What “Roguelike” Meant(zenorogue.medium.com)
zenorogue.medium.com
What “Roguelike” Meant
https://zenorogue.medium.com/what-roguelike-meant-fb8b0e1601a
29 comments
> Roguelike is a self-descriptive classifier -- something like Rogue. The defining characteristic of roguelikes is exploring game mechanics amidst permadeath.
The problem is no one agrees on what those defining characteristics are. You've given your opinion, but it's just an opinion. It's highly subjective. I hear people all the time say the same thing "it's self evident!" and then go on to list "turn based/grid based" as the self evident requirements.
The author and I disagree on this topic (I wrote the linked article "The Roguelike War Is Over"), but.... I do feel for fans of traditional roguelikes. They had a well understood genre of game for about 30 years that meant specific things: turn based, grid based combat with random levels and real permadeath. Many of these fans just can't get into action games and they have a hard time finding what they're looking for these days.
The problem is no one agrees on what those defining characteristics are. You've given your opinion, but it's just an opinion. It's highly subjective. I hear people all the time say the same thing "it's self evident!" and then go on to list "turn based/grid based" as the self evident requirements.
The author and I disagree on this topic (I wrote the linked article "The Roguelike War Is Over"), but.... I do feel for fans of traditional roguelikes. They had a well understood genre of game for about 30 years that meant specific things: turn based, grid based combat with random levels and real permadeath. Many of these fans just can't get into action games and they have a hard time finding what they're looking for these days.
The real "problem" here is that we're getting more lines fuzzing right? Instead of just having Rogue, Nethack and Caves of Qud we're getting some games that dip their toes in the water to grab a few features those designers appreciate (i.e. permadeath a mechanic lots of devs have used to make their games less stressful by keeping expected lives rather short - a usage of a mechanic for a purpose far different from original rogue-like's intentions)...
I think this is just like music genres - nobody owns a genre and games will come out that do different things with that genre... the market is open and new games just add to the collection of choice - it might be that rogue-lites end up stealing some community support and income from more classic rogue-likes but nothing has destroyed Rogue or any of the other games people have fallen in love with along the way.
I have my own classifications for what roguelike would be and Diablo (even in permadeath mode) wouldn't fit into it - it's far too fixed and predictable of a game and quite easy to initially get into - I'd consider a lack of accessibility to basically be a rogue-like requirement.
I think this is just like music genres - nobody owns a genre and games will come out that do different things with that genre... the market is open and new games just add to the collection of choice - it might be that rogue-lites end up stealing some community support and income from more classic rogue-likes but nothing has destroyed Rogue or any of the other games people have fallen in love with along the way.
I have my own classifications for what roguelike would be and Diablo (even in permadeath mode) wouldn't fit into it - it's far too fixed and predictable of a game and quite easy to initially get into - I'd consider a lack of accessibility to basically be a rogue-like requirement.
> I'd consider a lack of accessibility to basically be a rogue-like requirement.
I just have to say that's a strange take. Lots of newer traditional RLs are quite accessible and accessibility was a big goal for my game. There's no real reason to have a game use 95 separate key commands. Then again this classification is no less arbitrary than the low value factor "ASCII display" in the Berlin Interpretation.
I just have to say that's a strange take. Lots of newer traditional RLs are quite accessible and accessibility was a big goal for my game. There's no real reason to have a game use 95 separate key commands. Then again this classification is no less arbitrary than the low value factor "ASCII display" in the Berlin Interpretation.
Oh it's definitely arbitrary, the reason why dwarf fortress made the "sorta" list but other strategy games that are technically just as perma-death (i.e. every RTS ever from Starcraft to AoE2) don't... in fact Dwarf Fortress is notably _less_ roguelike than those other games - it's just more "brutal" almost certainly because there is no ability to tune the difficulty and some gameplay requirements are not clearly explained as necessary. In DF the presence of your prior fortress can potentially make your life a lot easier (or more difficult) by tackling overworld threats and providing security (or becoming a hive of scum and villainy)... And there's even a "recover my save" sort of game more in launching an expedition to reclaim your fortress.
Everyone who has ever played a dwarf fortress game for longer than four seasons will tell you "Oh yea - I realized you're going to need plump helmet" - compare that to starcraft where often times players will realize they'll eventually need a military of some form in their first game.
Everyone who has ever played a dwarf fortress game for longer than four seasons will tell you "Oh yea - I realized you're going to need plump helmet" - compare that to starcraft where often times players will realize they'll eventually need a military of some form in their first game.
The absolute core gameplay mechanics of rogue like games historically was a combination of being strategic rather than twitch, resource management, permanent death, risk with randomized rewards, and progression. A game like Slay the Spire fits that mold much more closely than something like dwarf fortress.
Being brutal is just an outgrowth of those basic mechanics. Meaningful risks require meaningful costs. Using an unidentified scroll consumes the scroll. Fighting monsters consumes an unknown amount of resources to receive some benefit. But, if you tone the game down to near safety then without twitch based tests it’s just wandering around freely.
Similarly, if you can memorize the layout or the meaning of a scroll for the next life, then that’s not a risk you’re taking.
Being brutal is just an outgrowth of those basic mechanics. Meaningful risks require meaningful costs. Using an unidentified scroll consumes the scroll. Fighting monsters consumes an unknown amount of resources to receive some benefit. But, if you tone the game down to near safety then without twitch based tests it’s just wandering around freely.
Similarly, if you can memorize the layout or the meaning of a scroll for the next life, then that’s not a risk you’re taking.
So would playing Civ6 on ironman mode (assuming it was enforced and/or you did it by honor) and with a random map and a randomized tech/civics tree count as a rogue-like?
When you move that scout you don't know if you're going to encounter a barbarian or a tribal village - do you hold off on building a warrior to escort your settler hoping that you can settle without it being captured?
I have a clear picture in my mind of what roguelike is, and that picture is nethack because someone introduced me to nethack and said "This is a roguelike" and I still basically believe them - trying to abstract the specific mechanics that make something a roguelike is hard... Here are some questions:
Do you have to just be one person - can a roguelike be a party of adventurers?
Does a roguelike need to have an rpg-style leveling system - can strength be gained by item acquisition alone? Does a leveling system make it not a roguelike?
Do you need to use pixel graphics for display?
Does the PC need to be precisely on coordinate pixel big?
Dwarf fortress, for instance, is turn based but the only real difference between turn based and real time is that twitch factor - if you made a version of starcraft where the game paused every five seconds to let you revise as many orders as you wished would that suddenly be really close to a roguelike?
My core thing here is that rogue was a collection of game mechanics, and games can be judged to be similar to that in an entirely subjective manner - you can objectively call out different features that differ or are the same, but those features only really matter if the person you're talking about strongly believed (subjectively) that that feature was "core" to the gameplay. A young kid playing rogue today is probably just going to walk away saying that rogue-likes use ascii art and I don't think it's wrong to accept that definition - for that kid.
