Damn no way I founc Jacob Geller here while also finding another comment 3 days ago from this comment also noticing Jacob Geller in the comment section. Wild
I love your point about how a game becomes more interesting when every choice COULD be a valid choice. I never realized how well the risk of rain series did this. Damn, those games are so good
Your point about quantitative upgrades being less interesting that qualitative was really interesting. And Risk of Rain is great, my friend and I have put so many hours into it.
I probably should have elaborated more about the qualitative quantitative description because I think this is super important. I guess I have always felt that getting something that changes your abilities forces you to change your playstyle more than getting something with some different numbers but is really just the same thing. I do think having some quantitative upgrades are alright. For instance, upgrading your ship power in FTL is technically quantitative, but it leads to interesting decisions about when to upgrade and how to allocate power so I don't mind it as much.
What you call "OR-Gate" is basically unrelated to an actual OR-Gate (which is of course a gate where the output is true if one or more of the inputs are true)
The graphs really help visualizing how "deep" the games are, it was really amusing seeing Sky Rogue's and it basically only having a single loop (kill stuff to get money, spend money to get stronger) after all the interconnectedness of Downwell, FTL and Spelunky.
What a great video, it's unfortunate I only found it 4 years after the fact. I'm also deeply fascinated by the genre. I think it does a lot to move games from the repetitive to the repayable side of the spectrum. I'd love to see a part 2 of this kind of breakdown - given all the new games that have come out and all the new insights you must have had in 4 years.
Going off of what you said about having immortal ghosts at the end of every level. There is a game called "Pork-Like" It has something like a ghost called a Wurstlord, It can be killed but it will come again in the next floor. But if a player was to try to kill the Wurstlord they would be using 10+ items and most of their health as it is the strongest enemy, so it would lead to a choice whether the player would risk loosing most of their items and health or try to run from the wurst lord.
Talking about roguelikes I think part of the reason why the definition is so contentious is due to how If you give a person who likes metroid or castlevania any metroidvania, they will very likely like the game cause there is a set structure which makes it a metroidvania This isnt really the case with roguelikes since the different modern roguelikes are vastly different from each other and thus are so far from rogue you can barely see the resemblance, even more so cause the "permadeath" of rogue was more a product of the time with how saves never existed and so they added additional flair to losing a run by canonically making the player character "dead" This comes to a problem with modern roguelike as a definition also starting to include way too many games, or more specifically, it includes a lot of arcade games which do have random level generation and permadeath
I would like to add one more thing to roguelikes (not much related to progression) is information. You mentioned the unpredictable CYOA elements in FLT aren't good because the player wouldn't have predicted the outcome (and so disrupts the risk/reward dynamic when you don't know the risk or reward), whereas Slay The Spire has clear indication. I believe that a strength of a good Roguelike is how it plays with information. Planning in FTL is not only being strong enough to face ship, but any RNG they though at you. In classic Roguelikes, you can very well spawn in the worst part of a dungeon, but if you've played enough of the game, you can get of such situations. I'm not saying vagueness should always be present. Given the type of game they were going for, it makes sense for Slay the Spire to clear outcomes, so that more focus is given for the intended experience.
To be fair, Metroiavanias do fall within the formula of being open worlds where you progress to new areas by finding abilities in the ones you currently can explore. Beyond that they are typically portrayed as side-scrolling, action platformers so the definition is very distinct even down to their presentation. Legend of Zelda, for example, follows this exact same formula but we don't call them Metroidvanias. So there is some reasonable logic to a Rouge-Like needing to fit closely to the original formula. Slay The Spire, as an example, shouldn't but called a Rogue-Like or even Rogue-Lite because it shares no similarities with the source material. Simply having a game with an evolving play-style based upon randomised awards and permadeath is literally just a table-top RPG or, in video game terms, a CRPG. netHack was itself inspired by the original Rogue and the original Diablo was pitched to the studio as being inspired by both of those games. So much as Metroidvanias established a pattern, so too had Rogue-Likes and it happened long before 2008.
I don’t consider myself a “roguelike purist” but I definitely would consider these roguelites and not roguelikes. I myself care about the distinction because it has become a major pain in the neck to try and find actual roguelike games on platforms like Steam when all it wants to show you are things like Hades and Slay the Spire. I think roguelites can be excellent games but often times I am not looking for those types of games
My favorite part of FTL's upgrade systems is the character stats, because if you find a fight that cannot possibly kill you, then you can use that time to just buff out your weapon and shield stats on all of your units if you feel like just sitting around and using weak weapons.
The roguelike roguelite criteria are simple. Roguelites have a system that lets you carry over something into the next tun. Like unlocking permanent buffs. These ultimatly will lead the player to beat the game at some point. Roguelikes instead can unlock new content but dont make future runs easier
i think Everspace does the "spawning reinforcements" well, because it has "stages" of enemies that can spawn. Each one has a time limit associated with it, but I don't know the exact limits off the top of my head. at first, it's just stronger versions of outlaws and okkar fighters (the most common enemy types). For a new player, this pushes them away from the level and onto the next area - but more experienced (or risky) players can stay and kill them to possibly earn a few extra resources. afterwards, it'll spawn an Okkar Corvette - a chonky boi that's pretty damn hard to kill (especially with the starter weapons) and only spawns in later areas - but you can once again choose to stay and kill it. Most of the time though, you'll die or just leave since they're difficult to take down by design. after that, it spawns a Colonial Warship - and those cannot be killed. You can damage them a bit to get some resources though, but you'll probably die by doing so. i think the system works well since it rewards riskier/more experience players while also deterring everyone at the same time (especially when the warships jump in - they have unique music and everything). haven't played Spelunky, but the ghost is similar since it turns money items into super-valuable diamonds, but insta-kills you and can't be destroyed. I wonder if the Everspace devs were inspired by it? Sky Rogue should've done something similar, but stopped at stage 1 for whatever reason.
"Modern roguelikes are not going to be like the original rogue." Except, there are modern roguelikes like the original rogue. And I think that's why the woodys of this world want the term roguelike to refer to games that are... like rogue. I love this silly debate.
Sorry it took me so long to respond to this. So I never said that old school roguelikes weren't roguelikes. Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, Powder, Brogue, these are all still roguelikes. I have played many traditional roguelikes as well as the ones that aren't top down dungeon crawlers. In my opinion, all of the games in this video are still "like" rogue in the most important ways. Rogue was special for 2 reasons. Random levels in combination with permanent death. Many other games are turn based that aren't roguelikes. Games can have ASCII and not be roguelikes. You could go through the entire Berlin interpretation and find the elements represented in other games that aren't roguelikes. However you cannot find a game with permadeath and random levels that doesn't evoke that rogue feel. That is why I feel this way about my definition of roguelike.
@@Chariot_Rider i find this debate about genre kinda wierd, i mean: spelunky (game that i like a lot) is clearly a platformer, yes, it has some rogue-esque mechanics (perma death & random generated levels) but is a platformer. we might say that spelunky is a platformer with some roguelikes elements, the same goes for others that are shooters, twin stick shooters, hack & slash, actions platformers, bullet hell and the list goes on, with some roguelikes elements. On the other hand: angband, brogue, nethack & co. have: perma death, random generated levels, turn-based, grid-based, dungeon crawlers. they are "simply" and exclusively part of the "rogue" genre-> roguelikes.
