By Name
By Date Added
By Last Update
By Rating
By Type
[Advanced Search]
The Linux Game Tome
News Submit a Game Forums About/FAQ

Poll results

Date Posted: 2005-08-25 08:41:18
What is for you the most important feature in an opensource/free software game?  
graphics (13%) 613 votes
gameplay (57%) 2550 votes
music (1%) 58 votes
originality (12%) 544 votes
multiplayer (7%) 315 votes
licence (5%) 227 votes
little details (3%) 146 votes
Total votes : 4453
  [ List previous polls ] [ Suggest a poll ] 

[Post a new comment]

[Show all 30 comment threads on one page]
  My opinion posted by CrazyTerabyte @ on May 2 2006 6:43 PM  

Unfortunately, it is not possible to select more than one answer.

I think there is no one most important feature. All of them (or most of them) are equally important. A good game is not made only of good graphics. A very good gameplay is wasted without other elements.

Please read the my complete opinion and thoughts about this at my blog: (no, this is not spam or advertisement; it is just a true post I wrote about this subject, inspired by this poll)


  In my day games had playability posted by Anonymous @ on Dec 26 2005 1:21 PM  
That's really what I want in a game. Although, license, multiplatform, good story, and good graphics are important as well in that order. A good story is important to me in some genres but in others it just gets in the way. There are too many games these days I hate because there is 10 minutes of story and wardrobe to get to the action. Graphics are important too but I consider good graphics about the genesis/snes level. Then again if a game has playability, graphics are almost not important at all. There are lots of super text/ascii art based games. I've played quite a few games lately that look pretty but the gameplay consists of mashing buttons as fast as you can with no real purpose in mind other than to mash them. That's not a good game. The one with jet lee comes to mind.
  Re: In my day games had playability posted by Gatonegro @ on Dec 29 2005 7:34 AM  
I must disagree. I used to play a lot of great games with obvious flaws in the usability field, from poorly-designed interfaces to lacking or badly chosen keyboard shortcuts or plainly obscure mechanics. And still, they were great games.

Games such as Silmarils' creations (the Ishar saga, Transarctica, Storm Master, Boston Bomb Club...) were wonderful pieces because they contained great graphics, interesting storylines and settings (Well, Boston didn't have storyline, but it did have a great XIX-USA air to it), and challenging (perhaps too challenging) puzzles. Sure, they could have improved a lot with better interfaces (their interefaces were beautiful, but had severe usability problems) and clearer gameplay (it was at times frustratingly hard to find out how to do certain things, and several key elements in most of their games could be screwed easily)... But yet they had something to them ohter games could not offer.

Since I am becoming nostalgic, I can also throw in that back in the late eighties and early nineties, games were much more original, much more creative, and much more easily created by independent groups than they are now -- the business has destroyed the art.

But on with my rant -- I meant that many old games I played 'in my days' were really a pain in the ass to use. However, we played them, and we enjoyed them a lot, because they gathered all the elements mentioned above, and mixed them in the correct way (I am not saying, by any means, that all old games were good, mind you. Just that I still find games from the late eigties and early nineties more attractive than those of the late nineties, early XXI century).

I have voted 'little details', because even though I think that what makes a good game is a combination of all the above, what makes an outstanding game is the little things. Yes, originality, but not rawly so. Yes, good graphics, but not just that. Yes, usability, but it is not imprescindible... You get the idea. It's a mixture of them all, subtly entwined: good graphics that set up an atmosphere adequately (again, Silmarils' creations were outstanding for their graphism), good story that matches the mood the graphics generate (or viceversa, doesn't matter), and addictive gameplay, even if the interface is not that good. And the ability to surprise the player every now and then, with small little tricks, or unexpected behaviors, or surprising details, or alternative and creative solutions to a problem.

I have left to the end the subject of the license, because I don't think it does really belong into the rest of the pack. For me, license is almost a boolean matter: if it is not Free (as in Freedom), I will not use it. Exceptions to this rule are the roguelike ADOM (which I find about the best games I have ever played) and the aforementioned abandonware (by now) games of yore, which I use through DOSBox. So, in other words: whenever I see a game here, in TLGT, that doesn't bear the "free" and "source avaliable" stickers, I don't even care looking at it.


  poll posted by Anonymous @ on Dec 22 2005 6:50 PM  
this poll is misleading. please do some new one,

  Story posted by DaVince @ on Nov 28 2005 11:36 AM  
I'd choose for story, but it isn't in there. So I chose originality

  huh, where's replayability?! posted by Anonymous @ on Nov 10 2005 7:33 PM  
What about replayability?! You make a single player game, people play it, finish it and then they stop playing it. Over time your game grows old and gets stale with old libraries. But, if people still want to play your game even if its old, it'll live on in that generation (and if you're lucky enough, it'll get updated or forked by other people). Isn't that what oss is all about? I think an oss game needs replayability to live on.

