Talk:Dungeon Hack

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Link

download link leads to paysite... removed Balou 19:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Hack, Hack, and NetHack

Please do not confuse the subject of this article through additions that suggest Dungeon Hack bears any direct relation to the game Hack or its descendent, NetHack. Though game press may allude to either of these titles as shorthand for games generally classified as "roguelike", this does not (and should not be taken to) mean that Dungeon Hack is based on either of the "*Hacks". It isn't. It merely shares a title word in common. D.brodale 05:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, your personal opinions as to what is or is not related to Hack are an inappropriate basis for an article in Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are meant to be based on reliable sources, not on the opinions of editors. With respect to this particular claim, the article currently reads "Dungeon Hack is sometimes described as a graphical version of the roguelike game Hack". Indeed, that description is taken precisely from MobyGames -- generally considered a reliable source for game information -- ""Combine the gameplay ideas of Hack/Nethack with the Eye of the Beholder 3 game engine and you get a graphical version of Hack: Dungeon Hack."".

It is perfectly legitimate for you to have the opinion that MobyGames is wrong. It is completely inappropriate under Wikipedia policy for you to substitute your opinion for theirs. Nandesuka 06:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I don't believe you're reading the sources "cited" in the least. In a show of I-don't-know-what, you managed to lay down four external references: two of which were identical and did not support the statement linked by citation, one which was a list of games in a broad genre that again did not support the claim, and lastly a creatively-worded summary from MobyGames that is being read literally by you to fashion a misleading characterization of Dungeon Hack here. Since when is reason considered a tool off-limits to editors of Wikipedia?

Please don't vandalize my User Talk page. Use the article discussion page for topical remarks. D.brodale 06:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your claim is that you believe your personal opinion is a more acceptable source for a Wikipedia article than that of reliable sources such as MobyGames, then you are sadly mistaken. Nandesuka 06:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My claim here is that of the four "references" provided, only one could be loosely construed to support the statement in question, that a single source is insufficient for the article statement ("sometimes" in not "once"), etc. MobyGames may or may not be reliable given that its content is user-contributed, though that is immaterial to my base claims. Do not mischaracterize my statements above, as well. The point here is that the citations do not support the statement given in the WP article. Trading validity for the noise of quantity as you did is unproductive and mean-spirited. D.brodale 06:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that you — or, in fact, anyone — would claim that the MobyGames statement "Combine the gameplay ideas of Hack/Nethack with the Eye of the Beholder 3 game engine and you get a graphical version of Hack: Dungeon Hack" can only be loosely construed to support the statement "Dungeon Hack is sometimes described as a graphical version of the roguelike game Hack." is, quite simply, astonishing. You have overreached here, and I urge you to step back and realize how ridiculous what you are saying sounds. I understand that you think MobyGames is wrong, but that is an improper basis on which to remove the material and its supporting citation. Nandesuka 07:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one blindly (re-)adding broken/unfounded citations here without reading the corrections of others that point out these faults. Be that as it may, it apparently is wrong (according to you) to read the statement on MobyGames as it is so clearly intended: shorthand for the mixing of roguelike notions with a pre-established (at that time) commercial software property to form something new. Instead, one should read as a literalist to enable repetition of a sentence here on WP out of context. Note that I'm not faulting MobyGames's writing here. I'm faulting your gross misreading of it. You've missed my point entirely in prolonging an argument for argument's sake rather than grasping that evidence in support of a view is more than a collection of words. Whatever. Long live WP. D.brodale 07:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What "others" are you talking about? I haven't found a single reliable source that disagrees with MobyGames. Just you. And your opinion isn't significant. Nandesuka 13:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You, again, are confusing the questioning of citation method with the sources cited. I disagree strongly with blind insertion of citations that do not support the statement in question. Three of the four removed citations did not support the statement in question. The fourth has been taken to mean something it's not. Kindly reread the above response of mine that tries to make it very, very clear that it's your reading of materials at fault, not the materials themselves. Again, this appears lost on you. D.brodale 19:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) How about saying "MobyGames have described it as having 'the gameplay ideas of Hack/Nethack'"? Or: "MobyGames have described it as 'a graphical version of Hack'"? If others have claimed otherwise, then there's no reason why we can't say "...but X disagrees, stating that '...'"Jakew 14:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. Nandesuka 19:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. D.brodale -- how about you? Jakew 20:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed well enough sourced as it was, but your wording is good too. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current version is a bit short. You should explain why it is called so. Also, you should rework it so you can cite GameSpy as well. Maybe add another sentence describing how their comments fit with this view: "GameSpy has described it as a remake of NetHack using the Eye of the Beholder engine." What you have to be careful about is wording, as these statements aren't to be taken literally—Dungeon Hack isn't really a remake of NetHack or Hack. SharkD (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How removing the comment from its current location and replacing it with the following, after the gameplay elements have been described:

"Dungeon Hack's similarity to Rogue and its descendants is so marked that MobyGames and GameSpy have gone as far as calling it a "graphical version of Hack" and a remake of NetHack using the Eye of the Beholder engine, respectively."

I think this makes it sufficiently clear to the reader that the remarks aren't to be taken literally. SharkD (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is more than a bit stale at this time, but I don't see the need for the above expansion of thought. Please point me to analysis on either GameSpy or MobyGames beyond a sentence that lays out the depth of similarity between this title and Rogue or NetHack to the extent that the similarity is "so marked". It's not. Both brief comparisons fixate on one feature ("random...") or an undefined blob ("gameplay ideas"). I continue to hold that it's highly misleading to fashion a statement of deep similarity. It is neither a graphical version of Hack nor a remake of NetHack, regardless of the breezy prose of either capsule summary. The proposed rewrite places undue weight on shallow game summaries. D. Brodale (talk) 10:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Hack vs. dungeon hack

These two should be disambiguated: a "dungeon hack" can refer to a great many experiences (i.e., dungeon crawl), whereas "Dungeon Hack" refers to the video game. 75.0.9.13 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other DungeonHack

There is also an Open Source game project called DungeonHack that is developing a Morrowind-style game. Should it be mentioned here? --202.45.98.212 (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know; is there any connection other than the name? Do you have any reliable sources to add with the information? 67.175.176.178 (talk) 07:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source