@@Chariot_Rider Your video is missing out on quite a lot of potential by exclusively discussing the less traditional games in the genre. Progression and itemization is at the core of what makes the genre special and games like Brogue and Cogmind have very interesting takes on progression. While permanent consequence and randomization are critical to roguelikes I dont think it quite captures everything about these games. Its difficult to quantify but I think a sense of exploration is very key and why I would put something like Gungeon in the "lite" catergory as while its randomized the exploration is limited. FTL on the other hand very much keys into this sense of exploration. Noita is exceptional at this and is one of the recent games that feel the most like rogue and the experience it is communicating.
@@connorquinn700 I do agree that there is a lot to get into with how items and progression is treated in traditional roguelikes. In the future I will definitely be getting more into that
I really like how Hades does it, where you gather tons of stuff ranging from weapon upgrades that aren't just does two more points of damage and can be felt to extra powers that also can be felt, and you grow and change throughout your run. Then at the end you feel like a god and go out in a blaze of Glory against Hades or succeed and feel amazing.
That was an amazing video! The analysis of all selected games were deep and objective, fun and educating. The charts are still something to improve on, if you ever want to use them again, but I don't know what needs improvement exactly.
Doesn't take away from the point of the video, but I feel the need to mention that OR gates aren't an accurate way to describe the flow chart diamonds, an OR gate in a flow chart would look more like the part where you have multiple arrows converging on "Collecting Gems", where "Gem Room" OR the "Breaking Block" diamond outcome, OR "Shooting Enemy" OR "Bopping Enemy" results in "Collecting Gems".
I thought that Rouge-Lights were a sub-genre of Rouge-Likes, where you can keep *some* things (Exp, Special Items, Upgrades, ect.) rather than keeping nothing but knowledge.
The common usage is that a "light" roguelike is one where you can grow stronger between runs (so the game gets easier if you just keep playing even if you don't get better at it) while a pure roguelike has everything available from the start and zero permanent progression... then the Berlin definition of a roguelike is so oldskool it mandates that the games are grid-based RPGs and preferably using ASCII art instead of sprites.
"OR" gates don't mean A or B, in a truth table it means "at least A or B" meaning if A and !B or !A and B or A and B. And OR gate is only false if !A and !B
!!!!!!! I DID NOT KNOW THAT OVERHEALING PAST FULL 4 TIMES GIVES YOU EXTRA MAX HP. I BEAT THE FUCKING HARD MODE BOSS WITHOUT THIS KNOWLEDGE. TTHHAAATS WHAT THAT LITTLE BAR BELOW THE HEALTH IS FOR. HOLY FUCK.
A rougelike is any game that has the player start over, regardless of carrying over gear. The main focus is on doing missions again with RNG. It's called a rougeLIKE for a reason. Rouge"lites" are phased out. Deal with it. If you play a game that starts over without carrying anything from a privious run then it's still a roge game. That plays like a rouge game. Both are rougelikes. They just might do some things differently. One might carry over upgrades or/and gear. The other might not. One might remember the player from past runs. The other might not.
Ugh, what a bunch boring trolls argue about trivialities and splitting hairs, when good ideas are being discussed. Average minds discuss names, sound minds discuss ideas.
Roguelites aren't considered roguelikes because they feature meta progression which alters characters directly in all future runs. Not because they aren't exactly Rogue the game
Eh, Roguelikes are a fairly niche genre and I don’t have a huge audience so I wasn’t expecting this video to be huge. The algorithm isn’t really going to promote this so I probably won’t get many views. At this point, it’s mostly up to other platforms and word of mouth to get more views on this video.
You fundamentally misunderstand the argument for these not being rogue likes. They are not roguelikes for the simple reason that you do indeed carry some progression over to the next run, for example new item unlocks, or upgraded powers or weapons. THAT is what makes it not a rogue like.
Being called ridiculous because I know that roguelikes play like Rogue by someone who thinks Sim City 2000 is a roguelike (SC2000 has random level generation and permanent played death when you're out of money) is not a good way to start a video about roguelites...
So here’s the thing. I actually wouldn’t classify Sim City 2000 as a roguelike because it doesn’t have a win condition. I guess that would be the third part of my definition. But personally, those 3 things are what made Rogue special, and these games just have different interpretations of those core elements.
So I feel that a win condition is what separates roguelikes from “arcade” or sandbox style games. These are games where you are trying to get a high score or just see what happens. A game could have a roguelike gameplay style (not that I believe that that exists) but without a goal the player is playing the game like an arcade game. You can’t beat an arcade game but you can beat a roguelike. Not having meta progression is super important for roguelikes. I would actually call the mystery dungeon games “roguelites” because they have meta pe progression. I think a core aspect of rogue was how all of your progress was lost when you died, which made everything tense. Without this aspect, I feel that the joy of getting better is undermined because maybe it isn’t you that is getting better, but it is just some upgrade you picked up up 5!runs ago. The whole point of rogue was that your progress was lost upon death, so when games mess with that they aren’t roguelikes.
@@l2QSrrfhEOdEnu48u0Tl.......... Agreed with everything you said except for "spelunky wasnt called a roguelike when it first came out". Derek Yu made the game for a game jam or 7drl(cant remember which) in '07 or '08 into the roguelike genre where it didnt and doesnt belong, spelunky is literally the reason the genre is bogged down with all this bullshit.
@@l2QSrrfhEOdEnu48u0Tl.......... I agree with you that roguelikes and arcade games aren't mutually exclusive. I just feel that arcade games need to have a large focus on some sort of scoring system. I am going to disagree with you about mislabeling these games hurting "actual" roguelikes. I think the biggest thing hurting "actual" roguelikes is their general inaccessability. Most of the old school roguelikes I try to play require me to memorize several keyboard shortcuts and sometimes the letter isn't the same as the command it is associated with. The reason these games aren't more popular is because they are mired in design practices that hold them back. Don't get me wrong, I like the open ended emergent designs of a lot of these games, but I also think that it isn't the 1980s anymore and maybe general audiences don't want to have to memorize that a lowercase g is a goblin and an uppercase G is a gnome. These game's aren't visible because they relish in their niche features which drive away a lot of people. I would like to see more old school style roguelikes, but without this needless complexity that doesn't actually make the gameplay more interesting. And this isn't me being some sort of casual. I just don't have the time to learn these games. Maybe if they were a bit more forthcoming, I would play old school style roguelikes more.
The video is more about instances of rogue-like progressive system rather than a discussion of rogue-like progressive system. It gives little useful information on the matter, especially in the first 20 minutes of the video. Moreover, I can provide an example where rogue-like games do not have to be challenging to engage the player. A game called enchanted cave 2 is among the highest rated games in kongregate, but it does not have the complexity of most rogue-like games. If I have to offer my 2 cents on the matter, the developer should have mechanics that guarantee the player to have the minimum amount of power to finish the run. For example, you may have know this but spelunky's shop position is not exactly random. Another example is games that have a hunger system can have guaranteed food drop on certain levels. It is also possible to include some non-random levels in a roguelike game to control the pace of the game.