When you move that scout you don't know if you're going to encounter a barbarian or a tribal village - do you hold off on building a warrior to escort your settler hoping that you can settle without it being captured?
I have a clear picture in my mind of what roguelike is, and that picture is nethack because someone introduced me to nethack and said "This is a roguelike" and I still basically believe them - trying to abstract the specific mechanics that make something a roguelike is hard... Here are some questions:
Do you have to just be one person - can a roguelike be a party of adventurers?
Does a roguelike need to have an rpg-style leveling system - can strength be gained by item acquisition alone? Does a leveling system make it not a roguelike?
Do you need to use pixel graphics for display?
Does the PC need to be precisely on coordinate pixel big?
Dwarf fortress, for instance, is turn based but the only real difference between turn based and real time is that twitch factor - if you made a version of starcraft where the game paused every five seconds to let you revise as many orders as you wished would that suddenly be really close to a roguelike?
My core thing here is that rogue was a collection of game mechanics, and games can be judged to be similar to that in an entirely subjective manner - you can objectively call out different features that differ or are the same, but those features only really matter if the person you're talking about strongly believed (subjectively) that that feature was "core" to the gameplay. A young kid playing rogue today is probably just going to walk away saying that rogue-likes use ascii art and I don't think it's wrong to accept that definition - for that kid.
Where Civ6 in that game mode breaks the mold I just described is the game eventually stops having that random risk vs reward element as a major gameplay mechanic. Again StarCraft is effectively deterministic, there isn’t any kind of clicking an ability and wondering what will happen phase.
As to being twitch or not, again that’s from a gameplay standpoint. Slow down Starcraft dramatically and it’s still real-time, but eventuality APM stops being a meaningful factor.
As to being twitch or not, again that’s from a gameplay standpoint. Slow down Starcraft dramatically and it’s still real-time, but eventuality APM stops being a meaningful factor.
> there is no ability to tune the difficulty
FWIW, this isn't actually true; you just need to manually apply the gameplay changes that a difficulty setting would normally affect. The two main one's I'd recommend are increasing the number of embark points (in init/world_gen.txt#EMBARK_POINTS) so you can buy more starting resources, and increasing dwarves' speed (in raw/objects/creature_standard.txt#CREATURE:DWARF#APPLY_CREATURE_VARIATION:STANDARD_<x>_GAITS), which just generally makes everything much easier, including increasing your fort's economic productivity to give you better ability to absorb any disaster that do happen.
Your overall point stands though; we proudly call it a learning curve^Wcliff^Woverhang for good reason.
FWIW, this isn't actually true; you just need to manually apply the gameplay changes that a difficulty setting would normally affect. The two main one's I'd recommend are increasing the number of embark points (in init/world_gen.txt#EMBARK_POINTS) so you can buy more starting resources, and increasing dwarves' speed (in raw/objects/creature_standard.txt#CREATURE:DWARF#APPLY_CREATURE_VARIATION:STANDARD_<x>_GAITS), which just generally makes everything much easier, including increasing your fort's economic productivity to give you better ability to absorb any disaster that do happen.
Your overall point stands though; we proudly call it a learning curve^Wcliff^Woverhang for good reason.
> Many of these fans just can't get into action games and they have a hard time finding what they're looking for these days
Welcome to the "RPG" club. This is just the nature of games. No genre can remain pure, at least not once it becomes popular. Nor should they.
Welcome to the "RPG" club. This is just the nature of games. No genre can remain pure, at least not once it becomes popular. Nor should they.
I mean, RPG describes a lot of games. Baldurs gate and Diablo are both RPGs but are pretty far from each other. Even Team Fortress could be classified as a RPG with the most pedantic reading.
That's why we have additional classifiers. Diablo is an A(ction)RPG, Baldurs gate is tagged as D&D and Classic on Steam, and TF2 is a multiplayer FPS (without the RPG tag because most people are not pedantic af).
As far as Roguelikes go, I subscribe to the belief that they pretty much have to be permadeath, tile based, procedural generation for levels and items. Most games don't fit the bill, but so what, it's good enough as a general guideline. Recently we also got the "Roguelite" term to describe Roguelikes that are not very Roguelike-y :)
Bottom line, why are people so up in arms about a tag that doesn't even mean that much?
That's why we have additional classifiers. Diablo is an A(ction)RPG, Baldurs gate is tagged as D&D and Classic on Steam, and TF2 is a multiplayer FPS (without the RPG tag because most people are not pedantic af).
As far as Roguelikes go, I subscribe to the belief that they pretty much have to be permadeath, tile based, procedural generation for levels and items. Most games don't fit the bill, but so what, it's good enough as a general guideline. Recently we also got the "Roguelite" term to describe Roguelikes that are not very Roguelike-y :)
Bottom line, why are people so up in arms about a tag that doesn't even mean that much?
"Roguelike is a self-descriptive classifier -- something like Rogue"
Well play Nethack, Sil, DCSS, POWDER, Cogmind, Frozen Depths, DoomRL. Then play Spelunky, BoI, FTL, Nuclear Throne, Risk of Rain, Ziggurat, Hades. You'll very quickly notice the first group is a lot like.... Rogue. And the second group is a random mishmash of unrelated genres - Platformers, FPS, Twinstick shooters, slasher/looters, and whatever FTL is.
If someone liked Nethack, I would happily recommend any game from the first list. If someone liked Ziggurat, I wouldn't recommend any of the games from the second list because they're so different. Anyone doing the experiment in my first paragraph would clearly come to the same conclusion.
I think the second group of games is great. And so do a lot of people judging by their popularity. However, I prefer the first set but now searching for games like the first set is much harder. You can't just search for the term that was always used to describe the set. And I've already seen people describe Spelunky as a "classic" or "traditional" roguelike because it's 12 years old now.
If someone liked Nethack, I would happily recommend any game from the first list. If someone liked Ziggurat, I wouldn't recommend any of the games from the second list because they're so different. Anyone doing the experiment in my first paragraph would clearly come to the same conclusion.
I think the second group of games is great. And so do a lot of people judging by their popularity. However, I prefer the first set but now searching for games like the first set is much harder. You can't just search for the term that was always used to describe the set. And I've already seen people describe Spelunky as a "classic" or "traditional" roguelike because it's 12 years old now.
I think the point the author is trying to make is that "roguelike" is emphatically not actually a genre but describes both the development process and the end result, at least in the "traditional" sense.
In the same sense that some strongly distinguish "FOSS" from software which is just "open source" or just "free as in beer", I think Roguelikes to many people indicates not only the "style" of the game but both the development style and shared history of the game.
