next »

[oodavid]

also imo the problem with the "expanded" definition of roguelike is that its not used very consistently and is (so far) more of a buzzword. why isn't anyone calling solitaire or candy crush or flappy bird a "roguelike"?

Now there's a challenge. Err...

Solitaire: 1D Roguelike with a Turing Machine style of gameplay
Candy Crush: Roguelike Puzzler in a single room
Flappy Bird: ...I got nothing!

[bombjack]

"procedural generation" (aka randomization) and "permadeath" are two of the oldest and most traditional features in games. in fact you could argue they're the norm and videogames with designed levels and checkpoints are an exception.

Probably for indie or one-man-made-game but not for AAA.

For me, rogue-like is procedural exploration of dungeon with permadeath (mainly berlin except for ASCII which is out of time)

Personaly, I'd like to see more Procedural Death Something than compliant rogue-likes since it offer more flexibility in gameplay. FTL, Spelunky and Don't starve are good examples.

If I talk of Procedural Death Something, it's because I think that there is much more potentiel in procedural generation and permadeath that in the labyrinth.

[FishFace]

Rogue-lite, roguelike-like, procedural death labyrinth already exist.

Suggesting that a game isn't a member of a game-genre simply for an aesthetic choice (visual representation as characters) strikes me as quite ludicrous. Games are defined by their game-play not how they are presented.

And yet the First Person shooter is distinct from the third-person or top-down shooters as a genre, generally.

Procedural Death and Perma-levels (wait...) is not enough for me. It should have more of the important features of Rogue - being turn-based is quite important for me. The classic roguelikes are purely about your decisions, not about how fast you can react, or how well you can time a jump. FTL nicely subverts this with its pause mode. However, it's not nearly as procedural or exploration-based, so it's a rogue-lite in my book.

[CesarD8]

Rogue-lite, roguelike-like, procedural death labyrinth already exist.

Suggesting that a game isn't a member of a game-genre simply for an aesthetic choice (visual representation as characters) strikes me as quite ludicrous. Games are defined by their game-play not how they are presented.

And yet the First Person shooter is distinct from the third-person or top-down shooters as a genre, generally.

The difference with the first person, third person and top down shooter is that if you change where the camera is, and what it renders, it changes the gameplay considerably. There are some mechanics that can be implemented with each style that the others could not.

also imo the problem with the "expanded" definition of roguelike is that its not used very consistently and is (so far) more of a buzzword. why isn't anyone calling solitaire or candy crush or flappy bird a "roguelike"?

I don't think that "expanded" is accurate, if anything the term has reduced it's requirements, before, the games had to had ascii graphics and a turn based system, now not so much, the primary characteristics are the permanent death of your character and the randomization of the environment and loot. You could argue that this is a rogue-lite, and you may be right, but nowadays when people say roguelike they often are referring to rogue-lite. And with your examples, I my personal opinion I don't consider them roguelike because they have no exploration nor loot and the "death" in those games are a little out of the context you imagine when you think in roguelikes.

[Schoq]

Game genre names as anything but very loose communication unless to a very specific audience is a lost cause. Roguelike is used by too many people to mean "game with procgen levels" now to insist on the original definition in public discourse.

just give up it feels good I promise

[joe_eyemobi]

Aha!  This is one aspect I was trying to put my finger on that would make a good roguelike.  Having some freedom of choice on how you progress really does increase the fun factor for me.  Having something like the original Deus Ex with procgen levels and permadeath would be brilliant!
On the other end of the spectrum, the maze rubber with it's singular method of progression does seem really boring. 

Complexity: The game has enough complexity to allow several solutions to common goals. This is obtained by providing enough item/monster and item/item interactions and is strongly connected to having just one mode.

This is the feature that too many new PDLs are missing, the ones where it's just a random maze where you rub yourself against enemies until one of you dies.  Roguelikes really shine when the vagaries of chance and player input set up entirely novel situations and stories, where you either succeed in a way you never thought possible or die in a hilariously new way.

[s0]

just give up it feels good I promise

yeah i think im just gonna do that

one last thing tho, ascii graphics were never a requirement for roguelikes. tilesets and graphical roguelikes have existed since forever. the reasons ascii graphics remained popular are:

1. most of the classic roguelikes were/are basically hobby projects
2. a lot of roguelike devs are programmer types and not artists (in my experience)
2. ASCII allows for a shitton of different interactions w/o being constrained by asset production

[Paul Jeffries]

I generally think of the word 'roguelike' as describing games which:
- Have permadeath
- Have procedurally generated levels
- Are grid-based
- Are turn-based

For games which don't have all of those components but which have clearly been inspired by the same legacy (Spelunky, FTL, etc.), I personally like the term 'postroguelike'.

I don't think that it's worth getting uptight about definitions though - genres are a tool for categorisation not a prescriptive ideal.  Most of these games you can call 'roguelike' and people will know what you mean.

I also think that it's more useful from a design point of view to think of roguelikes as being a sub-genre of strategy games rather than RPGs, but that's probably a separate conversation.

[herror]

My definition:

+ Highly interactive
+ Freedom of action
+ Replayability as a value
+ Mechanics have a narrative component
+ Education by action

How do the game achieves that doesn't matter to me. I don't care if the game has a save mechanic, or platformer physics, or if it doesn't use a grid, turn system or ASCII.
So yes, Spelunky and friends are RL to me. A very limited kind of RL, but hey.