"roguelite" isn't a derogatory term. drawing a line between games which closely model rogue's mechanics vs games which only have permadeath and random level generation is useful because rogue's grid-locked, turn-based mechanics are so specific. if you spend a lot of time playing and talking about roguelikes, distinguishing between these two becomes pretty helpful. but there's nothing wrong with referring to hades or risk of rain as roguelikes. i personally use the term "traditional roguelike" when referring to games that have rogue's mechanics, but that's just a matter of preference.
Personally, I think "roguelike" shouldn't be limited to such a strict definition. And more or less in modern day has come to mean something along the lines of "A randomized game that you're usually expected to play through at least once per sitting." Because when you think about it, permadeath isn't even a requirement. Plenty of modern roguelikes have items or upgrades that let you revive 1 or more times. However, I think honestly at this point it might be more helpful to refer to roguelike as a game mechanic or adjective used to describe a game rather than a genre by itself. If I ask you what kind of game you're playing and you say it's a "Platformer", I can get a good idea of what the game probably plays like, and if I'd enjoy it. If I ask you and you reply "Roguelike", that gives me little to no information. Traditional "Roguelikes" I'd argue should be called "Roguelike Dungeoncrawlers" or perhaps "Roguelike RPGs". But "Roguelike" here isn't really the genre, just a description. Like how a "Movement Shooter" game is still a shooter, it just also has advanced movement mechanics and a "movement game" doesn't really mean anything by itself.
ive been having thought on how to apply rogue like elements to non-traditional areas of design. i keep thinking about how one might make the sort of choose your own adventure book type narrative and incorporating that into a game, or perhaps even having a fully mosaic character or narrative structure in a short game. im aware that one or two games exist that incorporate a combination of two of these features, but either its narrative or gameplay only. its quite unusual to have both impacted significantly.
The work-with-what-you're-given aspect is a double edged sword. Yes, it could lead to improvisation but 9 times out of 10, it just takes control out of the player's hands. Most roguelikes tie progression to items, which spawn randomly. And of course, the more powerful items, as in the ones that you absolutely need for specific high-end tactics, are locked behind higher difficulties. This is good for new players because they don't know what they're doing, so to them every single item is equally as good. However, if you're a veteran, unless the game deems you worthy, there is no easy way to test crazy new ideas, or to practice specific builds under this system. The problem is compounded in something like Slay the Spire, where deck efficiency is the entire point of the combat. You don't know what cards you'll get later in the game, so trying to plan ahead is just futile. Furthermore, on repeated playthroughs,this system turns the early game into a glorified attendance check. It strips you of your powers, and with them, it takes away most of your options. And taking options away is never a good thing, unless you're doing it deliberately because it makes the gameplay stale and predictable. The only game I've seen that has done this right is Wizard of Legend. I'm actually surprised that you didn't talk about it. The way it works is you have a set amount of spells that can be equipped at any time. You get to pick the first 4, or so, along with 1 item, but you have to buy the rest from shops (which have big inventories). If you kill every single enemy, you'll usually have enough gold to buy a healing item and maybe 2 spells if they're cheap. RNG still plays a big role in this system but you're given so much agency that you never become dependent on RNG for progression. If you want to experiment with a specific combo/playstyle, you can do that from the very first level. Sure, there are some very specific builds that require luck to get, but those are usually the ones that break the game's balance, so I'll let it slide. Ultimately, I think that good mechanics are the best progression system. The roguelike that I've spent most of my time with is Himno, which has no rewards whatsoever if we ignore a some temporary power-ups that I never take because they make the game easier. There is no gold, no skills, no combat, XP is meaningless, the game lasts forever, but the movement system is so well designed that it doesn't need any of those to keep itself interesting.
It's incredible how you've made such nice analyses of different roguelike games and all that these comments do is complain about you misattributing the genre. Typical youtube comments :/. Also, I appreciate you putting in some games you *didn't* like as much, and analysing those the same way. Oftentimes I intentionally pick out bad-looking games to play, because learning from bad games' mistakes can be much more effective than trying to decipher what makes a good game good, where there are hundreds of inter-connected factors involved in making it good.
Playing bad games can be super insightful. I quite enjoy bad games, if only to see how wild they can get. Bad games deserve discussion as well, and I want to try giving some more attention to the weirder stuff that doesn't always get talked about. Also, as for the misattribution of the genre, my later Roguelike Definition video was, in part, a response to the comments I got on this video.
Well, Hades (winner of 19 awards, and with total sales of over one million units) marketed itself as a "God-like Rogue-like" so the purists can suck Zagreus's flaming toes.
I know Im four years late but that was an interesting video. I am releasing a Roguelite on steam next month(Dungeons of Mysteria) Let me know if you want a key ;)
None of these games are roguelikes. I get that you and many others want to apply the term to these games, because roguelite just sounds weak; I mean, it's right there in the name: lite. And rogue-adjacent is too much of a mouthful, something poppy is needed to quickly convey what is meant. The problem is that stealing the genre of a very well established set of games that are still produced today just isn't quite right. It's a misattribution. Imagine if you liked Spelunky, right, and you wanted to find more games like Spelunky so you googled "games like Spelunky" and you got a bunch of recommendations for Rogue, Brogue, ADOM, NetHack, Angband, Sil, DCSS, Infra Arcana, etc. Why, I imagine you might try one or two of them and then in exasperation cry out that these games are nothing like Spelunky! And then you would understand where we, the roguelike community, are coming from. I'm not suggesting we call the games on your list Spelunky-like; although, if you were a fan of a game wouldn't it be cool to know that it spawned it's own genre? I think the problem there is that many of the other games this might be attributed to aren't so much like Spelunky either. And that is really the core issue, so many of these games share little in common with other things and nothing in common with everything else. Someone who enjoys Spelunky is not guaranteed to enjoy FTL and vice-versa.
You and your 99 other random idiots that decided rouge-like means a game thats a clone of rouge-specifically. Have no authority at all. Not a single relevant developer past or present uses your definition. Everyone thats relevant, uses this video's definition of rouge-like. And the reason is simple. A genre is MORE than just literal clones and reskins of a singular game.
Super insightful, deep video. Sorry most of the conversation devolved into roguelike vs roguelite... and roguelikelike. Tis the nature of language. I just wanted to thank you. I'm trying to design a co-op roguelike board game these days, but my knowledge of the RL genre is pretty limited. Hopefully, will help me find the core elements to play with. Also, this quick vid had some interesting things to say about internal and external progression. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that as well. th-cam.com/video/G9FB5R4wVno/w-d-xo.html Cheers
As usual, Mark Brown's video is pretty good and for the most part I agree with him. If anything, I would add more to the discussion by expanding on some things he didn't touch on. So I feel that roguelites progression is often weaker than roguelike progression because the external progression resources don't do anything for the moment to moment decision making. My go to example is rogue legacy. So throughout the game you can earn gold, which is one of the few resources of the game. However, as far as I am aware, there is no use for gold in the actual game. Compared to the complex decision making of games like Spelunky which asks you to make choices about how to collect and spend your money, I just find it extremely boring. Granted, there are some instances of external progression that are passable. I don't mind Hades too much because it still has enough meat to its internal systems to still be interesting. I could go on about this but that is the gist of what I had to add. Good luck with your game!
