Talk:Rogue (video game)/Archive 1

Neutrality

Although this article is written with pretty professional quality, it's clear that it just isn't very neutral. As of now it reads more like a mashup of a rewiew and a summary than an encyclopedia article. Any ideas how to fix this? Robot Chicken 03:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence "It can be played by beginners and long-time players with equal enjoyment," as it is not encyclopedic in tone. --DOHC Holiday 15:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Good call. It was POV. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

---

To follow up on that, it appears that the first sentence isn't even true. Rogue was popular only amongst the computer geek subculture, which at the time was very small. The statement that Rogue was "extremely popular in colleges..." is simply not true. Denim jackets were extremely popular in colleges in the 80s; Mario Brothers, Zelda, and Castlevania were extremely popular in colleges in the 80s; Pac Man was extremely popular in colleges in the 80s; Rogue was not. Compared to things that were actually popular in colleges in the 80s, Rogue was basically unheard of. Calling it popular at all is questionable, calling it "extremely popular" is laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.158.21.60 (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that sentence says 'early to mid 80s, and also with UNIX systems. So, except PacMan, the games you mention were not available yet - and I could believe that Rogue was more interesting to play than PacMan :) And many college students at that time probably never accessed a UNIX system. Nevertheless, the statement still needs a reference - I'll add a to it. --Allefant 13:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the sentence could be worded a bit differently, but it is certainly true that from 1980-1985, Rogue was far and away the most popular game running on UNIX systems on college campuses, which is my understanding of the meaning of the sentence. Capmango 16:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That may have been the intended meaning, but that's not how the sentence reads (now). D. Brodale 18:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I really like the way you worded it here. Why not adopt that wording? "Rogue was far and away the most popular game running on UNIX systems on college campuses in the early 80s." Sounds great to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.158.21.60 (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but that wording would still need a citation, and I don't have one offhand. Several articles have been written about the rogue phenomenon over the years (many of them in Japanese periodicals, but one comprehensive one in an issue of Edge Magazine (UK)), but I can't find them at the moment; most of those focus on how influential the game is, not how popular it was in its day. Anyone happen to know in which issue of Edge the Rogue article appeared? Capmango 17:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

However this is resolved, I notice now that a similar claim is made on the roguelike article: "In its heyday, Rogue was the most popular dungeon crawl game." Over there, there's a reflink where the closest approximate source is the line, "Over the next three years, Rogue became the most popular game on college campuses." I'm inclined to believe it may have been the most popular game on UNIX systems (as noted above) on college campuses, but generalized against all games available at the time? I would think that doubtful. D. Brodale 18:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I found a source at 1up.com and added it: http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3123537 Rogue was distributed as part of a popular Unix package early in its life, thus spreading to computer geeks far and wide. (and i guess anyone using unix computers in the 80s was considered a "computer geek"). I also tried to adjust the wording as suggested above. --Allefant 18:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That article doesn't help make that case because it talks only about its widespread distribution and says nothing about its popularity. It mentions that the package it comes in is popular, but did people get the package due to the inclusion of Rogue, or did they get it for other reasons? Due to its inclusion in Windows, Mine Sweeper is likely to be one of the most widely distributed games ever made. Does this also make it one of the most popular? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.158.21.59 (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

True. But since there was not many other games available until some of those you mentioned above were first published a few years later, I think it was different back then. Also, the percentage of people actually playing computer games was much smaller, so a game could be extremely popular even if played by far fewer people than Halo 3. Still, if someone finds a better source, please add it. We have all those blogs and newsgroups (and Capmango himself) asserting it, so I'm quite sure it is true, and 1up.com as a Wikipedia-acceptable source at least indirectly backs it up. I also wouldn't mind myself if it is reformulated to just say what the reference say (i.e. replace popular by widespread). --Allefant 11:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ports

"Later verions replaced the characters with graphical tiles, but the gameplay remained the same." -- any details about which version of rogue this refers to? The linked article does mention ports to other platforms from the original Unix.

It was ported to the Mac and Amiga by Epyx. These versions used graphics. Epyx also did the PC version, which used ASCII characters like the original, but in color. I think they also did an Apple II version—perhaps even Commodore 64 and Atari 800 versions. —Frecklefoot 15:38 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The Macintosh port was the first to use graphical tiles instead of ASCII characters. The graphical tiles for the Mac version were designed by Glenn Wichman. This was followed by versions for Amiga and Atari ST, developed simultaneously by Michael and Glenn respectively. Epyx ultimately added a version for CoCo. There were no versions done by A.I.Design or Epyx for Commodore 64 or Atari 400/800. Capmango 23:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Source code

The linked article also says the sourcecode of the original was never released. I found on the net a file rogue36.zip which contains rog36.tar.Z which has the source files, the most recent timestamp is Mar 8, 1987. Most files are dated Sep 24 1982 and have headers such as: * @(#)move.c 3.26 (Berkeley) 6/15/81 so maybe this is one of the original versions.

