"Rogue-like"

[LibraryOgre]

So, I grew up on Rogue. The Epyx version. My brothers and I had strict rules for how long you got to play Rogue before someone else got a turn... the rules were always based on One Life, but there were exceptions for, IIRC, First Room deaths and what we called "Rat Rooms" (rooms where there's a ton of enemies and treasure, so you have to fight and fight and fight.

But, what defines "Rogue-like" to you? What makes a game "Rogue-like", 'cause I keep picturing ASCII graphics.

[N810]

ASCII graphics are usually seen, but sometimes it's simple DOS style graphics instead,
usually there are randomly generated levels and permanent death.
Notable examples range from dwarf fortress to Splunky.

[sleepy hedgehog]

In additiona to what N810 said,
I also expect it to be single player, third person, centered on the main character.
so Dwarf fortess's adventure mode would count, but not it's main game.

Nethack was the Rougelike that I mostly played

[Rodin]

Rogue-like is one of those cases where the definition is used so broadly that it's become useless. I've heard any kind of random map generation as having "Rogue-like elements", which is kinda like saying Call of Duty games are RPGs because you can level up.

I tend to use the broadest brush possible in these cases to avoid semantic quibbling. There's only two things I consider "core" to the Rogue-like that can't be removed without it not fitting.

1) Permadeath.

2) Random map generation.

Any features beyond that is just blending in additional stuff, rather than moving entirely into a different genre.

[Thrawn4]

1) Permadeath.

2) Random map generation.

This, exactly. Modern examples would be Faster Than Light and Don't Starve.

[Knaight]

It depends on how broadly the genre is being defined. At the broadest sense permadeath and level design with randomness is required. For anything in the core of the genre I'd add being turn based, having characters with statistics that can change, and possibly add having just one character. ASCII is a side note - ToME is definitely a roguelike, and it has graphics, and that's without getting into how there are tilesets even for things like ADOM and Nethack.

[danzibr]

ASCII graphics are usually seen, but sometimes it's simple DOS style graphics instead,
usually there are randomly generated levels and permanent death.
Notable examples range from dwarf fortress to Splunky.

Rogue-like is one of those cases where the definition is used so broadly that it's become useless. I've heard any kind of random map generation as having "Rogue-like elements", which is kinda like saying Call of Duty games are RPGs because you can level up.

I tend to use the broadest brush possible in these cases to avoid semantic quibbling. There's only two things I consider "core" to the Rogue-like that can't be removed without it not fitting.

1) Permadeath.

2) Random map generation.

Any features beyond that is just blending in additional stuff, rather than moving entirely into a different genre.

This, exactly. Modern examples would be Faster Than Light and Don't Starve.
Man, everyone beat me to it.

[Leecros]

1) Permadeath.

2) Random map generation.


I also tend to add "3) Very Hard" to the list.

I don't really consider Binding of Isaac: Rebirth to be a rogue-like, because I find the game pretty easy, but I do consider Sword of the Stars: The Pit a Rogue-like because despite like 250 hours into the game. I've only beaten it once(on easy). High difficulty was something that old Rogue-likes were known for.

[factotum]

I'm with Rodin and the others--randomly generated map and permadeath are what makes the roguelike to me. It's not a genre I'm very fond of, because by its very nature you tend to find yourself playing through the beginning bits over and over again and I find that sort of repetition boring.

[gooddragon1]

For me it's just random maps. So Diablo 1. I wish Diablo 3 had offline mode so I could cheat.

[Hamste]

I also tend to add "3) Very Hard" to the list.

I don't really consider Binding of Isaac: Rebirth to be a rogue-like, because I find the game pretty easy, but I do consider Sword of the Stars: The Pit a Rogue-like because despite like 250 hours into the game. I've only beaten it once(on easy). High difficulty was something that old Rogue-likes were known for.

Very hard isn't necessarily a requirement for rogue-likes. Generally they are pretty hard as it increases replayability (if you can complete it easily then replaying the game tends to get boring particularly the ones where there is little to no progress between runs) but it isn't always needed.

[Sian]

Difficult to Master
Turn-based
Permadeath
A Focus (but not necessarily only) on Procedurally generated maps, often after a couple of different matrixes as to either show a 'classical' room-and-corridor, cavernous or crumpled maps
Often ASCII art, rarely 'great' art
Only one player-controlled character.

Or perhaps somewhat in reverse

It shouldn't be easy
It shouldn't be reflex-based
It shouldn't be tactical based.

Sure, things such as Spelunky, Diablo (specially I on Hardcore), Binding of Isaac and FTL have significant "rogue-like"ish elements in them, but that doesn't make them actually one of the set. Don't Stave is in my mind even less of a rogue-like and much more of a survival/puzzle

[LibraryOgre]

For me it's just random maps. So Diablo 1. I wish Diablo 3 had offline mode so I could cheat.