The "lowest common denominator" roguelikes like Angband, ToME, Nethack etc. are pretty dissimilar games, apart from some shared procedural generation and dungeon crawling aspects, but they all share either a literal or spiritual lineage to the original Rogue game, itself written as a kind of demo for the curses library in BSD UNIX.
Hack began life as a Rogue-clone written by a highschooler on the school's PDP-11, was rewritten a few times, eventually ended up becoming a collaborative effort on the "net". Angband is based on the gameplay of UMoria, a rewrite of Moria in C for Unix, itself originally a rogue clone for the VAX written in BASIC/Pascal/assembler because UNIX didn't exist for the VAX then and the developer missed playing Rogue from the PDP-11.
To some Roguelikes aren't just a "style of game" but a community that encompasses both playing, developing, distributing, and modifying the games. Many people have learned coding from making small modifications to Roguelikes , which are in turn modified by others, similar to game mods today.
Unlike most game mods, however, because of the open-source nature of "traditional" Roguelikes, they tend to be "forked" and released under new names as large monoliths, which can themselves be forked. Instead of the modern phenomena of installing 100+ mods to your favorite RPG, a developer would throw 100+ patches into Angband and call it YAngband, and then some other person would throw another 100+ patches and call it NeoYAngband.
I agree that at the end of the day being pedantic is pretty silly and people shouldn't lose sleep over something as silly as this, but I also think it'd be sad to forget about the community of "original" roguelikes and abandon the practice of kids picking up the last generation's game and forking it.
Thing is, that hasn't happened -- it's just that "games that mechanically resemble roguelikes" have become sort of mainstream, and the group of people who just want to play games and be done with it has grown much faster than the sort interested in the old way.
In the same sense that some strongly distinguish "FOSS" from software which is just "open source" or just "free as in beer", I think Roguelikes to many people indicates not only the "style" of the game but both the development style and shared history of the game.
The "lowest common denominator" roguelikes like Angband, ToME, Nethack etc. are pretty dissimilar games, apart from some shared procedural generation and dungeon crawling aspects, but they all share either a literal or spiritual lineage to the original Rogue game, itself written as a kind of demo for the curses library in BSD UNIX.
Hack began life as a Rogue-clone written by a highschooler on the school's PDP-11, was rewritten a few times, eventually ended up becoming a collaborative effort on the "net". Angband is based on the gameplay of UMoria, a rewrite of Moria in C for Unix, itself originally a rogue clone for the VAX written in BASIC/Pascal/assembler because UNIX didn't exist for the VAX then and the developer missed playing Rogue from the PDP-11.
To some Roguelikes aren't just a "style of game" but a community that encompasses both playing, developing, distributing, and modifying the games. Many people have learned coding from making small modifications to Roguelikes , which are in turn modified by others, similar to game mods today.
Unlike most game mods, however, because of the open-source nature of "traditional" Roguelikes, they tend to be "forked" and released under new names as large monoliths, which can themselves be forked. Instead of the modern phenomena of installing 100+ mods to your favorite RPG, a developer would throw 100+ patches into Angband and call it YAngband, and then some other person would throw another 100+ patches and call it NeoYAngband.
I agree that at the end of the day being pedantic is pretty silly and people shouldn't lose sleep over something as silly as this, but I also think it'd be sad to forget about the community of "original" roguelikes and abandon the practice of kids picking up the last generation's game and forking it.
Thing is, that hasn't happened -- it's just that "games that mechanically resemble roguelikes" have become sort of mainstream, and the group of people who just want to play games and be done with it has grown much faster than the sort interested in the old way.
As new games appear the lines will continue to get a bit blurry. Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup and Hades are both roguelike by my estimation, but runs affect future runs in both games.
Hades is typically called a roguelite, and the progression elements are rather strong for the genre. You get significantly more powerful with some permanent upgrades. This does make a lot of sense for the game, especially with the strong focus on the story. You want most players to be able to complete the game after a certain amount of tries, but not too early to shortcut the story. And the real difficulty slider is in the endgame anyway.
There's no metaprogression (runs affecting future runs) in DCSS. You must be confusing it with a different game. It's a classical "Berlin Interpretation" roguelike in every regard.
Right. The only thing that can potentially carry over across DCSS runs is a "player ghost", which actually makes the game much harder rather than easier. In any case that's a very small part of the game.
DCSS ghosts also guard random loot, not a bones pile like in NetHack. And in recent versions the game has a set of built-in ghosts that can appear even on a fresh install, so there's not even a meaningful difference between your first playthrough and later ones.
> It's a classical "Berlin Interpretation" roguelike in every regard.
This is no surprise. David Ploog and his sister Johanna helped write the Berlin Interpretation. David served as de facto PMs of crawl for years.
This is no surprise. David Ploog and his sister Johanna helped write the Berlin Interpretation. David served as de facto PMs of crawl for years.
I think they're likely referring to ghosts.
If that's the case, the pairing with Hades (a game with strong metaprogression) muddles the point. As I mentioned in another comment, DCSS doesn't have "bones" to loot and it will generate ghosts regardless of whether you've actually played before, so the impact of previous runs on future runs is essentially cosmetic.
> runs affect future runs
That is more or less a rogue-lite in my opinion. Games like The Binding of Isaac, FTL, Rogue Legacy, Crypt of the NecroDancer etc. It's a fuzzy definition, though.
That is more or less a rogue-lite in my opinion. Games like The Binding of Isaac, FTL, Rogue Legacy, Crypt of the NecroDancer etc. It's a fuzzy definition, though.
Many of the core examples of rogue-likes have the concept of bones files, where you can encounter the level a previous character died on. So in those cases some runs affect some future runs.
I assume that what's being talked about in DCSS and Hades is a stronger effect, though?
I assume that what's being talked about in DCSS and Hades is a stronger effect, though?
I have not played Hades, but I think referring to these types of games on a spectrum is more apt.
In The Binding of Isaac, each run starts the same. The difference is playthroughs allow new items to be found, but the main character is not enhanced. FTL unlocks different starting ships, but there are no "upgrades" as far as I'm aware, just different ships with pros and cons.
In Rogue Legacy and Crypt of the NecroDancer, successful playthroughs enhance aspects of the main character. This to me is a hallmark of roguelites. The Binding of Isaac technically has iterations but since only the random item pool is modified, I would keep it in the roguelike camp.
In The Binding of Isaac, each run starts the same. The difference is playthroughs allow new items to be found, but the main character is not enhanced. FTL unlocks different starting ships, but there are no "upgrades" as far as I'm aware, just different ships with pros and cons.
In Rogue Legacy and Crypt of the NecroDancer, successful playthroughs enhance aspects of the main character. This to me is a hallmark of roguelites. The Binding of Isaac technically has iterations but since only the random item pool is modified, I would keep it in the roguelike camp.
> I assume that what's being talked about in DCSS and Hades is a stronger effect, though?