Yes, the original version was released with the Berkeley version of Unix, so it's been around for a while. I didn't see a reference to the source code not being released, so I assume you nixed it. —Frecklefoot 15:38 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't think the source code was ever officially released. Berkeley certainly didn't ship it. Older BSD releases only contained object code, and in later releases it was replaced by a clone. 81.245.42.53 04:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Monsters

It would be interesting to list the names of all 26 monsters... --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 10:30, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

see below for list of monsters

also, i've lost track of the number of times i've been killed by trolls. Gringo300 19:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Wizard's password

does anyone on here by any chance know what the wizard's password is?

First off, sign your posts. Do this with 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). The latter is preferred, since it also adds a timestamp.

To answer your question, it depends on what version of Rogue you are playing. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:45, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

i've long been curious: what exactly does the wizard's password do? Gringo300 03:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The wizard's password gives you God mode in rogue - you get to create anything you want. You can get it by decoding rogue in binary. 128.139.226.37 1 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)

ok... how do you decode rogue in binary? Gringo300 14:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

now i know that in certain online versions of rogue, you don't have to have the wizard's password to become a wizard. Gringo300 13:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Screenshot

I'm glad this article finally has a screenshot, but I object to it since it's in color. One of the defining aspects of Rogue is that it was originally in B&W. See the example screen on Roguelike for an example of what I think would be preferable. Just my $.02...— Frecklefoot | Talk 18:41, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Although I played many a game of Rogue back in those days (an 11/750 makes a really nice personal playstation), I can't actually say for sure if the game supported color or not, since none of our terminals did. When I first fired up Rogue Clone on my Mac, my first thought was exactly the same, "Color!? This isn't right!". But you get used to it :-) It still sucks to get teleported into a room where you're immediately frozen by an ice monster and killed by a bat before you can get yourself unfrozen. --RoySmith 19:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I may have misspoken. I don't know if the original Unix version of Rogue had color support or not, though I doubt it did (most users probably only had green CRTs anyway). But the original ports of Rogue (by the original authors of the game) for the Amiga, DOS, etc. were in color (the original Mac version was monochrone, but so was the Mac). But most ports/clones made today are in B&W, so... who knows? It still would be nice to have a screengrab of the game being played on a green monitor from "the olden days." :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:56, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Just FYI, the first use of color in Rogue was in Jon Lane's PC version. The UNIX versions made no use of color. Capmango 02:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

---

monster list

in at least some versions: aquators, bats, centaurs, dragons, emus, (venus) flytraps, griffins, hobgoblins, ice monsters, jabberwocks, kestrels, leprechauns, medusas, nymphs, orcs, phantoms, quaggas, rattlesnakes, snakes, trolls, urviles, vampires, wraiths, xerocs, yetis, and zombies.

i've always been curious as to why snakes and rattlesnakes are presented as distinct creatures. that's like "dogs AND doberman pincers". Gringo300 03:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

-I'm not sure, but I think the original version had a monster called Slime instead of snake, the moved slowly, and replicated from time to time. Maybe they took it out because it was to difficult to defeat in the beginning. 128.139.226.37

Rattlesnakes used to be Giant Ants from AD&D. They started to move away from D&D monsters, possibly due to fear of copyright issues, and so some monsters changed. Aquators used to be rust monsters, Black Unicorns (or urviles) used to be Xorns, and Xerocs used to be Mimics. Bbagot 01:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are some others: Jabberwocks used to be Purple Worms, Ice Monsters used to be Floating Eyes, Phantoms used to be Invisible Stalkers, and Medusas used to be UmberHulks. Basically any creature that had meaning outside of D&D was kept, but those that didn't were changed. So you still had creatures like Zombies, Griffins, and Dragons. Bbagot 20:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's my best recollection of monsters. It includes the old rogue version. This was on the Unix system and predated putting to personal PC's. I've also included level the monster is first found in paranthesis (). These levels may be different on the PC versions as they are a bit easier. The most deadly creatures for their level were Centaurs (7), Trolls (13), and Xorns (17).

