Talk:Dungeon (video game)

Move

Why was this moved from Dungeon (1976)? Was there a conflict? (Answer: No). I guess it was moved to more accurately reflect the domain of the game? In that case, it should have been moved to "Dungeon (mainframe computer game)" (note case). But the "mainframe" isn't really needed either (unless someone writes another computer game called Dungeon, but we can deal with that if/when it ever happens). I vote we move the article to "Dungeon (computer game)" and delete this article since a redirect with it's current name won't be useful to anyone. Of course, we can fix any wikilinks to it first. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:21, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think I'm causing some extra headaches here as I learn the ropes. I had used the (1976) as a differentiator from other Dungeon entries, then realized that was a poor choice, especially so since the year is more likely 1975 than 1976.

I then revised and used mainframe computer game as the revised differentiator since there are so many console, PC etc. games with the word dungeon, and most modern readers who read "computer game" would make the wrong assumption.

I used caps in the parentheses because I didn't realize that was the wrong convention. (Newbies are trainable, really!)

I don't have strong objections to any of the suggestions, though I think that in general keeping some flags for mainframe games to avoid confusion is a good thing.

Coll7 17:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)Coll7Coll7 17:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Newbies are not trainable! I'll drink your blood for this! (j/k). I don't have strong feelings to either one ("computer game" or "mainframe computer game"), but I don't think the "mainframe" is really necessary. There aren't any other computer games called Dungeon—and just "Dungeon"—for any other computer systems. Like I said, if one does come out, we can disambiguate it further then.

This is the way things usually work. Make the simplist title first, then disambiguate further if need be. Dungeon certainly needs disambiguation, but adding the mainframe—at this point—is unnecessary, IMHO. Peace. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:12, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Implemented the change as per your suggestion. Thanks. Coll7 21:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)Coll7Coll7 21:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ran into a 1970's gamer last week and a conversation about RAM limits on the '10 came up, so I added a section with this info. Coll7 05:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

pedit5

I am one of the co-writers of dnd (computer game). pedit5 predates dnd. Therefore, I changed the reference to dnd to pedit5. Ratwod

Another DECUS game named "Dungeon"

I've added a short paragraph about another game with the same name, a translation into Fortran of what later became Zork. See Zork#Fortran_version_of_Dungeon. (I never got to use a PDP-10, but I spent way too many hours with Dungeon-the-text-game.) I've also removed some incorrect info about DECUS, which was much more than a "software sharing system" and was subsidised but not "operated by" DECUS. Cheers, Chris Chittleborough 23:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"Years later, DECUS distributed another game named "Dungeon", a version of Zork. This game featured a character named Rivett that you were able to control through the 3D environment." - The "Dungeon" that you refer to came from MIT and was in fact Zork before it was split in two parts and named Zork and Zork II. However, no character exists in Dungeon or the Zork games named Rivett, nor is there gameplay featuring such 3D environment navigation.71.112.38.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC).

1975 or 1976?

So what is the deal here. A quick search of internet sources reveals three industry bios saying the game was created in 1975 and two industry bios and two interviews with Daglow that all say the game was written in 1976, the latter two being cases of Daglow himself giving the year as 1976. Why is one set of sources considered more credible than the other? Seems to me both dates should be given as possible creation dates. Furthermore, it seems pretty clear that pedit5 was created in 1974 and dnd in 1974/75, so the claim of first rpg rings pretty hollow, though it was certainly the first rpg on conventional mainframe computers. Indrian 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• As this is a somewhat obscure game, I am not surprised my comments have not generated any response yet on this page. I will give it a little more time, but if someone does not give a good reason for accepting one set of sources over the other, I am going to change the article to relfect that the game may have been made in 1975 or 1976 and take out any reference to it being a candidate for first rpg ever mande. Indrian 13:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Daglow says 1975. -al 11:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, in the only two interviews I found, Daglow said he created it in 1976,.[1][2] so you appear to be wrong. Even if he has given a 1975 date somwhere, this only means he has given both at one time or another Indrian 16:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Hmmm, okay. I'm going from this interview [3], which is the most recent one he's done. Ball's in your court, though - it's pretty clear that he has offered conflicting information at one time or another, so maybe the article should reflect that. -al 04:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It is tempting to think he started writing it in 1975 (which is clearly true since he said he began after the dnd (computer game) was released) then published the first version in 1976.—RJH (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

multi-player v multi-character

The article says this is a multiplayer game, but I think the expression should have been "multi-character". See http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=11228. I'm pretty sure the game has only one player. So far in my research it looks like the earliest multiplayer game, at least in the adventure/rpg realm, is Oubliette (1977). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.24.136 (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)