6 ms·

Although a great game, I’m not sure it can be considered a roguelike.

• MrLeap 4y ago
  It has the procedural generation and permanent death. I'd say it shares many characteristics, enough to be called a cousin at least.
  • Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
    When I think of a "roguelike", I think of a game that is played in "runs" where a run is typically 60 minutes or less, but completing a game round is not completing the entire game, as it will take several runs to unlock all the features and content. You are also generally not expected to be able to complete a run to the final boss in your first several attempts. Hades, FTL, Vampire Survivors, Gunfire Reborn, and Crypt of the Necrodancer all satisfy these. RimWorld is not at all a roguelike because a "run" can easily last hundreds of hours.
    • djur 4y ago
      The classic roguelikes can take many hours to complete and do not have any kind of between-run unlocking. By some common definitions, unlockable content makes a game not a roguelike. I wouldn't go that far, but I'd never call Vampire Survivors a roguelike, either.
      • Bakary 4y ago
        It's hard to say because the terms end up shifting to mean various things as the genre solidifies. I personally like using roguelite for games such as Hades, in which case the operating features are procedural generation, permadeath, and metaprogress with each run
        • qu4z-2 4y ago
          You could make a case for the genre "re"solidifying, but roguelikes as a genre were hardly an indistinct vapour before this recent craze.
        • ncallaway 4y ago
          I’ve used roguelite the same way. It’s definitely my preferred model for the space, mostly because I’m bad at games, so the meta progress gives me the feeling of progression without nearly so much work!
          • Bakary 4y ago
            The design concept is absolutely perfect for working adults. Instead of having a session where you make slow progress on a very long adventure, you get an actual self-contained experience while also making some headway towards a larger goal each time.
    • bavell 4y ago
      I'd also add that "rougelikes" heavily emphasize replayability (at least in my limited experience). FTL and Slay the Spire are probably my top two favs in the genre.
    • fknorangesite 4y ago
      The strict roguelike fans would argue that these are in fact roguelites, since there is some (small) amount of carryover between runs. The more orthodox view is that every run starts from zero.
    • donio 4y ago
      None of the games you mention are roguelikes. Crypt of the Necrodancer is closest.
      • socialismisok 4y ago
        I would disagree. As a game dev, I'd argue that if players categorize a game as a roguelike, it's a roguelike. Language is not prescriptive. They may be roguelikes with additional elements, but there's no one true definition of what a roguelike must be. And yes, I'm aware of roguelites. The existence of a more specific piece of jargon does not invalidate the use of the more generic term. Insisting on a narrow, historical use of language serves only the purpose of gatekeeping and pedantic "I know better than you" behaviors.
        • b0rsuk 4y ago
          "Roguelike" is nowadays commonly defined by having a meta progression system (unlocks). Scroll through reviews of a game like Noita or DCSS (Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup) and you will see some people complaining the game doesn't have (enough) permanent unlocks.
          • socialismisok 4y ago
            I have no idea why you were down voted. Most folks I know who play roguelikes would agree with you.
            • anthk 4y ago
              Bullshit. That could put Zelda in the Roguelike genre while being just an action-adventure one.
              • socialismisok 4y ago
                My favorite part of Zelda games are the procedural dungeons, permanent death.
            • 4y ago
    • lofaszvanitt 4y ago
      No one really knows what a roguelike is, yet it is repeated ad infinitum. If the general populace doesn't really know what a roguelike is, why not describe it with proper wording like: mostly shallow content sold as something shiny in a repetitive way, lack of original story/background, time vampire if no proper checkpoint/save system in place. The best egregious example of terrible game design is the game called Returnal where the game designers sentenced the player to recollect most of the items/loot upon failure because who knows why. This isn't a problem in itself if done properly, but why going through the same area again and again, why collect the proper weapon again if you fail at a boss, is just plain stupidity or malignancy. So in essence a childish idiot sentences you to replay his "super creation" multiple times, because he thought that's cool. thank you. you, the gamer, will come into this equation with your most precious resource: time. how do you want to spend your time? by repeating the same BORING shit or progressing and experiencing new, stimulating areas while a story is told to you?
• jiggawatts 4y ago
  It's pretty much a Dwarf Fortress clone.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • Arrath 4y ago
    It is. And they're both excellent games with their own appeal.
  • Cthulhu_ 4y ago
    Pretty much, just (imo) a lot more accessible and playable, but at the cost of depth. Literally, since it doesn't have Z axis (floors), lol.
• fknorangesite 4y ago
  We need a law akin to Godwin's: if any online discussion continues long enough, someone will almost certainly argue about the definition of "roguelike."