Temple of The Roguelike Forums
Game Discussion => Player's Plaza => Topic started by: King Ink on November 08, 2013, 02:21:35 PM
-
I may make a poll.
-
Man, I love flame wars! :)
-
I'd think that, honestly, the only thing everyone would agree on is that if there's no procedural generation whatsoever, it's not a roguelike. (Of course, I'm probably wrong about that, and there's someone out there who doesn't think that's an important factor.)
Permadeath (or at least permanent consequences for death) is a pretty big one for most people too, though probably not as unanimous.
For me, turn-based is important, too. I think that'd be the main thing for me that spells the difference between a "roguelike" and a "roguelikelike."
Honestly, though genre definitions don't really matter that much to me, a good game is a good game.
-
I agree; I think there are varying degrees of flexibility around the other features but if there's no procedural generation at all then it's not a roguelike.
-
"What trait disqualifies a game from being a rogue-like?"
Intent
-
I'd think that, honestly, the only thing everyone would agree on is that if there's no procedural generation whatsoever, it's not a roguelike. (Of course, I'm probably wrong about that, and there's someone out there who doesn't think that's an important factor.)
Have you played Mutant Aristocrats!? http://forums.roguetemple.com/index.php?topic=2300.0
-
A roguelike derives interesting gameplay from the interplay between permadeath and procedural generation...that's my pet definition.
Real time can be a big hit, but not fatal.
Lack of procedural generation is major for me, totally necessary.
Lack of permadeath might also be fatal, you AT LEAST need real and dire consequences to dying.
As long as it's procedural and screwing up really sets you back you can make a good argument for being a roguelike.
The sweet spot for the best games are that you get something new and surprising each game, and you get BETTER each game.
I think another way to define a roguelike is that you improve each game, but not by memorizing sequences.
-
Privately, I use the "is it like Rogue?" test. It`s maybe crude, but I like the simplicity of it. It also helps a lot because nowadays it s very much in-demand to be considered a roguelike. Sometimes bit too much perhaps.
So if it`s turn-based, has permadeath and random content generation - plus some sort of a quest - it`s a roguelike. For me :P Next step down would be a roguelikelike for those more daring experiments that stray from the above formula and then "an X with roguelike elements" for assorted gatecrashers.
All that labeling has nothing to do with game`s overall quality - you can have a rubbish roguelike and a superb distant cousin. It`s just for my personal categorisation purposes. And for wider-world discoveries I think I`d go with Jo`s
A roguelike derives interesting gameplay from the interplay between permadeath and procedural generation
I saw it sometime ago elsewhere (perhaps Darren Grey`s blog?) and adopted it since - I think it`s the best global definition out there. These are the games I want to try out and if you name your game a roguelike and it adheres to this maxim, then it is all good.
I disagree though that one particular element - like procedural content or getting "better" (without sequencing) - can make a roguelike. There are tons of games out there that use those things and yet are as non-RL as you can be. It`s a bit like calling GTA San Andreas an RPG because you have some stats to improve.
-
Freely undone consequences (like a mainstream-like save/load feature) or no procedural generation.
So basically what's been said, but I don't hang onto the "death" part in "permadeath".
-
"What trait disqualifies a game from being a rogue-like?"
Intent
(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080307023431/firefly/images/2/27/Early.jpg)
don't go visiting my intentions. don't you ever.
So really most agree (a) procedural content + (B)perma-death + (C)(some sense of rogue influence) = roguelike.
so FTL is nearly rogue-like ?
but to me not quite.
-
All that labeling has nothing to do with game`s overall quality - you can have a rubbish roguelike and a superb distant cousin. It`s just for my personal categorisation purposes. And for wider-world discoveries I think I`d go with Jo`s
A roguelike derives interesting gameplay from the interplay between permadeath and procedural generation
I saw it sometime ago elsewhere (perhaps Darren Grey`s blog?) and adopted it since - I think it`s the best global definition out there. These are the games I want to try out and if you name your game a roguelike and it adheres to this maxim, then it is all good.
You might have seen that on Grey's site in the comment section, where I comment. :-)
It's my personal take I've been throwing out for about a year now. If I'm not mistaken I think Darren puts a pretty high value on turn based play as well, as he's a highly strategic player. But I guess one shouldn't speak for another person.
-
You might have seen that on Grey's site in the comment section, where I comment. :-)
It's my personal take I've been throwing out for about a year now.
