Talk:Rogue (video game)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Original source[edit]

Ken Arnold has posted a version of the original source to rogue on sourceforge. http://sourceforge.net/projects/rogue/ http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4013/the_history_of_rogue_have__you_.php

(This is apparently not the same source that is distributed in NetBSD and Debian distributions.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.223.11.39 (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot[edit]

This article would really benefit from a screenshot. Anyone have access to the original Unix version (comes with Berkeley distributions)? That would be the preferable version to have a screenshot from. Even one of the original ports would be preferable to one of the numerous freeware ports floating around (to avoid "advertising"). —Frecklefoot 15:34, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Here's a screenshot from the DOS version of the game that I found on some website. We could use this, if nothing else: http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/2809/roguesm6.png -- 24.79.93.128 (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice screenshot, but unfortunately we can't just lift images off the web and use them higgledy piggledy. We need all sorts of permissions and qualifications (which is why Wikipedia has so few images). One licensed as GFDL would be ideal. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Admins speedily deletetd the images. GFDL also does not keep the image free.
Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.2.115 (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have screenshots, of the splash screen, the play, of the DOS version, and the UNIX version. ( I found a binary of the UNIX version that runs on DOS. Someone compiled the sources to run under dos! Had to remember using the old hjkl controls! ). When I get the ability to upload to wikimedia, Ill upload the shots, and link them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.157.126 (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually a BIG problem with a UNIX screen shot. It carries the BSD liscence. I had to use TheDraw, and photoshop to get a Creative Artist's Rendering out of the display. 71.193.2.115 (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Screen shots are done, thumbnails created, uploaded, copylefted. Now... how do we get them into the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.157.126 (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YES! I got the images up. Still waiting for the Wikimedia upload approval, but they dont move fast enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.157.126 (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshots, all except one were deleted. I updated the copyright, to copyleft, GPLv3 or what ever. They were my screen shots, and I had the right to release my rendering under the copyf*ck, but it was not enough. The loudest voice here writes history, and damn the actual facts. "Oh those idiots" -Glenn Wichmann — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation (talk • contribs) 21:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Video Games assessment[edit]

Hello, a request was left at WP:VG for an article assessment. I've left the rating as-is, Rogue is the genesis of a genre which remains to this day and justifies high importance, though the article is beyond stub class (just), some serious work and sourcing needs to be undertaken to achieve B rating. Here's some suggestions for improvement:

  • Change two heading titles - overview > gameplay and authorship > development. It might as well match other articles.
  • There's a lot of sources used to cite the freeware clones, whilst it is important to discuss the game's legacy, a long list of these games' homepages etc. isn't the best way to go about it, try to find a reliable source which you can use to expand this aspect of the article with, and do away with these others.
  • All sections need expansion, are any of the original team interviewed anywhere? The game blog Game Set Watch, a reliable source, has an entire section dedicated to roguelikes here, there may be other sources out there to plunder, give google a workout. Have a look through the project's GA class articles for ideas about how to expand the article (they're at the bottom of the project's mainpage).
  • The images need sorting out, in terms of copyright tags, the GPL release thingy doesn't seem usual either. Images aren't my area, I'd suggest seeking help from the wikiproject's talkpage.

Hope that helps. Someoneanother 12:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Citation for Mastertronic release?[edit]

[[1]] Not sure how to add this in footnotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenparkes (talk • contribs) 16:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added it. You can look here to see how to add footnotes. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead revert[edit]

The reason for the reversion is that the claim of starting "it all" is both overly vague and unsourced. Rogue was not the first dungeon crawling CRPG, and a sweeping generalization is not a useful contribution if it cannot be stated in clear terms with reliable sources in support. The trailing nutshell lineage of NetHack is also questionable; Hack was heavily inspired by Rogue, but was not a direct revision of the latter. Again, the claim reverted was unsourced, and to large extent, is beside the point with respect to Rogue, the focus of the article in question, not NetHack. D. Brodale (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Garycompugeek" You may post on the articles talk page as I watch all articles I edit.

It is typically referred to as the first computer dungeon crawl (perhaps you could fill me in on what is if not Rogue). As far as sources go the first reference states "Every once in a while someone creates a game that launches an entire genre -- they're rare, but publishers live and die by the innovations those pioneers bring to the medium. Rogue, however, may well be the only game in the medium's brief history that hasn't simply established a new style of play, but actually lent its name to a genre" ie Rogue started it all unless you know of another dungeon crawl created on mainframes before the PCs inception.

