild, and am
> wondering what to do with it.
>
> Guild is looking alarmingly like YABDR (yet another born dead
> roguelike) at this stage. I'm not quite sure why, but it's received
> very little attention since it was first released - no discussion on
> RGRD or RGRM to speak of, only a few emails and not one single YAVP. In
> fact, I'm not sure if anyone but me has ever actually completed the
> whole game (or even the second quest???)
>
> I'd appreciate any feedback on
> -why Guild didn't take off
> -from those who did try it, what they liked and/or disliked about it
> -how the game could be improved to be more successful, or
> -how the game could be marketed to be more successful...

For me the ASCII thing writes off Guild, as well as other more well-
known ones.

I thought the party system was neat and quite well done, though.
Balancing may be harder.

The only fear is that each level may take four times as long, i.e. if
there's nothing interesting to kill in a normal roguelike you just fly
through it to the stairs.

As somebody said, inventory could be an issue too.

But I didn't play enough that these are more than unsupported
speculations, and the game may not have any such problems.

- Gerry Quinn
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

> For me the ASCII thing writes off Guild, as well as other more well-
> known ones.

Agreed. The worst part about the ASCII interface isn't the map (as one might
expect - though that is bad), but the huge number of keys that one has to
remember (this is worse for games like nethack than it is for Guild). People
want user-friendly software, even if they don't articulate that desire. If I
*have* to, I can, for example, figure out how to edit makefiles for gcc. But
I don't *want* to. The unix-like mentally of many RL developers vis a vis
useability makes the learning curve too high for a lot of games and kills
the fun, in my opinion.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

To clarify the crashes I had in the previous post, I've had them a few
more times, and it seems that they only happen when I try to access my
rogue's 'w'ear/wield screen. Doesn't happen for anyone else, and
doesn't always happen even for the rogue.

Anyway, another minor suggestion: If I try to take a wounded and
recovering character to my house, I get the "so-and-so is recovering
from their wounds and cannot travel." I think that you should be able
to bring wounded characters into the base, at least.

--Aquillion
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Ah, no, I see now. Correction to my clarification: Guild crashes
every time if *anyone* tries to use the wield/wear key while their
inventory is empty. It was only happening with my rogue because
everyone else always at least had a bag on them, but the real problem
is hitting 'w' with an empty inventory.

--Aquillion
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

"Antoine" <mail@guildgame.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1125800713.947776.10180@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]

> -how the game could be improved to be more successful, or

Graphics. There are probably only a few thousand people in the entire world
who play ASCII games.

> -how the game could be marketed to be more successful...

Put it on mainstream gaming sites (requires graphics).


copx
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Shedletsky wrote:
>>For me the ASCII thing writes off Guild, as well as other more well-
>>known ones.

> Agreed. The worst part about the ASCII interface isn't the map (as one might
> expect - though that is bad), but the huge number of keys that one has to
> remember (this is worse for games like nethack than it is for Guild). People
> want user-friendly software, even if they don't articulate that desire.

*SOME* people want newbie-friendly software with a nice shallow
learning curve. *SOME* people want interfaces that make a very
wide variety of different actions all easy to do and allow a very
high degree of mastery and skill, but may take some time to
learn. It's better to me to make the thousandth game interesting
and easy and the first game hard, than make the first game
interesting and easy and the thousandth game boring. Sure, I try
to make both the first *and* thousandth game interesting and
easy; but the thousandth game takes priority every time.

My concession to the learning curve is a slowly-scrolling "option
line" at the bottom that will tell you what you can do at any
given moment if you take time to watch and read. I picked the
"option line" to make the commands discoverable without slowing
down or interfering with the keyboard interface. I expect the
experienced user to be entering five commands a second in some
situations; forcing them to use a mouse would be slowing them
down, and making the keyboard commands shortcuts for mouseable
commands requires a "mode switch" part way up the learning curve.

I'm sick of dumbing things down for newbies. I've had to do that
in code I write for money, and without fail, it always produced
less-capable systems. I cannot describe to you the horror I feel
when I take excellent and capable systems that suit their problem
domains well and are as simple as the problem allows, and my
orders are to make them easier for newbies to use. You cannot
solve a problem with a system that doesn't reflect at least the
complexity of the problem.

If you put a simple interface on something that's actually
a complex problem, it works about as well as steelframe
construction where you get rid of the rivets the rivet guns
and the welders and the wrenches and the nuts and install
the bolts using a very big hammer. Hey, it's simpler. It's a
shame that it's harder work and doesn't solve the problem as
well.

Several times now I've taken systems a smart user could use to
effect better solutions than any competing software, and gutted
their capabilities in order to make them "usable" by people
unwilling to understand the problems they're attempting to
solve or unwilling to comprehend what all the configuration
options they hate do. Inevitably, once the idea that
newbie-friendliness is all that matters takes hold, every
excellent tool I've ever built has been reduced to fricken
vaporware, with the marketing drones still spouting about
capabilities the effective use of which depended on things
they've required me to rip out of the systems.

I'm not gonna do it on a project I'm doing for recreation.
'Designed by geniuses to be used by idiots' is insulting and
frustrating to the non-idiot user, just as 'optimized search'
is insulting and frustrating to those of us who who were
more than able to say exactly what we wanted using full-text
binary search and hate that all modern search engines wind
up trying to herd us to the same two thousand or so 'popular'
sites all the time no matter what we're looking for.

All the best tools, and all the best games too, are designed
_by_and_for_ geniuses. Besides, I don't want to deal with
and support idiots, and nobody's gonna pay me for a
roguelike game, so what is my motivation for making a game
to appeal to them?

Bear
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Aquillion wrote:

> One possibility is to make that section take the form of a tutorial,
> which is offered to the player when they start: After they've created
> their characters, a little old man comes up to them and offers to teach
> them the basics of dungeoneering. If they agree, they're taken (alone
> and blindfolded) into a 1-level practice dungeon, which they have to
> escape from with the old man shouting instructions from outside. Along
> the way they encounter their teammates and learn how to command them
> and so forth. At the end of the practice dungeon, the old man could
> offer to show them what the town has to offer adventurers, too.

Oddly enough, I think your father's ghost at your elbow
whispering instructions about how to carry on the family
dungeoneering tradition would require less suspension
of disbelief than an old man shouting instructions from
outside.

Bear
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

> It's better to me to make the thousandth game interesting
> and easy and the first game hard, than make the first game
> interesting and easy and the thousandth game boring. Sure, I try
> to make both the first *and* thousandth game interesting and
> easy; but the thousandth game takes priority every time.

If everyone gives up long before playing the 1000th time, it doesn't matter
if the 1000th time is really fun, does it? That's basically my point.

As for the "screw you, it's my roguelike" attitude, I completely agree. You
must write games that you enjoy playing. To do otherwise would be silly.

--
Blog:
Shedletsky's Bits: A Random Walk Through Manifold Space
http://www.stanford.edu/~jjshed/blog
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Ray Dillinger wrote:
> *SOME* people want newbie-friendly software with a nice shallow
> learning curve.

You don't have to think it that way if you keep the overall
difficulty of the game hard. Nethack has a nice example of a
shallow learning curve, which is just tied to the character
development. But, if you prefer to scare *MOST* of the people
away from your game with HC attitude, then it's ok for me:)

> I'm sick of dumbing things down for newbies.

This has nothing to do with the UI and how good or bad it is. I think
RL developers should think about their UI and develope them
further, not just copy from the roguelike canon. Let's just say that
Angband UI is horrible. That's a fact and nothing can change it:)