Letter - Monster (Level)

• A - Giant Ant (2)
• B - Bat (1)
• C - Centaur (7)
• D - Dragon (20)
• E - Emu (1)
• F - Floating Eye (2)
• G - Griffin (18)
• H - Hobgoblin (1)
• I - Invisible Stalker (15)
• J - Jackal (1)
• K - Kestral (1)
• L - Lephracaun (6)
• M - Mimic (16)
• N - Nymph (9)
• O - Orc (5)
• P - Purple Worm (19)
• Q - Quasit (11)
• R - Rust Monster (9)
• S - Snake (1)
• T - Troll (13)
• U - Umberhulk (18)
• V - Vampire (19)
• W - Wraith (15)
• X - Xorn (17)
• Y - Yeti (11)
• Z - Zombie (5)

Bbagot 20:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Ur-vile?

Question: What is an ur-vile? --129.123.26.8

It's a monster from Rogue. Why do you ask? — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Is it a reference to Stephen Donaldson's Thomas Covenant books? It's the only other place I've ever found an "ur-vile". 210.211.95.16 17:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

In all the versions of Rogue I've played, U is a Black Unicorn. Nasty beasts, the next big step up from Trolls, and the worst thing you're going to meet short of a Dragon. --RoySmith 17:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Including Griffins? 128.139.226.34 20:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Commercial Variants of Rogue in Japan?

In 1991, there is "Fatal Labyrinth" (Genesis/Megadrive, 1991) which could be considered as the first commercial variants of Rogue (because it took a lot of ideas from rogue with some extra features) but it's not so good and successful.

"Fushigi no Dungeon" series (starting from "Torneko no Daibouken" in 1993) themself are the most successful titles in Japan and start the trend of Japanese console roguelike games.

"Fushigi no Dungeon have much tighter game balance, so that the challenge level is just right. Some role playing games (such as Climax Landers and Evolution) have also imported some roguelike concepts (primarily the randomly generated dungeon), but honestly not to any satisfactory effect, since the randomly generated dungeon plays little significance if battles take part in a different environment (namely, the orthodox RPG combat engine). Without its effect on playability, a randomly generated dungeon would in fact feel featureless and boring." - interesting review from GameFAQs

How they can be the variants of rogue? - Feature one class which is warrior-type or Jack-of-all-trades. Supernatural powers are rely on items. - Simple stats. - Dungeon theme is a lot like rogue. - Item sets like Potion, Wand (or rod), and Scroll. "Furai no Shiren" also add Pots which are work as containers or item manipulating tools. - ETC.

Just some thought and review... -- Indego

Anything but Rogue is not Rogue. What you are describing is one of the many roguelikes, which we have an entire article on. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:07, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

---

About Rodney

According to an interview with Glenn Wichman (http://home.arcor.de/cybergoth/gamesc/rogueinterview.html)

"We envsioned Rodney (the character you play, represented by the @) as kind of a goofy loser, not a brave warrior. I had done a series of pen-and-ink illustrations of Rodney and all of Rogue's monsters for use in the manual, but Epyx wouldn't use them because they were too cartoony."

I think he is an original protagonist in this game which is less known (or it's just the name?) but can be interesting if we know more about him. (Do any one think about that?)

At least his favorite fruit (well, it's not a real fruit) is slime mold... eh? (might be not because in dungeon of doom he has only two choice... food or slime mold.)

Alto

Thanks for contributing. The correct way to sign your name is with 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). It works even if you don't have an account. The latter form is preferred since it also leaves a timestamp. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

---

What's wrong with the 1980s?

I had the 1980s wikilinked in the article (like this 1980s). I thought it was appropriate since we have a whole article on it. A user just unwikilinked it and cited WP:DATE as the reason for changing it. I read the whole page and didn't find anything that said not to wikilink eras. What specific policy does this violate? — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Frecklefoot, I just read through WP:DATE and I don't know why Cyde would have removed the internal links. I've reverted the changes.Pixelface 00:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, in the WP:DATE#Partial_dates Partial dates section it says:

There is consensus among editors that bare month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article. There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text.

Above it also says "Wikipedians are not required to follow any of these rules."

I don't think the links to 1980 and 1980s reduce the readability of the text, so I've left them in.Pixelface 01:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Diablo?

Don't the Diablo games qualify as Roguelikes? They may be more advanced and have slightly different gameplay but the legacy is clearly there.

See the discussion here. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion - add SDF

All, I added the below and Frecklefoot removed it saying it was spam. I argued it wasn't and he suggested I bring it to everyone's attention. Here it is:

• To play Rogue on a Unix computer, see SDF Public Access UNIX System made available by Super Dimension Fortress.