Evolution- In Nethack we say it is a descendant of Hack which is a descendant of Rogue. It is logical to posit they have evolved from Rogue not to mention all sources I have ever read generally mention the progression and pointing this out to the reader gives them wiki links to follow this evolution. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both dnd and Moria predate Rogue as computerized dungeon crawls, and neither themselves are the first of their kind. As to the source referenced, in full context, it doesn't square with the supposition in the lead revision that "Rogue started it all", further qualifying the passage quoted above with limitation to the genre ("If you've been a gamer for any time at all, you've probably played a Roguelike game of some sort ... All of these games are predicated on the basic principlesestablished ... by ... Rogue"), coeval influence ("Modern RPGs owe as much to Rogue as they do to Atari's Adventure."), and examination that Rogue itself was influenced by earlier works ("According to Rogue co-creator Glenn Wichman, the impetus that drove him (and his friends Ken Arnold and Michael Toy) to program the game in the first place was provided by Willie Crowther's early text-based game, Adventure."). Rogue may have been pivotal in some regards, helped in no small part by its ubiquity, but it wasn't the sole progenitor of what was to come.
As for the line of evolution drawn from Rogue to NetHack, it is clear that Hack borrowed liberally from the mechanics of Rogue, but itself was not developed from within or atop the latter. The first public distribution was self-described as "a game resembling rogue". There are clear influences, but I'm really not certain why it's important or significant to draw attention from the subject of the article (Rogue) to NetHack in this manner, especially with regard to providing wikilinks, given that there are already links to both the roguelike genre in full and NetHack in particular. Given the breadth of expression among roguelike gameplay, it would seem NetHack is as much an heir to Rogue's legacy as any number of other titles. D. Brodale (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I had forgot about the PLATO system and I see your point. However I still feel Rogue deserves a little more noteriety and I disagree with your last statement. There is clear and obvious progression from Rogue to Hack to Nethack. The reader needs to be informed of this and at present there is no link or mention of Hack in the article. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see the "need" to inform a general reader of this particular progression, or to highlight Hack, which by the long-standing state of its respective article, lacks independent significance and should probably be merged into NetHack. D. Brodale (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes well I do see a need. As far as merging Hack into Nethack... go ahead and propose in the proper places however I do not agree that its necessary. Each game is distinct and deserves its own page. Yes Hack leaves much to be desired and needs to be fleshed out some but I don't feel that's a good reason to merge it with Nethack. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've now reintroduced content that lacks proper sourcing a second time that presents things in a problematic light with respect to tone and purpose. Please find reliable sources for the additions proposed before inserting content based on personal feelings. D. Brodale (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing inserted based on personal feelings and everything is properly sourced. This is the second time you have reverted my contributions. "Problematic" is your POV. The revised lead is more informative. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That Rogue directly inspired Hack is an uncontroversial statement, and is easily sourced. I've added a few sources to that effect. Hopefully that settles this dispute. Nandesuka (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rm image that bears no significant relation to article text (hacked DOS version title screen[edit]

This image, is neither Hacked, nor non-significant. The image is of the Public Domain version. It is not hacked, nor altered, and documented as released by the Author. ( like um... his name is on that screen, and he has edited the article here...) Just in case you dont know, its Glenn Wichman. There was three main liscenses that you have to be aware of...( or not, as you seem not to know much about the diffrences or liscenses )

  • 1. The UNIX/BSD version.
    • The BSD version contains a notice of copyright by the Regents of the University of California.
  • 2. The Public Domain version for dos. ( v1.1 easily verifible with the 'v' command )
    • The Public Domain version contains the string 'Released into the public domain' by the Authors,
      • There was a Public Domain version 0.97, but it did not contain the public domain notice.
      • And a link on this page, has available at least 28 versions, and the source code to the Commerical version.
  • 3. The A.I. Version that Epyx released as commercial.
    • The A.I./Epyx version who's copyright still holds, is valid, and has a bearing on the rights of screen shots.

So, despite the link to at least 28 versions, and the source code, after inspecting the Epyx code, There still is a version, that I have, that they dont have, that says Public Domain, does not appear to have the copy protection disabled, and does not appear to have a hacked string for the splash screen, that I maintain is The Public Domain version. The splashscreen is significant because it is the only proof that the game has a public domain version, that we can take screen shots. Because this was in doubt, I had to hand render all the screen shots in TheDraw. The removal of this proof puts the legitamacy of the other shot from the IBM PC in doubt. ( In fact, since the proof of its legitmacy is gone, It needs to be removed also. ). 67.174.157.126 (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mainframe or PC??[edit]