Yessir, that`s what I meant - that you`re the author - though it might`ve been unclear in my post. And yeah, it was in comments under some similar thread over at Darren`s. Think you should (c) it mate, because I doubt we`ll ever find more elegant & brief (and yet quite inclusive) definition for this rather tangled topic.
FTL? Hmmm. Yeah, quite close, maybe even there (though, again, it has nothing to do with the game`s quality - I think it`s not bad, certainly fun, though I`m still a bit distrustful of its mechanics). How about this one? (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/202610/Life_loss_and_the_beauty_of_the_roguelike_in_Road_Not_Taken.php) A whole article + a few videos and I still can`t tell...
-
The borderline cases are fun to chat about. I can see what FTL was going for, just didn't scratch that itch for me though. Binding of Isaac was another that was highly rated that I didn't get too into. Spelunky now, I LOVED that game. I even beat that one. One of the few RL's I've actually beaten. Rogue Legacy was also kind of neat'o but I burnt out pretty fast on it.
I tell you the roguelike-like that I really enjoy is X-Com. It's very lite, but the permadeath of your characters is a major blow and procedural missions are nice. I save when I stop playing too, I don't reload old saves to cheat death. I also name my squad my friends and family names, so when they die it's just so terrible. You don't have to restart the game, but a series of mistakes will eventually cause you to lose and there's just nothing to be done at a certain point but start over.
TY for the (c) advice. Lol.
-
So really most agree (a) procedural content + (B)perma-death + (C)(some sense of rogue influence) = roguelike.
"Some sense of rogue influence" is vague. I think the best definition for "roguelike" is "a turn-based tactical adventure game with heavily randomized content and no persistent saves."
-
So really most agree (a) procedural content + (B)perma-death + (C)(some sense of rogue influence) = roguelike.
"Some sense of rogue influence" is vague. I think the best definition for "roguelike" is "a turn-based tactical adventure game with heavily randomized content and no persistent saves."
Agreed there is (in my mind) a necessary third trait perhaps turn-based tactical adventure game is that.
-
So really most agree (a) procedural content + (B)perma-death + (C)(some sense of rogue influence) = roguelike.
In the old days the definition of RL used to be something like "An RPG game with poor graphics (compared to mainstream games), but much more complex mechanics and richer content". As you can see, no single word about procedural generation or permadeath. This excludes games like Diablo. In those days no one would ever consider Diablo as RL. What is more, Diablo was often used as an example what is NOT a roguelike. No one was insane enough to say that the game is like Rogue just because it has procedurally generated levels. Claims like that make me laugh.
The above definition also excludes platform games and similar stuff. Some people think that the term "roguelike" has evolved in years. I think it just has became degenerated.
-
My stance on the issue is that ADOM, Brogue, and Crawl are clearly the same kind of thing, and Spelunky and Diablo are clearly different kinds of things, despite some similarities. The only word we have that properly describes those first games is "roguelike." If we extend its meaning to include Diablo et al. then we don't have a good word for that anymore.
It isn't an elitist thing about how Spelunky isn't a real roguelike. "Roguelike" is just a more useful term when it describes something concrete and specific.
Somewhat related, I'd also like to see the concept of permadeath/permafailure separated from the roguelike genre, not because roguelikes don't need it, but because it has so much potential to benefit other types of games. Most competitive multiplayer games essentially feature permafailure, though it isn't referred to by that name. Lots of arcade games are secretly meant to be played as permadeath games. It's a great feature with incredible benefits and exaggerated weaknesses. It should be something every designer considers for their projects, not an exotic, niche thing that only appeals to weird people.
-
So really most agree (a) procedural content + (B)perma-death + (C)(some sense of rogue influence) = roguelike.
In the old days the definition of RL used to be something like "An RPG game with poor graphics (compared to mainstream games), but much more complex mechanics and richer content". As you can see, no single word about procedural generation or permadeath. This excludes games like Diablo. In those days no one would ever consider Diablo as RL. What is more, Diablo was often used as an example what is NOT a roguelike. No one was insane enough to say that the game is like Rogue just because it has procedurally generated levels. Claims like that make me laugh.
The above definition also excludes platform games and similar stuff. Some people think that the term "roguelike" has evolved in years. I think it just has became degenerated.
My old Larn-playing heart beats in time with your statement.
If I had my druthers and could dictate what rogue-like meant I would include acsii based to the list.
but what a word means is unfortunately how it used not what it should mean.
-
Genres do evolve. First person shooters are no longer required to be like Doom. Insisting that a roguelike must have ASCII visuals is like insisting that a first person shooter shouldn't include the ability to look up and down because Doom didn't have that. It's nonsense, and a pointlessly stifling and elitist attitude that benefits neither the games nor the people who play them.