Should that or a reworded version be added? I say yes, and here's why:

From what I can see, the existing links have lot's of info on Rogue or on downloading Rogue but none on actually playing the game immediately. The site I am suggesting would allow that. You just have to sign up for a free account first. Now we are talking about Rogue. Rogue was a game created by guys hacking around on the computer, hacking in the good sense. They had access to a UNIX system and they created Rogue. Does anyone doubt such people would encourage others to get access to a UNIX system, learn its ins and outs, and perhaps accomplish something? Well the site I suggested allows just that, and I think the Rogue creators would be happy to see on this wiki page a link to a resource that give them the start they also needed so long ago. And the site I am recommending is not spam and does not spam you. It is a well known, long existing public access UNIX box for educational purposes. It even has its own wiki page to learn more about it. So while it's true you first have to get an account to play Rogue, 1) you can play Rogue right away, 2) you get free access to a UNIX account on a UNIX system, and 3) games like Rogue are intended or created as teaching tools and so is the free account at the web site I am recommended; such a link is totally in the spirit of people helping others to learn UNIX. For these reasons and others, I would like to see the above link included as an external link. What say you all? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I already gave my feedback on my Talk page, but here it is again for this discussion. I refute all your points:

1. You can't play Rogue right away; you can right after you sign up for an account.
2. Unix isn't really the point of this article.
3. Rogue was not created as a teaching tool, it was created as entertainment. Through creating it, the programmers developed some new paradigms in game design, but there isn't really anything in Rogue that "teaches" or attempts to help users learn Unix. It was created specifically for entertainment. Plus, there are official ports of Rogue to other systems that don't closely resemble Unix.

And, lastly, I don't really think we can guess what the original authors would "want." I doubt they even care if others learn Unix (but, again, I can't really guess what they want). But our articles aren't written to please the subjects of the articles, but just to relay the facts. If something we say in one of our articles displeases the subject, that's too bad. If it please them, great. But pleasing the subjects isn't our goal.

All right, since it was brought up: I don't care if you learn UNIX or not. Capmango 23:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

To sum up, Unix isn't really the point of the article. The link is to get a Unix account, which is only marginally related to the subject of the article. Just my $.02... — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

K, thx. I see your point. Let's see what others say. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 15:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Frecklefoot; the link is far too tangential to the subject of Rogue. In any case, there are already two links in the article that allow people to play Rogue right away, without signing up for an account: the first two under "Ports, clones, and remakes." —Celithemis

Amulet of Yendor (please merge the content below into the article)

In several computer games, the Amulet of Yendor ("Rodney" spelled backwards) is the object the player needs to retrieve from the dungeon in order to win. It first appeared in Rogue and its sequels UltraRogue and Advanced Rogue; later Hack and NetHack also featured it, but with the added condition that it must be brought to the "Astral Plane" and sacrificed for the player to ascend (win). The amulet is featured in the MMORPG, the Kingdom of Loathing, and is a useless "prank" item obtained from using a certain rare in the game.

The origin of the name Yendor is unclear. The name might allude to the Witch of Endor, a biblical character who owned a talisman with magical powers. One Rogue author has a vague memory of it simply being chosen because it sounded "fantasy-like" (cf. Mordor, Gondor, and other similar place names in J. R. R. Tolkien's books) and was amusing because it was Rodney spelled backwards.

In the words of Michael Toy,

"The idea was that the dungeon had been constructed by a wizard, and that the quest was to retrieve his lost amulet. In a weak attempt at humor, the all-mighty wizard who creates the dungeon is given the name 'Rodney' spelled backwards. Rodney was selected at random, in an instant, as a very unlikely name for a powerful wizard. Through the brilliant (or so it seemed when I was 19), technique of reversing the letters of his name, this secret joke was now "hidden" in a very reasonable 'fantasy sounding' name of Yendor." (Gondor, Mordor, etc.)

Some microcomputer ports of Rogue (but possibly not the original UNIX version) had 'Rodney' as the default player name.

It is referenced in the I.S.P. Survivor game in the comic User Friendly in April 22, 2007, as one of the items the player Sid needs to collect. Link to this game

Thanks, Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 03:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Psychology, Theory, Philosophy, etc. on Rogue?

Think about following features;

• Permanent Death
• Limited Time (mostly from foods)
• Unknown objects
• Limited Choices in many situation (from forcing you to descend down or in dead-or-alive situation)
• Winable/Unwinable
• etc.

