Talk:Rogue (video game)

message: 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)
thread_title: Original source

message: 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)
thread_title: Wikiproject Video Games assessment

message: []
Not sure how to add this in footnotes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenparkes (talk • contribs) 16:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added it.  You can look here to see how to add footnotes. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation for Mastertronic release?

message: 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)
thread_title:    rm image that bears no significant relation to article text (hacked DOS version title screen 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. It was all someone's personal views and original research. Removed. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler Section 

message: ------------
                                |          |
  --------------------          |          +######################
  |                  |  ########+          |                     #
  |%                 +###       |          |                     #
  -----------+--------          -+----------                     #
      ########                                                   #
  ----+---                                                       #
  |      |                                                       #
  |      |                                                       #
  |      |                                                       #
  |      |                                                    ####
  |      |                                                    #
  ---+----                                                    #
     ############                                             #
  --------------+-                                            #
  |              |         -----+--------------               #
  |              |         |......]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)
replies: text: "You hear a high pitched humming noise." MinorProphet (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Sample screen

message: The game is available on Debian using apt=get bdsgames-nonfree
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: apt-get

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140315043642/http://science-fiction.fch.ir/rogue/doc/An_expert_system_outperforms_mere_mortals_as_it_conquers_the_feared_Dungeons_of_Doom.html to http://science-fiction.fch.ir/rogue/doc/An_expert_system_outperforms_mere_mortals_as_it_conquers_the_feared_Dungeons_of_Doom.html
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65tnSAzFH?url=http://www.1up.com/features/essential-50-rogue to http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3123537
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The Xeroc seems confused. You feel hungry. The Xeroc strikes!  You die. MinorProphet (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Furthermore, "Rogue" is, fundamentally, "Rogue"-like. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The genre makes no sense....