-
Genres do evolve. First person shooters are no longer required to be like Doom. Insisting that a roguelike must have ASCII visuals is like insisting that a first person shooter shouldn't include the ability to look up and down because Doom didn't have that. It's nonsense, and a pointlessly stifling and elitist attitude that benefits neither the games nor the people who play them.
genres evolve? If rogue-style games are seen as form rather than a genre.
The ASCII requirement would be more like the rhyming requirements of limericks.
But like I said we can not control lexical degradation we can only grouse about it.
but let us grouse it is one of the only joys left to old men.
-
Genres do evolve. First person shooters are no longer required to be like Doom. Insisting that a roguelike must have ASCII visuals is like insisting that a first person shooter shouldn't include the ability to look up and down because Doom didn't have that. It's nonsense, and a pointlessly stifling and elitist attitude that benefits neither the games nor the people who play them.
What would you say if someone called Ishar a first person shooter, just because it's first person and you can shoot at your enemies? FPS with more flexible camera is still an FPS, but when your objective is talking, trading, puzzle solving AND fighting instead of just fighting, then it's probably not an FPS. So I wouldn't go as far as claiming that a roguelike without ASCII mode is not a roguelike. However, a real-time game with 3D graphics, audio and only five character classes is NOT a roguelike, it's fucking Diablo 3.
-
ASCII is a silly requirement. It has nothing to do with a game's mechanics. Developers can and do make RLs that support both ASCII and tiles and the game plays exactly the same either way.
That's like saying that an FPS is only a real FPS if it's 90% grey and brown. It's really dumb.
-
ASCII is a silly requirement. It has nothing to do with a game's mechanics. Developers can and do make RLs that support both ASCII and tiles and the game plays exactly the same either way.
That's like saying that an FPS is only a real FPS if it's 90% grey and brown. It's really dumb.
unfortunately the genie is already out of the bottle on the Ascii requirement.
But when I get the tardis fixed y'all are screwed.
-
I would think that of all people, roguelike players/developers would care the least about graphics.
Claiming that ASCII is a requirement to be a roguelike is putting a huge amount of focus on graphics (or lack thereof).
-
ASCII is definitely not a requirement. That's kinda silly.
I love me some ASCII though, gotta say.
-
Genres do evolve. First person shooters are no longer required to be like Doom. Insisting that a roguelike must have ASCII visuals is like insisting that a first person shooter shouldn't include the ability to look up and down because Doom didn't have that. It's nonsense, and a pointlessly stifling and elitist attitude that benefits neither the games nor the people who play them.
genres evolve? If rogue-style games are seen as form rather than a genre.
The ASCII requirement would be more like the rhyming requirements of limericks.
Without rhyme, a limerick doesn't function. It's impossible. A roguelike without ASCII just looks different. I'd say it's more analogous to a limerick in a different font.
However, a real-time game with 3D graphics, audio and only five character classes is NOT a roguelike, it's fucking Diablo 3.
Care to point out where I mentioned Diablo 3? Diablo 3 is beside the point. The point is that "this game isn't like roguelikes from 20 years ago, therefore it isn't a roguelike" is an absurd stance. It's particularly bizarre from someone named TheCreator. Creation without invention or pushing the boundaries is just tediously retreading the same dull old ground.
-
Where are we, page 2?
Yeah, that's about the point where 'what is a roguelike' discussions tend to fade a bit.
-
Maybe it's impossible and senseless to state exactly what defines a roguelike.
But I easily know one when I see one.
These are roguelikes:
http://www.metalhead.ws/images/nethack-wiz-29.jpg (http://www.metalhead.ws/images/nethack-wiz-29.jpg)
http://erapert.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/adom.gif (http://erapert.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/adom.gif)
http://www.retrobits.net/palmos/images/angband4.png (http://www.retrobits.net/palmos/images/angband4.png)
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/yReGKEBvCqQ/maxresdefault.jpg (http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/yReGKEBvCqQ/maxresdefault.jpg)
http://crawl.develz.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/tiles_screenshot_storm_disc.png (http://crawl.develz.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/tiles_screenshot_storm_disc.png)
These are not roguelikes:
http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/image/article/122/1226095/ftl-faster-than-light-20120915014330855-000.jpg (http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/image/article/122/1226095/ftl-faster-than-light-20120915014330855-000.jpg)
http://www.debugdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/rogue-legacy.jpg (http://www.debugdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/rogue-legacy.jpg)
http://www.headupgames.com/shop/administrator/upload/screens/150/The_Binding_of_Isaac_05.jpg (http://www.headupgames.com/shop/administrator/upload/screens/150/The_Binding_of_Isaac_05.jpg)
-
Those first five are turn-based tactical adventure games with heavily randomized content and no persistent saves.
