You do dabble in the occasional 'hack now and again, don't you?
Haven't tried another serious run since I ascended last year. I did Dwarf Valkyrie so I wouldn't mind trying with a harder class too, but it's hard to want to go through everything again. If I want to win I have to play slowly methodically, and it's hard to get in the mood for that right now. Maybe I'll come back to it in a decade.
I've always been curious about this one, I'd like to give it a try just to see the origin of the whole rougelike bullshit
It's certainly fun to fuck around with now and again, but I've never been good enough to come near ascending. So I usually just start a wizard solely to fuck around with stuff like casting stone to flesh on boulders, or an archeologist to just dig out tunnels for the heel of it.
>>12051935Then why wouldn't you either play a version of the original "Rogue" or, more authentically, "Beneath Apple Manor" if you're interested in the origins?
>>12051001There's zero reason to play NetHack these days when you have pic related. It's a remaster with a ton of QoL features and new stuff. More importantly, accessible to beginners.
>>12052090this is a smartphone game
>>12051971>but I've never been good enough to come near ascendingSame. Maybe some day though. I think of it as a (very) long-term project where I play occasionally here and there.If anyone's interested in trying it I can recommend playing it on a public server like nethack.alt.org. That way, if you just remember your password, you can log in from any device with internet (sometimes I play it on my phone through termux) and pick up from where you last left off.
I used to be really into it. I've ascended around 10-15 times and then just stopped playing. This was around 20 years ago.It's a great game if you enjoy obsessively memorizing everything, otherwise you are going to have a hard time
>>12052180>obsessively memorizing??? You just remember things. That's how most games work. It's very natural.
>>12052189Most games have fewer things to rememberModern equivalents of Nethack (in this sense, not the genre) are things like Factorio and Dwarf Fortress, ones that come with a giant wiki full of formulas and number tables
>>12052196Yeah, there's more to play with. That's a good thing. It's not like you have to study hard, it isn't that complicated, you just remember concepts as you run across them or hear about them. They are good for people who enjoy learning.
>>12052093There's a PC release too
>>12052090>ugly tiles>made by a finnnah
>>12051935For history, you can begin from here for example>http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/2021/06/brief-everything-we-know-about-1970s.html?m=1
>>12051935Nethack is vastly more complicated and tricky than Rogue. Rogue is fairly simple. Nethack is obviously strongly inspired by Rogue but it's a different game with entirely different everything. Rogue doesn't have character classes or races (for the player) or skills or spells or demon summoning or alchemy or neutral NPCs or beast riding or the kitchen sink. Nethack does.
>>12052090If you beat Nethack, you can post about it and people will actually be impressed.. If you beat that literally who game, nobody will know what you're talking about nor care.
>>12051001I played it like 15 years ago. Got a caveman down to the castle(?) before falling into a pit with a cockatrice. Wasn't there an update that fucked it up at some point?
>>12052647Only thing that I felt was fucked up was making monster turns invariant so you can't count the steps and figure out how many swings you can take before you have to move to dodge, which goes against general Nethack design philosophy IMO. But I still ascended despite that bullshit so it's more an irritation at low levels than anything else.
>>12052769*making monster turns no longer invariant
>>12052769Didn't they also nerf ElberethIt seems there are generally fewer loopholes now
>>12052797good. no more crutches for noob shitters is an absolute positive.
Well? Let's see your setup. don't tell me you're a tileset kiddie, anon.
>>12052647The 3.6 update was controversial, they refactored the code to make it easier to maintain and in the process some things changed. It also fucked up a shit ton of mods. Most Free OS's package 3.4.whatever as well as 3.6 so you can pick the one you want.I used to play some modded versions like slashem and sporkhack but it looks like there are other newer variants out now, I have no idea which ones are popular though.Does anybody know? QRD?
>>12052797Oh yeah, another stupid decision.>>12052886Nethack's about learning the game and using knowledge to eliminate risk. It's not one of those games where you're supposed to risk dying even if you do everything right. Somewhere along the way, the dev team lost the plot.
>game is called nethack>you don't even hack the net???
>>12052904>cursesdisgusting
>>12052904nta but I prefer to play DOS version, ever since they introduced that god horrible Windows version.
>>12053083forgot - the reason originally was simply that I could toggle the tiles on/off without having to stare at those horrible white window borders around the window.Windows tty version is okay too but for that you'd need to use something better than the default cmd.exe - that's not very nice software either. And this doesn't obviously support tiles either.Don't use tiles that much these days but still play the dos version.
>>12052904that's barely nethack
>>12052904soulless typeface
>>12052945Can you elaborate? I have v3.6.7 for DOS, should I look for an older version?
alright i'm giving it a try. is it worth trying to fuck around to compile it for myself or should i just run the binary?
>>12052904How are you getting that interface?
>>12054843just run the binary at first. find a good looking config like >>12052904 and get accustomed to the controls. if there's shit you can't get over look into modifying the source code yourself. there's really no reason to compile it yourself if you don't know how and you're unfamiliar with the game at all, that's just retarded.
