![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
The claim that the game introduced a boss enemy seems monumental! To us über-geeks, anyway. Can it be confirmed or denied? -- Kizor 08:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The claim that dnd invented bosses is just plain silly. Looks like other people have said the same thing and then didn't follow through to avoid hurt feelings. Paper D&D campaigns routinely had big dragons and other monsters guarding the biggest treasure in a final battle. dnd imitated this. That's not inventing bosses, it's porting a paper game to computer. As someone else said below, bosses were invented in Japanese arcade games, unless someone wants to try to say that paper D&D influenced Japanese coinop games. That makes no sense. If Wikipedia works like a graduate school then peer review should resolve this, so I followed the instructions for a peer review. -- Austin -- Part of Texas? 05:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Came across this by accident looking for old arcade games. Looks like quite an interesting game from back in the day, but it had a long patch about how these Americans invented bosses. Simply not true. Bosses came from Japanese arcade games and Dungeons & Dragons "grand finale monsters" had absolutely no influence on them at all. I see from text above here that the authors of dnd asserted this, but the Japanese game evolution is richly documented (Google Nintendo history) and there is no reference anywhere of them being influenced by paper Dungeons and Dragons, let alone an American text game. -- 57.66.10.36 14:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
The entire argument over this concept of a "boss" is ludicrous. Having a single "boss" enemy to contend with at the conclusion of a struggle is simply an age-old logical storytelling extension, used millions of times (probably literally) since the dawn of man. You can look at any number of literary, film, mythological and other kinds of narratives and find this "idea," from Sauron to The Epic of Gilgamesh to Satan (ever read The Divine Comedy)?
No harm to the creators of this dnd game or to anyone designing video games, but to say that someone in the computer world "invented" this concept of a "boss" is like saying they invented anger, death, and the alphabet. Fighting a "boss" is just the logical endgame of a high percentage of fictional and non-fictional story structure (and narrative), and nothing more. Assign it a name like "boss" if you will but let's not lay laurels where they're undeserved.
Whether the dnd people were the first to use the "boss" concept in a game is probably true, but again I say there's no magic nor genius in following the logical grapevine that's been part of human history since the cave drawing, no more than having a monster to fight is some kind of original and groundbreaking idea that shattered the global culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forgottenpasswd ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this game still available in any form (freeware, purchase, whatever) to this day? Or was it never widely available to the general public? -- 69.234.208.76 02:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
"dnd would today be considered an adventure game rather than an RPG, since it had only one character." - I'm no expert, but as far as I know wether there is only one character or more is irrelevant. Else all roguelikes, CRPGs like Fallout and The Elder Scrolls Saga as well as well Single-player P&P "books" would be considered adventures, not RPGs. Unless its an IF-specific rule that I haven't been able to find so far. -- 84.191.238.76 17:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
"The second game, m199h, was created in a lesson space for foreign language instruction, and it was similarly deleted as soon as its illicit purpose was discovered" - This line says that the first two games writen for PLATO, wich preceded dnd, if i'm not mistaken, were deleted because of "illicit content". I'm no expert at all in this subject, but i was very intrigued with this phrase, and found no further discussion on the article. Could anyony please elaborate a little? as it is now, the article shows an assumption that the reader knows beofre hand that this games were illicit. -- Gorgonzola, December 24, 2005.
Who is Daniel Lawrence? See this reference: Daniel Lawrence's DND Page. According to this very extensive resource (which has been on the net for awhile, now) it seems HE originally created dnd, not the people named on this page--one of whom is the author of this wikipedia entry. Any clarifications should be posted to this page asap, because wikipedia's information is being mirror worldwide repeatedly on a daily basis. His versions of the game were out by 1972. If Gary Whisenhunt and Ray Wood plagrized from some source it should be cleared up immediately. -- Asdfff 23 April 2006 (UTC)
There's no need to use sarcastic arguments--for instance, your timeline argument doesn't really bring up any good points of debate and is logically useless.
