巫术：疯狂领主的试验场 Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord p.52

从各方面看，我认为玩 Rogue 之于玩《暗黑破坏神》，就好比是读书之于看电影。当你读一本书时，你看不到人物、特效或者动作。但你却可以在心里想象它，使得书中的效果就像是看电影一样强烈。不同的是这些画面构建于你的脑海中，就像是有些人更喜欢阅读而非看电影一样，但仍有些人（其中也包括我）更喜欢 Rogue 而非那些更新颖、画面更生动的游戏。

In a lot of ways, I think playing Rogue is to playing Diablo as reading a book is to watching a movie. When reading a book, you don't see the characters or special effects or action, but you imagine it in your mind, and the effect of the book is just as strong as the effect of a movie. The difference is that you get to make up the images in your own head. Just as some people prefer reading to watching a movie, there are still some (including myself) who prefer Rogue to the newer, more graphically intense games.

Glen Wichman,
Rogue 的合作开发者

Glen Wichman,
Rogue's co-creator

在“roguelikes”玩家社群里，许多人也只是把 Rogue 作为这个流派在核心机制之上实现随机性和越来越复杂的系统的标志。但我认为这种诠释是对游戏的低估，并且太过强调游戏膨胀的复杂度。玩 Rogue 使我明白了设计上简明克制的重要性。

Rogue 单一地专注于地牢探险，有种纯粹的感觉。这导致新玩家自寻死路的机会少得可怜。虽然有时肯定会因为计算错误或对游戏的误解而死亡，但对信息量和知识的要求远远低于其他的“rogue-like”游戏。

这点虽少见，但 Rogue 中的这种简洁设计偶尔还是会在更现代的游戏中焕发出来，例如 Brian Walker's Brogue（2009）就将 Rogue 中的无职业系统做的深入人心，甚至进一步简化到玩家不需要打怪来升级。

Many in the roguelike community only bring up Rogue as a marker of how far the genre has come in implementing randomness and increasingly complex systems on top of the core mechanics. I feel like that interpretation sells the game short, and places too much emphasis on overwhelming complexity. Playing Rogue taught me the importance of clarity and restraint.

There's something pure about its singular focus on dungeon crawling. It leads to far fewer opportunities for new players to get themselves killed. While there will certainly be times where they'll die due to a miscalculation or misunderstanding of the game, the sheer amount of information and knowledge demanded is far lower than other roguelikes.

It's rare, but the clarity of design found in Rogue occasionally shines through in more modern designs: Brian Walker's Brogue (2009) takes Rogue's classless system to heart and even simplifies it further by making it so the player doesn't need to kill monsters to level up.

类似的，Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup（ 2006，中译：《深入地下城之石头汤》）的设计哲学则是强调清晰明了以及对这种不公平的难度或死亡的不屑。他们也不怯于剔除与该目标背道而驰的机制和角色创建选项。

现在还值得再去玩 Rogue 吗？这个问题很难回答。我确实从 Rogue 中获得了许多乐趣并且我仍会定期重玩。但这种喜爱交织着怀旧情怀与个人感情，毕竟我在此之前就已经对“roguelike”游戏深感兴趣。

从很多方面来说，Rogue 并没有像 ADOM 或者 Nethack 那样频繁出现在各种讨论中，这很令人遗憾。它简化的设定提供了比其他“roguelike”游戏更加平滑的入门门槛，而后者的种种古怪特性兼之艰深晦涩经常会把玩家置入莫名其妙的致命处境。对此，我认为 Rogue 是个不错的起点，你学到的教训将会帮助你为更加复杂（还有更无情）的状况做好准备，而这正是这一类型声名远扬的原因。

Similarly, Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup (2006) has a design philosophy that emphasises the need for clarity and an aversion to grinding or deaths that feel unfair. They are not shy about removing mechanics or character creation options that run counter to those goals.

Is it still worth going back to Rogue? It's a tough question to answer. I get a lot out of playing Rogue and still replay it on a regular basis. But that interest is a combination of nostalgia and the affections of someone who is already deeply interested in roguelikes as a genre.

In many ways, it's a shame that Rogue doesn't come up in discussion as frequently as ADOM or NetHack does. Its simplified design provides a smoother onramp than other roguelikes, whose idiosyncrasies and impenetrability frequently place new players in utterly inscrutable and fatal situations. To that end, I think it's a worthwhile starting point: the lessons you learn here will help prepare you for the far more complicated (and unforgiving) fare the genre is known for.