Very much so. In some games, past runs only unlock additional content (more possible items, monsters, etc.). In Hades, for example, you actually get stronger with each run.
Very much so. In some games, past runs only unlock additional content (more possible items, monsters, etc.). In Hades, for example, you actually get stronger with each run.
Hades is pretty far on the 'progression' spectrum, yes. Both the story and the character's capabilities evolve with each run. There's also resource gathering. The game has additional mechanics so you can speed up progression if you want.
> Many of the core examples of rogue-likes have the concept of bones files, where you can encounter the level a previous character died on. So in those cases some runs affect some future runs.
They affect one another, but there's no meta-resource and meta-progression as in an Enter the Gungeon, Hades or Dead Cells.
They affect one another, but there's no meta-resource and meta-progression as in an Enter the Gungeon, Hades or Dead Cells.
"Rogue-lites" usually refer not just to persistent state, but to persistent progression across runs.
Unlocking ship types in FTL is technically progression but is of a purely horizontal nature. When you unlock a new ship it has zero affect on runs with any of the other ships. This is markedly different from something like Binding of Isaac where you unlock new things to find that affect all future runs.
[deleted]
This is also true in Nethack. Possessions lost in previous runs may be found again in later runs in bones levels.
Yeah. And there exists a very scummy form of meta-gaming exploit known as bones stuffing where you deliberately create well-stocked bones levels for future characters to find.
If you don't scum though bones are far from guaranteed and often a bones level just means getting murdered by a summoned demon lord or something. I wouldn't call it a progress mechanic like we see in roguelites.
That type of mechanic is often referred to as rogue-lite
Here's the important bit for me.
Roguelike, as much as the term refers to a game style rather than a development process/community thing, describes a game that is turn based and tile based. I find the turn-based nature of roguelikes core to the genre, because they define so much about how you interact with the game. "Real" or "traditional" roguelikes allow you as much time as you need to decide your next move.
What this means is the genre is completely removed from any sort of mechanical or reflex skill. If reaction times are at all involved, to me, it's not a roguelike. Under this rubric I find FTL is mostly a roguelike due to its pausability, whereas Spelunky is definitely not, given the required mechanical skill.
(I may even consider being turn-based to be more core to the genre than having strictly no between-run progress; FTL gates off some ships behind multiple runs but this barely registers for me. Some people take this 'requirement' a little too strictly for my tastes.)
Why this matters, beyond pedantry, is that blurring the genre lines has made searching for new games in the genre almost impossible. Some great roguelikes have found their way to Steam (Caves of Qud, for example), but finding them amongst the 100s of games that get the "roguelike" tag is difficult. Not a huge issue, of course, but it's why it matters to me.
Beyond that, the term "roguelike" is really not very descriptive unless you're already part of the RL community and are up on how the community defines the genre, so I'm just clueless as to why it has become such a marketing buzzword. "Run based game" has only one extra syllable and provides such a cleaner description of what the game is actually like. And can we really say that a game like Slay the Spire (a game I love) is anything at all like Rogue?
Roguelike, as much as the term refers to a game style rather than a development process/community thing, describes a game that is turn based and tile based. I find the turn-based nature of roguelikes core to the genre, because they define so much about how you interact with the game. "Real" or "traditional" roguelikes allow you as much time as you need to decide your next move.
What this means is the genre is completely removed from any sort of mechanical or reflex skill. If reaction times are at all involved, to me, it's not a roguelike. Under this rubric I find FTL is mostly a roguelike due to its pausability, whereas Spelunky is definitely not, given the required mechanical skill.
(I may even consider being turn-based to be more core to the genre than having strictly no between-run progress; FTL gates off some ships behind multiple runs but this barely registers for me. Some people take this 'requirement' a little too strictly for my tastes.)
Why this matters, beyond pedantry, is that blurring the genre lines has made searching for new games in the genre almost impossible. Some great roguelikes have found their way to Steam (Caves of Qud, for example), but finding them amongst the 100s of games that get the "roguelike" tag is difficult. Not a huge issue, of course, but it's why it matters to me.
Beyond that, the term "roguelike" is really not very descriptive unless you're already part of the RL community and are up on how the community defines the genre, so I'm just clueless as to why it has become such a marketing buzzword. "Run based game" has only one extra syllable and provides such a cleaner description of what the game is actually like. And can we really say that a game like Slay the Spire (a game I love) is anything at all like Rogue?
>Some great roguelikes have found their way to Steam (Caves of Qud, for example), but finding them amongst the 100s of games that get the "roguelike" tag is difficult. Not a huge issue, of course, but it's why it matters to me.
Try the "traditional roguelike" tag, it's exactly what it's there for and carries the meaning well. The author of the article argues against its usage but uses it himself many times throughout.
Try the "traditional roguelike" tag, it's exactly what it's there for and carries the meaning well. The author of the article argues against its usage but uses it himself many times throughout.
Why does it have to be tile-based? Enter the Gungeon seems very Rouge-like to me.
FWIW, monetization strategies do influence how a game plays - at least for people who don’t pay extra.
Energy limits how much you can play the game in a particular day.
XP Bonuses ensure that there’s a greater-than-normal (probably dull) grind to progress through the game.
Cosmetics mean that there will be few, if any, cosmetic rewards for playing the game. (An aside: yes, this matters. If cosmetics weren’t an important part of a game, why would they sell them?)
Lootboxes (gacha, etc) mean that the ability to make substantial progress through the game will rely on luck (and grinds to get the chance to test that luck).
And, something new coming to roguelikes/lites, “Undo” consumables mean that you’ll be starting over more than you’d expect to.
Otherwise, I agree with your overall definition of Roguelikes.
Energy limits how much you can play the game in a particular day.
XP Bonuses ensure that there’s a greater-than-normal (probably dull) grind to progress through the game.
Cosmetics mean that there will be few, if any, cosmetic rewards for playing the game. (An aside: yes, this matters. If cosmetics weren’t an important part of a game, why would they sell them?)
Lootboxes (gacha, etc) mean that the ability to make substantial progress through the game will rely on luck (and grinds to get the chance to test that luck).
And, something new coming to roguelikes/lites, “Undo” consumables mean that you’ll be starting over more than you’d expect to.
Otherwise, I agree with your overall definition of Roguelikes.
I would not consider FTL to be a roguelike because (a) you can't go back to previous levels, you can only explore the current map, and (b) you're forced to progress to the next level on a timer.
Rogue also doesn't let you go back to previous levels (except during the ending sequence when you escape with the amulet) and forces you to progress on a timer (you starve if you go too long without eating).
Dang, you're right. I've played so much nethack after rogue that it overwrote that.