I'm asking this as an actual matter of curiosity, and I'm not disputing anything committed to either website until I get accounts and facts. This account of history is COMPLETELY different from existing accounts. I just want to get the story straight. Not only that, but why are you so passionately shaken by this? No one has yet DISPUTED any of the claims on either page. So far it has been two completely different accounts on two websites that thus far have seen no interaction between either one's adherents. -- Asdfff 16:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The article says that the Golden Dragon was inspired by the D&D box cover; but according to the Acaeum, the old white box cover didn't have a dragon on it. The dragon with treasure picture seems to be the original Basic set which they date from 1977. So was the Dragon added then, or was it based on something else? (I noticed a dragon on the white box "monster manual", but without any treasure.) Ben Standeven 20:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The article seems to have a major "stylistic" flaw. Under "gameplay" it reads "The game presents players with an overhead view of the dungeon and plays much like NetHack, but also implements many basic concepts of Dungeons & Dragons." - it seems improper that the article defines the subject via reference to a derivative work. That is, NetHack is a game published a decade following 'dnd' so how does it make sense that a historically minded description defines the gameplay of 'dnd' via reference to the gmaeplay of NetHack. It's akin to using the word 'cookie' to define 'cake', only to find out that the word 'cake' is used to define 'cookie'. 99.230.243.1 ( talk) 14:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I am bothered by the reference to any games developed on the PLATO IV system as video games. These were computer games, and they used a graphical display, but the flat panel plasma display technology used on the Magnavox PLATO IV terminal did not use a video signal to present an image on the screen. The screen was literally a dot-addressable RAM technology where the glowing dot on the screen was in itself one bit of memory, and this bit could be set or cleared by the electronics outside the screen. We seem stuck with the category "video games" to refer to such games, but careless use of the term video confuses things. (Note that later, when CDC went commercial with the PLATO system, they developed a video terminal to replace the flat-panel plasma displays. Thus, PLATO games could be played on video displays, even if they weren't developed for them.) Douglas W. Jones ( talk) 03:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The claim that the game introduced a boss enemy seems monumental! To us über-geeks, anyway. Can it be confirmed or denied? -- Kizor 08:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The claim that dnd invented bosses is just plain silly. Looks like other people have said the same thing and then didn't follow through to avoid hurt feelings. Paper D&D campaigns routinely had big dragons and other monsters guarding the biggest treasure in a final battle. dnd imitated this. That's not inventing bosses, it's porting a paper game to computer. As someone else said below, bosses were invented in Japanese arcade games, unless someone wants to try to say that paper D&D influenced Japanese coinop games. That makes no sense. If Wikipedia works like a graduate school then peer review should resolve this, so I followed the instructions for a peer review. -- Austin -- Part of Texas? 05:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Came across this by accident looking for old arcade games. Looks like quite an interesting game from back in the day, but it had a long patch about how these Americans invented bosses. Simply not true. Bosses came from Japanese arcade games and Dungeons & Dragons "grand finale monsters" had absolutely no influence on them at all. I see from text above here that the authors of dnd asserted this, but the Japanese game evolution is richly documented (Google Nintendo history) and there is no reference anywhere of them being influenced by paper Dungeons and Dragons, let alone an American text game. -- 57.66.10.36 14:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
The entire argument over this concept of a "boss" is ludicrous. Having a single "boss" enemy to contend with at the conclusion of a struggle is simply an age-old logical storytelling extension, used millions of times (probably literally) since the dawn of man. You can look at any number of literary, film, mythological and other kinds of narratives and find this "idea," from Sauron to The Epic of Gilgamesh to Satan (ever read The Divine Comedy)?
No harm to the creators of this dnd game or to anyone designing video games, but to say that someone in the computer world "invented" this concept of a "boss" is like saying they invented anger, death, and the alphabet. Fighting a "boss" is just the logical endgame of a high percentage of fictional and non-fictional story structure (and narrative), and nothing more. Assign it a name like "boss" if you will but let's not lay laurels where they're undeserved.
