HTML Completed Dungeon Lord [v1.0] [Dungeon Gaming]

[DuniX]

Speaking of japanese stuff.
There is Venus Blood Abyss, Demonion that at least have an interface translation.
There is also this:
https://f95zone.to/threads/dungeon-...of-the-female-knights-hentai-industries.3335/
I really like the puzzle trap mechanics from Matures Games but there isn't a game the properly utilizes it as they have no challenge or reason to do intricate stuff with it.
It would be great even as a Indie Game.

 

[gabriel15458]

My friend, the game is very good! only bigger challenges are missing, as bosses, if you are defeated by a boss, you will lose a greater amount of gold or, if you defeat one, you will earn a greater amount of gold. gaining a level will unlock new and more dangerous girls who can steal more money. If you are killed in a battle, you will lose your life and end the game.
So you have to protect your gold and not be killed in battle to survive the game.

 

[lunaticbob]

"So what style do you want to make this game in?"

"Yes"

 

[Porn Pleb]

Man i hope this gets updaated

 

[ALE135790]

Q TAN RAPIDO PUEDES SACAR NUEVA VERSION?

 

[2524.]

...well the mixup of art aside a "first release" with Version number 1.0...
I am going to assume that means 0.1 a

1.0 or 0.1a doesn't say anything about the amount of content.

The only meaningful thing about version numbers is that they are sequential, i.e. 2.0 comes after 1.0

 

[DuniX]

1.0 or 0.1a doesn't say anything about the amount of content.

The only meaningful thing about version numbers is that they are sequential, i.e. 2.0 comes after 1.0

It can also mean the % percentage until the game is intended as complete.

 

[Evangelion-01]

1.0 or 0.1a doesn't say anything about the amount of content.

The only meaningful thing about version numbers is that they are sequential, i.e. 2.0 comes after 1.0

It also tends to lure in more people expecting a completed game and being disapointed with unfisinished and buged content, considering the first and only release was monthes ago indicate the game is either dead or not an interesting project for the Dev.
Sadly there is a common practice among Devs useing this kind of release labeling and as far as I can see this one is one of them

 

[2524.]

It also tends to lure in more people expecting a completed game

Then they are misinformed about what version numbers are. Being disappointed will maybe teach them that version numbers are NOT an indicator of how much content there is. Hopefully they learn from their mistake and grow from their ignorance.

Thinking that "1.0" means "complete game with plenty of content" is about as stupid as thinking that a game with a name starting with the letter W and being updated on a Wednesday will have more content than a game with an even number of preview images. It's completely tiktoked.

It can also mean the % percentage until the game is intended as complete.

Definitely not. Where did you get this idea?

 

[Dungeon Gaming]

It also tends to lure in more people expecting a completed game and being disapointed with unfisinished and buged content, considering the first and only release was monthes ago indicate the game is either dead or not an interesting project for the Dev.
Sadly there is a common practice among Devs useing this kind of release labeling and as far as I can see this one is one of them

My thought process to label this version 1.0 was that this game was a proof of concept and, as is it, fully loops meaning there are no dead ends because of incompleteness. The game can be expanded on of course with new monsters, traps, spells, ect. I wanted to get the idea out there and get some feedback before deciding how I wanted to expand on it.

Also as a small update, the new version is still coming along. It's becoming a bigger project than I was expecting but I am still enjoying working on it. Hopefully I'll be able to get a playable version up soonish so I can get some feedback on the new system, UI, and features.

 

[Karnewarrior]

Then they are misinformed about what version numbers are. Being disappointed will maybe teach them that version numbers are NOT an indicator of how much content there is. Hopefully they learn from their mistake and grow from their ignorance.

Thinking that "1.0" means "complete game with plenty of content" is about as stupid as thinking that a game with a name starting with the letter W and being updated on a Wednesday will have more content than a game with an even number of preview images. It's completely tiktoked.

Version numbers actually are an indicator of content. Relative content, but completion of content. Labelling your game as "1.0" when it's incomplete is simply wrong. 2.0 indicates additional content that was not in the original outline of the game, or was not able to be included in the 1.0 release. v1.0 means that that version of the game is "complete", or ready for (metaphorical) store shelves.
I'd appreciate if you didn't call people names for not sharing your misconceptions.

My thought process to label this version 1.0 was that this game was a proof of concept and, as is it, fully loops meaning there are no dead ends because of incompleteness. The game can be expanded on of course with new monsters, traps, spells, ect. I wanted to get the idea out there and get some feedback before deciding how I wanted to expand on it.

Also as a small update, the new version is still coming along. It's becoming a bigger project than I was expecting but I am still enjoying working on it. Hopefully I'll be able to get a playable version up soonish so I can get some feedback on the new system, UI, and features.