IMO, on the poll, multiplayer is the most important if you want your game to be a succesful oss game. Multiplayer is like the eternal fountain of replayabity.
  Re: huh, where's replayability?! posted by trick @ on Nov 11 2005 9:37 PM  
That's not what replayability means. Replayability means that there's a reason for playing the game multiple times, or at least that you want to.
  Re: huh, where's replayability?! posted by elcugo @ on Nov 16 2005 10:31 PM  
I agree. There're many single player games with really high replayability and many multiplayer games that get boring after a while. Multiplayer is not a magic formula to make a game fun and replayable even though it's a nice adition to an already good game.
  Re: huh, where's replayability?! posted by Anonymous @ on Dec 2 2005 1:57 AM  
I prefer multiplay games, where I can find real enemy...
IMO, Nowadays every game should be multiplay in order to become successfull. I dont like to play just to play, I like competition.
Where I can competit with another person that I know or I can talk to.
However there're some games from FF series that I played but only because my firends also played it.
Then we could competit who's character is better...etc Competition is what every man has inside...
Have You ever wonderd why womens dont make a wars ? That's because our hormons... we are war machines ;]
Second thing I expect from games is that they should be realistic, I mean breath taking views, enviroment in other words briliant graphic...
  Re: huh, where's replayability?! posted by Anonymous @ on Dec 10 2005 5:42 PM  
Very few OSS games will ever have good graphics. They simply don't have the time or budget to produce all the artwork, and often the people doing the graphics are programmers and pretty poor artists. I've seen many free mods for commerical games that have had better graphics than 95% of what's on here.

The main thing OSS games have going for them is the gameplay, as it should be. I can go outside if I want to see "realism".
  Re: huh, where's replayability?! posted by Anonymous @ on May 3 2006 1:00 AM  
Of course, the beauty of OSS, is that only 'very few' open source games have to have good graphics, because those graphics will then propogate (and will be changed and improved on). This is happening at the moment with Wesnoth's graphics...
  Re: huh, where's replayability?! posted by Rubinstein @ on Dec 14 2005 2:16 AM  
Replayability is a more or less direct result of gameplay. Good graphics just sells, nothing more. Good gameplay let the player play a certain game over and over, sometimes for several years. Story and graphics are just not needed for good gameplay and in most cases are even contradictory to it. I'm glad to see a majority voting for gameplay, though I doubt it won't have any effect to the game industry. Probably because games with excellent gameplay already exist, free and open source?

  Keeping up appearances posted by scarlet @ on Nov 8 2005 2:27 PM  
60% of people voted "Gameplay". Of cause one has to vote for gameplay lest one be labelled as less than a conissoir, but in reality most of us only notice flashy graphics and cool sound effects. It's just like I will always claim to be interested in a woman's personality when everyone knows full well that I'm just obsessed with breasts.
  Re: Keeping up appearances posted by DaVince @ on Nov 28 2005 11:38 AM  
Good one, though I DO mean it. Story and gameplay go beyong graphics for me, and that's why I'm more of a retro gamer.
  Re: Keeping up appearances posted by Anonymous @ on Dec 9 2005 3:11 AM  
Very true, but in both cases you are much more likely to stay around if you that there's something there besides good looks. Beauty is the hook that gets you interested.

  installation posted by Anonymous @ on Nov 7 2005 6:37 AM  
Can't be bothered to fiddle around any more. See consoles.

  forgotten option posted by Anonymous @ on Oct 31 2005 2:37 AM  
you forgot story.

  it's the gnu lic agreement for me posted by Anonymous @ on Oct 26 2005 2:54 AM  
after all thats what keeps it free from commerical raiding of open source and provides us with a means for legal play and share these games and encourages participation in the eveloution of the code to make it all it can be :)

  Easy to Install posted by Anonymous @ on Oct 23 2005 11:38 AM  
Installation, this is for me the most important part of the game. If the game isn't easy to install or has too many dependencies it will probably fail the first phase, evaluation. I ususally don't spend more than two minutes trying to install a game. I just don't have the patience anymore.
  Re: Easy to Install posted by DaVince @ on Nov 28 2005 11:40 AM  
Well, when failing to install a game, I'm ususally disappointed, but that's because the game itself sounded promising, NOT the installation of it...