[deleted]
> (a) you can't go back to previous levels, you can only explore the current map
a. While this is common in roguelikes I'd never pick it out of a list of defining traits of a roguelike. It's like defining first person shooters by whether they have keys that open doors. Sure it's common but I'm not playing Doom to find red keycards, I'm playing to shoot things. The keys just help direct the experience and there are plenty of mechanics that could fill that same gap.
> (b) you're forced to progress to the next level on a timer
b. There is a timer that prevents you from leaving before it's up (engine charging), and there is escalation of force the longer you stay in a sector (rebel controlled beacons) but neither of those design decisions strike me as incompatible with the roguelike formula.
a. While this is common in roguelikes I'd never pick it out of a list of defining traits of a roguelike. It's like defining first person shooters by whether they have keys that open doors. Sure it's common but I'm not playing Doom to find red keycards, I'm playing to shoot things. The keys just help direct the experience and there are plenty of mechanics that could fill that same gap.
> (b) you're forced to progress to the next level on a timer
b. There is a timer that prevents you from leaving before it's up (engine charging), and there is escalation of force the longer you stay in a sector (rebel controlled beacons) but neither of those design decisions strike me as incompatible with the roguelike formula.
> It appears that the people who argue that roguelike means something different now have never (or almost never) played a roguelike in traditional sense.
It almost seems like the author is begging for refutation, but I'll bite: I have multiple allrune victories in DCSS (and have also contributed code to the game) and have been around roguelike communities since the mid-2000s (so before Spelunky, FTL, etc), and I have no issue with the modern use of the word "roguelike". In fact, I'm delighted! I think the "run-based" machinery that can be traced back to Rogue (with all the trappings that tends to imply: tangible loss upon death, random layouts, etc.) have been one of the best trends in gaming of the past decade.
It's similar to what happened to RPGs. Remember what "RPG" used to mean in the 90s? Then remember when games starting incorporating "RPG elements" (e.g. character progression through leveling and experience points) into other genres? Turns out there were some widely-applicable, generally good ideas that had mostly only surfaced themselves in classic RPGs that took years to gradually diffuse into the medium at large. So goes the roguelike.
It almost seems like the author is begging for refutation, but I'll bite: I have multiple allrune victories in DCSS (and have also contributed code to the game) and have been around roguelike communities since the mid-2000s (so before Spelunky, FTL, etc), and I have no issue with the modern use of the word "roguelike". In fact, I'm delighted! I think the "run-based" machinery that can be traced back to Rogue (with all the trappings that tends to imply: tangible loss upon death, random layouts, etc.) have been one of the best trends in gaming of the past decade.
It's similar to what happened to RPGs. Remember what "RPG" used to mean in the 90s? Then remember when games starting incorporating "RPG elements" (e.g. character progression through leveling and experience points) into other genres? Turns out there were some widely-applicable, generally good ideas that had mostly only surfaced themselves in classic RPGs that took years to gradually diffuse into the medium at large. So goes the roguelike.
> Remember what "RPG" used to mean in the 90s?
It meant the same as now. We do have sub genres like "Action RPG" or "with RPG elements", we don't call any game with RPG elements RPG's.
So instead of calling any game with permadeath "roguelike" why not just say it has permadeath? Would cause less confusion.
It meant the same as now. We do have sub genres like "Action RPG" or "with RPG elements", we don't call any game with RPG elements RPG's.
So instead of calling any game with permadeath "roguelike" why not just say it has permadeath? Would cause less confusion.
These categories are all tags anyway, trying to build a distinctive taxonomy of games is futile. Most sensible philosphers have long since abandoned categorical absolutism and there are many hundreds of years of arguments around it.
Call them tags and the generality of the tag becomes irrelevant. If enough people like some combination or derivation of rogue elements then roguelike is good enough.
The issue with non specific tags (roguelike vs permadeath) is that the membership defines it, leading to either infinite dilution or periodic membership - think the evolution of political parties.
Call them tags and the generality of the tag becomes irrelevant. If enough people like some combination or derivation of rogue elements then roguelike is good enough.
The issue with non specific tags (roguelike vs permadeath) is that the membership defines it, leading to either infinite dilution or periodic membership - think the evolution of political parties.
[deleted]
I have been playing NetHack[1] on and off for three decades now. It is a self-described rogue-like and no one owns or controls that moniker. It is still open source and being actively developed[2]. The current TNNT[3] competition is active this month as well. Now I must go and look after my unfortunate Cavewoman who had a bad encounter with a Master Lich recently...
[1]: https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page
[2]: https://github.com/NetHack/NetHack/tree/NetHack-3.7
[3]: https://www.hardfought.org/tnnt/
[1]: https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page
[2]: https://github.com/NetHack/NetHack/tree/NetHack-3.7
[3]: https://www.hardfought.org/tnnt/
A friend of a friend pointed out a fun demarcation problem, which is that many (most?) proposed definitions of “roguelike” would include the best-known and most popular turn-based, grid-based, procedurally generated game with permadeath of all time — Minesweeper.
Huh, I played my first roguelike a lot earlier than I thought. In fact I've logged many many more hours in the genre than I thought.
I'm all in on this definition.
I'm all in on this definition.
Someone seems to have had this thought as well and made a minesweeper roguelike https://demoncrawl.com/
Oh, Ragnarok! I Loved it. It has features still unmatched by modern games. Where else, tell me, you can mutate to have 16 fingers (putting an enchanted ring on EACH!) and 5 eyes, improving perception?!
And you could switch bodies with any monster (best of all Draugr, who moved 4 times faster than everyone and had insane health and other stats!).
And if you morphed into a giant, while wearing rings, they would cut your fingers off. Isn't it nice?
But, best of all, you could meet ghosts of your previous lives, sometimes with gear!
ADOM is much more polished, of course, but lacks this inspired touch.
And you could switch bodies with any monster (best of all Draugr, who moved 4 times faster than everyone and had insane health and other stats!).
And if you morphed into a giant, while wearing rings, they would cut your fingers off. Isn't it nice?
But, best of all, you could meet ghosts of your previous lives, sometimes with gear!
ADOM is much more polished, of course, but lacks this inspired touch.
It's weird that it's so buried, but I actually like the proposed idea of separating the noun and adjective forms of roguelike. "Run-based" is never going to catch on, and there's some adoption already; just roll with this.
> It seems that most roguelike fans accept using “roguelike“ as an adjective, for example “roguelike platformer” or “roguelike first-person shooter”. While slightly confusing, this makes sense: a game is a combination of two genres, it has all the properties of the genre appearing as a noun, and the compatible properties of the genre appearing as an adjective. We can also have “first-person shooter roguelike” (DRL) or “platformer roguelike” (a grid-based turn-based game where the structure of the level is similar to that of a platformer, e.g. Fuel or Bump). Although some people do this incorrectly (e.g. “deckbuilding roguelike” is wrong, “roguelike deckbuilder” is better).
