The Tavern

Hey all, been a few months since I posted here, and in those few months I've been fairly busy writing up the following Google Document.

For those who need a quick reference as to who I am and why I'm posting this here - I'm a Let's Player on YouTube who played DCSS for a time. Part of my experience with DCSS along with other Roguelikes (or those that are detestably rogulikes) that I've played went into the making of this definition. Due to my experience with DCSS and its community I figured I should at least make this documents presence known for those who wish to read it; or at least know about it.

For A Game To Be Considered A Roguelike
DavionFuxa Talks - Defining The Roguelike Genre

The first link here corresponds to the written Google Doc and the second link to a YouTube Video of me reading the Google Doc and giving some additional insight.

As a disclaimer, this is an opinion article. While it is meant to be a starting point for anyone wanting a proper definition of the Roguelike Genre, I do not claim that the definition will match with everyone who reads it. Regardless of what your stance is on how you may personally define a Roguelike game, it should still be an interesting read and perhaps open up a few avenues of thought when evaluating this game genre.

Feedback is encouraged. I welcome further input to improve the document and if you note something that you think is a defining factor for Roguelikes, be it because I left it out or stated something which would leave it out in the cold - let me know.

turn-based, procedurally generated, permadeath

boom gimme another one

http://www.roguebasin.com/index.php?tit ... rpretation read this goofy-ass thing and think no more of your sinning ways

also, "detestably" is a distinct word from "debateably". just an FYI

Oddly enough, Detestably probably works just as well in the context of the DCSS Community; but yes, I did indeed mean to write Debatably.

ZipZipskins wrote:turn-based, procedurally generated, permadeath

boom gimme another one

Turnbased: FTL is most assuredly a roguelike, and it's anything but turn based. Many other games are roguelikes with no turn based system (i.e. Realm of the Mad God, Spelunky, etc)
Procedurally Generated: Usually true, but some roguelikes break the mould, such as Sunless Sea, which has a fixed map.
Permadeath: Almost always true, though some rogue-lites (which are part of the roguelike genre) let you keep a percentage of gold, some upgrades, and maybe items (like Rogue Legacy or Realm.)

treerex5 wrote:
ZipZipskins wrote:turn-based, procedurally generated, permadeath

boom gimme another one

Turnbased: FTL is most assuredly a roguelike, and it's anything but turn based. Many other games are roguelikes with no turn based system (i.e. Realm of the Mad God, Spelunky, etc)
Procedurally Generated: Usually true, but some roguelikes break the mould, such as Sunless Sea, which has a fixed map.
Permadeath: Almost always true, though some rogue-lites (which are part of the roguelike genre) let you keep a percentage of gold, some upgrades, and maybe items (like Rogue Legacy or Realm.)

I disagree. Those aren't 'roguelike' they're 'roguelike-like' which exists as a subgenre specifically to relax one or more of the requirements zipzipskins mentioned. (You'll note that FTL even advertises itself as a 'roguelike-like' )

That's why we say those things are 'roguelike-like' instead of 'roguelike' because they fail to meet one or more of those critera, making those the defining characteristics of a literal 'roguelike'

ftl is not a roguelike, ftl is a strategy game that has roguelike elements

spelunky is not a roguelike, spelunky is an action-adventure game that has roguelike elements

realm of the mad god is a fucking mmo, idk what even to say about that

rogue legacy is a hybrid RPG/Metroidvania game that has roguelike elements

siegurt summed it up but if people describe the game as having elements of a roguelike, it isn't typically a roguelike. designers of games in other genres can come to the understanding that permadeath, procedural generation, what have you, have the potential to make the games within that genre more interesting or challenging or add replay value, but they do not make those games roguelikes themselves.

now I think a lot of the berlin interpretation is a bunch of nonsense but I'm pretty damn hardline on those three criteria

One interesting definition I've heard, which was given by one of the developers of the original rogue, was a game capable of surprising its designers. Interesting definition, but that would also mean that something like the Sims is a roguelike.

I would say that Spelunky is as much roguelike as it is platformer. Yeah it doesn't have a grid or turn-based combat, but it's randomly-generated with permanent death. A game can be a platformer and a brawler at the same time; a game can be a platformer and a roguelike at the same time. I've never played any of the other games on that list, so I can't speak for them, though.

Procedural generation is a must, as are high penalties for death -- this doesn't have to go all the way to total permadeath; those Pokemon spinoffs, Shiren Wii, and Izuna even let you keep your experience levels after death.