As you could probably tell from the video, I am not a fan of the term roguelite because I feel it tethers people to a limiting view of the roguelikes. I don't think ASCII text matters. I don't think dungeon crawling matters. I don't think turn based gameplay matters. I feel that rogue's 2 most important elements were it's permanent player death and random level generation. Everything else about rogue could be changed and you could still have a roguelike in my opinion because the core of what made rogue interesting is still there. So sorry I called these games roguelikes instead of the sort of demeaning term, roguelites. Regardless of what you call them, my arguments about these specific games remains the same. Sorry if you feel I bamboozled you by talking about modern games that are doing interesting things with the structure of rogue.
@@Chariot_Rider You're more talking about the procedural generation and RNG content in roguelites than the core tenants of what makes a roguelike a roguelike. Diablo used many roguelike elements in both dungeon and loot generation, but it's still an ARPG. Early MMOs used a lot of influences from MUDs, but they're not MUDs. There is nothing "demeaning" about the term roguelite, it's just a clear definition to separate the genres. This isn't some elitest hobnobbing either, you just don't get to retroactively change what makes a genre a genre. All it does is come off misleading especially since you used zero roguelikes by the traditional definition be it wikipedia, berlin interpretation, etc.
@@DeadlyHabit You conveniently forgot to mention that I brought up permanent death as well, both in my video and my response to your comment. That is why Diablo isn't a roguelike. I feel that genres should be allowed to change over time. I mean, if someone made a 3D metroidvania I don't think there would be people trying to find a new term for the genre because it still has the core elements of the genre. But for some reason roguelikes aren't allowed to adapt. At the end of the day, I ask myself "what is the core of a roguelike". There are games that use ASCII that aren't roguelikes. There are turn based games that aren't roguelikes. However, if you take away the random generation or permadeath, these games cease to be what they are. It is for that reason why I have labeled those 2 factors as the essential elements and not the others, and that is why I feel these are roguelikes.
@@Chariot_Rider yeah this is going to be an endless back and forth especially when there is an established definition with many games still being made and released in the genre, none of which you even featured. You're essentially cherrypicking pieces from an established genre and definition and using that to justify trying to redefine it because for some reason you dislike the genre roguelite exists to separate the two. Also Diablo originally was designed with a hardcore mode by David Brevik, but got overruled. In the subsequent sequels there is a hardcore permadeath option, but Diablo 2 and 3 are very much still APRGs that have procedural content and borrow some design concepts from roguelikes just like the original. Turn and grid based is very much a core tenant of the genre. Check out Cogmind, Caves of Qud, Steam Marines, ToME, UnReal World, Hoplite, MidBoss, Tangledeep, and more for why there is a distinction in all honesty.
One of the ironic things about Berlin pedants is that they claim to preserve genre definition against dilution, yet lumping true and partial permadeath together under the roguelite term is exactly the genre dilution they claim to be against
You're conflating roguelikes and roguelites. A simple way to distinguish between them in most cases is the fact roguelikes are turn-based. Roguelikes are methodical, considered games.
So I know exactly what you are talking about. I have played Nethack, Stone Soup, Hoplite, and many of the other games to be considered “true roguelikes”. That said, I have come to the conclusion that these games aren’t special because they have methodical turn based combat. Other games have turn based combat without being considered a roguelike. Rogue was special for 2 reasons. It had permanent death and random dungeons. All of rogue’s other elements can exist outside of a roguelike but those 2 elements are what makes a roguelike truly a Roguelike. So when I see games like Spelunky with these same 2 core elements I consider it a roguelike. I think people got too hung up on the “like” part of roguelike and I feel that it has hurt the development of the genre. Not all metroidvanias are like Metroid or Castlevania. The Metroid Prime series is 3D, which isn’t like a platformer at all. However it still has the core idea of metroidvanias, wandering around picking up upgrades that allow for you to access new parts of the map. In my opinion Spelunky is the Metroid Prime of roguelikes. It has a lot of different traits, but ultimately the core is the same so it is still a roguelike.
No one with authority agree's. Not one relevant developer, publisher, or anyone that has the ability to decide what a genre is agree's. And there is a reason for that. A genre is MORE than just clones/reskins of a singular game. Your entire definition is insanity and definitely does not have the scope to define an entire genre.
Can you people stop bastardizing the term roguelike? None of the games you talked about or showed are actually "like Rogue" save for necrodancer. Thus none of them are "roguelikes".
All of them are rogue-likes. The genre was never, and has never been, for reskins of one game. 100 random idiots meeting and deciding that means nothing. Every dev, and everyone with relevance or authority, all use this guys definition.
"I've always had an extreme fascination with the rougelike genre." ...he says as he plays a platformer and not a rougelike. Don't even need to watch the rest of this garbage. Disliked.
Video opens with something that is very much not a Roguelike (yes, I know it says that on its sales page. Have you ever seen Rogue?) Didn't watch the rest
HELL YEAH GIMME THOSE CHARTS
holy shit, it's essay youtuber jacobgeller randomly in the comment section of a video on roughlike's.
Damn no way I founc Jacob Geller here while also finding another comment 3 days ago from this comment also noticing Jacob Geller in the comment section. Wild
@@uwuowo1677 ha ha ha, my comment was more meme than anything else
I love your point about how a game becomes more interesting when every choice COULD be a valid choice. I never realized how well the risk of rain series did this. Damn, those games are so good
Your point about quantitative upgrades being less interesting that qualitative was really interesting. And Risk of Rain is great, my friend and I have put so many hours into it.
I probably should have elaborated more about the qualitative quantitative description because I think this is super important. I guess I have always felt that getting something that changes your abilities forces you to change your playstyle more than getting something with some different numbers but is really just the same thing. I do think having some quantitative upgrades are alright. For instance, upgrading your ship power in FTL is technically quantitative, but it leads to interesting decisions about when to upgrade and how to allocate power so I don't mind it as much.
What you call "OR-Gate" is basically unrelated to an actual OR-Gate (which is of course a gate where the output is true if one or more of the inputs are true)
Fair enough. I am definitely not a computer science major so you got me there.
The graphs really help visualizing how "deep" the games are, it was really amusing seeing Sky Rogue's and it basically only having a single loop (kill stuff to get money, spend money to get stronger) after all the interconnectedness of Downwell, FTL and Spelunky.
What a great video, it's unfortunate I only found it 4 years after the fact. I'm also deeply fascinated by the genre. I think it does a lot to move games from the repetitive to the repayable side of the spectrum. I'd love to see a part 2 of this kind of breakdown - given all the new games that have come out and all the new insights you must have had in 4 years.
12:16 Ahhh that music.. Gets me every time.
I love the FTL title theme. It's just so peaceful.
very nice haven't seen someone make a graph for game analysis since lambhoot's breath of the wild video
checkout Game Maker's Toolkit for graphs of metroidvania progression and exploration.