The last three are not.
-
Those first five are turn-based tactical adventure games with heavily randomized content and no persistent saves.
The last three are not.
Yes.
But I would also like to include something about style. For me, primitive graphics in favor of deep gameplay is one of the fundamental things I associate with roguelikes. If I see too advanced graphics, it just makes me think "I wish that effort were put in the gameplay instead". Almost total focus on the programming aspects of the game design is a huge part of the appeal of roguelikes for me.
I have even been thinking lately about making a completely text based game.
-
But I easily know one when I see one.
These are roguelikes:
...
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/yReGKEBvCqQ/maxresdefault.jpg (http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/yReGKEBvCqQ/maxresdefault.jpg)
...
How DARE you slander Cataclysm in such a fashion! (kidding)
But honestly, I don't consider Cataclysm (or my fork DDA) to be roguelikes. The lack of overarching quests/goals*, low emphasis on "dungeons"** and overall tone seem to me to be more than sufficient to disqualify it. How does it stack up against the more thoughtful definitions:
Intent
It fails at this one, I have no intent to keep the game roguelike, "Any resemblance to a genre, living or dead, is purely coincidental."
A roguelike derives interesting gameplay from the interplay between permadeath and procedural generation...that's my pet definition.
Some might disagree that it meets the "interesting" part (ouch), otherwise meets it.
Privately, I use the "is it like Rogue?" test. It`s maybe crude, but I like the simplicity of it. It also helps a lot because nowadays it s very much in-demand to be considered a roguelike. Sometimes bit too much perhaps.
So if it`s turn-based, has permadeath and random content generation - plus some sort of a quest - it`s a roguelike. For me :P Next step down would be a roguelikelike for those more daring experiments that stray from the above formula and then "an X with roguelike elements" for assorted gatecrashers.
Disqualified by the "plus a quest" part. Would definitely qualify as a "survival RPG with roguelike elements".
In the old days the definition of RL used to be something like "An RPG game with poor graphics (compared to mainstream games), but much more complex mechanics and richer content".
It meets this one... maybe? Is an overarching quest implied by "RPG"? Definitely emphasizes content and mechanics over graphics.
akeley's definition is closest to my sense of what makes a roguelike, though I'm admittedly warped by the 'bands, so my internal definition is probably more properly called "'bandlike" than "roguelike"
If I see too advanced graphics, it just makes me think "I wish that effort were put in the gameplay instead". Almost total focus on the programming aspects of the game design is a huge part of the appeal of roguelikes for me.
There's some validity to this, particularly if only one person is working on the game, but I prefer to focus on wanting deeper mechanics than disproving of graphics. I don't know if someone could pull of a good-graphics hardcore roguelike, but I don't want to discourage them from trying. For my part, I'm simply bad at graphics, so it's a non-issue.
I have even been thinking lately about making a completely text based game.
Interactive fiction roguelike? That would be amazing if you could pull it off. I've been thinking about working IF elements into a roguelike, specifically procedurally generated room/item/monster descriptions.
* To me, having a goal, the game being "winnable" is a critical criteria, DDA doesn't have a win condition.
** Dungeon-type exploration seems fairly core to me, though this one is admittedly more shaky.
*** Permadeath, or at least "Permaconsequences" is on the list. Good point about X-com.
**** Procedural generation gives me pause, because I want to say "that's an implementation detail", but what it really means is that you aren't playing the same "levels" over and over as in "traditional" games. So in that case yes it's critical.
***** This is a "footnote-like" aside.
-
If I see too advanced graphics, it just makes me think "I wish that effort were put in the gameplay instead". Almost total focus on the programming aspects of the game design is a huge part of the appeal of roguelikes for me.
But time spent on the graphics doesn't necessarily mean that time was taken from the programming. The people who made the graphics could be people who just do graphics and don't even know how to program.
-
If I see too advanced graphics, it just makes me think "I wish that effort were put in the gameplay instead". Almost total focus on the programming aspects of the game design is a huge part of the appeal of roguelikes for me.
But time spent on the graphics doesn't necessarily mean that time was taken from the programming. The people who made the graphics could be people who just do graphics and don't even know how to program.