The problem with that as the criteria that Daggerfall becomes Rogue-like.

[Domino Quartz]

The first time I heard "roguelike" used to describe something, it was in reference to Dwarf Fortress's Adventure Mode (which, from what I've read, seems to have a lot more in common with actual classic roguelikes than a lot of modern games described as roguelikes do). At the time, I had no idea what "Rogue" was. Then, somewhere between 2012 and 2013, I found out about Spelunky (which was described as a platformer with roguelike elements*) and Rogue Legacy (which the creators called a "rogue-lite", presumably because it has some of the gameplay elements of Rogue [randomly generated levels, permanent death of individual characters] but by no means all of them).

Knowing what I know now, I would probably consider a "rogue-like" to be any game that has most, if not all, of the same sort of gameplay elements as Rogue, while a "rogue-lite" would be any game that has permanent death of your character (no extra lives), randomly generated levels, and a fairly high level of difficulty. In that sense, I guess "rogue-lite" is more of a genre modifier than a genre in and of itself.

*The creator of Spelunky, Derek Yu, goes into quite a bit more detail in his book "Spelunky", which you can get from Boss Fight Books. I highly recommend the book. In short, he says that he took elements from platformers that he liked (the sort of general gameplay mechanics platformers have), the elements from Roguelikes that he liked (permanent death, randomly generated levels, and having every kind of object in the game world be subject to the same consistent set of rules), and made a game** out of them.

**The original Spelunky, which was a pseudo-retro pixel platformer (it had pixel art and chip-tune music, and ran at 30fps). The version released on XBLA and Steam (Spelunky HD) came later.

[Ashen Lilies]

Not much to add, the two core criteria (permadeath, random map generation) have been pretty solidly stated and I agree with them (and disagree with any added criteria beyond these).

The one thing I will add though is that with modern roguelikes, the Permadeath is more of a Permadeath* with games like Rogue Legacy and FTL adding earnable bonuses, unlocks, and equipment that carry between runs, adding a form of persistence and meta-progression that persists even though any particular run is still a discrete, one-off event.

Extra Credits did an episode on Roguelikes a couple of years ago that might be worth watching, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk8ZknjYmek) though the discussion in the thread has already hit on most of the key points in less detail.

[Psyren]

For me it's just random maps. So Diablo 1. I wish Diablo 3 had offline mode so I could cheat.

Hardcore mode is essentially Roguelike, particularly in D3 where rifts have more variation than D2's replay-the-story structure. And like modern roguelikes like FTL, there is a degree of permanence via the cosmetic unlocks and paragon levels staying between characters.

[TaRix]

One thing to consider with a roguelike is that losing is (or should be) almost always the player's own fault.

A corollary to that is that the game should theoretically be beatable from the very first play.

[Alent]

I mostly agree with everyone so far, but disagree with one of the common points: a roguelike doesn't necessarily need permadeath, just a significant enough setback. An example would be the "partial" permadeath used in systems like One Way Heroics with carry over benefits or the variation that ejects you from the dungeon and forces you to reenter at level one, possibly with some items you chose to bank. It retains the "brutal" aspect of starting over again, but carries a different psychological weight and carrying the right items over can jumpstart the next play.


One thing to consider with a roguelike is that losing is (or should be) almost always the player's own fault.

A corollary to that is that the game should theoretically be beatable from the very first play.

This. Absolutely this. Roguelikes are information processing challenges. There's a high amount of consideration that should go into making actions in a roguelike, it's this criteria that disqualifies Diablo as a Roguelike. As part of the information processing aspect, Roguelikes are often immensely simulationist and understanding the simulation better equips you to survive it. (Nethack's Basilisk Corpses spring to mind as an example.)

[Winthur]

Perma-death (many roguelikes have a feature that lets you keep on playing after death, akin to Nethack's Wizard Mode, but victories using such methods are not considered true YAVPs), turn-based, top-down view, with a role-playing game system running underneath (character development, equipment, etc.)

It's fairly absurd to think that a person who liked Nethack will immediately want to jump into Binding of Isaac or Don't Starve.

Some of those are games with roguelike elements, inspired by roguelikes, etc. but not roguelikes per se.


it's this criteria that disqualifies Diablo as a Roguelike

I don't consider D1 to be a roguelike for my own reasons, but the game does require you to process quite a lot of information and has quite many elements similar to roguelikes.

Drinking from pools in ADOM or Nethack for random benefits is similar to the shrines in D1, and you only have your trial and error and analysis to figure out what exactly did each shrine change. Some shrines are harmful.

There is an enemy who permanently eats your hit points. You need to watch out for that and realize that before your warrior becomes a husk with no HP.

Just the amount of analysis necessary to outperform The Butcher or King Leoric might be a thing.