1.0 works then, although I probably would've tacked on a (Proof of Concept) or (V-Slice) to give a more accurate impression, since 1.0 implies you feel the game is finished and may not be working on it any more. Still accurate enough as it is though.

Personally I tie my version numbers in with my roadmap for the project - before I do anything I note down everything I need and want the program to do in openoffice, and color code it depending on how severely it impacts the game. Red is stuff like the main menu, saving/loading, things appearing on screen, and the other essentials. Yellow is stuff like the main plot, prettified art assets and core gameplay loop (or in the stuff I've worked on in college, the math algorithms that handle the number crunching). Green is neat little things that improve QoL but aren't strictly necessary; Kill-cams, voice acting, or mini-games for games. And then there's Blue, which I use to note down things I think are cool ideas but are added after the initial roadmap is completed, or are just totally extraneous, like Easter Eggs.

I'd say don't go above v0.25 if you're not done with all your "Red" items, and v0.75 if you haven't finished your yellow (unless you don't have a lot of Greens). It helps people judge how polished the experience they'll have will be, and that's pretty valuable for getting feedback since someone who knows it's unpolished won't fill your inbox with complaints about the filler art. You can always add Yellows before Reds, too, if you get bored of working on backend stuff, but I find doing it like this helps not only keep you organized and fighting feature bloat but also reduce bugs since you're adding the most integral systems in first, like building the foundation before the house.

That all goes out the window if this is a V-slice though, since that's a self-contained section of game that is very specifically about proving you can do something. Honestly V-slice describes this almost perfectly - it does lack a bit of polish, but everything in this is finished, even if it's very self-contained and cramped.

 

[DuniX]

Thinking that "1.0" means "complete game with plenty of content"

Just because its complete does not necessary mean it also has "plenty of content".
There are plenty of Japanese Games that are "Complete" but pretty short on content, there will never be a update since they aren't WIP projects like most of the western projects here.

 

[2524.]

You must be registered to see the links

Version numbers actually are an indicator of content.

No they're not, where did you get this idea?
If you were right, they would be a reliable indicator. But in fact they're not because any dev can choose to release their alpha with just an intro as "1.0". There's no way to enforce that made up rule of "1.0 is a complete game". Therefore it's not an actual rule, it's just a misconception.

Labelling your game as "1.0" when it's incomplete is simply wrong.

It's only wrong because you're wrong about version numbers. If you didn't assume that "1.0" means "complete", then it would be fine to release an alpha as "1.0".

Personally I tie my version numbers in with my roadmap for the project

And there you go: everyone has their own rule about version numbers. You prove my point while trying to say I'm wrong.

Maybe if you looked a little bit deeper you would see that version numbering varies wildly:
- Some people use the simple "0.1, 0.2 ... 1.0" (which you think is how version numbers work)
- And then you have the guys who start at 1, then 2, then 3 ...
- And then it gets more complicated, which is difficult to grasp for simpletons: "20.04" = year.month, which is the rule that Ubuntu (Linux) follows

You must be registered to see the links

- Oh but we're not done yet : 3.14 followed by 3.141 followed by 3.1415 followed by 3.14159 ... which is the rule that TeX uses

You must be registered to see the links

- And lastly for my professional project, at work we use 4.0.4.15, 4.0.4.16, 5.0.5.1 ... because we combine 2 version numbers for releases


Sure it would be a wonderful pink rosy world with love and friendship if everyone instinctively followed the same rule, but it's not. We have freedom, we can pick whatever rule we want or make up our own. Therefore it's stupid to assume "1.0" is "complete" or that "0.0.01.a.1.a" has very little content.

Here's a tip when trying to evaluate a game : look at the rating, look at the tags, look at the reviews, look at the changelog, look at the comments on the thread. They are reliable indicators of whether a game has content. The version number is NOT a reliable indicator.

 

[DuniX]

Maybe if you looked a little bit deeper you would see that version numbering varies wildly:

That may be the case, but for the most part for most people in most projects, 0.1 - 1.0 "naming convention" makes sense.
If the project gets a release then all rules are out and you can do whatever, which all your examples are of post 1.0.

A "Naming Convention" sure isn't an absolute strict rule, but people tend to follow it.

 

[Porn Pleb]

I usually look at t from triple A game standards. where 1.0 usually means a playable product with no dead ends but it doesn't mean the product is finished. but yeah on here its usually best to see how many comments and reviews the game has.

 

[Hallucination]

You must be registered to see the links

No they're not, where did you get this idea?
If you were right, they would be a reliable indicator. But in fact they're not because any dev can choose to release their alpha with just an intro as "1.0". There's no way to enforce that made up rule of "1.0 is a complete game". Therefore it's not an actual rule, it's just a misconception.