I had this in mind as well. But I just can't imagine Nethack with Diablo 3 graphics Or Dwarf Fortress with Starcraft 2 graphics happening any time soon. (Yeah those are extreme examples, but I hope they show what I mean)
-
Hmm, is this a roguelike? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfEzFVR5yVM
Cause I found it on roguebasin :P
-
Interactive fiction roguelike? That would be amazing if you could pull it off. I've been thinking about working IF elements into a roguelike, specifically procedurally generated room/item/monster descriptions.
Something like that yeah :)
-
Regarding graphics, I certainly don't think pretty graphics automatically disqualifies a game from being a Roguelike. Shiren would be an example of a wonderful RL with nice graphics. Having good graphics means a game relies less on invoking a "L"ook command, and it allows to put more info onto each tile than you can with a typical ASCII interface. However, there's a point to be made that ASCII plays well with procedural content. To illustrate what I mean, let's take statues as an example. In a team blessed with a graphical artist, you have one or more decorative tiles/models that clearly communicate that this is a statue and what it resembles. On the other hand, if your statues are just grey "S"-es or something, they can signify anything. For instance, it leaves the option for randomly generated statues, or for having tens or hundreds of different statue templates, without heaping senseless amounts of work on your artist in residence to illustrate that one feature.
I guess it would be possible, and probably very interesting, to work with random/procedural graphics. Just like a designer can hack together a system of components to generate random statues, an artist could hack together a system that generates the corresponding graphics.
In any case, I think the more sophisticated your graphics are, the more they threaten to restrict your Roguelike's complexity.
As always,
Minotauros
-
Interactive fiction roguelike? That would be amazing if you could pull it off. I've been thinking about working IF elements into a roguelike, specifically procedurally generated room/item/monster descriptions.
Something like that yeah :)
Have either of you seen Kerkerkruip (http://ifwiki.org/index.php/Kerkerkruip)? It's an IF roguelike, and it's pretty neat. There's definitely a lot more (and a lot of different stuff) that could be done with the idea.
-
Have either of you seen Kerkerkruip (http://ifwiki.org/index.php/Kerkerkruip)? It's an IF roguelike, and it's pretty neat. There's definitely a lot more (and a lot of different stuff) that could be done with the idea.
Interesting. Thanks for the tip.
-
Regarding graphics, I certainly don't think pretty graphics automatically disqualifies a game from being a Roguelike. Shiren would be an example of a wonderful RL with nice graphics. Having good graphics means a game relies less on invoking a "L"ook command, and it allows to put more info onto each tile than you can with a typical ASCII interface. However, there's a point to be made that ASCII plays well with procedural content. To illustrate what I mean, let's take statues as an example. In a team blessed with a graphical artist, you have one or more decorative tiles/models that clearly communicate that this is a statue and what it resembles. On the other hand, if your statues are just grey "S"-es or something, they can signify anything. For instance, it leaves the option for randomly generated statues, or for having tens or hundreds of different statue templates, without heaping senseless amounts of work on your artist in residence to illustrate that one feature.
I guess it would be possible, and probably very interesting, to work with random/procedural graphics. Just like a designer can hack together a system of components to generate random statues, an artist could hack together a system that generates the corresponding graphics.
In any case, I think the more sophisticated your graphics are, the more they threaten to restrict your Roguelike's complexity.
As always,
Minotauros
Interesting point, and the best pro-ASCII argument I've heard. I think we see that sort of variety quite rarely but maybe more could be made of ASCII visuals. Maybe more roguelike creators could ask "what can ASCII do that tiles can't?" Not that I'm criticising. I can't programme a damn thing myself.
-
In regards to ASCII, though it isn't necessary it has major advantages over tilesets and animated sprites.
1. Small: Very clear at small resolutions, you can get much more on the screen at once.
2. Skills: No need to have an artist, a programmer skills will do.
3. Diverse: You can do a TON with ascii, with, say, 6 colors and 54 letters you can depict 324 monsters.
4. Energy: As said above, developers can put all energy into game play.
5. Resources: they run well on older or weaker systems, and laptops.
6. Imagination: Ascii engages the icon -> representation section of your imagination. You actually have to think DRAGON. Not just see it.
7. Temptation: There's no temptation to sacrifice gameplay for sound and visuals, if you are a gameplay person then this is awesome.
8. Looks Better: A shoddy tileset by someone with minimal skill looks like hell compared to simple ascii.
9. Cool Points: Playing in ASCII, and having it actually be fun for you, is just cool and amazing. Don't be too snobby, but come on, you play a game that most people think looks like The Matrix.