Extra Credits did an episode on Roguelikes a couple of years ago that might be worth watching, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk8ZknjYmek) though the discussion in the thread has already hit on most of the key points in less detail.

So, basically, Annoying Voice Guy just says that new roguelikes are roguelikes so that people can feel elitist about playing hardcore games without putting in the effort, and that it's a marketing thing?

Killed me a little inside when I went to a con to a panel about roguelikes and the panelist talked about Darkest Dungeons but didn't know what DoomRL is, in spite of it being a successful game from his own country.

[Knaight]

Difficult to Master
Turn-based
Permadeath
A Focus (but not necessarily only) on Procedurally generated maps, often after a couple of different matrixes as to either show a 'classical' room-and-corridor, cavernous or crumpled maps
Often ASCII art, rarely 'great' art
Only one player-controlled character.

Or perhaps somewhat in reverse

It shouldn't be easy
It shouldn't be reflex-based
It shouldn't be tactical based.




Perma-death (many roguelikes have a feature that lets you keep on playing after death, akin to Nethack's Wizard Mode, but victories using such methods are not considered true YAVPs), turn-based, top-down view, with a role-playing game system running underneath (character development, equipment, etc.)

It's fairly absurd to think that a person who liked Nethack will immediately want to jump into Binding of Isaac or Don't Starve.

That's true of any genre with any breadth though. It's fairly absurd to think that a person who liked Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl will necessarily like Borderlands 2. That doesn't mean they aren't both shooters with notable RPG elements, just that there's enough variety in the genre that people don't generally like all of it. It's a really unconvincing argument.

I mean, it's fairly absurd to think that a person who liked Nethack will immediately want to jump into Tales of Maj'Eyal. ToME is still undeniably a roguelike.

[Winthur]

That's true of any genre with any breadth though. It's fairly absurd to think that a person who liked Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl will necessarily like Borderlands 2. That doesn't mean they aren't both shooters with notable RPG elements, just that there's enough variety in the genre that people don't generally like all of it. It's a really unconvincing argument.

"Hey, I see you enjoy shooting in an open world with a loot system. Wanna try that other game out?"
"Hey, I see you enjoy turn-based fantasy dungeon crawler with permanent death and randomly generated levels. How about we play a survival open world game with perma death and randomly generated levels?"

Call me a conservative, but I'm more willing to call games like Spelunky, Don't Starve, BoI or Diablo hybrids at most.
Saying that a game is a roguelike simply because it combines permadeath wtih procedural content feels like a misnomer, a dilutation.



I mean, it's fairly absurd to think that a person who liked Nethack will immediately want to jump into Tales of Maj'Eyal. ToME is still undeniably a roguelike.

Uh, why?
ToME started off as a fork of Angband. Angband is firmly in the oldschool roguelike family.

[Sian]

Uh, why?
ToME started off as a fork of Angband. Angband is firmly in the oldschool roguelike family.

Mind you, I've never played a whole lot of Angband (or DC:SS for that matter which is an half-sibling/half-cousin of that range) outside of ToME but...

Because Nethack is part of the other main variant of Rogue-likes (With 'Hack, and its deviates on one side, and Moria into Angband into its deviates) and there is quite a few differences, both in how they level-design and in how character progression is done.

This is prehaps most prevalent in looking at how leveling is done between Hack and ToME ... in 'Hack variants its a few additional bonuses to abilities and assorted numbers (ToHit, HP etc) but while a class might lean you towards something specific, you can "easily" play against type and play your Archer as a front-liner, whereas in ToME its much less flexible in as of how your class does things and hence you're much less able to play against type ... whereas in 'hacks you'd only play without any significant bonuses, in ToME you might almost as well be blindfolded with one hand tied behind your back.

Also, while ToME is still hard, its much less hard than 'Hack since there is to significant reason why you shouldn't go into each and every combat as ready as you can be, as there is no time-related reasons why you should push on (even if it might only be a dwindling supply of food).


Not saying that there aren't quite a few cross-player base between the two overarching sub-genres of old-school roguelikes, but they're at least as different as different types of shooters

[cobaltstarfire]

I kind of disagree that roguelikes must not have a "reflex" based aspect to them.

Mainly because of Crypt of the Necrodancer exists.

It is turn based, there is perma death, the monsters move and attack in predictable ways, the floors are procedurally generated, the shop keeper is not someone you want to triffle with, and you really want to learn how items behave and interact with each other.

It just adds another mechanic to the game, which is you have to do everything while moving to the beat of the music (or not if you use bard, then it becomes a traditional rogue-like).


I tend to agree that games like Binding of Isaac or the new Spelunky are not quite rogue-likes, mostly because they aren't turn based. To me they're more closely related to a Metroidvania or Legend of Zelda game, just the maps and items are scrambled.