Many game has some research too but for roguelike ...especially rogue... it may look more simple than many roguelike but from Rog-O-Matic we can see that how complicated it is. Will it have more interesting research on them? But I'm quite sure that it contain one fact... Rogue is more like dungeon survival simulation than a usual role playing game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.5.89.60 (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't see any way to add a section on this without doing original research. Capmango 16:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

AOY

Amulet Of Yendor redirects here even though said amulet is present in more than one game. FIX IT!! 124.197.54.130 04:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There is not enough information on it to justify a separate article for it as of yet. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Just what is that threshold, anyway? There seem to be plenty of 1-paragraph articles. I agree that there is very little to be said about the Amulet of Yendor, but it also is odd to have it in the Rogue page (even though it originated in Rogue), because it is used in other games. I had nothing to do with the original "FIX IT" post, BTW. Capmango 17:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, what could be said other than:

The Amulet of Yendor is a fictional artifact present in several computer games. It originated in the game Rogue. It is "Rodney" spelled backwards. It is uncertain who "Rodney" refers to.

Does that look like a complete article to you? — Fгɛςкlɛƒoστ | Talk 12:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks complete, it just doesn't look long :) . It's not uncertain to me who Rodney is :) :) . I would just add to the article a list of all known games (and any other references in popular culture) to the Amulet (maybe 5 items in that list?). I see no harm in having a really short article. I also don't care all that much one way or the other, I just wondered if there was any sort of consensus on minimum length of an article. Capmango 16:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Variants

In time, it would be nice to insert a section covering variants, as Rogue acquired quite a few in its day (e.g., SuperRogue, UltraRogue). There is already some mention of the commercialization, though curiously no one has noted the existence of "Rogue II", a rather obscure sequel of sorts marketed by Epyx as well. D.brodale 13:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of Rogue II, and I'm pretty familiar with the subject. Do you have a box or a screen shot or anything? Capmango 04:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Google "rogue'ii" and check the second result returned. The write-up reads no differently than what one might expect of Rogue proper. It may be a later redistribution of sorts(?); I don't recall whether I ever compared its disk image to the standard Rogue for Atari ST. I have seen Rogue II ST diskettes on eBay, but have yet to spot or obtain anything that might pass as its original, full packaging. Like I said, obscure ... though there seems to be something legitimate about it. Perhaps an elaborate hoax :) D.brodale 07:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That is very strange. The only thing that looks different from Epyx Rogue for ST (which I wrote) is the splash screen. I've never heard of second city, inc, who claims to have designed the game. But the graphics and the monster descriptions are identical to the Rogue that I wrote. I'd love to find out the whole story behind that. Capmango 13:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is a hoax, but probably a pretty obscure sequel, made only for the ST. I couldn't find it on MobyGames, but that doesn't really prove anything. Perhaps there is an Atari ST fansite out there with more info. But, nonetheless, it has to be very obscure to have escaped the notice of so many people. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

MacRogue Merger Proposal

I don't see MacRogue as a viable article on its own. It's simply a port of Rogue and should probably be merged here within the "Authorship" section. D. Brodale 04:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. There's not very much info to merge anyway. --Allefant 09:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• The MacRogue article is very small. To the best of my knowledge, MacRogue is not a port, it is a rewrite. I think merging is reasonable. But not in the authorship section. We should add a "ports and derivatives" section and put it there. Capmango 18:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Roll 2d6 and if the sum is less than or equal to 12, merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Snake eyes, she's history. Really, there's nothing worth saving but the link; the author isn't notable, there isn't even a release date. stephan.com 03:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Goofily Defensive Claim Flagged for NPOV

I've flagged the following sentence for neutrality, though I'd like to flag it for goofiness, too:

"While the graphics are archaic by today's gaming standards, the strategy necessary to play and succeed is more complex than many CRPGs of the 1990s and 2000s."

This strikes me as terribly self-defensive in tone, and its claim may be impossible to prove, if not entirely false. I'm in favor of nuking the whole thing outright, as I believe the language prior to it is adequate to suggest the game's complexity. Someone can constructively expand upon depth of gameplay later, but I don't think the route taken above is appropriate. D. Brodale 08:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't sense any tone in the sentence at all. It's just stating a reasonably non-controversial fact: Rogue's graphics are primitive but the game play is complex. The claim of being more complex than many (note it doesn't say most) games of the '90s and '00s is I suppose hard to 'prove' unless you come up with a scientific measure of complexity and apply it to computer games. I think it's a perfectly neutral sentence that is useful in understanding what Rogue is. I think the flag should just be removed. (note: I had no involvement in writing that section of the article) Capmango 16:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)