3 ms·

I don't know that it's a flamebait topic, I just don't see people using the term in such a strict manner as it was originally defined. But I also don't play gam

by cole-k 5y ago

I don't know that it's a flamebait topic, I just don't see people using the term in such a strict manner as it was originally defined. But I also don't play games like NetHack. I know "rougelike" to mean a game with permadeath, some amount of randomization to vary gameplay (typically manifested in levels and items), and various levels you progress through one-by-one. So there isn't a restriction on 2D vs 3D, turn-based vs realtime, etc. "Rougelite" to me means a rougelike with permanent upgrade mechanics. It's a little nuanced, but the idea is that in a game like Hades (a rougelite) you gain points after dying to upgrade your health, attacks, etc., whereas in a game like Slay the Spire (a roguelike) you just unlock additional cards or characters to choose from (I'm going to ignore the Neow bonus... again, it's subjective). All said, I still see games on Steam classify themselves incorrectly, so perhaps the distinction I make between "-like" and "-lite" is itself more pedantic than most people care about.

codeflo 5y ago
In whatever way these terms will eventually crystallize, I think the addition of meta-progression to the permadeath+randomization combo is important enough to call the result a new genre. It’s a very fun and addictive combination. I’m also going to say that unlocking cards qualifies as progression. Unlocking pure cosmetics is not progression, and unlocking starting options (like available character classes) that are intended to be mostly balanced is a grey area. One thing classical roguelikes had was local highscore lists (they were intended to be played on a shared mainframe), which would be meaningless with meta-progression. I find it interesting that Spelunky, which follows the old formula a lot more closely, also has a mode with daily leaderboards. That’s not really something for me, but I think many people really enjoy that kind of fair competition.
- YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
  >> In whatever way these terms will eventually crystallize, I think the addition of meta-progression to the permadeath+randomization combo is important enough to call the result a new genre. It’s a very fun and addictive combination. I see it more as an attempt to balance out the harsh penalty imposed by permadeath in the original roguelikes, like Nethack. I remember when I first played Nethack, I was really annoyed by that, and I really didn't see the fun in having to start all over again everytime my character died, even given the procedural generation (which means that you at least don't have to go through the same level every time). And I was really curious to see how the game developed. But I didn't have the time to grind, Grind, GRIND. So... I savescummed. Btw, one very popular game that has permadeath and procedural generation, and where the only between-game reward is unlocking new characters, is Don't Starve. But, somehow, I never see it included in the roquelikes even though it sticks much closer to the original formula than, say, Slay the Spire, Hades or Dead Cells, etc. I don't want to use the word "hardcore" but Don't Starve is fucking hardcore, compared to those other games and I never felt like I wanted to savescum in any of the other games, while I routinely savescum in Don't Starve (I even have a shell script to do it quickly).
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I think that progression is not necessary a disqualifier for roguelikes, depending on implementation. Many games use unlocks essentially as a tutorial, after which there is no metaprogression. Many games also have unlockable difficulty levels as a form of metaprogression. Slay falls into both these categories, but I don't think this is a disqualifier. All cards are unlocked after perhaps 20 hours of play, but most players will never have the skill to unlock the highest difficulty levels.
danaris 5y ago
From what I can tell, your description of "roguelike" is the common usage today. However, 20 years ago, a "roguelike" was a turn-based RPG of the lineage of Rogue—which usually meant it was a single-character top-down game with permadeath, grid-based movement, ASCII graphics (and maybe also a tileset or two, by then, but still quite simple compared to something like StS), and a procedurally-generated dungeon that you had to fight your way to the bottom of. (Some also required a subsequent ascension; others didn't.) I believe the transition in terminology occurred some time around when The Binding of Isaac came out/became popular. It can be a bit frustrating sometimes for those of us who grew up playing the old-style roguelikes when we want to go find ones we haven't played before, because most of what searching on the term turns up these days is the new-style ones.

by cole-k 5y ago

codeflo 5y ago

In whatever way these terms will eventually crystallize, I think the addition of meta-progression to the permadeath+randomization combo is important enough to call the result a new genre. It’s a very fun and addictive combination. I’m also going to say that unlocking cards qualifies as progression. Unlocking pure cosmetics is not progression, and unlocking starting options (like available character classes) that are intended to be mostly balanced is a grey area. One thing classical roguelikes had was local highscore lists (they were intended to be played on a shared mainframe), which would be meaningless with meta-progression. I find it interesting that Spelunky, which follows the old formula a lot more closely, also has a mode with daily leaderboards. That’s not really something for me, but I think many people really enjoy that kind of fair competition.

YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
>> In whatever way these terms will eventually crystallize, I think the addition of meta-progression to the permadeath+randomization combo is important enough to call the result a new genre. It’s a very fun and addictive combination. I see it more as an attempt to balance out the harsh penalty imposed by permadeath in the original roguelikes, like Nethack. I remember when I first played Nethack, I was really annoyed by that, and I really didn't see the fun in having to start all over again everytime my character died, even given the procedural generation (which means that you at least don't have to go through the same level every time). And I was really curious to see how the game developed. But I didn't have the time to grind, Grind, GRIND. So... I savescummed. Btw, one very popular game that has permadeath and procedural generation, and where the only between-game reward is unlocking new characters, is Don't Starve. But, somehow, I never see it included in the roquelikes even though it sticks much closer to the original formula than, say, Slay the Spire, Hades or Dead Cells, etc. I don't want to use the word "hardcore" but Don't Starve is fucking hardcore, compared to those other games and I never felt like I wanted to savescum in any of the other games, while I routinely savescum in Don't Starve (I even have a shell script to do it quickly).
s1artibartfast 5y ago
I think that progression is not necessary a disqualifier for roguelikes, depending on implementation. Many games use unlocks essentially as a tutorial, after which there is no metaprogression. Many games also have unlockable difficulty levels as a form of metaprogression. Slay falls into both these categories, but I don't think this is a disqualifier. All cards are unlocked after perhaps 20 hours of play, but most players will never have the skill to unlock the highest difficulty levels.

danaris 5y ago

From what I can tell, your description of "roguelike" is the common usage today. However, 20 years ago, a "roguelike" was a turn-based RPG of the lineage of Rogue—which usually meant it was a single-character top-down game with permadeath, grid-based movement, ASCII graphics (and maybe also a tileset or two, by then, but still quite simple compared to something like StS), and a procedurally-generated dungeon that you had to fight your way to the bottom of. (Some also required a subsequent ascension; others didn't.) I believe the transition in terminology occurred some time around when The Binding of Isaac came out/became popular. It can be a bit frustrating sometimes for those of us who grew up playing the old-style roguelikes when we want to go find ones we haven't played before, because most of what searching on the term turns up these days is the new-style ones.