Great video, really well thought out insight! Really inspired me to think more about progression and what makes those systems so important. Great job!
Going off of what you said about having immortal ghosts at the end of every level. There is a game called "Pork-Like" It has something like a ghost called a Wurstlord, It can be killed but it will come again in the next floor. But if a player was to try to kill the Wurstlord they would be using 10+ items and most of their health as it is the strongest enemy, so it would lead to a choice whether the player would risk loosing most of their items and health or try to run from the wurst lord.
Talking about roguelikes
I think part of the reason why the definition is so contentious is due to how
If you give a person who likes metroid or castlevania any metroidvania, they will very likely like the game cause there is a set structure which makes it a metroidvania
This isnt really the case with roguelikes since the different modern roguelikes are vastly different from each other and thus are so far from rogue you can barely see the resemblance, even more so cause the "permadeath" of rogue was more a product of the time with how saves never existed and so they added additional flair to losing a run by canonically making the player character "dead"
This comes to a problem with modern roguelike as a definition also starting to include way too many games, or more specifically, it includes a lot of arcade games which do have random level generation and permadeath
I would like to add one more thing to roguelikes (not much related to progression) is information.
You mentioned the unpredictable CYOA elements in FLT aren't good because the player wouldn't have predicted the outcome (and so disrupts the risk/reward dynamic when you don't know the risk or reward), whereas Slay The Spire has clear indication.
I believe that a strength of a good Roguelike is how it plays with information.
Planning in FTL is not only being strong enough to face ship, but any RNG they though at you. In classic Roguelikes, you can very well spawn in the worst part of a dungeon, but if you've played enough of the game, you can get of such situations.
I'm not saying vagueness should always be present. Given the type of game they were going for, it makes sense for Slay the Spire to clear outcomes, so that more focus is given for the intended experience.
Those charts were really cool and appreciated! I also really liked the woody-buzz joke too XD
i like the flowcharts you made, they're quite nice.
7:10 also this health system encourages playing without getting hit. Some bonuses for playing perfectly are fun.
This is an INCREDIBLY well put together video, bravo
To be fair, Metroiavanias do fall within the formula of being open worlds where you progress to new areas by finding abilities in the ones you currently can explore. Beyond that they are typically portrayed as side-scrolling, action platformers so the definition is very distinct even down to their presentation. Legend of Zelda, for example, follows this exact same formula but we don't call them Metroidvanias. So there is some reasonable logic to a Rouge-Like needing to fit closely to the original formula.
Slay The Spire, as an example, shouldn't but called a Rogue-Like or even Rogue-Lite because it shares no similarities with the source material. Simply having a game with an evolving play-style based upon randomised awards and permadeath is literally just a table-top RPG or, in video game terms, a CRPG. netHack was itself inspired by the original Rogue and the original Diablo was pitched to the studio as being inspired by both of those games. So much as Metroidvanias established a pattern, so too had Rogue-Likes and it happened long before 2008.
This is a fantastic video and just what I was looking for, thanks!
Incredible video and loved the charts. This research is gonna be really useful for anyone making a roguelike
I want to be here all day -- this is good content! Please talk about every roguelike you've ever played.
Fortunately for you, I have another roguelike video in the works. Don't expect it for a long time though.
I don’t consider myself a “roguelike purist” but I definitely would consider these roguelites and not roguelikes. I myself care about the distinction because it has become a major pain in the neck to try and find actual roguelike games on platforms like Steam when all it wants to show you are things like Hades and Slay the Spire. I think roguelites can be excellent games but often times I am not looking for those types of games
My favorite part of FTL's upgrade systems is the character stats, because if you find a fight that cannot possibly kill you, then you can use that time to just buff out your weapon and shield stats on all of your units if you feel like just sitting around and using weak weapons.
The roguelike roguelite criteria are simple. Roguelites have a system that lets you carry over something into the next tun. Like unlocking permanent buffs. These ultimatly will lead the player to beat the game at some point. Roguelikes instead can unlock new content but dont make future runs easier
yes
i think Everspace does the "spawning reinforcements" well, because it has "stages" of enemies that can spawn. Each one has a time limit associated with it, but I don't know the exact limits off the top of my head.
at first, it's just stronger versions of outlaws and okkar fighters (the most common enemy types). For a new player, this pushes them away from the level and onto the next area - but more experienced (or risky) players can stay and kill them to possibly earn a few extra resources.
afterwards, it'll spawn an Okkar Corvette - a chonky boi that's pretty damn hard to kill (especially with the starter weapons) and only spawns in later areas - but you can once again choose to stay and kill it. Most of the time though, you'll die or just leave since they're difficult to take down by design.
after that, it spawns a Colonial Warship - and those cannot be killed. You can damage them a bit to get some resources though, but you'll probably die by doing so.
i think the system works well since it rewards riskier/more experience players while also deterring everyone at the same time (especially when the warships jump in - they have unique music and everything).
haven't played Spelunky, but the ghost is similar since it turns money items into super-valuable diamonds, but insta-kills you and can't be destroyed. I wonder if the Everspace devs were inspired by it?
Sky Rogue should've done something similar, but stopped at stage 1 for whatever reason.
"Modern roguelikes are not going to be like the original rogue."
Except, there are modern roguelikes like the original rogue. And I think that's why the woodys of this world want the term roguelike to refer to games that are... like rogue.
I love this silly debate.
Sorry it took me so long to respond to this. So I never said that old school roguelikes weren't roguelikes. Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, Powder, Brogue, these are all still roguelikes. I have played many traditional roguelikes as well as the ones that aren't top down dungeon crawlers. In my opinion, all of the games in this video are still "like" rogue in the most important ways. Rogue was special for 2 reasons. Random levels in combination with permanent death. Many other games are turn based that aren't roguelikes. Games can have ASCII and not be roguelikes. You could go through the entire Berlin interpretation and find the elements represented in other games that aren't roguelikes. However you cannot find a game with permadeath and random levels that doesn't evoke that rogue feel. That is why I feel this way about my definition of roguelike.
@@Chariot_Rider i find this debate about genre kinda wierd, i mean: spelunky (game that i like a lot) is clearly a platformer, yes, it has some rogue-esque mechanics (perma death & random generated levels) but is a platformer. we might say that spelunky is a platformer with some roguelikes elements, the same goes for others that are shooters, twin stick shooters, hack & slash, actions platformers, bullet hell and the list goes on, with some roguelikes elements.
On the other hand: angband, brogue, nethack & co. have: perma death, random generated levels, turn-based, grid-based, dungeon crawlers. they are "simply" and exclusively part of the "rogue" genre-> roguelikes.
@@Chariot_Rider Did OP edit their comment? Doesn't look like you're replying to what they said.
@@Chariot_Rider Your video is missing out on quite a lot of potential by exclusively discussing the less traditional games in the genre. Progression and itemization is at the core of what makes the genre special and games like Brogue and Cogmind have very interesting takes on progression. While permanent consequence and randomization are critical to roguelikes I dont think it quite captures everything about these games. Its difficult to quantify but I think a sense of exploration is very key and why I would put something like Gungeon in the "lite" catergory as while its randomized the exploration is limited. FTL on the other hand very much keys into this sense of exploration. Noita is exceptional at this and is one of the recent games that feel the most like rogue and the experience it is communicating.