It's only wrong because you're wrong about version numbers. If you didn't assume that "1.0" means "complete", then it would be fine to release an alpha as "1.0".


And there you go: everyone has their own rule about version numbers. You prove my point while trying to say I'm wrong.

Maybe if you looked a little bit deeper you would see that version numbering varies wildly:
- Some people use the simple "0.1, 0.2 ... 1.0" (which you think is how version numbers work)
- And then you have the guys who start at 1, then 2, then 3 ...
- And then it gets more complicated, which is difficult to grasp for simpletons: "20.04" = year.month, which is the rule that Ubuntu (Linux) follows

You must be registered to see the links

- Oh but we're not done yet : 3.14 followed by 3.141 followed by 3.1415 followed by 3.14159 ... which is the rule that TeX uses

You must be registered to see the links

- And lastly for my professional project, at work we use 4.0.4.15, 4.0.4.16, 5.0.5.1 ... because we combine 2 version numbers for releases


Sure it would be a wonderful pink rosy world with love and friendship if everyone instinctively followed the same rule, but it's not. We have freedom, we can pick whatever rule we want or make up our own. Therefore it's stupid to assume "1.0" is "complete" or that "0.0.01.a.1.a" has very little content.

Here's a tip when trying to evaluate a game : look at the rating, look at the tags, look at the reviews, look at the changelog, look at the comments on the thread. They are reliable indicators of whether a game has content. The version number is NOT a reliable indicator.

Version 1.0 is used as a major

You must be registered to see the links

, indicating that the software is "complete", that it has all major features, and is considered reliable enough for general release.

When you try to use an article as proof, you may want to actually read the article to see if it's actually proving your point.

 

[2524.]

When you try to use an article as proof, you may want to actually read the article to see if it's actually proving your point.

I was expecting that answer. Because I read that article.

This is part of "Political and cultural significance of version numbers". Or as I interpret it "many people who know very little of software versioning think ...".

Because as you can see described in the previous paragraphs, and as I said before, there are many different schemes, some of whom where "1.0" doesn't work at all. Like TeX and its Pi versioning scheme (1.0 is not anywhere close to being Pi). Like Ubuntu and its year.month versioning scheme (what's month 0?). And let's not forget Minecraft and its resetting version number where three different version are "1.0".

Did you even read all the schemes that are described with examples?

 

[2524.]

That may be the case, but for the most part for most people in most projects, 0.1 - 1.0 "naming convention" makes sense.
If the project gets a release then all rules are out and you can do whatever, which all your examples are of post 1.0.

A "Naming Convention" sure isn't an absolute strict rule, but people tend to follow it.

The problem is that it's a convention, it's not a rule, it's not followed by everyone, it's not enforced, as we can see with countless examples on this site, let alone in the rest of the world.

Therefore, it's not a reliable indicator.

I don't see how it's complicated :
- you think there's a rule where 0.1 is initial release with little content and 1.0 is the complete game with decent amount of content
- you see again and again that people don't follow this rule
- you see that they're not corrected, no one is preventing them from choosing their own versioning scheme
- you then understand that it's not a rule and you can't use version numbers as a reliable indicator

Why don't you come to the conclusion? You seem to be bent on the "this is a rule and everyone follows it" stage, like a child who doesn't want to accept reality.

This is simple adaptation. You see somthing that contradicts your assumption, so you adapt. You find other ways (which I described earlier) to determine whether a game is worth it.

 

[DuniX]

Most games here are not finished and will never be finished and they all have a < 1.0 versioning. So how is it not following in their own way?

The developer knows best how complete their project is and what kind of milestones they are expecting.

 

[Hallucination]

The problem is that it's a convention, it's not a rule, it's not followed by everyone, it's not enforced, as we can see with countless examples on this site, let alone in the rest of the world.

Therefore, it's not a reliable indicator.

I don't see how it's complicated :
- you think there's a rule where 0.1 is initial release with little content and 1.0 is the complete game with decent amount of content
- you see again and again that people don't follow this rule
- you see that they're not corrected, no one is preventing them from choosing their own versioning scheme
- you then understand that it's not a rule and you can't use version numbers as a reliable indicator

Why don't you come to the conclusion? You seem to be bent on the "this is a rule and everyone follows it" stage, like a child who doesn't want to accept reality.

This is simple adaptation. You see somthing that contradicts your assumption, so you adapt. You find other ways (which I described earlier) to determine whether a game is worth it.

People breaking rules does not mean rules do not exist, your whole argument is "But they're doing it too!", not understanding that that is not a true argument. I understand that liars exist, and I understand that truth exists, these are not as mutually exclusive as you seem to think.