Whether the dnd people were the first to use the "boss" concept in a game is probably true, but again I say there's no magic nor genius in following the logical grapevine that's been part of human history since the cave drawing, no more than having a monster to fight is some kind of original and groundbreaking idea that shattered the global culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forgottenpasswd ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this game still available in any form (freeware, purchase, whatever) to this day? Or was it never widely available to the general public? -- 69.234.208.76 02:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
"dnd would today be considered an adventure game rather than an RPG, since it had only one character." - I'm no expert, but as far as I know wether there is only one character or more is irrelevant. Else all roguelikes, CRPGs like Fallout and The Elder Scrolls Saga as well as well Single-player P&P "books" would be considered adventures, not RPGs. Unless its an IF-specific rule that I haven't been able to find so far. -- 84.191.238.76 17:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
"The second game, m199h, was created in a lesson space for foreign language instruction, and it was similarly deleted as soon as its illicit purpose was discovered" - This line says that the first two games writen for PLATO, wich preceded dnd, if i'm not mistaken, were deleted because of "illicit content". I'm no expert at all in this subject, but i was very intrigued with this phrase, and found no further discussion on the article. Could anyony please elaborate a little? as it is now, the article shows an assumption that the reader knows beofre hand that this games were illicit. -- Gorgonzola, December 24, 2005.
Who is Daniel Lawrence? See this reference: Daniel Lawrence's DND Page. According to this very extensive resource (which has been on the net for awhile, now) it seems HE originally created dnd, not the people named on this page--one of whom is the author of this wikipedia entry. Any clarifications should be posted to this page asap, because wikipedia's information is being mirror worldwide repeatedly on a daily basis. His versions of the game were out by 1972. If Gary Whisenhunt and Ray Wood plagrized from some source it should be cleared up immediately. -- Asdfff 23 April 2006 (UTC)
There's no need to use sarcastic arguments--for instance, your timeline argument doesn't really bring up any good points of debate and is logically useless.
I'm asking this as an actual matter of curiosity, and I'm not disputing anything committed to either website until I get accounts and facts. This account of history is COMPLETELY different from existing accounts. I just want to get the story straight. Not only that, but why are you so passionately shaken by this? No one has yet DISPUTED any of the claims on either page. So far it has been two completely different accounts on two websites that thus far have seen no interaction between either one's adherents. -- Asdfff 16:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The article says that the Golden Dragon was inspired by the D&D box cover; but according to the Acaeum, the old white box cover didn't have a dragon on it. The dragon with treasure picture seems to be the original Basic set which they date from 1977. So was the Dragon added then, or was it based on something else? (I noticed a dragon on the white box "monster manual", but without any treasure.) Ben Standeven 20:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The article seems to have a major "stylistic" flaw. Under "gameplay" it reads "The game presents players with an overhead view of the dungeon and plays much like NetHack, but also implements many basic concepts of Dungeons & Dragons." - it seems improper that the article defines the subject via reference to a derivative work. That is, NetHack is a game published a decade following 'dnd' so how does it make sense that a historically minded description defines the gameplay of 'dnd' via reference to the gmaeplay of NetHack. It's akin to using the word 'cookie' to define 'cake', only to find out that the word 'cake' is used to define 'cookie'. 99.230.243.1 ( talk) 14:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I am bothered by the reference to any games developed on the PLATO IV system as video games. These were computer games, and they used a graphical display, but the flat panel plasma display technology used on the Magnavox PLATO IV terminal did not use a video signal to present an image on the screen. The screen was literally a dot-addressable RAM technology where the glowing dot on the screen was in itself one bit of memory, and this bit could be set or cleared by the electronics outside the screen. We seem stuck with the category "video games" to refer to such games, but careless use of the term video confuses things. (Note that later, when CDC went commercial with the PLATO system, they developed a video terminal to replace the flat-panel plasma displays. Thus, PLATO games could be played on video displays, even if they weren't developed for them.) Douglas W. Jones ( talk) 03:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)