  Licence posted by Anonymous @ on Oct 20 2005 5:16 AM  
I think that the best game is which that i can condivide with my friends...
  Re: Licence posted by Anonymous @ on Oct 27 2005 5:37 AM  
"What is for you the most important feature in an opensource/free software game?" - well, the question already told you that it's free software, eh? :)

  No Music? posted by Angelox @ on Oct 20 2005 4:38 AM  
I think Music is very important too, but I guess when you can only choose one, it has to be gameplay

  Missing answer.... posted by asfand @ on Oct 8 2005 8:38 AM  
An answer was missing, the one I would have chosen had it been there:

-- completeness / spit-n-polish

That's right, I'll play any open source / free software game if it is complete and polished, even if it is mediocre.

I can't actually think of any RPG / adventure type games that fit the bill (saving former commercial games, but those don't count, since they weren't developed from scratch.)
  Re: Missing answer.... posted by Anonymous @ on Dec 24 2005 4:08 PM  
there was an option called little details.

  Many things posted by Anonymous @ on Oct 7 2005 1:38 PM  
Well graphics as much as I normally don't care, better artwork will get more people to want to play it. I think the license is the most important, for me at least. If it's not Free Software then I'm not going to touch it. Gameplay of course is damn important. All parts of a game important really, they have to all work, if one part is utterly crap it can ruin the whole thing even if the other parts were well done.

  Platform Availibility posted by Anonymous @ on Oct 3 2005 2:04 AM  
For me it is very important that a game is available for different Platforms such as Windows, Linux and MacOS, and VERY important not only X86 Linux, i am running PPC here ...
  Re: Platform Availibility posted by Anonymous @ on Oct 3 2005 3:04 AM  
I agree and I am sure everyone else...
I think that over 50% of people playing opensource games are those using diffrent OS than MsWindows..
The platform independence is the bigest benefit of that...

  POLISH! posted by Anonymous @ on Sep 18 2005 11:13 AM  
Something that can pass as a commercial game(not nescesarily from the current era, big budget 3d is hard for a small opensource group). That includes things like compelling backstory, maybe a "scene" or two, pleasing artwork and gameplay without very annoying flaws etc, and lots of depth. Shallow games are okay, but only in some genres(puzzle etc). If you want to release a game with gaps or without polish, that's fine for a game under dev, but don't go above the ol' 1.0 mark if it's not a polished experience. I voted the "little details". It's pretty hard to articulate what I mean here...

  post about free games posted by Anonymous @ on Sep 16 2005 2:32 PM  
hi, i mean that if the game is for free so anyone should be happy and apreciate that the developer make the game.Is spending lots of time ,so critic about the music or graphic or oher thinks are ...... anyway: why you don/t try to write a game for free? hmmmm... i honestly like any game ,simple or not .Is free? thanks very much to person that give game for free!!! Thanks so much!! bye

  Gameplay posted by Snorppy Willfachop @ on Sep 14 2005 12:49 PM  
Unless your a total fanatic, making a linux game won't be your top priority as soon as your home. So open source games can't afford a lot on the eye candy ( though undoubtedly that can be a focus) but on making it as good a game to play as a commercial game.

  Definitely gameplay posted by NetRAVEN5000 @ on Sep 13 2005 4:46 PM  
Gameplay's definitely the most important. Nice sound/graphics are nice, but they're not as important as gameplay. Multiplayer is good, too, but it's not as important as gameplay (unless, of course, it's multiplayer-only). IMO Multiplayer should only be used either as a replacement for or in addition to a good storyline - in other words it should only be used if the developer can't make a good storyline, or if they've already got the storyline and add multiplayer just for fun when you're tired of the campaigns.

  game music + storyline do count! posted by Anonymous @ on Sep 3 2005 1:04 PM  
i remember finding some really old dos game up, i cant remember what it was called, ran it using dosbox etc. the game itself wasnt very original, the graphics were obviously very basic, but the storyline was amazing, and original, and the music was great too so i played it, despite its apparent rubbishness. nowadays, such factors seem to get ignored in games, but a good strong storyline and decent music can really make a game good.
  Re: game music + storyline do count! posted by trick @ on Sep 4 2005 7:36 AM  

Of course music matters! Music has the potential to enhance or even completely change the atmosphere of a game!