One game that was billed as a roguelike that I played and then said "What the fuck is this this isn't a roguelike" was Elona. Not only do you keep your levels after death, but also your items, and even the layouts of the dungeons stay the same unless you choose to start a new game.

Trying to come up with nice delineated boundaries for the definition of a genre is futile and pointless.

A roguelike is a game that resembles Rogue. The roguelikeness of a game can be defined as how much it resembles Rogue. There's no clear-cut division between roguelikes and non-roguelikes. Rather games have different values of roguelikeness.

Personally I'd say the defining characteristics of Rogue are in no particular order 1) turn based 2) perma-death 3) has a grid 4) has a concept of dungeon levels 5) has character graphics 6) has random content in the form of levels and monster/item placement 7) has items that your character can find and thereby be developed 8) has a winning condition 9) has a player character which is controlled by the player 10) has a concept of experience 11) has some kind of character stats/attributes which are raised by gaining experience 12) can't think of more right now.

A game that fulfills all of those is pretty much a roguelike to me.

Siegurt wrote:
treerex5 wrote:
ZipZipskins wrote:turn-based, procedurally generated, permadeath

boom gimme another one

Turnbased: FTL is most assuredly a roguelike, and it's anything but turn based. Many other games are roguelikes with no turn based system (i.e. Realm of the Mad God, Spelunky, etc)
Procedurally Generated: Usually true, but some roguelikes break the mould, such as Sunless Sea, which has a fixed map.
Permadeath: Almost always true, though some rogue-lites (which are part of the roguelike genre) let you keep a percentage of gold, some upgrades, and maybe items (like Rogue Legacy or Realm.)

I disagree. Those aren't 'roguelike' they're 'roguelike-like' which exists as a subgenre specifically to relax one or more of the requirements zipzipskins mentioned. (You'll note that FTL even advertises itself as a 'roguelike-like' )

That's why we say those things are 'roguelike-like' instead of 'roguelike' because they fail to meet one or more of those critera, making those the defining characteristics of a literal 'roguelike'

I believe the term is" rogue-lite."
Also, Realm is most definitely a roguelike. You die, you're gone. Fin.
It does have a class unlock system, which could classify it as an "Almost Roguelike."

ZipZipskins wrote:ftl is not a roguelike, ftl is a strategy game that has roguelike elements

spelunky is not a roguelike, spelunky is an action-adventure game that has roguelike elements

realm of the mad god is a fucking mmo, idk what even to say about that

rogue legacy is a hybrid RPG/Metroidvania game that has roguelike elements

siegurt summed it up but if people describe the game as having elements of a roguelike, it isn't typically a roguelike. designers of games in other genres can come to the understanding that permadeath, procedural generation, what have you, have the potential to make the games within that genre more interesting or challenging or add replay value, but they do not make those games roguelikes themselves.

now I think a lot of the berlin interpretation is a bunch of nonsense but I'm pretty damn hardline on those three criteria

otoh words mean what people think they mean and there's an entire generation of nerds growing up thinking spelunky, ftl, and mad god are roguelikes.

I think I'll starting calling DCSS a "Madden 2000-like"

pinball was the first roguelike
- permadeath
- simple storyline
- randomized gameplay (you never know where the ball will go next)
- ascii graphics

- it even has wizard mode

scorpionwarrior wrote:otoh words mean what people think they mean and there's an entire generation of nerds growing up thinking spelunky, ftl, and mad god are roguelikes.

that's cool, they're allowed to be wrong

There is an entire generation that thinks literally means figuratively.

Because it does!

ZipZipskins wrote:turn-based, procedurally generated, permadeath

boom gimme another one

Civilization 5 is my favourite Roguelike.

"Is it like the game Rogue?" would seem to be a pretty good criterion.

Of course, it is fair to discuss what aspects of Rogue are the most important in determining "Roguelike-ness." But I would suggest that we should take the fact that the word literally (literally literally, Siegurt!) ends with "like" as a sign that it is simply not meant to be applied with exact, scientific precision. I mean, the label "roguelike" is basically saying, "hey, this game belongs to that set of games that is similar to this game called 'Rogue.'" To draw an analogy to biology, it doesn't seem to be an exact species so much as a loose description of morphologically similar entities.

