Too many clones

Daecon · Post by **Daecon** » Wed May 17, 2006 12:20 am

There are so many different versions of Dungeon Master available, such as Return to Chaos or DM Java, how am I supposed to know which one is the best to play?

Is there a Comparison & Reviews of each version anywhere online?

Yours, confusedly.

beowuuf · Post by **beowuuf** » Wed May 17, 2006 12:29 am

Nope, sorry

Basically CSBwin is the original DM engine if you prefer a purer game, with lots of customs, RTC is an engine made to feel like DM, so might be fresher or too different,also with a couple of customs, and DM Java was one of the first released full clones that has a much more unforgiving engine, but a very good default new dungeon aswell as the two originals

I guess play them yourself and see which grab you - RTC and CSBwin will take less time to set up and get in to I think

George Gilbert · Post by **George Gilbert** » Wed May 17, 2006 12:37 am

OK, here goes:

- CSBWin is the original game (from the ST) decompiled and reassembled to run on a PC (under Windows or Linux). An amazing technical achievement and the source code is available for various clever tweaks to the engine if desired.

- RTC is a complete re-write from scratch and looks-and-feels the same as the original, but with lots of extra features (support for 32bit colour, MP3 sound etc as well as new mechanics and an integrated easy to use GUI dungeon editor).

- DMJ is a completely new game that's a similar theme to the original (i.e. a dungeon crawl) but otherwise implemented differently. Being written in Java it plays on a wide variety of platforms.

So, if you want to play the original game exactly as it was, go for CSBWin, if you want to design /play new dungeons with better graphics / sound etc go for RTC, if you fancy something similar but different, go for DMJ.

I hope that's as objective as possible without being too biased to one over the others

Daecon · Post by **Daecon** » Wed May 17, 2006 1:09 am

Okay, thanks for the info. I'll check out RTC as that seems to be the most covered version on these boards, and will give me more opportunity for feedback, as a new player.

What do you mean when you say DM Java has a more "unforgiving" engine?

beowuuf · Post by **beowuuf** » Wed May 17, 2006 8:29 am

The stamina drain starts to inflict health damage at low levels not zero levels, it's very easy to get high levels of poisoning (very cumulative hard to get rid of to start with), level gain seems to take much longer and whuile it's a cool feature monsters folow you up stairs

Just small thigns but I felt it a little more unfrgiving to play, especially one time I dealt with alot of rocks and had still no rpiest levels - fun times!

ian_scho · Post by **ian_scho** » Wed May 17, 2006 8:42 am

... And RTC appears to be the engine with the most customiseable features for would be Dungeon Creators? Would you agree with that?

ian_scho

Trantor · Post by **Trantor** » Wed May 17, 2006 10:37 am

ian_scho wrote:... And RTC appears to be the engine with the most customiseable features for would be Dungeon Creators? Would you agree with that?

ian_scho

I am not so sure about that. Play Conflux III to see what can be done with CSBWin. But I suppose implementing new features is a lot easier in RTC. Anyway, I still prefer playing CSBWin.

beowuuf · Post by **beowuuf** » Wed May 17, 2006 10:50 am

I would say RTC and CSBwin are flexible in different ways, with different limits. Anyone who used to go 'RTC is dead' should certainly take their words back now, and anyone who says 'hah, CSBwin is dead' should go apologise to Paul S and Zyx - both engines are phenominally powerful and cool

ian_scho · Post by **ian_scho** » Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 am

I am not so sure about that. Play Conflux III to see what can be done with CSBWin.... <snip>

It's on the list!

ian_scho

Post by **Lunever** » Wed May 17, 2006 11:12 am

Although I used RTC more than CSBWin I think that both engines can be used to create quite complex custom dungeons, I got the impression that at least in the very latest RTC version (38) it is easier to become familar with the dungeon mechanics, but then I have to admit that I gave CSBWin only a rather superficial glance in this respect.

beowuuf · Post by **beowuuf** » Wed May 17, 2006 11:20 am

CSBwin with knowledge of DSAs and custom skinning and ADGE combine to form quite a powerful team. You have basically the item/action limits to contend with, but then CSBwin is the DM engine so that's the price of tryign to stick to the original!