Movie scene: A man is sneaking down a dark corridor. With no atmospheric music, we can only assume his intentions are dark. It's a dark corridor, after all. (Silence can be very effective, used correctly, but the effect heavily depends on the use of music in the rest of the film.) Now, if we add some dark, sneaking atmospheric music, there can be no doubt: This man has evil intentions! Something bad is about to happen! On the other hand, if we add some heroic music in stead, the man is suddenly a hero -- his intentions are pure, and he's on our side! Those bad guys better watch out.

A happy game without happy music isn't so happy. Sure, the graphics may be happy fluffy cute bunnies of delight, but without music, something seems to be missing. Good music can enhance the experience, make the game something more than merely the sum of its parts.

So, if we have a game with happy fluffy graphics, it's bound to be a happy game, right ? What if we change the music to a dark horror style track ? Things suddenly got creepy. Something feels very wrong. Vice versa, if we have a game with dark, creepy graphics, and slap on some happy, upbeat music, the game may seem to be more silly than dark -- we're mocking the darkness with the happy beats. It could also seem even creepier, though. Why are all the dark things so happy all of a sudden ? Contrasts like this can also be very powerful, and you can't do them without music.

Don't forget the art of silence, though. As I mentioned before, silence, if used correctly, can be just as effective as music, if not more so. It depends on good usage of music elsewhere, though.

As for storyline, that too is very important, of course, assuming it's a game where a storyline actually makes sense -- you don't need a storyline for your tetris clone, although adding one could still be fun, as long as it doesn't feel forced.

I could write a lot more about the importance of storyline as well (although, make no mistake, I'm by no means an expert on any of this), but I have to go now. Sometime later, perhaps =)

  Re: game music + storyline do count! posted by Anonymous @ on Sep 16 2005 7:21 PM  
Alone in the Dark is a perfect example of a superb soundtrack which enhances the atmosphere of the game. ALL of the listed aspects of the game are important in my mind. The ultimate factors that lead to success in a game are the LITTLE DETAILS which combine all of the other aspects into a cohesive whole.

  No question! posted by Anonymous @ on Sep 3 2005 1:31 AM  
The licence is most important without question. Anyone who's at least 20 years old will have old favourite games that are proprietary and either not sold anymore or won't work on their new computers. A Free Software licence ensures that you'll always be able to play your favourite games because people will be able to keep them up to date for you.

So many "fan remake" projects just don't understand this. They will put blood sweat and tears into their fangame (Kings' Quest 20 or whatnot), it will be proprietary, and it will be lost in the sands of time like all the other ones.

  Re: No question! posted by jorrit @ on Sep 6 2005 12:38 AM  
Umm... A game can have the best Open Source license there is but if the gameplay is bad I'm not going to play it. Gameplay is the most crucial thing for games. Without good gameplay all the rest doesn't matter anymore. Greetings,
  Re: No question! posted by Anonymous @ on Sep 7 2005 5:33 PM  
Really the majority of gamers couldnt giving hoot about the license. If its a free game then great, if its not, they will just pirate it. If there is no decent gameplay then chances are people wont even get to the point of reading the license.
  Re: No question! posted by tuppe666 @ on Sep 7 2005 10:55 PM  
Most people are getting increasingly suspicious of free software, anything that contains a licence with an agree option. I don't like. The put spyware in a everyhing nowerdays
  Re: No question! posted by NetRAVEN5000 @ on Sep 13 2005 4:40 PM  
That's why many of us prefer to call it open source software rather than free software. Software can be free without being open source (for example, KaZaA [it's a Windows filesharing program]) but it often doesn't have the same quality as open-source software. KaZaA, for example, requires that certain spyware programs be installed (unless you use special tools to make it work without them).