According to "A Brief History of Rogue", Rogue was initially developed on "university systems" in C and using the curses library. Eventually it was distributed along with BSD. However, did these first systems run on mainframe computers or PCs? The article is not clear. SharkD  Talk  00:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not PCs, that's for sure. But I'm unsure if it was mainframes or minicomputers. The terminals used to play the game were dumb terminals, though; just clients to the main computer. So it sounds like mainframe to me, but could be minicomputers as well. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All right, thanks. SharkD  Talk  00:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's University Computers it's very likely that they'll be Mainframes. That's what I was trained on. (This was many years ago, when PCs were in their very very early days. The ones I used were the old VAX Systems. Anyone remember them :-)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.167.5.135 (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first system was a PDP-11 at Santa Cruz, and later a VAX-11/780. They are Mini-computers. Not a large or powerful as a Main Frame, not needing as much power as a main frame, but still able to support a multitude of users, on a serial port network. ( The mini-computers were inter-connected with what we now take for granted as ethernet ).
It was 4 years later than it was running on IBM PCs and compatibles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.195.139 (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was playing it on a DEC PDP-11/70 in 1980 at what was then Bell Labs under PWB/UNIX 2.0. Jhobson1 (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But to answer his question, MiniComputer ( Dec PDP-11 ) to PC to many PCs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.200.41.67 (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you have not done your research... this is from wikipida... really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLATO_(computer_system)

"Countless games inspired by the role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons, including the original Rutherford/Whisenhunt and Wood dnd (later ported to the PDP-10/11 by Lawrence, who earlier had visited PLATO). dnd is believed to be the first dungeon crawl game and was followed by: Moria, Rogue,"

So Rogue, was started on a Plato Workstation connected to a mainframe, so it had both mainframe, and local processing. Although dnd is attributed to be the first dungeon crawl, there was cave before it. Rogue was the first graphical ( using text terminals, dungeon crawl. ) Whether you believe the facts, or the authors, or the sources, or Wikipedia is up to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.213.24 (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler Section[edit]

This section is poorly written and unencyclopedic. I don't know enough about this to fix it, somebody else please do so:-) 209.252.235.206 (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. It was all someone's personal views and original research. Removed. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"(However the Spectrum Version came complete with either a bug or an exploit which could be used to produce identical items within a room)"

According to my knowledge, and fortunately in this case it matches Wikipedia, a bug is a flaw in a piece of software, exploit is the, quite literally, exploiting of a bug. So, say for instance there's a bug in a video game (the terms can be used for internet sites, OS's, etc) allowing one to duplicate items, you exploit that bug when you perform said duplication. So the sentence, from a technical point of view, doesn't make sense at all. I'll edit it to say "came with a bug which could be", and post my reasoning here, anyone who wishes can debate and harass as they please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploit_%28online_gaming%29 Chrissd21 (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this right?[edit]

One section says, "The original authors of Rogue are Michael Toy, Glenn Wichman, and then Ken Arnold.[9]" But 1) the ref does not say that and 2) the article lead does not say that. I don't know how to fix, or rather, I don't know how to tell what should be done, if anything. Lawfare (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about reading the sources: Like reading Glenn Wichman's history... It also cites Jon Lane.
It would be really nice, if the person(s) writing the article, actually READ THE SOURCES, instead of willy nilly editing it.
The article is literally horrid from the lack of people who actually have read the history, making changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.200.41.67 (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sample screen[edit]

                               ------------
                               |          |
 --------------------          |          +######################
 |                  |  ########+          |                     #
 |%                 +###       |          |                     #
 -----------+--------          -+----------                     #
     ########                                                   #
 ----+---                                                       #
 |      |                                                       #
 |      |                                                       #
 |      |                                                       #
 |      |                                                    ####
 |      |                                                    #
 ---+----                                                    #
    ############                                             #
 --------------+-                                            #
 |              |         -----+--------------               #
 |              |         |......]K=..?....HK|               #
 |              |         |..IK.IE?HIEH!.HEHH@################
 |              |         |...I...B....I..E.E|
 |              |         |..?H..../?........|
 ----------------         --------------------

Level: 1 Gold: 0 Hp: 12(12) Str: 16(16) Arm: 4 Exp: 1/6

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

"You hear a high pitched humming noise." MinorProphet (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

apt-get[edit]

The game is available on Debian using apt=get bdsgames-nonfree

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rogue (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Xeroc seems confused. You feel hungry. The Xeroc strikes! You die. MinorProphet (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The genre makes no sense....[edit]

How can Rogue be a "Roguelike" when it is Rogue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.212.234 (talk • contribs)

Because it is the namesake of what the genre later came to be known as. At the time it was made, there was no concepts of genres, so the genre assignment came after-the-fact, and after Rogue gave way to the roguelike, hence the use of that name --Masem (t) 14:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, "Rogue" is, fundamentally, "Rogue"-like. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rogue_(video_game)&oldid=1193946413"