My husband doesn't feel Faster than Light is a rogue like either, I'm not personally sure where it sits for me. It has more in common with the Oregon Trail, which has me wondering, does anyone consider the Oregon Trail to be a rogue-like? (what kind game is the Oregon Trail anyway, Survival/Simulation?)

edit:

I also don't think a game necessarily has to be hard or have permadeath in it to be a rogue-like. Pokemon Mystery Dungeon is definitely a rogue-like in terms of game play, it just so happens that death doesn't require you to start the game all over again from the beginning.

[boomwolf]

I also tend to add "3) Very Hard" to the list.

I don't really consider Binding of Isaac: Rebirth to be a rogue-like, because I find the game pretty easy, but I do consider Sword of the Stars: The Pit a Rogue-like because despite like 250 hours into the game. I've only beaten it once(on easy). High difficulty was something that old Rogue-likes were known for.



If you find Issac too easy, try Enter the Gungeon for a new experience that will challenge you.
Bullet hell that is pure skill based needle dodges, and little luck dodging involved (every attack is telegraphed and you got time, there are just so freaking many bullets on the screen at times and some move in really hard to follow pathing)
Luck in item finds is still a thing, not finding a good gun is lethal. But there is no fishing for silly game breaking combos, even the best items just give an edge, rather than nullify challenges.

[Sian]

I also don't think a game necessarily has to be hard or have permadeath in it to be a rogue-like. Pokemon Mystery Dungeon is definitely a rogue-like in terms of game play, it just so happens that death doesn't require you to start the game all over again from the beginning.

I guess that is a valid point to a certain extend ... That said, Mystery Dungeon are most often on the easier side, with less strict failure conditions (given the fact that they were made for handhold in mind, to be able to play for half an hour or so, and feel that you advanced) with Pokemon Mystery Dungeon furthest on that sliding scale, but are still so heavily influenced by Rogue that its difficult to outright not consider them valid roguelikes ...

That said, the difference is just as pronounced between 'oldschool' Roguelikes and Mystery Dungeons, as the difference is between action-rpg, crpg and Japanese RPG (take Skyrim vs Pillars Of Eternity vs Final Fantasy), even though they're all recognized as rpgs, few would consider there being a whole lot of native overlap between their playerbases


Enter the Gungeon for a new experience that will challenge you.
Bullet hell that is pure skill based needle dodges, and little luck dodging involved (every attack is telegraphed and you got time, there are just so freaking many bullets on the screen at times and some move in really hard to follow pathing)

Bullet hell is difficult because it's bullet hell not because of any borrowings from Rogue... It's difficult nature is more due to Arcade shooter gameplay with luck elements, than its due to Rogue-lite elements (which are quite limited, and given that the game have progression via unlocking new items from killing the same bosses over and over.....)

[Knaight]

"Hey, I see you enjoy shooting in an open world with a loot system. Wanna try that other game out?"
"Hey, I see you enjoy turn-based fantasy dungeon crawler with permanent death and randomly generated levels. How about we play a survival open world game with perma death and randomly generated levels?"
That's one way to put it. Another would be:
"Hey, I see you enjoy a bunch of high energy firefights involving various RPG powers. Want to try a gritty, post apocalyptic game with a focus on realism in the combat system?"
"Hey, I see you enjoy a short, skill based game with perma death and randomly generated levels. Want to try that other game out?"

There's variety within genres, and the idea that games are in different genres if you can't expect near complete overlap in who likes them is bizarre.


Uh, why?
ToME started off as a fork of Angband. Angband is firmly in the oldschool roguelike family.
For one thing, I can confirm that I don't like Nethack and really like ToME - so assuming it also goes the other way is reasonable. For another, there are huge differences between the games.

[Sholos]

What I don't understand is why people get so upset when things like Binding of Isaac are referred to as roguelikes. Like it's some kind of title that needs defending.

[Leecros]

If you find Issac too easy, try Enter the Gungeon for a new experience that will challenge you.
Bullet hell that is pure skill based needle dodges, and little luck dodging involved (every attack is telegraphed and you got time, there are just so freaking many bullets on the screen at times and some move in really hard to follow pathing)
Luck in item finds is still a thing, not finding a good gun is lethal. But there is no fishing for silly game breaking combos, even the best items just give an edge, rather than nullify challenges.

In fact, I have Enter the Gungeon as well. I've played about 50 hours in and while it is harder than Isaac...I've done most of what the game has to offer. I don't feel like there's quite as much there compared to Isaac.


What I don't understand is why people get so upset when things like Binding of Isaac are referred to as roguelikes. Like it's some kind of title that needs defending.

I don't think anyone in this discussion is getting upset at Isaac being referred to as a roguelike...Although I have seen those arguments in the past. I think the problem is that people have different definitions of what Roguelikes are as a genre.

Part of the problem with that is that nowadays it's sometimes difficult to define a genre of games. So many games(especially Indie games) take inspiration from several genres and it sort of muddies the water and people ultimately start arguing over semantics.