  What else can it really be? posted by Techokami @ on Sep 1 2005 5:21 PM  
Games are fun to play if they have good gameplay. It's just like getting a retail game. Games with the flashiest graphics and sound but crappy gameplay are the low-scoring games, because so what if they look and sound pretty, if they play like crap then they're crap! That's because games are meant to be fun, not a bucket of eye candy with a side order of boringness, frustration, and/or glitchyness.
  Re: What else can it really be? posted by trick @ on Sep 2 2005 9:11 AM  
This is true, but graphics, music and little details have the potential to make a fun game even better. Imagine that we have two different games with identical gameplay, however, one of them has much better graphics, an engaging soundtrack, and lots of polish -- not anything annoying, mind, just little details that you maybe wouldn't miss if they weren't there, but once they are they improve the game experience overall. Assuming both run equally well on your computer (ie there's no problems with too slow cpu/gpu or anything like that), which would you rather play ?
  Re: What else can it really be? posted by pawn @ on Sep 2 2005 9:50 AM  
youre right! some simple games with enhanced graphics & music look really polished and mature. i think about heroes ; bub-n-bros ; bobwars & co... there are really good games around :)
  Re: What else can it really be? posted by Techokami @ on Sep 13 2005 2:27 PM  
Well first of all, if one had different (or "better" as you like to use) graphics, musics, and sounds, that game would be considered a completely different game altogether. Unless you're talking about game mods, which is a completely different thing altogether. If we were talking game mods, and gameplay was equal, and both ran at equal speed, then I'd go with the nicer-looking version. However, don't forget that I grew up with my Atari 7600 and SEGA Genesis, I look at gameplay first, polish later.

  416 posted by pawn @ on Aug 31 2005 1:49 PM  
i put gameplay, but i mean "fun" by gameplay. The most important thing for a game is that it isnt boring so you can play it hours and hours all the night. graphics, music & co just make the game more attractive. The gameplay is vital since if it isnt well done then the game will be angry. Multiplayer or singleplayer doesnt matter, but multiplayer games 'on the same box' are, in my experience, a lot more funny :)
  Re: 416 posted by blindcoder @ on Sep 4 2005 5:03 AM  
Heroes of Might and Magic 'Hot Seat' games were great like this :D

  my opinion posted by bigfatdude @ on Aug 31 2005 1:08 PM  
I think gameplay is the most important but a good game also needs good graphics. Music is an added bonus, as well as originality, but classics are always good too. In fact little details can usually be used most effectively to add some originality to a classic. Multiplayer isn't necessary but usually makes a game more enjoyable.

  Odd poll posted by ruskie @ on Aug 30 2005 12:05 AM  
Well for me gameplay and originality are a must in games. Don't care about fancy graphics and so on... The entire mutlimedia content of games is highly overrated... I preffer simple graphics, a good tune a few sound effects and ton of gameplay. License in this poll is an odd choice but it does play an important part for me(GPL or BSD) The little details ar a fun addition to any game... Multiplayer doesn't belong in this poll imho. But prolly cause I only play one multiplayer game... bzflag

  416 posted by vanilla @ on Aug 29 2005 2:26 PM  
I think that graphic, music and other multimedia content is a weak side of open-source games.

  Finally a new poll! posted by Cellfish @ on Aug 28 2005 1:35 AM  
It's a silly question. Many of the options can't really be compared and since most of them are vital to a project, you can't really say that one of them is more important. Generally, I'd say that the most important thing is whatever the game lacks at a given time.

Good graphics is something that is missing in many open source games. First of all it helps create an atmosphere in the game. Secondly, they give potential players the impression that it's a high quality game worth playing. It's the most important in the sense that it's the weakest point and is more in need of attention, but better graphics don't necessarily make a better game.

Without good gameplay, the game wouldn't be fun to play. It sure does improve the gaming experience, but you can live without it.

Music is only vitally important if you want to compete with the very best commercial games.

Originality is something the weakest point of many commercial games, so it's obviously the point where open source games stand strongest.

Multiplayer capability is not something that makes an open source game good or bad. Generally, open source games are either singleplayer-only or multiplayer-only. Often multiplayer, perhaps because AI programming is difficult. Adventure games and puzzle games are pretty much all singleplayer because that's the nature of those genres.

The licence usually doesn't matter at all to most players, it does to developers. So, as long as the development team is small enough, especially if it's just one person, it's not so important. For bigger projects it's important,

Little details may be what makes the game stand out, so again, it's necessary to compete with the best of the best, but not necessary for a game to be playable and enjoyable.
  Re: Finally a new poll! posted by tuppe666 @ on Aug 28 2005 8:40 AM  
Albeit you put everything I wanted to say much more accurately. I'm surprised by the comment on licence, for the user it is important, unless you have pots of money; copyright infringe. After using linux I can't imagine buying a closed-source product again. The games I play consistantly are all either open-source(of some description), or have become so.
  Re: Finally a new poll! posted by trick @ on Aug 30 2005 10:21 AM  
Out of curiosity, would you buy a commercial open source game if it interested you ?
  Re: Finally a new poll! posted by Anonymous @ on Aug 30 2005 8:36 PM  

Such as DROD? Engine itself open source, game data and hence scenarios and much of levels commercial. They seem to do fine.

