Going Old-School with Nethack

by Chris Buecheler | 6. May 2009 09:55 | permalink

"No! It's too strong! I ... oh, damn it, the f*cking troll killed Carbomb."

"What the hell are you talking about?" asks my wife Charlotte, who with a quick glance toward the little bed perched on our window-shelf can see that our cat, Carbomb, is still totally alive and sleeping peacefully.

"Oh," I say. "I set the game so that if I start with a pet cat, the cat's name is Carbomb."

"That's a game?"

"Sure. This little 'at' symbol is me, and that 'T' is a troll, and this is a ..."

"Sounds great," she says, and goes back to her book.

Okay, so perhaps not everyone understands the appeal of Nethack. Actually, it seems likely that the vast bulk of today's gamers have never heard of Nethack, which really is something of a shame. How many games do you know of which have been in near-constant development for thirty years, boast a stunning depth of artificial intelligence unrivaled by modern titles, and will run flawlessly on any computer, of any speed, running any operating system available?

 


 We're talking about a game which uses the ANSI character set for its graphics, so it's not exactly processor-intensive and it's not looking for any 3D acceleration (there's a windows edition that uses a graphical tile-set, but real men go for the original). Granted, it's turn-based, which makes the AI slightly less stunning than it would be in real-time. And sure, it requires you to flex that big, grey muscle in your head in order to turn a 'T' into a hulking troll capable of dealing out great whomps of damage (not to mention returning from the dead). Still, Nethack is a fine title worthy of respect. It's the Clint Eastwood of games: venerable, spindly-looking, and yet somehow still a bad-ass who keeps on doing what he does at a high level.

Based on the original UNIX title "Rogue," Nethack is a dungeon-exploration game. The most easily-comparable modern titles would be the Diablo series, which certainly took their cue from Nethack and other Rogue-like games. The game is pretty easy to get into at the start. You're presented with a couple of simple choices: Name, Character Class, Race, Alignment ... standard D&D stuff. You're then dumped into the first dungeon level with a few inventory items and a pet (either a little dog or a kitten). From there, it's up to you to explore, fighting monsters, gathering items, and avoiding traps. Eventually, if you're good enough, you'll make it down through many levels - most randomly generated, some pre-created - to steal an amulet from the Wizard of Yendor, bring the amulet all the way back to the top of the dungeon and then through the astral planes, to lay at the altar of your God.

That's how you win the game, but mostly what you'll be doing at first is dying. A lot. You'll die of starvation. You'll die because you accidentally punched a shop keeper and he beat you to death. You'll die because a Gnomish Wizard cursed your two-handed sword, welding it to your hands, so you were unable to pick up that potion of extra healing you desperately needed. You'll die in ways that will make you snarl in frustration, or cackle in unexpected amusement. And while you're doing all of this dying, you'll be learning. Soon you'll know which monsters are safe to eat and which are poisonous. You'll know how to polymorph your dog into a silver dragon. You'll know how to survive for much longer than you were initially able.

 

Still, you'll probably never beat the game. No, I'm not kidding. I've been playing Nethack off and on since I was ten years old - back in the halcyon days of 1987 - and the only time I've ever seen the ending screen was when I cheated my way through the game. In fact, the only time I've even seen the Wizard of Yendor was that same cheat-riddled play-through. I did make it to his front door once without cheating, and was promptly drowned by a giant eel. Sonsabitches! Shoulda remembered my oilskin cloak.

It's quite possible that Nethack is the single hardest game I've ever played, and yet I keep coming back. Why? Because it's never the same experience twice. Huge chunks of the game are generated randomly each time you play, including most dungeon layouts and the monsters that populate them. These monsters can vary from incredibly stupid to highly intelligent. The smarter opponents will pick up items and use them, unlock doors, cast spells on you, and often do things that surprise you. The first time you die because an enemy picks up a potion of sleeping that you discarded, hurls it at your face, and proceeds to beat you to death while you sleep, you'll understand what I mean.

Feeling overwhelmed? Scared the game's going to be too hard or confusing? Don't worry too much -- you've got something I didn't have when I was ten: The Internet. The main Nethack site has lots of documentation links, and there's also the invaluable user-driven database at WikiHack which contains a veritable ton of information, tips, tricks and techniques, all easily searchable. Best of all, the game is totally free ... if you don't like it, you can walk away without feeling bad!

So don't be scared. Grab a copy and immerse yourself in another world. Sure, it's a little drab, but it's an important piece of gaming history that, I suspect, you'll enjoy a lot.