[cobaltstarfire]

Also when you get a group of people who are very passionate about anything you're going to run into folks who are various levels of pedantic.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I've heard games like Binding of Isaac, Enter the Gungeon, and the like where you have persistable elements between new characters after permadeath referred to as 'Rogue-lite'. Honestly don't know how I feel about that title, though.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

One thing to consider with a roguelike is that losing is (or should be) almost always the player's own fault.

A corollary to that is that the game should theoretically be beatable from the very first play.
Man, I love this little piece of the definition. That's really clever and gets to the heart of roguelikes, I think.

[boomwolf]

While technically correct that most if not all rouge games are BEATABLE within the first play, they never will be.

Because the "players fault" often comes from not knowing, and having no way OF knowing before getting utterly screwed by something that they only way you can properly respond to is knowing its coming in advance (in games like issac/gungeon it will be an enemy attack pattern that you simply never saw before and requires you to act during the windup animation, but on first run you have no way of telling what windup leads to what attack pattern, nor how to dodge said patterns, or odd item interactions, or even what a given item even does.)


Rogues, regardless of if they feature unlockables or not, are often a game of trial and error. you only know how to beat a boss because you lost to it so many times you know what to expect. you can gain the power needed to beat the alter stages of the game because you know what actions you are supposed to take early on (for example, FTL's concept of limited fuel fools people into rushing, while the correct answer is to explore as much as physically possible before the "timer" catches up, because otehrwise you wouldn't stand a chance against the end boss.)

As much as I love roguelikes, and roguelites (probably roguelights a bit more as I'm not an amazing player, and that slight growth means the game overall gets a tiny bit easier as you progress through runs) its a factor I cannot ignore-they are very much padded length by unfair gameplay.
The only thing that separates a good rogue from a bad rogue, is whether or not the unfair part manages to remain fun.

[Cespenar]

The luck aspect is a big player in roguelikes, in my opinion, almost as much as skill and/or foreknowledge. Sure, you can compensate for it some, but it can still knock an experienced person down.

Example: In ADOM, random acid trap out of nowhere can one-shot you in earlier levels. Sure, there are builds that can lower the chances of this happening, but then you'd be vulnerable to other stuff, etc.

[Winthur]

Example: In ADOM, random acid trap out of nowhere can one-shot you in earlier levels. Sure, there are builds that can lower the chances of this happening, but then you'd be vulnerable to other stuff, etc.

There was a point in one of the sources posted here that I vehemently disagreed with - might have been the Extra Schmedits video - that all characters are unique and inexpendable.

But in case of games like ADOM or DoomRL, I am perfectly content with just throwing spaghetti - that is, my characters - at a wall, and see what sticks.

My Gray Elven and Gnomish Wizards almost inevitably go into the Puppy Cave or straight into Unremarkable Dungeon because spellcasters are capable of defeating most threats with just bolt-spam (particularly ants on PC:2), also they can make ice bridges and other stuff like that. So they can go straight into those difficult dungeons as a test of character.

A loss of a level 10 character to a stone block trap does not hurt as much.

It's only at some point that I consider my characters to be actual characters - that they stop being stat simulations and that I actually give a crap about them.

[Pocgels]

The luck aspect is a big player in roguelikes, in my opinion, almost as much as skill and/or foreknowledge. Sure, you can compensate for it some, but it can still knock an experienced person down.


Agreed... these games are largely about preparing as much as you can for the worst possible circumstances, and sometimes luck just isn't on your side.

[Rodin]

There was a point in one of the sources posted here that I vehemently disagreed with - might have been the Extra Schmedits video - that all characters are unique and inexpendable.

But in case of games like ADOM or DoomRL, I am perfectly content with just throwing spaghetti - that is, my characters - at a wall, and see what sticks.

My Gray Elven and Gnomish Wizards almost inevitably go into the Puppy Cave or straight into Unremarkable Dungeon because spellcasters are capable of defeating most threats with just bolt-spam (particularly ants on PC:2), also they can make ice bridges and other stuff like that. So they can go straight into those difficult dungeons as a test of character.

A loss of a level 10 character to a stone block trap does not hurt as much.

It's only at some point that I consider my characters to be actual characters - that they stop being stat simulations and that I actually give a crap about them.

This is actually something that has always turned me off Hardcore mode in the Diablo games. Losing a string of characters at level 3 or 4? Just restart. Losing a character at level 10-15 or so when you're well into the game? Hurts, but it's a good kind of hurt and you vow to learn from your mistakes and continue on.

Losing a level 50 character that you put over a week of gameplay into? That is utterly rage-inducing. Especially if its the level 50 equivalent of stepping on an Acid trap.

[Sian]

While technically correct that most if not all rouge games are BEATABLE within the first play, they never will be.

