Talk:Island of Kesmai

What's in a name

Is there a reason why this article is named in the plural tense: Islands, instead of Island? All sources and documentation I've seen refer to the name "Island of Kesmai" and not this plural version. Why does the correct name redirect to here? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess you could ask User:Black Kite about it since he moved the article in April 2007. I'll go ahead and move it back where it belongs, if it lets me. --Scandum (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked deeper into it, the Kesmai website consequently calls the game 'Island of Kesmai', Ralph Koster's timeline seems to randomly switch between Island and Islands. I think it's safe to assume that (in violation of Wikipedia's policies) the authors know best. --Scandum (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Roguelike?

There has been some concern expressed over the use of the term "rogue-like" and the catagory, "Roguelike" being used in relation to this game. Like the original Rogue computer game, IoK used simple ASCII characters to "graphically" define the playing realm, as well as its inhabitants and items of interest. Like Rogue, the environment of IoK was fantasy-based, typically a dungeon or wilderness populated with hostile critters, dragons, etc. Also like Rogue, a player would progress through IoK through turn-based moves (typically, one action or move per turn). Unlike the original Rogue game, IoK was multi-player, with many players travelling through the same realm at the same time, and able to interact with one another.

From this source:

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. If you've been a gamer for any time at all, you've probably played a Roguelike game of some sort, be it Diablo II, .hack, or practically any massively multiplayer online role-playing game. All of these games are predicated on the basic principles established way back in 1980 by a simple hobbyist creation called Rogue: slogging through dungeons, killing monsters for experience, hunting for fabulous treasures, and of course collecting superior tools with which to facilitate additional killing.

Island of Kesmai appears to fit neatly into this catagory. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing the adoption of select principles from one game with shared categorization of said game and those that borrow from it in part. The source cited doesn't say what you represent above. It states that games like "any MMORPG" lean on basic gameplay notions, not that they are close relations to Rogue, etc. The use of the term roguelike in the statement "you've probably played a Roguelike game of some sort" strikes me as rhetorical, if not hyperbolic. If one were to take it literally, any game that utilizes random content generation, for example, could be considered "roguelike", which is absurd (as would taking any defining element of Rogue shared as automatic grounds for also sharing the label "roguelike").

That said, you raise a number of interesting observations with respect to IoK. I'll take the time to review the article in detail. I am curious as to why you altered its description as a MUD to that of an MMORPG. Is that original, or have reliable sources identified it as such? D. Brodale (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

We may need to define "Roguelike" as something more than "Like the Rogue game..." The Wikipedia article on Roguelike is a little lacking on reliable sources, but I'm working with what is there right now. Rogue and IoK can both be described as computer-based fantasy, or RPG style, games involving a character that delves into dungeons, slays beasts and collects treasure and gear; thereby developing or improving the character. But those aren't the defining traits of Rogue. In traditional MUDs, an "encounter" would only be described textually, as in, "As you enter the large chamber, a great scaled reptilian beast lunges at you..." In both Rogue and Island of Kesmai, you would instead "see" the letter 'D' appear on the map near your character, with a notation indicating that D = Dragon. Since IoK used an ASCII character map to represent the location of you and the inhabitants of whatever area you were exploring, and a MUD does not, I removed the MUD description. MMORPG was more generic, although the dozens or even couple hundred simultaneous players of IoK may not qualify as "massively multiplayer" by todays standards. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The earliest incarnation of IoK (the 6-person version) would definitely qualify as Roguelike in virtually all defining aspects. You could argue that the later versions developed for CompuServe strayed from the Roguelike definition when it moved from pure turn-based (Everyone would have to enter their actions before the computer would respond) to timed turn-based. With timed turns, turns would be concluded for everyone after a period of time whether you entered in an action or not, and the computer-controlled actions would take place whether you reacted or not. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

First, the fixation on the implementation of the user interface (ASCII, in this case) is a secondary consideration to whether the interface is meant to represent the game world (or what have you), rather than interactively as is the case with an example you yourself provide with respect to MUDs. I'd suggest that whether said interface is ASCII, graphical, or whatnot is irrelevant. Second, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the notion of defining "roguelike" so that IoK "fits". This seems a bit backwards to me. Especially given that the IoK is also lacking for sources, and rigging another article to provide criteria by which to manufacture a fit seems a bit contrary to the Wikipedian emphasis on reliable secondary sources rather than original research. I would caution you to reconsider any approach that will still leave IoK unsourced with respect to perceived fitness with the roguelike genre, if it comes at the cost of shaping another article to prove a point. I'm not stating that IoK isn't roguelike, or that it is, but that the genre itself is rather elastic -- things can possess more or less "likeness" as a roguelike, and classification of a game as primarily belonging to that category here on Wikipedia comes down to reliable sources and evaluation of whether claimed belonging makes sense relative to the article subject itself. For example, one might state that the Diablo series borrows heavily from several concepts incubated by Rogue and its immediate cohort (this statement can even be reliably sourced), but to call Diablo a roguelike distracts from the game's place as a significant action rpg.

I haven't had time yet to look at the IoK article in detail, so can't state what my own impressions are relative to this discussion with finality. However, I think the article at a glance is lacking for proper referencing for topics such as these; a need just as pressing as any reworking of the roguelike article. As for the MUD/MMORPG angle, you may be interested in taking a look at other early networked games, such as Moria (PLATO), which represented a "third way" of sorts between traditional MUDs and traditional roguelikes of the time. D. Brodale (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my poor choice of words — I was not suggesting a rewrite of Roguelike; I was merely noting that there were not many references to work from to determine the definition of roguelike, and if IoK fit that definition. I agree both articles could use some serious work. I note that in other articles (like MMORPG), IoK is still referred to as roguelike. In a nutshell, people say IoK is like Rogue because in both games, you (1) move your character and perform actions with single character or very short commands, (2) instead of reading lengthy descriptions of your surroundings (like MUDs), or viewing animated graphical images, you instead see representations made of #, [], | to represent hallways, etc., (3) the 'moving' mobs you encounter are usually represented by nothing more than a letter on the screen map, and may change location each turn.

I'll take a look at the Moria. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in the end, when someone challenges an issue, what matters most is what reliable secondary sources state, not what anyone may have committed to Wikipedia without referenced backing. Again, this is not to state what's the most appropriate categorization for IoK (or several, should they apply), but to point to the lack of evidential support as a sticking point in resolving the matter. D. Brodale (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)