I don't think you can get an accurate picture of the interest in "defining" the roguelike genre (outside of the most obvious criteria like similarity to rogue and historical connection to a set of games including rogue) without looking at the promotional side of it. The original effort to codify the idea of "roguelikeness," the Berlin interpretation, was a straightforwardly self-interested grab at a body of work (its prestige, story, and history) the people who drafted the "definition" had little or nothing to do with. It was "forward thinking" in exactly the ways that suited the interests of those involved.

Years later, you see the same people flogging affiliate programs, relentlessly pushing the broadest, most commercializable definition, and running promotional programming and websites that put FlappyBirdRL on the same footing as nethack and larn. Writing a roguelike is now like writing a novel in November. It's the new common denominator for indie game developers trying to figure out what the least they can do but still get paid is.

and into wrote:"Is it like the game Rogue?" would seem to be a pretty good criterion.

Of course, it is fair to discuss what aspects of Rogue are the most important in determining "Roguelike-ness." But I would suggest that we should take the fact that the word literally (literally literally, Siegurt!) ends with "like" as a sign that it is simply not meant to be applied with exact, scientific precision. I mean, the label "roguelike" is basically saying, "hey, this game belongs to that set of games that is similar to this game called 'Rogue.'" To draw an analogy to biology, it doesn't seem to be an exact species so much as a loose description of morphologically similar entities.

Like, whatever, man.

It was easy in the past: games that were discussed in rec.games.roguelike.* were roguelikes :)

I think the way to go is calling them "classic roguelikes".

We nerds can bunch together and come up with cool definitions, but that won't make people who play FTL/BoI/RoR stop calling their games roguelikes

mps wrote:I don't think you can get an accurate picture of the interest in "defining" the roguelike genre (outside of the most obvious criteria like similarity to rogue and historical connection to a set of games including rogue) without looking at the promotional side of it. The original effort to codify the idea of "roguelikeness," the Berlin interpretation, was a straightforwardly self-interested grab at a body of work (its prestige, story, and history) the people who drafted the "definition" had little or nothing to do with. It was "forward thinking" in exactly the ways that suited the interests of those involved.

Years later, you see the same people flogging affiliate programs, relentlessly pushing the broadest, most commercializable definition, and running promotional programming and websites that put FlappyBirdRL on the same footing as nethack and larn. Writing a roguelike is now like writing a novel in November. It's the new common denominator for indie game developers trying to figure out what the least they can do but still get paid is.

You get paid for writing 7DRLs, now? And here I thought it was just something people did for fun, and to be part of a community.

Dang, I need to get in on that sweet roguelike $$$...

Think he is referring to how 7 Day Roguelike Challenges have turned from 'putting out a complete games in 7 days' to 'putting out a cool demo of your work in 7 days' and all that, before pushing on to continue working on the game.

Uh, no. You get paid for taking a platformer it took some undergraduates four months to write, putting it on steam, and relentlessly calling it roguelike everywhere you can. You get paid for setting up outlets that promote a definition of "roguelike" broad enough to include such games and driving traffic to sites that sell such games. Probably not much, but that makes it worse, not better. The novelty of random generation in the mass market gives indie developers a cheap way to get around the usual expectations of graphics and content in modern video games. Meanwhile, they appropriate the term "roguelike," with the eager assistance of parties peddling definitions like the Berlin interpretation.

If you don't think there's money in this, you're kidding yourself.

I have rarely read as much concentrated nonsense as in this thread. And I was in Berlin when the Berlin interpretation was made.

dpeg wrote:I have rarely read as much concentrated nonsense as in this thread. And I was in Berlin when the Berlin interpretation was made.

So you know something about nonsense.

mps wrote:Uh, no. You get paid for taking a platformer it took some undergraduates four months to write, putting it on steam, and relentlessly calling it roguelike everywhere you can. You get paid for setting up outlets that promote a definition of "roguelike" broad enough to include such games and driving traffic to sites that sell such games. Probably not much, but that makes it worse, not better. The novelty of random generation in the mass market gives indie developers a cheap way to get around the usual expectations of graphics and content in modern video games. Meanwhile, they appropriate the term "roguelike," with the eager assistance of parties peddling definitions like the Berlin interpretation.

it's about ethics in roguelike journalism

It's all a huge conspiracy against an abstract ideal of roguelikes

thread has potential, pls no lock

It's not a conspiracy when someone does something in their own interest, but isn't forthright about it. Saying that such a thing is going on is not suggesting there's a conspiracy. Roguelikes are not an abstract concept. There's a particular body of work with a particular reputation, which is being appropriated in a way that doesn't usefully contribute to that reputation, in many cases, and obscures the classics with a barrage of marketing. That's not abstract.

mps wrote:That's not abstract.