A more prober way to put it would be that a 'sufficiently experienced' player is no less likely to succeed on a clear install as they would be where the high-score list is a mile long.

For an example, the only place in ADOM that's gated by length of the high-score list is the highly optional 'Bug ruins'

[Winthur]

Losing a level 50 character that you put over a week of gameplay into? That is utterly rage-inducing. Especially if its the level 50 equivalent of stepping on an Acid trap.

It's worth noting that the D2 equivalent of an acid trap is often stuff like "I lagged out", "The enemy's attack frame didn't process properly and I got chunked", "there is a bug in the current version of the game that causes insane damage", "I am playing a melee character pre-1.14 and I met an Oblivion Knight".

[Rodin]

It's worth noting that the D2 equivalent of an acid trap is often stuff like "I lagged out", "The enemy's attack frame didn't process properly and I got chunked", "there is a bug in the current version of the game that causes insane damage", "I am playing a melee character pre-1.14 and I met an Oblivion Knight".

My favorite instance actually isn't from the Diablo series but the original Torchlight. One of the lategame enemies liked casting Meteor, which worked pretty much like it did in Diablo II - you see the area it's going to hit, and then a couple seconds later the meteor strikes, everything dies.

The problem was that the animation was buggy, and under certain circumstances the animation would cancel without the spell canceling. So all of a sudden you would get one-shotted by an invisible meteor landing on your head.

It's the only reason I never beat that game on Hardcore, too. Sooner or later I would forget where the invisible meteors were and get whacked.

[KillianHawkeye]

It's worth noting that the D2 equivalent of an acid trap is often stuff like "I lagged out", "The enemy's attack frame didn't process properly and I got chunked", "there is a bug in the current version of the game that causes insane damage", "I am playing a melee character pre-1.14 and I met an Oblivion Knight".

This made me chuckle. :smallamused:



As for the genre discussion, I think there are three problems with calling any modern game a "Rogue-like". First, most modern games are combinations of two or more genres. I don't consider Diablo to be a Rogue-like (it's a spam-clicking Action RPG), but the original game's random dungeon generation was very similar to the kinds of dungeons you'd find in Rogue. Spelunky, as another example, is hybrid between a Rogue-like and a standard 2D platformer. I can't even tell you how many RPG/first-person shooter hybrids I've played on my Xbox 360. So any game purported to be a Rogue-like probably also has several other influences that affect the gameplay.

Second, many game genres have simply gotten broader over the last three decades of gaming history. Back in the 80s and 90s, game genres were pretty simple and games which combined two genres were pretty rare. These days, hybrid games are quite common. Genres have been split up into sub-genres. The lines between them have all gotten blurred.

Finally, the Rogue-like genre is particularly difficult to measure because it's exceptionally specific. Other game genres are sufficiently broad that they aren't defined by comparison to a single progenitor. It's a fairly unique situation where an unusual and unexpectedly successful game spawned dozens of blatant knock-offs whose number 1 marketing pitch was "We're like this game, but with X!" Not that copycats don't still exist (and probably will never stop happening), but it was a product of the times when the Internet and the gaming industry were both still in their youths.

However, the point is that "Rogue-like" isn't really a true genre at all. There's no generality because every single entry is compared back to the original Rogue. Without that generality, it's impossible to define exactly which aspects of Rogue were responsible for its success, which parts were essential to its being and which weren't. Genre conventions can't be established when new games are denied the authority to add to the genre's definition.

So that leaves us with the eternal question: How close to the original Rogue does a game have to be to qualify as a "Rogue-like"? People have mentioned the random dungeon generation, the turn-based play, the perma-death, and the overall difficulty. What about the fantasy setting? Rogue was basically a single-player D&D simulator, after all. What about the cursed items, or the unidentified potions and scrolls? Or the searching for traps and secret doors? Or dealing with hunger and darkness? I've seen them all in recent Rogue-likes, but is that too specific? I think we can consider the ASCII graphics to be little more than a limitation of the DOS era, but some of these games are still doing it. How about the part where you have to get the treasure from the bottom of the dungeon and then climb all the way back up to escape with it? I've seen modern games doing that, too, but I'm also sure many Rogue-likes have omitted that aspect of it.

That's the problem. Where do we draw the line when we all have different interpretations and expectations?

[Rodin]

I would basically say you can't draw a line, in much the same way the term "RPG" has become meaningless. Is it an RPG if you're playing a role but have no stats? Or if there are no choices to be made, like many JRPGs? If you don't get to create your own character? Repeat ad infinitum, ad absurdum.

You can argue details about all this stuff until the end of time, but trying to make a demarcation that works for everyone is futile. The best way to treat it is a general term that gives some idea, then look at the specifics yourself on a case-by-case basis. Rogue-lite is definitely a helpful term to delineate between "hard" and "soft" Rogue-likes, but ultimately the term is best used as a guidepost to a broad genre. It's likely to have randomized stuff in it, and it's likely to treat death as a serious setback (or just game over). Beyond that, you're at the mercy of whatever definition the person who described it as a roguelike is going from.

