Which graphics mode do you use

[Zombie Yeek]

I go for ASCII nearly all the time because it's so much cleaner than tile mode. There is one dungeon where tile mode is very helpful, though.

[Maylith]

Maylith: So, you can tell apart the nine riders, the two kobolds, the various humans, the different kinds of monster egos, water monsters, sword types, armor types, and more using text? If you can't, at a glance, then your precious text interface is flatly inferior.

Oh wait, you ADMIT that your text interface makes such distinctions impossible! Then backpedal and make an excuse for it being better somehow.

First of all: Put some sugar in your coffee, Neil.

Secondly: With tiles, I couldn't tell a rider from any other humanoid, or a jackal from a wolf or a catoblepas. While my eyesight is corrected up to 20/20 (or nearly so) I could care less about squinting at the screen to tell the tiny details. So tiles are no better, for me.

[Guest]

I'd rather see an 'M' and 'look' at it

Nothing's stopping you examining the graphical representation. The only difference is that one set of glyphs is already burned into your mind and this makes the prospect of picking up another set seem redundant, which to you it is. However, at least with graphical tiles, even if you can't specifically make out the difference between certain variants of races (and this is only a problem with the 16x16 version running at high resolution), new players can at least get a basic idea of what they're dealing with without wondering if the thing that's just come into view is anything from a flaming death golem to a walking piece of cheese, for every single object and monster in the game until they've memorised the lot.

And yes, the TK versions really burned my enthusiasm for experimenting with variants like these. The mouse support and GUI leave these older terminal clients feeling unbearably clunky, to the point where I'm just not willing to jump back twenty years in interface development just to get at the tantalising new features offered here.

[Maylith]

The only difference is that one set of glyphs is already burned into your mind and this makes the prospect of picking up another set seem redundant, which to you it is.

[Very good rationale for new players to use tiles, snipped.]

And yes, the TK versions really burned my enthusiasm for experimenting with variants like these. The mouse support and GUI leave these older terminal clients feeling unbearably clunky, to the point where I'm just not willing to jump back twenty years in interface development just to get at the tantalising new features offered here.

All very true. I like a decent GUI as much as the next person, mind you. If ToME were Tk'ized I'd be there. But it's not and I'm not, and this laptop I often play on doesn't even have a numeric keypad - I have to move around using the numeric keys above the qwerty. How's THAT for a clunky interface?!?

I think what it comes down to is just what you laid your finger on. Many of us who started with roguelikes from the beginning prefer ASCII. It's what we're used to and/or a loyalty/nostalgia issue. Many of those who came along later aren't as invested in those aspects and are used to better GUIs in the first place, so tiles are the obvious choice to them.

[Egg]

Yes, the thing that irritates me is that the core is still very relevant to today's gaming, but the surroundings are deeply bogged down in traditionalism and nostalgia. Which to me is a shame. If it was just a little easier to work with the audience for this genre would grow well beyond Rogue veterans and Linux users and into the world of people who just want to play good games. Nobody's asking for a bells and whistles 3D client, but using modern interface standards to offer a more intuitive experience would remove the ridiculously steep learning curve needed to play, which would make more people happy, which is why people make games.

Newer games can't replicate the complexity of this genre because as soon as you move away from tiles and turns it becomes much harder to keep track of the world around you and maintain a fair game, and a fair game is essential when your life depends on it as it does in these games. The risk of permanent death is a unique and attractive concept to people who like a challenge, and it's not something you'll find anywhere else. I just wish I didn't have to fight the PC to enjoy it.

[Maylith]

If it was just a little easier to work with the audience for this genre would grow well beyond Rogue veterans and Linux users and into the world of people who just want to play good games.

True. The best GUIs I've seen for the most complex games other than *bands would probably be the Exile series from Spiderweb Software. (I know they have a few new games out that are supposed to be even better, but I haven't seen them yet.) Just look out for the spiders and the monks

OTOH, I don't see the "average gamer" ever getting into a *band-type game, if only for the fact of perma-death.

The steep learning curve is, I think, part of what makes this game so addictive. Even if you DID have an ideal GUI, you would still be facing that curve... as witness all the posts on these boards (and others) by people seeking and sharing help and experience.