But it is incredibly unimportant!

archaeo wrote:
mps wrote:That's not abstract.

But it is incredibly unimportant!

wat? Dude, roguelike games are serious business.

mps wrote:Uh, no. You get paid for taking a platformer it took some undergraduates four months to write, putting it on steam, and relentlessly calling it roguelike everywhere you can. You get paid for setting up outlets that promote a definition of "roguelike" broad enough to include such games and driving traffic to sites that sell such games. Probably not much, but that makes it worse, not better. The novelty of random generation in the mass market gives indie developers a cheap way to get around the usual expectations of graphics and content in modern video games. Meanwhile, they appropriate the term "roguelike," with the eager assistance of parties peddling definitions like the Berlin interpretation.

I agree, we shouldn't put up with what these people are doing anymore. What gives these devs a right to think that we, the people who actually play their games, have to pay for them? And what makes them think that they can just advertise their games how they want -- I'm a player after all, so it's my game, so the decision should come from me. I can't believe that these people could be so self-centered as to think we care about stupid excuses like their "inspirations" or "design goals."

mps wrote:Uh, no. You get paid for taking a platformer it took some undergraduates four months to write, putting it on steam, and relentlessly calling it roguelike everywhere you can. You get paid for setting up outlets that promote a definition of "roguelike" broad enough to include such games and driving traffic to sites that sell such games. Probably not much, but that makes it worse, not better. The novelty of random generation in the mass market gives indie developers a cheap way to get around the usual expectations of graphics and content in modern video games. Meanwhile, they appropriate the term "roguelike," with the eager assistance of parties peddling definitions like the Berlin interpretation.

If you don't think there's money in this, you're kidding yourself.

yes, the enormous amounts of money pouring into the Shitty Cheap Knock-Off Roguelike genre. look at the ads on TV, the sales numbers in the millions, the domination of all the top app charts! when you get down to it, I bet there's as many as several tens of dollars to be made by systemically distorting the true, original meaning of the word 'roguelike'. maybe even more!

PleasingFungus wrote:
mps wrote:Uh, no. You get paid for taking a platformer it took some undergraduates four months to write, putting it on steam, and relentlessly calling it roguelike everywhere you can. You get paid for setting up outlets that promote a definition of "roguelike" broad enough to include such games and driving traffic to sites that sell such games. Probably not much, but that makes it worse, not better. The novelty of random generation in the mass market gives indie developers a cheap way to get around the usual expectations of graphics and content in modern video games. Meanwhile, they appropriate the term "roguelike," with the eager assistance of parties peddling definitions like the Berlin interpretation.

If you don't think there's money in this, you're kidding yourself.

yes, the enormous amounts of money pouring into the Shitty Cheap Knock-Off Roguelike genre. look at the ads on TV, the sales numbers in the millions, the domination of all the top app charts! when you get down to it, I bet there's as many as several tens of dollars to be made by systemically distorting the true, original meaning of the word 'roguelike'. maybe even more!

Oh, I hadn't thought about that. If they make less money than a hedge fund manager, there's nothing to criticize in what they're doing. Good point.

This thread is truly something else

Pereza0 wrote:This thread is truly something else

Agreed.

Pereza0 wrote:This thread is truly something else

Actually this thread is pretty much the same.

Why don't we classify these into Rogue-Likes and Rogue-Lites.
Rogue-Likes are more of a "classic" idea of a roguelike game, such as DCSS, Nethack, Angband, etc.

Rogue-Lites have many roguelike elements, but are different, such as FTL, Risk of Rain, etc.

I dislike Roguelite and particularly Roguelike-like on the basis that they are awfully formed words from a verbal point of view (though Roguelike-like is also offensive to the eyes and makes me slightly angrier every time I see it) and make me feel substantially goofier and less respectable every time I say them. I usually call BoI/RoR/FTL and the like Roguelikes the same way I do DCSS and Nethack. DCSS and Nethack are additionally "classic" roguelikes.

If a separate term is required for RoR/BoI/etc, I would like to propose what is clearly the best solution to this etymological conundrum, which is to create the new designation "Rougelikes."