> It seems that most roguelike fans accept using “roguelike“ as an adjective, for example “roguelike platformer” or “roguelike first-person shooter”. While slightly confusing, this makes sense: a game is a combination of two genres, it has all the properties of the genre appearing as a noun, and the compatible properties of the genre appearing as an adjective. We can also have “first-person shooter roguelike” (DRL) or “platformer roguelike” (a grid-based turn-based game where the structure of the level is similar to that of a platformer, e.g. Fuel or Bump). Although some people do this incorrectly (e.g. “deckbuilding roguelike” is wrong, “roguelike deckbuilder” is better).
Something I see frequently missing from the discussion on roguelikes is the long history of Japanese console roguelikes like the Mystery Dungeon series dating back to 1993. These games have not been very successful outside of Japan but represent some of the earliest successful commercial games inspired by Rogue. They tend to be much closer to traditional "Berlin interpretation" roguelikes (turn-based, grid-based, etc.) than the recent "roguelite" indie games.
I played Shiren the Wanderer a couple years back, it’s a wonderful roguelike with decent depth and a lack of cheap deaths. The warehousing items for future runs mechanic was neat, it was fun to set yourself to win up down the line by leaving something powerful behind to use again.
Games like DC:SS have more depth and choices, but are also harder to just pick up and play. I played crawl at a fairly high level (took 3rd in a tournament and had an 8 or 9 streak) but games like Shiren are more ‘fun’ to me now.
Games like DC:SS have more depth and choices, but are also harder to just pick up and play. I played crawl at a fairly high level (took 3rd in a tournament and had an 8 or 9 streak) but games like Shiren are more ‘fun’ to me now.
After the classic adventure (aka "Colossal Cave") I learned about rogue on a BSD Unix System as a student and loved it. And I was really impressed when I learned about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rog-O-Matic, the "belligerent expert system" which managed to win the game.
I have affection to many games in this article. While I never did know (or I guess care) idea that roguelikes were meant to be free. I think that is the reason I ended up at least trying many roguelikes you've mentioned.
ADOM was a game I grew up playing with my best friend. There were so many mysteries that we were trying to solve playing game after game. (That mystery kind of evaporated after we found out wiki pages on the Internet)
IVAN and ToME were interesting at the time but didn't play them that much, maybe few dozen games each. IVAN with it's all graphics felt really bloody and brutal. I'm kind of bummed about how ToME was changed during the years, while I do understand the reasons. It's kind of foolish to build/sell game on IP you don't own.
I found Caves of Qud looking and feeling like roguelike I used to like, but I guess I've changed.
One "roguelike" I found very interesting during past years is "Invisible, Inc.". It has that buildup of excitement and surprise I had with older roguelikes, mixed up with some XCOM like action. Surely it's not free and as many others it also has this meta progression.
ADOM was a game I grew up playing with my best friend. There were so many mysteries that we were trying to solve playing game after game. (That mystery kind of evaporated after we found out wiki pages on the Internet)
IVAN and ToME were interesting at the time but didn't play them that much, maybe few dozen games each. IVAN with it's all graphics felt really bloody and brutal. I'm kind of bummed about how ToME was changed during the years, while I do understand the reasons. It's kind of foolish to build/sell game on IP you don't own.
I found Caves of Qud looking and feeling like roguelike I used to like, but I guess I've changed.
One "roguelike" I found very interesting during past years is "Invisible, Inc.". It has that buildup of excitement and surprise I had with older roguelikes, mixed up with some XCOM like action. Surely it's not free and as many others it also has this meta progression.
> I'm kind of bummed about how ToME was changed during the years, while I do understand the reasons. It's kind of foolish to build/sell game on IP you don't own.
It was obviously inspired by Angband and Moria, both of which were built on the same "IP."
It was obviously inspired by Angband and Moria, both of which were built on the same "IP."
The old school roguelike community has been arguing about this definition tediously for ages. It's probably time to accept that "Roguelike" has come to mean little more than procedural generation and permadeath [1] and settle for a different term like Procedural Death Labyrinth [2] to describe games closer to the Berlin definition.
1. https://www.goldenkronehotel.com/wp/2020/01/15/the-roguelike...
2. https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/LarsDoucet/20131203/206159/O...
1. https://www.goldenkronehotel.com/wp/2020/01/15/the-roguelike...
2. https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/LarsDoucet/20131203/206159/O...
"Classical roguelike" or "traditional roguelike" works fine.
I've already seen kids talking about "classical rouglikes such as Spelunky". So no, it doesn't.
It's not necessary that a term be always used in exactly the way it's intended, only that the term not be thoroughly skunked for a particular use. In the contexts where "classical roguelike" or even "roguelike" doesn't precisely communicate intent, a brief description should be sufficient.
I'm not surprised it's missing from here, but Dream Quest was an important link connecting Dominion-style deckbuilding with additional roguelike elements. It was a key inspiration for Slay the Spire and everything that followed from it.
Dream Quest is great! I have it on my phone and enjoy the odd run every now and then. It has a ton of stuff to unlock!
I'm kind of impressed at the effort to be so prescriptive of the name of a type of video game.
Reminds of the sub-categorisation arguments amongst metal fans.
This is exactly it - it's just genre bickering. "Roguelike" isn't a thing other than "sorta reminds me of rogue" and maybe ascii art is what reminds you of it - maybe permadeath (or maybe you never really perma-died - who knows) or maybe just obscure controls that had you frustrated.
Rogue has imparted[1] a number of interesting features that add strength to a variety of games - rogue-ish attributes are reflected in these games and that's about the total meaning of what roguelike actually means.
1. Assuming you don't attribute these to earlier games
Rogue has imparted[1] a number of interesting features that add strength to a variety of games - rogue-ish attributes are reflected in these games and that's about the total meaning of what roguelike actually means.
1. Assuming you don't attribute these to earlier games
There is a point to it though. With the number of games being released every year, especially in a genre dominated with indies, it is difficult to find games to play. Steam's tag are all over the place, with most "roguelite" games being tagged as "roguelike" too for publicity, and weird categories like "action roguelike" cropping up on any RPG with some degree of procedural generation. All the while, reddit's /r/roguelikes will not talk about anything that is not turn-based or outside of a tiled dungeon...
It is frustrating because it seems such a simple problem to solve, just use "procedural-levels"/"start-from-scratch"/"turn-based" tags or whatever terms the community can come up with, rather than stamping the attractive-but-now-meaningless "rogue" name on everything.
It is frustrating because it seems such a simple problem to solve, just use "procedural-levels"/"start-from-scratch"/"turn-based" tags or whatever terms the community can come up with, rather than stamping the attractive-but-now-meaningless "rogue" name on everything.
> This is exactly it - it's just genre bickering
Not always. Genres and categories are useful to describe what it is like without sharing precise knowledge (i.e. finding an example that the person you talk with also knows).