@@connorquinn700 I do agree that there is a lot to get into with how items and progression is treated in traditional roguelikes. In the future I will definitely be getting more into that
I really like how Hades does it, where you gather tons of stuff ranging from weapon upgrades that aren't just does two more points of damage and can be felt to extra powers that also can be felt, and you grow and change throughout your run. Then at the end you feel like a god and go out in a blaze of Glory against Hades or succeed and feel amazing.
I'm in the process of trying to build a game that I would call a Roguelite. This was pretty handy info to have on hand.
Oh? Cool. What's it like?
That was an amazing video! The analysis of all selected games were deep and objective, fun and educating. The charts are still something to improve on, if you ever want to use them again, but I don't know what needs improvement exactly.
Doesn't take away from the point of the video, but I feel the need to mention that OR gates aren't an accurate way to describe the flow chart diamonds, an OR gate in a flow chart would look more like the part where you have multiple arrows converging on "Collecting Gems", where "Gem Room" OR the "Breaking Block" diamond outcome, OR "Shooting Enemy" OR "Bopping Enemy" results in "Collecting Gems".
I thought that Rouge-Lights were a sub-genre of Rouge-Likes, where you can keep *some* things (Exp, Special Items, Upgrades, ect.) rather than keeping nothing but knowledge.
yes
The common usage is that a "light" roguelike is one where you can grow stronger between runs (so the game gets easier if you just keep playing even if you don't get better at it) while a pure roguelike has everything available from the start and zero permanent progression... then the Berlin definition of a roguelike is so oldskool it mandates that the games are grid-based RPGs and preferably using ASCII art instead of sprites.
I agree. They're two sides of the same coin.
Yes that is exactly what they are.
Journey before destination ;)
this was great, thanks!
Where can we find copies of the progression charts you made? I think it's interesting.
twitter.com/ChariotRiderYT/status/1133447029584289792
@@Chariot_Rider Thanks ;)
thanks for making this!
You know I feel like just a good soundtrack makes a game good
This is so awesome. You should model your charts using machinations game design modeling tool
Excellent video
"OR" gates don't mean A or B, in a truth table it means "at least A or B" meaning if A and !B or !A and B or A and B. And OR gate is only false if !A and !B
thanks for this good courses :)
Great video!
Great video
Thanks!
Nice.
!!!!!!! I DID NOT KNOW THAT OVERHEALING PAST FULL 4 TIMES GIVES YOU EXTRA MAX HP. I BEAT THE FUCKING HARD MODE BOSS WITHOUT THIS KNOWLEDGE. TTHHAAATS WHAT THAT LITTLE BAR BELOW THE HEALTH IS FOR. HOLY FUCK.
A rougelike is any game that has the player start over, regardless of carrying over gear. The main focus is on doing missions again with RNG. It's called a rougeLIKE for a reason.
Rouge"lites" are phased out. Deal with it. If you play a game that starts over without carrying anything from a privious run then it's still a roge game. That plays like a rouge game. Both are rougelikes. They just might do some things differently. One might carry over upgrades or/and gear. The other might not. One might remember the player from past runs. The other might not.
okay I was with you but then you said roguelites are phased out which isn't true. Hades and Hades 2 are literally Roguelites
You taunted me with enter the gungeon, dangling it in front of me, but never gave me the section 😢
To be clear I did really like the video, I just love gungeon
Ugh, what a bunch boring trolls argue about trivialities and splitting hairs, when good ideas are being discussed. Average minds discuss names, sound minds discuss ideas.
Roguelites aren't considered roguelikes because they feature meta progression which alters characters directly in all future runs. Not because they aren't exactly Rogue the game
The only disappointing thing about Sky Rogue is that it was featured in this video.
Haha, I knew you would talk about RoR2 :P
Nah, great video. It's insane how few views these videos get.
Eh, Roguelikes are a fairly niche genre and I don’t have a huge audience so I wasn’t expecting this video to be huge. The algorithm isn’t really going to promote this so I probably won’t get many views. At this point, it’s mostly up to other platforms and word of mouth to get more views on this video.
The more I grow old, the less I like meta progression systems. Give me the full game already.
You fundamentally misunderstand the argument for these not being rogue likes. They are not roguelikes for the simple reason that you do indeed carry some progression over to the next run, for example new item unlocks, or upgraded powers or weapons. THAT is what makes it not a rogue like.
Thks & aka state machine diagram
Being called ridiculous because I know that roguelikes play like Rogue by someone who thinks Sim City 2000 is a roguelike (SC2000 has random level generation and permanent played death when you're out of money) is not a good way to start a video about roguelites...
So here’s the thing. I actually wouldn’t classify Sim City 2000 as a roguelike because it doesn’t have a win condition. I guess that would be the third part of my definition. But personally, those 3 things are what made Rogue special, and these games just have different interpretations of those core elements.
So I feel that a win condition is what separates roguelikes from “arcade” or sandbox style games. These are games where you are trying to get a high score or just see what happens. A game could have a roguelike gameplay style (not that I believe that that exists) but without a goal the player is playing the game like an arcade game. You can’t beat an arcade game but you can beat a roguelike.
Not having meta progression is super important for roguelikes. I would actually call the mystery dungeon games “roguelites” because they have meta pe progression. I think a core aspect of rogue was how all of your progress was lost when you died, which made everything tense. Without this aspect, I feel that the joy of getting better is undermined because maybe it isn’t you that is getting better, but it is just some upgrade you picked up up 5!runs ago. The whole point of rogue was that your progress was lost upon death, so when games mess with that they aren’t roguelikes.
@@l2QSrrfhEOdEnu48u0Tl.......... Agreed with everything you said except for "spelunky wasnt called a roguelike when it first came out". Derek Yu made the game for a game jam or 7drl(cant remember which) in '07 or '08 into the roguelike genre where it didnt and doesnt belong, spelunky is literally the reason the genre is bogged down with all this bullshit.
@@l2QSrrfhEOdEnu48u0Tl.......... I agree with you that roguelikes and arcade games aren't mutually exclusive. I just feel that arcade games need to have a large focus on some sort of scoring system. I am going to disagree with you about mislabeling these games hurting "actual" roguelikes. I think the biggest thing hurting "actual" roguelikes is their general inaccessability. Most of the old school roguelikes I try to play require me to memorize several keyboard shortcuts and sometimes the letter isn't the same as the command it is associated with. The reason these games aren't more popular is because they are mired in design practices that hold them back. Don't get me wrong, I like the open ended emergent designs of a lot of these games, but I also think that it isn't the 1980s anymore and maybe general audiences don't want to have to memorize that a lowercase g is a goblin and an uppercase G is a gnome. These game's aren't visible because they relish in their niche features which drive away a lot of people. I would like to see more old school style roguelikes, but without this needless complexity that doesn't actually make the gameplay more interesting. And this isn't me being some sort of casual. I just don't have the time to learn these games. Maybe if they were a bit more forthcoming, I would play old school style roguelikes more.