It's a bit thrilling to witness a new branch of Science being formed. Someday when I'm in nursing home, and some hotshot starts spouting off about his Videogame Taxonomy degree, I can say, "noob, you are standing on the shoulders of giants, whose posts I read in their original format".

treerex5 wrote:Why don't we classify these into Rogue-Likes and Rogue-Lites.
Rogue-Likes are more of a "classic" idea of a roguelike game, such as DCSS, Nethack, Angband, etc.

Rogue-Lites have many roguelike elements, but are different, such as FTL, Risk of Rain, etc.

I know that somewhere in one of the many threads I posted in the various game forums I visited that someone had suggested that Roguelikes that followed more closely to the Rogue formula should be called Traditional Roguelikes (and absolutely not Classical or Retro!) because the term 'Rogue-like' has evolved and people looking to defend the original space need to adhere to the new reality.

Something worth noting of course on this, The Big List of Steam Roguelikes, which does a good job of sort of further sorting the various 'types' of Roguelikes into sub-genres within the Roguelike genre. Personally I think that is the best way of moving forward.

moocowmoocow wrote:It's a bit thrilling to witness a new branch of Science being formed. Someday when I'm in nursing home, and some hotshot starts spouting off about his Videogame Taxonomy degree, I can say, "noob, you are standing on the shoulders of giants, whose posts I read in their original format".

I can see the scene now:

The offending party sits, all sneers and self aggrandizement, belittling your fellow skeletons with their dusty past of what they assure all is grandeur beyond compare. You take it in stride at first, putting it off as mere annoyance, but with time your consternation at their actions begins to grow. You listen in silence for hours, days even as they prattle on about their "pee aych dee". Finally, you can take this snobbishness and intellectual aggression against your peers no longer.

You move your chair back and stand. Your intentions are not obvious yet, but the action holds power. The dining room falls from warm, hazy mid-breakfast murmur into a strained, tense silence. You lean forwards, eyes squinting to cut through the blurriness and study the suddenly-nervous features of your antagonist.

The words come, slow, but with purpose. With conviction. You recite the names of the greats, dredging their existence from murky history into stark, jagged focus.

Your nemesis flinches, opens their mouth to say something, but you will not stop. You utter now the words. "Berlin Interpretation". The blackguard sputters, growing pale. They look around for some sort of support, but the rest dare not meet your eye. Your intonations bounce back and forth between the walls of the hall. The air is silent, the atmosphere, electric.

You press the advantage, advancing upon the villain.

"Turn Based" you boom. They scramble backwards, eyes opening wide, shaking with fear.

"PROCEDURALLY GENERATED" you shout, advancing quicker now, growing hasty in your assault. They clutch at the dried skin of their face, as if seriously wounded. You can see it now, they are starting to come unraveled.

Your speed mounts into a sprint, you are carried along by an inhuman vigour now, filled to brimming with light.

Their empty eyes stare up into your face as you loom.

You invoke the power of things higher than yourself.
"PERMADEATH"
The room shakes with your lawful judgement. Your piety is immaculate, your words, holy.

They cannot hope to stand against you.

Their jaw drops, quite literally, into their bowl of porridge. Their cracked and withered skin flakes and is stripped like paint before a flame. Their ancient coverings unravel. They are destroyed, and in their destruction, return to sand. They manage one final scream, one final hateful utterance to avenge them.

You feel nervous for a moment...
Your bathrobe glows black for a moment.

you write quite well, Walrusking.

WalrusKing wrote: Story

Hasted senior citizen^Zin?

PleasingFungus wrote:yes, the enormous amounts of money pouring into the Shitty Cheap Knock-Off Roguelike genre. look at the ads on TV, the sales numbers in the millions, the domination of all the top app charts! when you get down to it, I bet there's as many as several tens of dollars to be made by systemically distorting the true, original meaning of the word 'roguelike'. maybe even more!

You laugh now, but wait until you see the ad for my upcoming free-to-play game, "Rogues of War: Rogue Age 2: Fire Rogue". I'm buying SUPERBOWL ADS and EVERYTHING.

Play discreetly.

njvack wrote:You laugh now, but wait until you see the ad for my upcoming free-to-play game, "Rogues of War: Rogue Age 2: Fire Rogue". I'm buying SUPERBOWL ADS and EVERYTHING.

Play discreetly.

my lord

The Tavern

Defining the Roguelike Genre

Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre

Re: Defining the Roguelike Genre