1. most of the classic roguelikes were/are basically hobby projects
2. a lot of roguelike devs are programmer types and not artists (in my experience)
2. ASCII allows for a shitton of different interactions w/o being constrained by asset production

3. Less graphics means more imagination.

I can't play ASCII roguelikes with graphics, no matter how pretty they are. It just doesn't work for me. All the narrative details are replaced by sprites bumping against each other in a grid.

[jeffgmelton]

The Berlin Interpretation

[Schoq]

My definition:

+ Highly interactive
+ Freedom of action
+ Replayability as a value
+ Mechanics have a narrative component
+ Education by action

You certainly have a knack for defining criteria loosely enough to be completely useless. (it's hard to come up with games that inarguably don't fulfil all of these)

[baconman]

^ Yeah. One could argue that Super Mario/Zelda fulfill all of the above, and are far from anything "Roguelike."

[herror]

Super Mario
+ Highly interactive Interaction with enemies is very limited. Not to mention with the environment...
+ Freedom of action lol
+ Replayability as a value - Not sure, I haven't finished any Mario game so idk if they include something that adds anything new to further playthroughs or something like that.
+ Mechanics have a narrative component Probably related to the first one. 'Stomped on X enemy and then stomped on Y enemy' doesn't sound too appealing to me.
+ Education by action - totally

Zelda
+ Highly interactive Most items have a very limited use and only react with certain objects/places.
+ Freedom of action - yep
+ Replayability as a value - I don't think so? Unsure about this one. It's very linear after all.
+ Mechanics have a narrative component - a kinda poor narrative but yeah
+ Education by action Nope. I'll need another text box to figure out how to use this sword, please.


Nethack
+ Highly interactive - i found a ring. I can wear it, or dip it in some potions, or throw it to enemies, or maybe eat it. I can zap a wand of stone-to-flesh to a statue or a boulder and then eat it. Lots of actions with the environment generate interesting outputs - kicking chests, quaffing from fountains, zapping wands around, digging... And also tons, tons of chain effects.
+ Freedom of action
+ Replayability as a value - it's only missing procedurally generated items and enemies
+ Mechanics have a narrative component - Yep. To the extent of people writing narrations of playthroughs.
+ Education by action - it's weaker here, but at least it keeps the verbal information to a minimum and lets you learn by doing.

Yeah, it's kinda general, but I wouldn't think of a game as a RL only because it fits vaguely in the description. I don't think it's a black or white thing, either.
Note that I don't consider that most of the 'original' roguelikes (yeah, including Rogue) meet this criteria. Rogue looks more like a hack-n-slash dungueon crawler to me - maze rubber, as someone said itt.

[Schoq]

Have you ever even seen someone play The Legend of Zelda? Or Mario?

Anyway, the problem is still that they're way too vague. I bet they make sense in your head but nobody else would know what "Mechanics have a narrative component" is supposed to mean or when interactive becomes highly interactive, or how that's supposed to be different from "freedom of action" etc. They barely mean anything in the context.

[Graham-]

Classification is important because it helps you identify what the important things are in creating an experience. In the end what a roguelike is and isn't doesn't matter for using the word properly. But talking about it helps you understand what makes you like roguelikes.

[Lycaon]

The "dilution" of roguelike is part of the natural evolution of language. To me, a roguelike is a game with random level generation and permadeath. I've heard suggestions for "Procedural Death Labyrinth", but that's a mouthful, and "PDL" sounds like a foot disease. Also, I don't consider extreme difficulty a required trait of this kind of game.

Moreso, I think it's interesting to consider what all of these roguelike games have in common - what, at their core, makes people play them. The answer to that question will help us determine what a roguelike is far more easily than saying that every game with x mechanics is a roguelike, and without x mechanics it can't be a roguelike.

IMO, it's a combination of challenge and discovery that keeps people coming back. Roguelike games always have something new to show you, and the joy in play comes from navigating a set of arbitrary obstacles. What the obstacles look like, or how hard it is to overcome them, is irrelevant. All that really matters is that the game is constantly showing you something new, and that it's providing engagement through trying to overcome those new things.

[joe_eyemobi]

Agreed - it is an amorphous term at the moment that reflects the fast evolving landscape of gaming.  I think people generally understand what it describes though, even though the specifics can't be agreed on presently.

The "dilution" of roguelike is part of the natural evolution of language. To me, a roguelike is a game with random level generation and permadeath. I've heard suggestions for "Procedural Death Labyrinth", but that's a mouthful, and "PDL" sounds like a foot disease. Also, I don't consider extreme difficulty a required trait of this kind of game.

Moreso, I think it's interesting to consider what all of these roguelike games have in common - what, at their core, makes people play them. The answer to that question will help us determine what a roguelike is far more easily than saying that every game with x mechanics is a roguelike, and without x mechanics it can't be a roguelike.

IMO, it's a combination of challenge and discovery that keeps people coming back. Roguelike games always have something new to show you, and the joy in play comes from navigating a set of arbitrary obstacles. What the obstacles look like, or how hard it is to overcome them, is irrelevant. All that really matters is that the game is constantly showing you something new, and that it's providing engagement through trying to overcome those new things.

[Low_Chance]

After giving this issue long and careful thought, "Procedural Death Labyrinth" is probably the best we're going to get, with completely giving up on these semantic arguments being a close second. You can all go home now, I solved this.

[baconman]

Most of us went home a week ago, but we appreciate your approval. Besides, it's only a matter of time before:

Procedural Death Labyrinth = PDL
PDL = "Pedal"

...and then like the lazytards of the internet that we are, we just start referring to them as "Pedal" games, to the frustrated tears of anyone into racing games, or the ten people on Earth who've played PropCycle.

[rj]

pedallike

petallike


luxuria supurbia is a roguelike