The video is more about instances of rogue-like progressive system rather than a discussion of rogue-like progressive system. It gives little useful information on the matter, especially in the first 20 minutes of the video.
Moreover, I can provide an example where rogue-like games do not have to be challenging to engage the player. A game called enchanted cave 2 is among the highest rated games in kongregate, but it does not have the complexity of most rogue-like games.
If I have to offer my 2 cents on the matter, the developer should have mechanics that guarantee the player to have the minimum amount of power to finish the run. For example, you may have know this but spelunky's shop position is not exactly random. Another example is games that have a hunger system can have guaranteed food drop on certain levels. It is also possible to include some non-random levels in a roguelike game to control the pace of the game.
Good job! i love rogue likes and it feels like you relay got to the core of what makes rogue likes so interesting!
they aren't or gates at all
The graphs are no longer available??
"roguelite" isn't a derogatory term. drawing a line between games which closely model rogue's mechanics vs games which only have permadeath and random level generation is useful because rogue's grid-locked, turn-based mechanics are so specific. if you spend a lot of time playing and talking about roguelikes, distinguishing between these two becomes pretty helpful.
but there's nothing wrong with referring to hades or risk of rain as roguelikes. i personally use the term "traditional roguelike" when referring to games that have rogue's mechanics, but that's just a matter of preference.
Personally, I think "roguelike" shouldn't be limited to such a strict definition. And more or less in modern day has come to mean something along the lines of "A randomized game that you're usually expected to play through at least once per sitting." Because when you think about it, permadeath isn't even a requirement. Plenty of modern roguelikes have items or upgrades that let you revive 1 or more times. However, I think honestly at this point it might be more helpful to refer to roguelike as a game mechanic or adjective used to describe a game rather than a genre by itself.
If I ask you what kind of game you're playing and you say it's a "Platformer", I can get a good idea of what the game probably plays like, and if I'd enjoy it. If I ask you and you reply "Roguelike", that gives me little to no information. Traditional "Roguelikes" I'd argue should be called "Roguelike Dungeoncrawlers" or perhaps "Roguelike RPGs". But "Roguelike" here isn't really the genre, just a description. Like how a "Movement Shooter" game is still a shooter, it just also has advanced movement mechanics and a "movement game" doesn't really mean anything by itself.
no cogmind?
By your definition, Returnal doesn't qualify as Rogue-like or Rogue-lite. So, what is Returnal?
ive been having thought on how to apply rogue like elements to non-traditional areas of design. i keep thinking about how one might make the sort of choose your own adventure book type narrative and incorporating that into a game, or perhaps even having a fully mosaic character or narrative structure in a short game. im aware that one or two games exist that incorporate a combination of two of these features, but either its narrative or gameplay only. its quite unusual to have both impacted significantly.
constantly pausing FTL feels like heresy.
and never using the number keys to select stuff.
The work-with-what-you're-given aspect is a double edged sword. Yes, it could lead to improvisation but 9 times out of 10, it just takes control out of the player's hands.
Most roguelikes tie progression to items, which spawn randomly. And of course, the more powerful items, as in the ones that you absolutely need for specific high-end tactics, are locked behind higher difficulties. This is good for new players because they don't know what they're doing, so to them every single item is equally as good. However, if you're a veteran, unless the game deems you worthy, there is no easy way to test crazy new ideas, or to practice specific builds under this system.
The problem is compounded in something like Slay the Spire, where deck efficiency is the entire point of the combat. You don't know what cards you'll get later in the game, so trying to plan ahead is just futile.
Furthermore, on repeated playthroughs,this system turns the early game into a glorified attendance check. It strips you of your powers, and with them, it takes away most of your options. And taking options away is never a good thing, unless you're doing it deliberately because it makes the gameplay stale and predictable.
The only game I've seen that has done this right is Wizard of Legend. I'm actually surprised that you didn't talk about it. The way it works is you have a set amount of spells that can be equipped at any time. You get to pick the first 4, or so, along with 1 item, but you have to buy the rest from shops (which have big inventories). If you kill every single enemy, you'll usually have enough gold to buy a healing item and maybe 2 spells if they're cheap.
RNG still plays a big role in this system but you're given so much agency that you never become dependent on RNG for progression. If you want to experiment with a specific combo/playstyle, you can do that from the very first level. Sure, there are some very specific builds that require luck to get, but those are usually the ones that break the game's balance, so I'll let it slide.
Ultimately, I think that good mechanics are the best progression system. The roguelike that I've spent most of my time with is Himno, which has no rewards whatsoever if we ignore a some temporary power-ups that I never take because they make the game easier.
There is no gold, no skills, no combat, XP is meaningless, the game lasts forever, but the movement system is so well designed that it doesn't need any of those to keep itself interesting.
It's incredible how you've made such nice analyses of different roguelike games and all that these comments do is complain about you misattributing the genre. Typical youtube comments :/.
Also, I appreciate you putting in some games you *didn't* like as much, and analysing those the same way. Oftentimes I intentionally pick out bad-looking games to play, because learning from bad games' mistakes can be much more effective than trying to decipher what makes a good game good, where there are hundreds of inter-connected factors involved in making it good.
Playing bad games can be super insightful. I quite enjoy bad games, if only to see how wild they can get. Bad games deserve discussion as well, and I want to try giving some more attention to the weirder stuff that doesn't always get talked about.
Also, as for the misattribution of the genre, my later Roguelike Definition video was, in part, a response to the comments I got on this video.
Well, Hades (winner of 19 awards, and with total sales of over one million units) marketed itself as a "God-like Rogue-like" so the purists can suck Zagreus's flaming toes.
its rogue lite.
I know Im four years late but that was an interesting video.
I am releasing a Roguelite on steam next month(Dungeons of Mysteria) Let me know if you want a key ;)
This was a great video! If you like rougelikes you should try wizard of legend
roguelites*
roguelikes are wholly different.
@@joefadda578 oops
38:52 - what game is that? : )
That game is Wargroove and I highly recommend it. It is one of the best games of 2019
Those ain’t or gates smh
None of these games are roguelikes.
I get that you and many others want to apply the term to these games, because roguelite just sounds weak; I mean, it's right there in the name: lite. And rogue-adjacent is too much of a mouthful, something poppy is needed to quickly convey what is meant.
The problem is that stealing the genre of a very well established set of games that are still produced today just isn't quite right. It's a misattribution. Imagine if you liked Spelunky, right, and you wanted to find more games like Spelunky so you googled "games like Spelunky" and you got a bunch of recommendations for Rogue, Brogue, ADOM, NetHack, Angband, Sil, DCSS, Infra Arcana, etc.
Why, I imagine you might try one or two of them and then in exasperation cry out that these games are nothing like Spelunky! And then you would understand where we, the roguelike community, are coming from.
I'm not suggesting we call the games on your list Spelunky-like; although, if you were a fan of a game wouldn't it be cool to know that it spawned it's own genre?
I think the problem there is that many of the other games this might be attributed to aren't so much like Spelunky either.
And that is really the core issue, so many of these games share little in common with other things and nothing in common with everything else. Someone who enjoys Spelunky is not guaranteed to enjoy FTL and vice-versa.
