6 ms·

Simplest definition possible: Try Nethack and see if you "get" it. If you do, congratulations! You now know know what a roguelike is.

falcolas 5y ago
No need to go back that far. Dungeons of Dreadmor will suffice. It's basically Rogue with a shiny coat of paint.
- Der_Einzige 5y ago
  Nethack is one of the finest games ever made, and more modern rougelike simply do not possess the soul that nethack does. All fans of the genre should try nethack at least a few times.
  - jamesgeck0 5y ago
    Nethack is fine, but it's a blatantly unfair game with many obtuse mechanics that is close to impossible to win without either knowledge from external sources or run-ending trial and error. I'd argue that Cogmind, or Brogue CE, or Caves of Qud possess more of the Rogue soul than Nethack does.
    - Der_Einzige 5y ago
      Losing is fun, and rougelikes are the quintescential version of this. Sounds like you need to git gud. Cogmind is pretty fun and enjoyable, but Brogue is missing large swaths of content compared to other rougelikes (though I do love it given that it pioneered Dijkstra maps!), Caves of Qud has a static map and is thus significantly less emergent than other rougelikes. I couldn't even keep myself interested enough to get far, despite enjoying the SSeth video about it. You should have recommended Cataclysm, DDA - a game which also has "obtuse and unfair" mechanics and "is close to impossible to win(or do well in) without either knowledge from external sources or run-ending trial and error."
      - jamesgeck0 5y ago
        Losing is fun. Nethack contains a number of opportunities for "cheap" deaths that a new player (even one who has experience with other titles in the genre) can't necessarily reasonably be expected to anticipate. This is widely considered to be poor game design, even by many roguelike developers. A lot of (most?) modern roguelikes are a much better at conveying information to the player. Rift Wizard, for example, is built around a magic system exponentially more deep and complicated than anything in Nethack, yet is still possible for a (very) careful and through player to win on their first run.
  - morelisp 5y ago
    NetHack lost it soul in the 3.x era as soon as they patched out iceboxing Rodney, merged in a bunch of SLASH('EM) stuff, added the Elemental Planes, etc. It's all stuff that optimizes for memorized, spoilered, scripted player behavior, and against general learning of a consistent world model. Brogue carries the Hack torch better and is willing to try much more radical changes to bare that soul, to borrow your metaphor. I'm also of the view that plain old Rogue (e.g. from 4.3 BSD, or the Epyx ports) is still immensely playable today. Why settle for imitators?
    - wheelerof4te 5y ago
      "It's all stuff that optimizes for memorized, spoilered, scripted player behavior, and against general learning of a consistent world model." To be frank, I never got that far in Nethack. But I know what you mean, I experienced it already in TES games. After you "learn" various paths to success, the game stops being fun.
      - bhaak 5y ago
        NetHack's strong side is the early to mid game where you are limited in resources. Not dying by using all the resources that are available to you in the numerous ways that the game supports. That's why self-imposed limitations (so called conducts) like never use wishes or prayers are popular with advanced players.

falcolas 5y ago

No need to go back that far. Dungeons of Dreadmor will suffice. It's basically Rogue with a shiny coat of paint.

Der_Einzige 5y ago
Nethack is one of the finest games ever made, and more modern rougelike simply do not possess the soul that nethack does. All fans of the genre should try nethack at least a few times.
- jamesgeck0 5y ago
  Nethack is fine, but it's a blatantly unfair game with many obtuse mechanics that is close to impossible to win without either knowledge from external sources or run-ending trial and error. I'd argue that Cogmind, or Brogue CE, or Caves of Qud possess more of the Rogue soul than Nethack does.
  - Der_Einzige 5y ago
    Losing is fun, and rougelikes are the quintescential version of this. Sounds like you need to git gud. Cogmind is pretty fun and enjoyable, but Brogue is missing large swaths of content compared to other rougelikes (though I do love it given that it pioneered Dijkstra maps!), Caves of Qud has a static map and is thus significantly less emergent than other rougelikes. I couldn't even keep myself interested enough to get far, despite enjoying the SSeth video about it. You should have recommended Cataclysm, DDA - a game which also has "obtuse and unfair" mechanics and "is close to impossible to win(or do well in) without either knowledge from external sources or run-ending trial and error."
    - jamesgeck0 5y ago
      Losing is fun. Nethack contains a number of opportunities for "cheap" deaths that a new player (even one who has experience with other titles in the genre) can't necessarily reasonably be expected to anticipate. This is widely considered to be poor game design, even by many roguelike developers. A lot of (most?) modern roguelikes are a much better at conveying information to the player. Rift Wizard, for example, is built around a magic system exponentially more deep and complicated than anything in Nethack, yet is still possible for a (very) careful and through player to win on their first run.
- morelisp 5y ago
  NetHack lost it soul in the 3.x era as soon as they patched out iceboxing Rodney, merged in a bunch of SLASH('EM) stuff, added the Elemental Planes, etc. It's all stuff that optimizes for memorized, spoilered, scripted player behavior, and against general learning of a consistent world model. Brogue carries the Hack torch better and is willing to try much more radical changes to bare that soul, to borrow your metaphor. I'm also of the view that plain old Rogue (e.g. from 4.3 BSD, or the Epyx ports) is still immensely playable today. Why settle for imitators?
  - wheelerof4te 5y ago
    "It's all stuff that optimizes for memorized, spoilered, scripted player behavior, and against general learning of a consistent world model." To be frank, I never got that far in Nethack. But I know what you mean, I experienced it already in TES games. After you "learn" various paths to success, the game stops being fun.
    - bhaak 5y ago
      NetHack's strong side is the early to mid game where you are limited in resources. Not dying by using all the resources that are available to you in the numerous ways that the game supports. That's why self-imposed limitations (so called conducts) like never use wishes or prayers are popular with advanced players.