Adamo · Post by **Adamo** » Wed May 17, 2006 4:31 pm

if you want to include a new graphics, you better do it on RTC. CSBwin has 16 colour system. But anyway, I love CSBwin.

Or you can start designing something in CSBwin and, if you don`t like it, you can always change your dungeon into RTC format, if you dont like CSBwin (personally, I`ll stay on CSBwin with my dungeon, even with that #$@&# colour limitation. because the engine is closer to the original one).

George Gilbert · Post by **George Gilbert** » Wed May 17, 2006 5:56 pm

Adamo wrote:personally, I`ll stay on CSBwin with my dungeon...because the engine is closer to the original one.

Just out of interest, what differences in the core engine are there (obviously, the extra features are different)?

If you post up what you think is wrong with RTC, I'm sure it will get fixed

beowuuf · Post by **beowuuf** » Wed May 17, 2006 6:18 pm

Lol, somehting that you've avoided for ages was the keystroke storing - that's a big difference I've notice! It makes the game feel slower if you can't tap the five steps ahead you know you have to take, or the sidestep turn fast to avoid a monster

Adamo · Post by **Adamo** » Wed May 17, 2006 6:40 pm

GG: that`s what I meant, the extra features and high res used in the RTC engine (I`m fossil ultra-conservative orthodox

in that point). Even though I know they`re all turnoffable.. But then again, RTC editor is easier in use.. so for new users I advice to use RTC than CSBwin

Adamo · Post by **Adamo** » Wed May 17, 2006 7:28 pm

I think the main difference between RTC and an original game is the behaviour of the monsters, when far away from the player. In DM/CSB there are two timers: one used for the monsters near party, wchich moves faster, second used for the monsters far away from the party, wchich moves slower. That was done probably to save Atari`s CPU (7 Mhz?). As far as I know (but I might be wrong!) in RTC the whole dungeon "moves", so there`s no difference in behaviour monsters in the current level and in 5 levels below the party. When we`ve got 30 levels with 200 monsters on each, that may slow the older CPUs

Check out "monster movement when party is on different level" here:
http://www.dianneandpaul.net/CSBwin/Tec ... atures.htm

George Gilbert · Post by **George Gilbert** » Wed May 17, 2006 8:33 pm

beowuuf wrote:Lol, somehting that you've avoided for ages was the keystroke storing - that's a big difference I've notice! It makes the game feel slower if you can't tap the five steps ahead you know you have to take, or the sidestep turn fast to avoid a monster

Well, why didn't you say it was an issue!

.........

This is now implemented in RTC V0.39...

the extra features and high res used in the RTC engine...even though I know they`re all turnoffable

I really don't get that. So your saying you prefer the original because you know its the original, even though they look the same.

When we`ve got 30 levels with 200 monsters on each, that may slow the older CPUs

True, but only if your PC has a CPU that approaches the 8MHz of the old Atari / Amiga. Although I know your computer is coal powered, I suspect that it's at least 10, probably 50 times as fast; so the fact that RTC uses a faster internal timer shouldn't make any difference.

What I'm saying, is that how do you know that the original game had a slow timer for monsters far away from the party? Did it have any observable impact on gameplay? Or is your objection purely psychological knowing that in the original game monsters move slowly when they are far away from the party (and you only know that because someone has looked at the decompiled code and worked that out), and in RTC every monster is treated equally.

If you can show that it does make any difference whatsoever to gameplay, then do let me know!

beowuuf · Post by **beowuuf** » Wed May 17, 2006 9:16 pm

\lol, we did ages ago, but i checked out the suggestions forum at work and it seems ot have mysteriously vanished so i expected the worse...now i feel bad : )

Adamo · Post by **Adamo** » Wed May 17, 2006 9:40 pm

ok, sorry for that.

I just though that RTC monsters eats much much more CPU power comparing to the original game, because of the different engines, so loads of them might cause CPU problems (I sometimes have a problems with fps; that`s why I was worried about that moving dungeon, but it must have been something with my system).

I really don't get that. So your saying you prefer the original because you know its the original, even though they look the same.

I though there WERE some minimal differences, even with all features turned off. But if there weren`t any, then sorry!

