Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > > I bet you a tasty beverage that it will grow over time! :) > > I don't believe in the future until I can see it.
Huh - what does that mean? Obviously neither of us can say with certainty what will happen in the future and that's also not the point - making a friendly bet that nobody suffers from losing is an easy way for both sides to approach each other (helps if working in the same project) while at the same time stating their respective points. > I'm pretty sure that's the same thing that they said about > app-antivirus at some point Maybe, but there are a lot more games than there are antivirus apps. > > So your number is 20. My number and the number of at least one other > > is lower. > > Yes, but unlike you, I'm a developer that needs to pick up the pieces. I don't buy that. If someone else makes b0rk then they need to pick up the pieces themselves, not you do it for them. > >> and a roguelike would *not* fit in the genre to begin with. > > > > Says you, while I and at least one other say that such a game does > > have strong focus on adventure/exploration. > > So either Matt is right or you should really refrain to posting > without having a clue about what is being discussed. Have a look at this: http://www.netbooknews.com/wp-content/2011/07/the-pyramid-of-debate-550x417.jpg The central point in the above snippet is where roguelike games belong. It seems that Diego fell down the pyramid to an Ad Hominem. :\ It's super easy, I know - I've fallen often enough myself, but please do stick with talking about the point instead of talking about me. > **We have a frigging games-roguelike category!** Several posters already pointed out that such a category probably isn't a very good model. I'm guessing that most if not all of the games in there would fit great in games-adventure instead. Thanks //Peter