Currently rated 5.0 by 7 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Tune out TV, turn on games

by James Fudge | 7. April 2009 22:54 | permalink

Prime time is no longer the stronghold of television anymore, according to some data released by Nielsen. These days, gamers of all shapes, sizes, genders and ages, are turning to computers and consoles for entertainment. Of course, this data does not yet take into account programs recorded using Tivo and DVR, but it is certainly a shift. And what, if any affect has Hulu had on TV viewing? I know I watch a lot of programs there instead of watching them when they air because it is more convenient. Does this factor into the decline Nielson is seeing?

The most popular console remained the PS2, but usage is on a decline and should be out of the top spot in a few months. The report also suggested that Xbox 360 and PS3 users are more engaged and less likey to watch TV during prime-time.

 So what were the most popular games on the PC? According to the data, which tracks 185,000 PCs (Dec. 2008), free games were the most popular. And by free games I mean solitaire and Minesweeper. When those kinds of games weren't being played, it was World of Warcraft.

More data:

- The PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 were the most used consoles with the Wii having the fewest average usage days and the shortest daily average number of sessions of the big three. Of course, the PS2 blew away all three at a whopping 28.3 percent usuage. Of course this usuage is on a downward trend.

- Females 25 years + make up the largest block of PC game players accounting for 46.2 percent of all players and 54.6 percent of all game play minutes in December 2008.

- The most played games on the PC are card games from Microsoft, with the most played game being Solitaire - more than 17 million players for the month of December 2008.

 

Want more? Read this PDF file or check out the Nielsen Blog.

Currently rated 5.0 by 1 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

TV

OnLive: Hoping to be Fashionably Early to the Remote Play Party

by Kyle Orland | 30. March 2009 10:50 | permalink

 

Even though the Game Developers Conference is supposed to be about, y'know, game development, it was actually a game distribution system called OnLive that quickly became the talk of the show. It's not hard to see why: the service promises to revolutionize gaming by running high-end games on remote servers, taking in player input over the Internet and sending the experience back as a simple video stream that can be run on any low-end computer or a low-cost set-top box. If it works, OnLive could make the cycle of buying expensive video game consoles and top-of-the-line computers utterly obsolete.

Of course, the "if it works" part of that sentence is the key. The company showed a demo of the technology at GDC, and while my experience playing Crysis from a remote server hundreds of miles away was passable, it was far from perfect. The video quality was inconsistent, ranging from ultra-grainy, YouTube-style compression to a sort of muddy high definition that didn't look quite as crisp as I'd have expected from a high-end local PC. The bigger problem, though, was the slight-but-noticeable lag between my tapping a key and seeing the resulting action appear on screen. This kind of delay is near meaningless for some games -- puzzles and MMOs, for example -- but in the FPS and RTS-filled world of computer gaming, this is a potentially fatal flaw. And remember, this was under close-to-ideal demo conditions at a trade show. Will OnLive really be able to maintain even this low level of performance when thousands or even millions of users are logging in at once?

Here's the thing: It might not matter. Sure the experience might be imperfect right now, but it won't always be this way. Assuming Moore's Law keeps up at its current rate, processing and streaming high-definition game video in real time with near-zero latency will eventually be as trivial as transmitting an instant message is today. It may take a decade (or even more) but it seems inevitable that, one day, gaming over a remote server will be nearly indistinguishable from gaming on a local console or computer.

That day obviously isn't here yet, but again, it might not matter. If OnLive can attract enough interest in its current, imperfect form, it could manage to hang on as a company until that day when seamless remote play is a reality. When that day comes, OnLive would be the established, well-known brand in the space, ready to accept the flood of mass market users that will come rushing to enjoy seamless, high-end gaming without the need to buy high-end hardware.

That's what I imagine OnLive's plan is, anyway. They're hoping to be early enough to the remote gaming party to introduce themselves to those first few stragglers walking in the door. Then, when the party really gets going, all the latecomers will see OnLive as the life of the party, not as the awkward earlybird hanging out by the bowl of dip. It's a risky strategy, but one that has a bigger potential upside than showing up to the party near the end, when all the cool people have left and the beer keg is down to just foam and the tortilla chips are starting to get stale.

OK, I promise the analogy is over now. But the point stands!

Currently rated 3.9 by 7 people

  • Currently 3.857143/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags: , ,

GDC

The Chatter Box

  • Recent
  • Active
  • Status
ChknKitty

ChknKitty Says

Wow, people win every day in the Chicken Out contest! Sign up and win.

Xbox 360 | PS3 | Wii | PSP | DS | PC
The Games That Time Forgot

The Games That Time Forgot


The games we're pulling together in this feature won't appear on any of those best-of lists and get confused looks when you mention them in conversation. Just because time has forgotten these titles, though, doesn't mean you should forget them, too.

» Read On

Expand Box

© Crispy Gamer, Inc. All rights reserved.

By continuing past this page, and by your continued use of this site,
you agree to be bound by and abide by the User Agreement.