Newer games can't replicate the complexity of this genre because as soon as you move away from tiles and turns it becomes much harder to keep track of the world around you and maintain a fair game

A thought just came to me, and I'm not exactly sure how to express it, but... when I see a RPG game that has a certain sort of GUI, I tend to think "Oh, it's one of *those*", and very quickly lose interest because I know that the replayability is meager at best.

Example: I couldn't get into Doom because even though there were a few different classes, when I was playing it felt like I was always being poured down the same funnel every single time. See the same sights, talk to the same people, I know how the dungeon levels are going to be laid out and where I'm going to encounter certain things. (Granted, some of the last is true in ToME, too.) Bleah, boring, not for me. I'm a very visual person, and visual repetition bugs the heck out of me. You may find it odd that a visual person would prefer ASCII, at least for *bands, but shrug that's how it is for me. I don't want to see the image of the elaborate armor or the strapping warrior. I can imagine the details just fine all by myself. (This sort of goes back to another post of mine where I commented that a lot of people don't, or worse, can't, read books anymore.)

Something like Myst/Riven/etc is different: the game *is* the visuals - and very masterfully done, at that.

To me, the ASCII version strips away all the extra details (which would probably get me killed, anyway, I'd be oohing and ahhing at the pretty details while some beastie was pounding the tar out of me) and lets me concentrate on the strategy. But I do understand and sympathize with your frustration. I'd love to see a Tk version of ToME.

[Lord Dimwit]

this laptop I often play on doesn't even have a numeric keypad - I have to move around using the numeric keys above the qwerty. How's THAT for a clunky interface?!?

Just as a sidenote, you might try learning the roguelike keyset, which works wonderfully on a laptop. It's really counterintuitive at first and you wonder how the hell anyone could ever deal with it, but after a while it just becomes second nature.

I switched from a desktop to a laptop several months ago, and besides a few stupid directional errors, I can actually go quicker with roguelike than with the normal set. My main grievance is that there are less useless keys, so I can't use macros quite as well (I like using actual keys for macros, rather than the function keys).

[Maylith]

I've used it in the past, and I've thought about it, but I'm a stubborn ol' coot Thanks though! Maybe one of these days...

[Neil]

Note that we're in the market for a roguelike keyset maintainer. We need someone who uses it to keep it working for us.

[Zizzo]

Hmm, I see I haven't weighed in on this one yet. I use ASCII unless I'm somewhere where I figure someone is likely to see me playing, in which case I use tiles (the double-width ones, or whatever -b gives you) so I don't look quite so geeky...

My main grievance is that there are less useless keys [in roguelike mode], so I can't use macros quite as well (I like using actual keys for macros, rather than the function keys).

(nods) I had to fall back on alt-keys eventually. The biggest relief was discovering that ToME does in fact support multi-key macro sequences; you just have to edit them into the .prf file manually, since AFAICT there's no way to create them in-game.

Note that we're in the market for a roguelike keyset maintainer. We need someone who uses it to keep it working for us.

(scratches head) I wouldn't have thought that part of the code changed often...

[Wolfe]

I play ASCII because way back, when I first discovered Nethack, I used to play with tiles on. Did this for the longest time, and then, for reasons which escape me, switched to ASCII. I won my first ascension shortly after. So it's partly superstition, but I also find tiles can hide things in roguelikes. Coloured letters/symbols I find less ambiguous (Yes, I know, apart from the times when they aren't )

[Ludvig]

My main grievance is that there are less useless keys [in roguelike mode], so I can't use macros quite as well (I like using actual keys for macros, rather than the function keys).

(nods) I had to fall back on alt-keys eventually. The biggest relief was discovering that ToME does in fact support multi-key macro sequences; you just have to edit them into the .prf file manually, since AFAICT there's no way to create them in-game.

Wrong answer. I just tested it, and made a R&\r macro and bound it to za and it works perfectly - you just have to be quick

[severian]

To stick with the poll, I would have liked to have the choice to chose "32x32 tiles"; can't you add it ?