ToME: the Tales of Maj'Eyal

Suggestion: Ignore wikipedia problem you can't fix - much - and help our own wiki improve; by doing so we can attract more players, who will talk about the game, and eventually Wikipedia will come around.

A part of wikipedia is documenting history. Whether some people like it or not, ToME, in it's assorted forms, is a rather significant part of Roguelike History. At least as much as other staples such as ADOM, and NetHack. Documenting the part we have played in it seems... justified and appropriate.

But hey, maybe I'm just an idiot.

Well, if you're trying to draw on ToME2, that makes it more complicated. The page we've been working on is "Tales of Maj'Eyal", which is ToME4. If you want to consider the evolution from ToME2->ToME4 then the page would have to be called something else, and would be written very differently.

I think ToME2 is already mentioned briefly on some kind of Angband variant page.

If tome 2 needs it's own page, that is fine, a simple callout on tome 4 as an 'evolution from the original T-Engine used for Tome2' and some sort of crosslink. But whether it should be included or not, I don't know. (I would be interested in the history myself, which is what made me look it up)

As for those 'unreliable sources', is there some method where you can communicate with these people making that judgement, and figure out which ones they have a problem with? Don't know how feasible this is, given that I am a Wikipedia idiot. (and a wiki idiot, for that matter.)

Crim, The Red Thunder wrote:A part of wikipedia is documenting history. Whether some people like it or not, ToME, in it's assorted forms, is a rather significant part of Roguelike History. At least as much as other staples such as ADOM, and NetHack. Documenting the part we have played in it seems... justified and appropriate.

But hey, maybe I'm just an idiot.

I'm sorry, I really really like ToME.... but ToME is just not in the same category as NetHack. NetHack is over 20 years old, has spawned a dozen variants, and influenced numerous other rougelikes.

Again, do not take this as my expressing any lack of like or respect for ToME, but it is _not_ equivalent to NetHack in importance to the history of rougelikes.

Just noticing this discussion now: Is there anything on the Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup page we can steal? They seem to be pretty similar, except that they've already got their page created. Perhaps references to the fact ToME beat out Dungeon of Dreadmor?

Also, here's another two review which can be linked to: Dorkadia and Techhive, which is apparently connected to PCWorld, so that ought to garner some notability points...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoomRL

As a note; If ToME's not legitimate to have a Wikipedia page, I can't fathom why DoomRL would be. It's about as long lived and popular, as far as I'm aware, and the page is quite sparse.

Seems like someone has a grudge, here, to be honest. Probably not worth worrying about, at that point.

(As a note, I really like DoomRL, too. Just thought to check for similar popularity Roguelikes.)

DoomRL has been around for much longer, and has been picked up on in many mainstream news articles and even print magazines.

That's a big thing actually - most of these other big roguelikes have been in printed magazines before. With the age of print kinda dead it's harder for ToME to now reach that status.

Let's print a one-off fanzine? >_>

Bobson wrote:Techhive

Yay, finally a review with some criticism!

I wish the review weren't chock full of blatantly obvious typos, though (like "it1s" instead of "it's").

Also: the PC Gamer review URL is 404ing now. There's still a Google cached copy, and this m.* version.

Update 2013-07-09: the PC Gamer article is working again. Must've been a glitch on their web server(s).

"TOME 4 adds basic graphics and networked chat to the Roguelike experience."

Apparently they haven't heard of DCSS webtiles?

Just because ToME does it doesn't mean it's the only one to do it :P

Another media mention for ToME:

http://indiestatik.com/2013/08/07/stop- ... nd-tricks/

Quotes:

"This is a game that flaunts a variety of Roguelike conventions. For instance, many races and classes are locked by default, only becoming available when you’ve completed various in-game tasks. The most interesting departure it takes, though, is the fact that there are no consumable items in ToME. Every healing item you find comes in the form of an Infusion, which you equip in one of your limited Infusion slots, where it then serves as a new ability for your character. Likewise, your character’s got a pretty wide selection of inherent abilities to use as well. In ToME, even the standard skull-bashing melee character has at least a few different usable abilities."

"Tales of Maj’Eyal is an excellent game, but it gives you extra lives by default because of the exceedingly high odds of your character getting mulched through no fault of your own. "

Just noticed that site has 3 more articles mentioning ToME:

http://indiestatik.com/2012/12/17/tales ... -released/
http://indiestatik.com/2013/03/19/tome-doomrl-update/
http://indiestatik.com/2013/07/08/indie ... -3-bundle/

"Tales of Maj’Eyal, or TOME, as our acronym-addled society would put it, is a roguelike. However, it’s not just any roguelike, but one of the most expansive and excellent examples of the genre. Originally launched as an Angband spin-off with the highly litigious name of Tales of Middle Earth, TOME has come so far and only recently came out of beta for its fourth iteration. There’s a huge overworld, an interface and structure that is quite user-friendly and a large list of unlockable classes and races with their own backstories, talents and introduction quests. Bundle or no, you should play the game anyway as it’s free, open source and mod-friendly."

Necro-posting!

So, Darkgod mentioned Steam's inclusion of the game and that got me wondering....

There should be enough information now that Tales of Maj'Eyal should satisfy any needed references - or at least once it is truly on Steam there shouldn't be any denying it's inclusion in Wikipedia.

I myself though have never added anything to Wikipedia and don't have an account for it; nor have I really been around for the long history of the game. Anyone else interested in taking up this task one more time?

I made another edit on the AFC page, mostly to keep it from being auto-deleted.

I don't think they're going to accept the article until it has at least 1 more reference from a source that is not a blog, a wiki, or a self-published website like te4.org. (Although none of the people rejecting it have been kind enough to actually SAY that, so we're all just guessing.)