You and your 99 other random idiots that decided rouge-like means a game thats a clone of rouge-specifically. Have no authority at all. Not a single relevant developer past or present uses your definition. Everyone thats relevant, uses this video's definition of rouge-like.
And the reason is simple. A genre is MORE than just literal clones and reskins of a singular game.
googling "games like Spelunky" gives you Rogue Legacy, not Rogue. try it.
Super insightful, deep video. Sorry most of the conversation devolved into roguelike vs roguelite... and roguelikelike. Tis the nature of language.
I just wanted to thank you. I'm trying to design a co-op roguelike board game these days, but my knowledge of the RL genre is pretty limited. Hopefully, will help me find the core elements to play with.
Also, this quick vid had some interesting things to say about internal and external progression. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that as well. th-cam.com/video/G9FB5R4wVno/w-d-xo.html
Cheers
As usual, Mark Brown's video is pretty good and for the most part I agree with him. If anything, I would add more to the discussion by expanding on some things he didn't touch on. So I feel that roguelites progression is often weaker than roguelike progression because the external progression resources don't do anything for the moment to moment decision making. My go to example is rogue legacy. So throughout the game you can earn gold, which is one of the few resources of the game. However, as far as I am aware, there is no use for gold in the actual game. Compared to the complex decision making of games like Spelunky which asks you to make choices about how to collect and spend your money, I just find it extremely boring. Granted, there are some instances of external progression that are passable. I don't mind Hades too much because it still has enough meat to its internal systems to still be interesting. I could go on about this but that is the gist of what I had to add. Good luck with your game!
bye your definition minecraft hardcore is a rougelike
Yes
who cares about the label... is it fun
Uhhh this is all about roguelite design and all your game examples are just that with no roguelikes even being featured.
As you could probably tell from the video, I am not a fan of the term roguelite because I feel it tethers people to a limiting view of the roguelikes. I don't think ASCII text matters. I don't think dungeon crawling matters. I don't think turn based gameplay matters. I feel that rogue's 2 most important elements were it's permanent player death and random level generation. Everything else about rogue could be changed and you could still have a roguelike in my opinion because the core of what made rogue interesting is still there. So sorry I called these games roguelikes instead of the sort of demeaning term, roguelites. Regardless of what you call them, my arguments about these specific games remains the same. Sorry if you feel I bamboozled you by talking about modern games that are doing interesting things with the structure of rogue.
@@Chariot_Rider You're more talking about the procedural generation and RNG content in roguelites than the core tenants of what makes a roguelike a roguelike. Diablo used many roguelike elements in both dungeon and loot generation, but it's still an ARPG. Early MMOs used a lot of influences from MUDs, but they're not MUDs. There is nothing "demeaning" about the term roguelite, it's just a clear definition to separate the genres. This isn't some elitest hobnobbing either, you just don't get to retroactively change what makes a genre a genre. All it does is come off misleading especially since you used zero roguelikes by the traditional definition be it wikipedia, berlin interpretation, etc.
@@DeadlyHabit You conveniently forgot to mention that I brought up permanent death as well, both in my video and my response to your comment. That is why Diablo isn't a roguelike. I feel that genres should be allowed to change over time. I mean, if someone made a 3D metroidvania I don't think there would be people trying to find a new term for the genre because it still has the core elements of the genre. But for some reason roguelikes aren't allowed to adapt. At the end of the day, I ask myself "what is the core of a roguelike". There are games that use ASCII that aren't roguelikes. There are turn based games that aren't roguelikes. However, if you take away the random generation or permadeath, these games cease to be what they are. It is for that reason why I have labeled those 2 factors as the essential elements and not the others, and that is why I feel these are roguelikes.
@@Chariot_Rider yeah this is going to be an endless back and forth especially when there is an established definition with many games still being made and released in the genre, none of which you even featured. You're essentially cherrypicking pieces from an established genre and definition and using that to justify trying to redefine it because for some reason you dislike the genre roguelite exists to separate the two. Also Diablo originally was designed with a hardcore mode by David Brevik, but got overruled. In the subsequent sequels there is a hardcore permadeath option, but Diablo 2 and 3 are very much still APRGs that have procedural content and borrow some design concepts from roguelikes just like the original. Turn and grid based is very much a core tenant of the genre.
Check out Cogmind, Caves of Qud, Steam Marines, ToME, UnReal World, Hoplite, MidBoss, Tangledeep, and more for why there is a distinction in all honesty.
@@DeadlyHabit So roguelites are roguelikes that aren't turn-based and grid-based?
One of the ironic things about Berlin pedants is that they claim to preserve genre definition against dilution, yet lumping true and partial permadeath together under the roguelite term is exactly the genre dilution they claim to be against
None of these games are like Rogue.
You're conflating roguelikes and roguelites. A simple way to distinguish between them in most cases is the fact roguelikes are turn-based. Roguelikes are methodical, considered games.
So I know exactly what you are talking about. I have played Nethack, Stone Soup, Hoplite, and many of the other games to be considered “true roguelikes”. That said, I have come to the conclusion that these games aren’t special because they have methodical turn based combat. Other games have turn based combat without being considered a roguelike. Rogue was special for 2 reasons. It had permanent death and random dungeons. All of rogue’s other elements can exist outside of a roguelike but those 2 elements are what makes a roguelike truly a Roguelike. So when I see games like Spelunky with these same 2 core elements I consider it a roguelike. I think people got too hung up on the “like” part of roguelike and I feel that it has hurt the development of the genre. Not all metroidvanias are like Metroid or Castlevania. The Metroid Prime series is 3D, which isn’t like a platformer at all. However it still has the core idea of metroidvanias, wandering around picking up upgrades that allow for you to access new parts of the map. In my opinion Spelunky is the Metroid Prime of roguelikes. It has a lot of different traits, but ultimately the core is the same so it is still a roguelike.
No one with authority agree's. Not one relevant developer, publisher, or anyone that has the ability to decide what a genre is agree's.
And there is a reason for that. A genre is MORE than just clones/reskins of a singular game. Your entire definition is insanity and definitely does not have the scope to define an entire genre.
@@Chariot_Rider yeah. random generation and permadeath is more defining than "turn-based tactics" or whatever stantaneous claiming.
Can you people stop bastardizing the term roguelike? None of the games you talked about or showed are actually "like Rogue" save for necrodancer. Thus none of them are "roguelikes".
All of them are rogue-likes. The genre was never, and has never been, for reskins of one game. 100 random idiots meeting and deciding that means nothing. Every dev, and everyone with relevance or authority, all use this guys definition.
NetHack isn't a roguelike, it's different from Rogue.
"I've always had an extreme fascination with the rougelike genre."
...he says as he plays a platformer and not a rougelike.
Don't even need to watch the rest of this garbage.
Disliked.
TheAmazingMoist Darn. You got me. Looks like I have been found out for the fraud that I am
Video opens with something that is very much not a Roguelike (yes, I know it says that on its sales page. Have you ever seen Rogue?)
Didn't watch the rest
Don't worry, I know exactly what your concern is and I address it later in the video.
And yes I have seen rogue