[factotum]

It's worth noting that the D2 equivalent of an acid trap is often stuff like "I lagged out", "The enemy's attack frame didn't process properly and I got chunked", "there is a bug in the current version of the game that causes insane damage", "I am playing a melee character pre-1.14 and I met an Oblivion Knight".

You forgot "I am playing a melee character in earlier versions of the game and I decided to hit a Multiple Shot Lightning Enchanted boss monster"...

[KillianHawkeye]

You forgot "I am playing a melee character in earlier versions of the game and I decided to hit a Multiple Shot Lightning Enchanted boss monster"...

This thread is giving me nostalgia in more ways than one. :smallwink::smallamused:

[Knaight]

Finally, the Rogue-like genre is particularly difficult to measure because it's exceptionally specific. Other game genres are sufficiently broad that they aren't defined by comparison to a single progenitor. It's a fairly unique situation where an unusual and unexpectedly successful game spawned dozens of blatant knock-offs whose number 1 marketing pitch was "We're like this game, but with X!" Not that copycats don't still exist (and probably will never stop happening), but it was a product of the times when the Internet and the gaming industry were both still in their youths.

This is more nomenclature than anything - there are plenty of genres that trace back to just a few sources pretty cleanly (and Roguelikes don't trace to Rogue alone either), but they didn't end up getting called an X-like. Metroidvanias come to mind (although not getting called an X-like there is pedantic in the extreme), along with how first person shooters could have been cleanly called Doom-likes for years, and a huge chunk of early RPGs could have been fairly called D&D-likes.

[KillianHawkeye]

This is more nomenclature than anything - there are plenty of genres that trace back to just a few sources pretty cleanly (and Roguelikes don't trace to Rogue alone either), but they didn't end up getting called an X-like. Metroidvanias come to mind (although not getting called an X-like there is pedantic in the extreme), along with how first person shooters could have been cleanly called Doom-likes for years, and a huge chunk of early RPGs could have been fairly called D&D-likes.

Well, my point was basically that the nomenclature is the source of the difficulty, so I don't disagree with you.

Metroidvanias also share this phenomenon, but to a lesser extent because the name didn't really arise until there were several games following in the steps of Super Metroid and Castlevania SotN. Just the fact that there are two games remembered as being the fathers of the sub-genre allows us to compare and contrast and establish genre conventions.

Also, I'm pretty sure Wolfenstein 3D predated Doom.

[lesser_minion]

One of the developers of Rogue expressed the view that a roguelike is any game that's capable of surprising its own creators, and my personal definition of a roguelike is loosely based on that:

A roguelike is a game that's designed to fairly (or at least, as fairly as possible) provide a challenge with decent longevity to its own creators, and to others who have effectively mastered it.

That was the entire point to Rogue, which was itself based on another game, and things like the difficulty, random generation, and lack of saves, were added in service to that goal.

It's actually quite possible for a game to have difficulty, procedural stuff, and some form of 'permadeath' and still not be a roguelike, even if it has gameplay that's quite close to rogue. And it's not theoretically impossible for a game to have none of those things and still be a valid roguelike.

In fact, all the trial and error and "no spoilers" stuff is effectively an optional challenge mode that the community surrounding early roguelikes imposed upon itself.

[Winthur]

Also, I'm pretty sure Wolfenstein 3D predated Doom.

I remember that the Polish video game magazines wrote about "Doom-like Games" for quite a while before the term FPS became a thing (or rather, FPP, for First Person Perspective).

I vaguely recall "Doom Clones" being a term universally for the good part of the early 00s.

And before W3D, there was Catacomb Abyss, but nobody cares. Doom coined the phrase because, well, I guess it had more exposure (having an online mode and a Z-axis probably helped).

[factotum]

I vaguely recall "Doom Clones" being a term universally for the good part of the early 00s.

And before W3D, there was Catacomb Abyss, but nobody cares. Doom coined the phrase because, well, I guess it had more exposure (having an online mode and a Z-axis probably helped).

Yeah, I often heard games being referred to as Doom clones in the mid to late 90s. I don't think the term was still commonly used by 2000, though, because Half-Life had come out by then and people were starting to realise that calling a game like that a Doom clone wasn't really doing it justice. As for why Doom clones--Doom was absolutely *massive*. It's hard to remember now, but for a shareware game to gain the sales and reach that Doom did was entirely unheard of in 1993. In fact, I remember reading a PC magazine in the UK (forget which one) reviewing Doom, and the first paragraph said, more or less, "What? Why is this game here in the main review section rather than at the back with the other shareware dross? Because it's probably the best game that's come out this year, that's why.".