Post by **Paul Stevens** » Thu May 18, 2006 1:39 am

CSBwin most assuredly will run better on
slower machines. But machines THAT slow are
rather rare these days and should not affect
99 percent of the people who want to play the
game. CSBwin runs WELL on a 400 MHz PocketPC
with a total 64 MByte of memory shared between
operating system/applications/virtual disk. I
don't think George will try that! Could be wrong.

I think that the DSAs will always provide additional
capabilities not available in RTC. But to make use of
them you have to be rather dedicated and willing
to become a programmer. And the language you
will be asked to use is not exactly the cleanest you
have encountered (it started out as something much more
limited and grew branches, twigs, and thorns in every
direction as ConfluxIII was being created). And the
additional capabilities are becoming rapidly fewer.
But it is a general purpose programming language
that can be used to encode MP3 audio if you so choose.

CSBwin also has the ability to completely take over
the drawing of the viewport using (a different!)
programming language.

One difference is the ability to record and playback
a game. This has been useful in the competitions to
share our techniques and learn from one another.
I doubt we would have seen the 10-minute CSB
without this capability.
(It has been useful several times for reproducing
difficult-to-recreate bugs.)

My own opinion is that RTC is all that is needed.
I feel that my efforts with CSBwin have been totally
worthwhile. I may be wrong again but I have a
hunch that RTC would not be what it is today without
the rival CSBwin. At any rate, RTC has come far
enough that I am not going to be putting a lot of effort
into CSBwin. We have to get it running on Linux (is
there going to be a Linux version of RTC?). I have to
get it running ConfluxIII on the PocketPC. We have to
find and fix remaining bugs. We might add a
little thing here and there. BUT!!! I think I have to
rule out any major efforts such as were inspired by Zyx
and his marvelous monster.

Post by **Lunever** » Thu May 18, 2006 2:47 am

Right! The record feature is a major thing I forgot to mention about CSBWin. Antman could never have publicly known what he's done without this feature. I still hope that RTC will have it some day too, but so far it hasn't.

Also, coming home late at night prettyyyy drunk I have to admit what RTC is missing compared to FTL-DM i.e. CSBWin, despite of being a rather strong RTC supporter: Mathematical beauty. FTL did use what a paper&pen RPG can never do: Complex interconnections between varios stats. While it may be that str & dex are more important than vit or wis in melee, I always felt thant DM does consider them all albeit with different weight. RTC by now has been content to approach original DM by feel. So to RTC it doesn't mattter how fine-tuned shields or monster stats or monster perception is, as long as it approximately approaches FTL, while FTL interconnects various stats and uses a very fine-tuned variety of gaussian curves and logarithmical power levels compared to time lines. That might be changed with 39, but so far George says, as long as it's similar in outlook as FTL-DM, there's no point in taking huge efforts to implement fine differences like monsters perceptions or darkness as long as only a small percentage of players would ever notice. Yet, on a subconcious psychological level I have to admit, mathematics and beauty correlate, and as long as RTC is only simulating that, there will always be a place for CSBWin. Sorry George, albeit it might be misinterpreted: Your work is abolutely incredibly great, it's no shame to say that you are a God among programmers no matter how skilled, but the arithmetical beauty and complexity of FTL's work is so far unmatched. However, your sudden adaption of things like shields and your improvements to monsters' AI compared to old 8 MHz machines show that RTC has potential beyond anything FTL might have thought possible 1986. Go on and don't let people stuck 1986 inhibit your work. As I said, quite drunk, but willing to say what has to be said. While CSB dungeon shows the beauty of assymetry from an artist's point of view, the FTL engine shows the beauty of complex symmetry from an artist's point of view also, thus making the ballance of Order and Chaos come true. Until the day RTC does take a stand about what is like FTL and what deliberately isn't beyond pragmatical reasons there will always be a place for CSBWin. Go on George, and go on Paul too. Long live FTL.

ian_scho · Post by **ian_scho** » Thu May 18, 2006 8:22 am

Now aren't you all glad that we newbies ask a good question once in a while....

Daecon · Post by **Daecon** » Fri May 19, 2006 2:22 am

Well I guess I'll have to download CSBWin too and give it a go.

that will be 3 versions of Dungeon Master on my computer now, including DM Java (boy, was that a hell of a lot of trouble to figure out how to get that darned thng to run! I swear I lost some hair that afternoon trying to figure the installation out...)