I don't know what the sub-categorization argument is, but I kind of understand that people want to be a bit more precise. For instance, in the "object-oriented" category it is useful to distinguish "class-based" from "prototype-based".
To me, the lack of a commonly accepted definition of "roguelike" is a bit annoying because the definition of the term tends to become more and more fuzzy over time, to the point that the term will eventually become useless as a communication medium. So in my opinion, a little bit of gatekeeping is good.
Not always. Genres and categories are useful to describe what it is like without sharing precise knowledge (i.e. finding an example that the person you talk with also knows).
I don't know what the sub-categorization argument is, but I kind of understand that people want to be a bit more precise. For instance, in the "object-oriented" category it is useful to distinguish "class-based" from "prototype-based".
To me, the lack of a commonly accepted definition of "roguelike" is a bit annoying because the definition of the term tends to become more and more fuzzy over time, to the point that the term will eventually become useless as a communication medium. So in my opinion, a little bit of gatekeeping is good.
Genres have suffered from the categorization problem [1] since the beginning of civilization. Since categories are made by people and people disagree on things all the time, our categories will disagree and conflict with one another. I think it’s just amusing how passionate people can get about it though.
[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-ma...
[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-ma...
As precisely as meaningful.
When I first saw "roguelite" I thought it is a typo. It referred to In Death: Unchained, a VR archery hack&slash. While it does have generated levels, and a lot of roguelike touches (including that death is part of the learning experience, explicitly).
So - well, for roguelike I prefer to refer to tile-based (and ideally ASCII-visualized) games.
So - well, for roguelike I prefer to refer to tile-based (and ideally ASCII-visualized) games.
> The Beginnings (1993)
NetHack, mentioned in this section, is actually the rebrand of plain ol' Hack, which I first encountered via a shareware catalogue around 1986. Completely engrossing, and very effective at teaching VI keys well before I knew that was what I was learning.
34 years later NetHack is still coming out with new releases and is great fun to play.
NetHack, mentioned in this section, is actually the rebrand of plain ol' Hack, which I first encountered via a shareware catalogue around 1986. Completely engrossing, and very effective at teaching VI keys well before I knew that was what I was learning.
34 years later NetHack is still coming out with new releases and is great fun to play.
I came in to say this as well! I first played hack on my friend’s actual IBM PC with 2 5.25” disk drives back in 1985 I think. I was addicted and the only reason I begged my parents for a computer was so that I could play hack.
My friend’s floppy disk of hack got corrupt so whenever he read a scroll of identify the game would crash. So he ended up finishing the game without ever reading a scroll of identify, which I admit is quite impressive.
I just played a game of nethack tonight after my family went to sleep!
My friend’s floppy disk of hack got corrupt so whenever he read a scroll of identify the game would crash. So he ended up finishing the game without ever reading a scroll of identify, which I admit is quite impressive.
I just played a game of nethack tonight after my family went to sleep!
The only real problem with making the definition so broad as to incorporate all of the indie procedurally-generated perma-death games coming out recently is that it dilutes the definition as to become meaningless -- you can no longer know what to expect when you google, or talk about, "rougelike"s.
What I don't understand is what's wrong with just tossing in a new term, instead of latching on and diluting an existing fairly well-defined term.
It's quite clear on the surface, and deeper into it, that they're not the same style of game (from emotional impact, to design structure/goals, to lineage, to graphical design), and often don't even appeal to the same communities
What I don't understand is what's wrong with just tossing in a new term, instead of latching on and diluting an existing fairly well-defined term.
It's quite clear on the surface, and deeper into it, that they're not the same style of game (from emotional impact, to design structure/goals, to lineage, to graphical design), and often don't even appeal to the same communities
I'm curious, where do MUDs [1] fit into this hierarchy? Has all the properties: free, dungeon crawl, text based, permadeath, grid based, nonmodal
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUD
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUD
I think some MUDs could qualify better than others. A key element (IMO) of a Roguelike is randomness in the maps/scenarios, not just the encounters. I say "key" in the sense of "necessary but not sufficient". Most MUDs have fixed maps, perhaps with a few small areas that are randomized. So you can memorize the layouts of many, if not all, areas. There is exploration, and you may forget areas, but the exploration is really a one time thing. In Nethack, by contrast, you really don't know what's coming next (though sometimes it reloads a level you died on before [0]).
[0] I was killed by a mummy. And in my next run found my now mummified former self and the mummy. After a few runs that level was full of mummies. Needless to say, it did not go well for me.
[0] I was killed by a mummy. And in my next run found my now mummified former self and the mummy. After a few runs that level was full of mummies. Needless to say, it did not go well for me.
Is the map being random an important quality? What if the map was fixed but all the enemies and items shuffled about... If that doesn't count are maps with rooms (i.e. hallways and wide open spaces) where enemies only spawn in the open space... if they can be pretty trivially reduced into a graph that another generation reduces into then is it the same map?
I do agree that random maps are sort of a hallmark of classic roguelikes to me, but roguelike is such a slippery thing to define.
I do agree that random maps are sort of a hallmark of classic roguelikes to me, but roguelike is such a slippery thing to define.
It's an interesting question. Different things can be randomized and to different degrees and it kind of gives you different games. Suppose only RPG-like mechanics (PC has stats, they level up with encounters, etc.).
If you have a (roughly) fixed map where the PC-level appropriate mobs spawn randomly, so you always know the path to victory (or paths) but the challenge is subtly altered by these random encounters, I think you have a JRPG.
If you have a roughly fixed map, random mobs, but which path to take gets randomized (left leads to the boss in one run, right in another run) you're pressing into roguelike territory. But you could also call it Hunt the Wumpus: The RPG.
Roguelikes, again this is opinion, significantly randomize the map as well as having random encounters. I think it changes the way the game is played and explored and why it's replayed.
In the first, you replay the game because you want to try focusing on different stats or classes, an optimal build, the story was fun, etc.
In the second, you replay it because of the general challenge, maybe a bit about optimal builds and such, but also (to whatever extent there is) the puzzling nature of it. I hear a wind in this room, so that means the pit is in one of those two. Better be careful.
In the third, you replay it for all of those reasons and because you genuinely don't know what's coming next. You can have a game where there are a series of holes in the ground and your 2nd level character is suddenly 20 dungeon levels down. Well shit, can my tourist actually survive this?
And these are only three discrete points along a wide spectrum of randomness and its utilization in a game. I think roguelikes tend to be more roguelike when the randomness is somewhere above the second example, up to the extreme of the third. But you could also find other elements of the game to randomize that give you non-physical spaces to explore in a similar manner.
Again, randomness isn't sufficient, but it is necessary. And the degree of randomness or its utilization can be reduced if you keep other "roguelike" qualities present in the game.