  Re: Finally a new poll! posted by trick @ on Sep 1 2005 11:28 AM  
Yes, exactly =). I guess I'm biased here (I ported DROD, etc), and maybe I should have mentioned that, but I'm not just interested in if he would buy DROD or not. I'm just curious what he thinks about this in general. He seems to confuse "open source" with "free as in beer".
  Re: Finally a new poll! posted by tuppe666 @ on Sep 14 2005 6:33 PM  
LOL. I don't think I do confuse free as in beer with 'open source', although I do admit I never really understood the whole free as in freedom thing. I mention cost because. My I live in a tiny house, and had to do clearout. I must have thown out all my old games, which at the time I'd spent a small fortune on, lots on floppy disks or DOS stuff that I would still play play on a rainy day, but its garbage. I manged to save my old Doom/BBC elite/Spear of Desterny manual out of it all, becuase I still play them all in one form or another. As for drod well...I'll give it a go.

  all of the above realy posted by gaminggeek @ on Aug 26 2005 6:24 PM  
There needs to be an all of the above option.
  Re: all of the above realy posted by trick @ on Aug 30 2005 10:19 AM  

Agreed, at least partly. All are equally important, except multiplayer and license. Multiplayer only applies to some genres, and license is less important as long as it doesn't invade my privacy.


  Completeness is what's needed posted by Anonymous @ on Aug 26 2005 12:34 PM  
I voted for gameplay, because that seemed to fit me best. But I'd say that the most important thing for any game is that it is complete. Many linux games lacks this feature, you can play one or two levels, with halfsloppy graphics. Then they tell you do wait for a later version in witch more levels/features will be availible, but from my personal experience I'd say that most opensource games doesn't live long enough to implement these features. This is really sad, because it really makes an otherwise promising game dull.

  Strange Poll posted by tuppe666 @ on Aug 26 2005 11:40 AM  
I personally find this a strange little poll, for several reasons, the first being its not really one poll but at least 3. Gameplay will be an obvious winner, as this is the most important, but obviously with the exception of puzzles graphics/music and to a lesser extent originality all play a part. Its almost a list of what makes up a good game. I was tempted to click on both graphics and music, because linux has the rest in spades. I finally chose licence, because I left propriaty gaming a long time ago. but really it does not fit in this poll, more a poll of its own, that may as well say open vs closed source.
  Re: Strange Poll posted by cybersphinx @ on Aug 27 2005 1:43 PM  
Yeah, the result is not very surprising... A game has to be fun, that lies in its nature, everything else is just icing on the cake.
  Re: Strange Poll posted by jammet @ on Aug 31 2005 10:56 PM  
Most of the open source games have inferior art, graphics, music. Really, I chose graphics this time just to emphasize that we already HAVE gameplay in most of these games. What we do not have is halfway decent graphics to encourage more people to actually play these games.
  Re: Strange Poll posted by Anonymous @ on Sep 8 2005 2:31 AM  
I disagree, while most games are pretty playable it is really really hard to make a game with the standard or depth of gameplay found in huge professional works.
  Re: Strange Poll posted by Anonymous @ on Sep 21 2005 3:36 AM  
This is true to an extent, but as a player of Nethack and other Rogue-likes (ADOM's my favorite) I know that there are exceptions to the rule. I don't think any commercial game would ever have the depth of these games since the amount of time and effort it takes to make a game with depth this great would require sacrificing resources on the things that sell - graphics, music, dare-I-say polish (nothing worse than losing a promising character due to a crash). ASCII Rogue-likes are my winner because of the sheer depth and variation of gameplay, the tension they produce, the tactical and strategic challenges they pose. Many have argued, and I partially agree, that graphical improvements to these games spoil them, since the best graphics card on the planet is in your own head. That Ancient Karmic Wyrm will never look as terrifying on screen as it did when it woke me in a cold sweat the other night (I play far, far too much, and I have a fever from a cold). Still, it would be nice to see a Rogue-like developed into a first-person perspective 3D extravaganza, or even a top-down tactical game (like, it occurs to me, S.C.O.U.R.G.E. - Heroes of Lesser Renown).
  Re: Strange Poll posted by Anonymous @ on Dec 4 2005 5:27 PM  

News Submit a Game Forums About/FAQ

Copyright © 1999-2005 Bob Zimbinski. Feedback to