[N810]

A lot of the "Doom clones" where actually using the Doom game engine and builder back in the day.
Then we got unreal and quake engines a bit later.

[LibraryOgre]

Also, I'm pretty sure Wolfenstein 3D predated Doom.

You would be correct. Wolfenstein 3D was in 92, while Doom was in 93.

[KillianHawkeye]

One of the developers of Rogue expressed the view that a roguelike is any game that's capable of surprising its own creators

As interesting as it is to hear a developer's perspective, that isn't how genres work.... :smallsigh:

[Gnoman]

You would be correct. Wolfenstein 3D was in 92, while Doom was in 93.

It was also made by the same developers. The reason that FPS games were principally known as "DooM clones" rather than "Wolfenstein 3D clones" was principally that Wolfenstein 3D was merely a successful shareware game, while DooM is perhaps the biggest juggernaut gaming has ever produced.

[Knaight]

It was also made by the same developers. The reason that FPS games were principally known as "DooM clones" rather than "Wolfenstein 3D clones" was principally that Wolfenstein 3D was merely a successful shareware game, while DooM is perhaps the biggest juggernaut gaming has ever produced.

As was Quake. Id Software pretty much cornered the genre for a while.

[Alent]

It was also made by the same developers. The reason that FPS games were principally known as "DooM clones" rather than "Wolfenstein 3D clones" was principally that Wolfenstein 3D was merely a successful shareware game, while DooM is perhaps the biggest juggernaut gaming has ever produced.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but it's my recollection that "Wolf3D clones" were different from "Doom clones".

EG- Blake Stone was a Wolf3D clone, Heretic was a Doom Clone.

[factotum]

Well, the simple fact there is that there wasn't much of a window for Wolfenstein 3D clones to exist, because why would anyone play one of those when they could play a better Doom clone? By the time you get to 1994 any game still using the Wolfenstein 3D engine or a derivative (e.g. no different levels throughout the map, all the walls have to be the same height) would be laughed at.

[Sian]

the verticality of Doom simply blew Wolfenstein straight out of the water ...

But really... as of the initial discussion that's very much an aside

[Winthur]

the verticality of Doom simply blew Wolfenstein straight out of the water ...

But really... as of the initial discussion that's very much an aside

Wolf3D knows very well what it's doing with its limited design, though. Hunting for wall switches can be fun but is not necessary, yet it's a pleasant surprise when you find one, some levels are very tricky in their limitation (there is even a bona fide stealth level), and the challenge - getting through tons of hitscan enemies while often having to preserve fairly limited ammo - is really pretty good.

Wolf3D even has some pretty cool mods, like TotenkopfSDL, in case you ever wanted to dual-wield Kar98k and even use a flamethrower.

So it's not all that bad, even nowadays. The control is solid.

Also my mom loves it. Killing Nazis is fun, and the lack of verticality, everything also being brightly lit is really, really good for bloodthirsty people in their 50s who are incapable of using a keyboard and mouse simultaneously. So it's actually a pretty good gateway casual FPS at this point if you put it on easy mode.

[GloatingSwine]

A lot of the "Doom clones" where actually using the Doom game engine and builder back in the day.
Then we got unreal and quake engines a bit later.

Very few games actually used the Doom engine. Heretic, Hexen, Strife, and Chex Quest are the only ones.

"Doom clones" encompassed stuff like DN3D, Dark Forces, Blood, Rise of the Triad, etc. (Quite a lot used the Build engine).

There were three reasons Doom took off and spawned clones. The first is that it had multiplayer, the second is the internet was just starting to be a thing for home users so you could play it multiplayer, and the last is that DoomED was made available to everyone. What that meant was that anyone could make their own Doom maps and there was a way to share them and play them against or with other people.

[lesser_minion]

As interesting as it is to hear a developer's perspective, that isn't how genres work.... :smallsigh:

You could certainly argue that, but the important part is what the game (or film, or book, or series, or comic) is trying to accomplish, not what the common genre/subgenre trappings are. You can pull off perfectly valid TV space opera without exploding bridge consoles, anomalies, or shields and hull plating that behave almost exactly like they actually have hit points, for example.

[KillianHawkeye]

You could certainly argue that, but the important part is what the game (or film, or book, or series, or comic) is trying to accomplish, not what the common genre/subgenre trappings are. You can pull off perfectly valid TV space opera without exploding bridge consoles, anomalies, or shields and hull plating that behave almost exactly like they actually have hit points, for example.

Yes, but it still needs to be in space. That's how genres work. They're based on observable characteristics that allow works to be sorted into groups of similar things. Video game genres are based more on gameplay elements than on setting or story, but the basic nature of genres still holds true.

That developer's comment was so broad that literally any game could be considered a Rogue-like, but only the developers would know it. That breaks BOTH of the basic rules (similar themes and observable traits) for how genres work, and is entirely useless as a definition.