If you have a (roughly) fixed map where the PC-level appropriate mobs spawn randomly, so you always know the path to victory (or paths) but the challenge is subtly altered by these random encounters, I think you have a JRPG.
If you have a roughly fixed map, random mobs, but which path to take gets randomized (left leads to the boss in one run, right in another run) you're pressing into roguelike territory. But you could also call it Hunt the Wumpus: The RPG.
Roguelikes, again this is opinion, significantly randomize the map as well as having random encounters. I think it changes the way the game is played and explored and why it's replayed.
In the first, you replay the game because you want to try focusing on different stats or classes, an optimal build, the story was fun, etc.
In the second, you replay it because of the general challenge, maybe a bit about optimal builds and such, but also (to whatever extent there is) the puzzling nature of it. I hear a wind in this room, so that means the pit is in one of those two. Better be careful.
In the third, you replay it for all of those reasons and because you genuinely don't know what's coming next. You can have a game where there are a series of holes in the ground and your 2nd level character is suddenly 20 dungeon levels down. Well shit, can my tourist actually survive this?
And these are only three discrete points along a wide spectrum of randomness and its utilization in a game. I think roguelikes tend to be more roguelike when the randomness is somewhere above the second example, up to the extreme of the third. But you could also find other elements of the game to randomize that give you non-physical spaces to explore in a similar manner.
Again, randomness isn't sufficient, but it is necessary. And the degree of randomness or its utilization can be reduced if you keep other "roguelike" qualities present in the game.
Roguelikes tend to have a text-based map, like: you have a location on an X-Y grid; some cells of the grid have walls and things. Also, time moves forward at your own pace.
MUDs vary widely, but typically operate by discretizing things into "rooms", often with description in writing rather than as a map layout; the various "rooms" form a graph. If you've played Colossal Cave Adventure, like that (but with fewer puzzles and more combat). Also, time moves forward at the server's preferred pace.
MUDs vary widely, but typically operate by discretizing things into "rooms", often with description in writing rather than as a map layout; the various "rooms" form a graph. If you've played Colossal Cave Adventure, like that (but with fewer puzzles and more combat). Also, time moves forward at the server's preferred pace.
To clarify I think you mean roguelikes have maps where the character is the size of a pixel of map information - so you can't stand in a position that only partially overlaps with the position you previously stood in... all game forever (probably?) will have coordinates the big difference is how substantial that coordinate system is compared to the size of the player... having pixel sized players makes a lot of stuff really easy like detecting drowning by seeing if the pixel you're in is flooded - but it's really unimportant on a gameplay level... it just simplifies the tech needed to build out the engine.
No, the thing I wanted to highlight was that often MUDs do not have coordinates. There are (player-entity -> room) associations instead: more of a graph than a representation of space.
Roguelike is my favorite genre and I find myself able to really enjoy the facemeltling, perpetual obliteration of my efforts with every restart. Games with tireless agonizing to detailed layering (shoutout Noita) are what defines the genre. It's less of a templated category, and more of a culture. I suppose it resonates well since my childhood was absolute hell and unstable.
DawrfFortress really does a great job of defining losing [FUN]. Nethack captures movement and packages the inevitable illusion of choice perfectly. It's funny how this entire list I've played relentlessly for years daily, and how paradoxical it is by design that hardcore roguelikes are the only times I feel alive and well.
DawrfFortress really does a great job of defining losing [FUN]. Nethack captures movement and packages the inevitable illusion of choice perfectly. It's funny how this entire list I've played relentlessly for years daily, and how paradoxical it is by design that hardcore roguelikes are the only times I feel alive and well.
Article is missing Japanese games of Mystery Dungeons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_Dungeon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_Dungeon
There are many tutorials on how to develop a roguelike in various languages and with various libraries at the RoguelikeDev subreddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/roguelikedev/
If you enjoy learning from books, I've written an introductory book about developing roguelikes with JS and Phaser:
https://www.apress.com/gp/book/9781484260586
https://www.reddit.com/r/roguelikedev/
If you enjoy learning from books, I've written an introductory book about developing roguelikes with JS and Phaser:
https://www.apress.com/gp/book/9781484260586
Great write up. But isn't everything the author complains about the reason why those games are called "roguelite" instead of "roguelike"?
No. Most gamers now have a different definition of roguelike vs roguelite. They consider action games to fall into both categories and the distinguishing factor is only that "roguelikes" have no metaprogression.
This is totally different than the understanding among the traditional roguelike community (and the author) in which a roguelite is not a turn/grid based game, but a roguelike is. Unfortunately, these words are now rather meaningless unless you know who you're speaking to.
This is totally different than the understanding among the traditional roguelike community (and the author) in which a roguelite is not a turn/grid based game, but a roguelike is. Unfortunately, these words are now rather meaningless unless you know who you're speaking to.
The author is writing about this because nobody outside the old school roguelike community uses the terms consistently.
I was confused about that too; roguelite seems to have caught on pretty well these days, especially in the PC Gaming community.
Can someone recommend good io style/roguelike games here?
I like starve.io for instance. I'm also open to non-browser platforms.
I like starve.io for instance. I'm also open to non-browser platforms.
Rogue Fable III
Binding of Isaac is only mentioned briefly, but is one of the most impressive pieces of software i have encountered.
This article seems PC-centric. Apparently the author is too young to know about "rogue" for CP/M or "hack" for Unix. Both of those were in the 80's and predate everything he mentions by at least a decade.
For those curious about IRDC, here are the recordings of the 2015 edition:
https://www.twitch.tv/irdc_usa/videos
https://www.twitch.tv/irdc_usa/videos
Hey this guy made HyperRogue and Hydra Slayer. Amazing games!
I played Larn for years! And taught my boys to love it. Their earliest memories are laying on the living room floor, exploring the dungeons in Larn together.
> "Many minor roguelikes have been created around that time, such as Alphaman, a 1995 game set in the post-apocalyptic future when Donald Trump became the president."
Has everybody predicted this?
Has everybody predicted this?
Yes? I was amused that everyone pointed to The Simpsons as an early instance of the idea of Donald Trump running for president, when Bloom County was much, much earlier.
Yeah, and The Simpsons did it during Trump’s first run for President, which somehow always is forgotten.
Don't forget Back to the Future
Roguelike is a self-descriptive classifier -- something like Rogue. The defining characteristic of roguelikes is exploring game mechanics amidst permadeath. Starting over is fun, and different every time. These are the important traits. BoI, FTL, Spelunky et al are most definitely Roguelikes in that runs don't influence future runs, the world is randomly generated and doesn't persist, and things can take wild turns and every run ends drastically differently.
I'm not sure what the author is going for, beyond pedantry for the sake of being pedantic. I don't know any Roguelikes developers (Angband, Caves of Qud, etc.) that feel strongly about use of the term. Enjoy it! Play good games!