10. Tradition: If you are into that classic feel, ascii is traditional.
Then there's the one huge negative: Not many gamers will actually play an ascii game.
-
Then there's the one huge negative: Not many gamers will actually play an ascii game.
On the other hand, I bet the overlap is pretty strong between these guys and people who won't play permadeath games.
-
Then there's the one huge negative: Not many gamers will actually play an ascii game.
Depends. When I was in high school, a lot of kids played ADOM and I don't remember anyone commenting that it's silly or something. And those were already the days of fancy 3d stuff. I think the game has a certain visual appeal and a not too high learning curve (in terms of interface) so that it's easy to pick up.
Maybe it's not about ascii, but just cluttered and complicated interfaces?
-
In any case, I think the more sophisticated your graphics are, the more they threaten to restrict your Roguelike's complexity.
That's a really interesting point. For a long time I've thought that voice puts a lot of restrictions on games, especially RPGs. I didn't realize that graphics can do the same thing.
-
Then there's the one huge negative: Not many gamers will actually play an ascii game.
On the other hand, I bet the overlap is pretty strong between these guys and people who won't play permadeath games.
I dunno, I think permadeath is coming into popularity. FTL, Dredmor and Binding of Isaac seem to have done pretty well. And I think Diablo's hardcore mode is fairly popular. Even Minecraft added a permadeath mode recently, though I have no idea how popular it is...given the focus of the game is building stuff over time, probably not very.
-
Just like Dracula has the Belmonts to vanquish him, we need some heroes to quell threads like these :V
I liked the answer "Intent". Don't you just hate it when a dev whose never played a roguelike just wants to slap the label onto his game because it's "popular with the internet kids"?
I feel sorry for the term because there's so many games that want to be called "roguelike", and plenty that are while they shouldn't be.
My stance on the issue is that ADOM, Brogue, and Crawl are clearly the same kind of thing, and Spelunky and Diablo are clearly different kinds of things, despite some similarities. The only word we have that properly describes those first games is "roguelike." If we extend its meaning to include Diablo et al. then we don't have a good word for that anymore.
It isn't an elitist thing about how Spelunky isn't a real roguelike. "Roguelike" is just a more useful term when it describes something concrete and specific.
Wise words from Vanguard. I disagree on spelunky though. It's pretty much EXACTLY Rogue, except realtime and a platformer. The food clock has been replaced with phantoms that come kill you when you spend too long on a single floor. Spelunky is SO roguelike.
You've got your "food-clock", your resource management (health, bombs, rope) and your quest (except it's GO DOWN instead of GO DOWN AND UP AGAIN). With permadeath and proc.gen.
It's a completely different SORT of game, but it's inherited Rogue's spirit PERFECTLY. So you're right, but you're wrong. I understand what you're saying! I think.
Somewhat related, I'd also like to see the concept of permadeath/permafailure separated from the roguelike genre, not because roguelikes don't need it, but because it has so much potential to benefit other types of games. Most competitive multiplayer games essentially feature permafailure, though it isn't referred to by that name. Lots of arcade games are secretly meant to be played as permadeath games. It's a great feature with incredible benefits and exaggerated weaknesses. It should be something every designer considers for their projects, not an exotic, niche thing that only appeals to weird people.
This reminds me of a previous similar thread where I got a little weird in the head about what constitutes a game. I'm too tired for those shenanigans again, but I don't think separating permadeath from the roguelike label will help keep out undesirables.
-
I don't think there is any one thing that makes a game "a roguelike" or "not a roguelike". It's more a combination of how many different roguelike aspects a game has. If a game has a lot of them (permadeath, procedural content generation, minimal graphics, turn-based, etc.) then it is more likely to be considered a roguelike; if not, it's less likely. If we went by the strictest definition, then two out of my three successful 7DRLs probably wouldn't qualify because they didn't have procedural terrain, only random placement of enemies!
-
When it is boring. Rogue-like games are never boring.
-
In any case, I think the more sophisticated your graphics are, the more they threaten to restrict your Roguelike's complexity.
That's a really interesting point. For a long time I've thought that voice puts a lot of restrictions on games, especially RPGs. I didn't realize that graphics can do the same thing.
This is the one thing that keeps me using ASCII, it's super easy to add more content. I just have to pick a letter (or other symbol) and color and my art is done. The better the art, the harder it is to add new art as well.
Another aspect of this I played with is that changing fonts is an easy way to change the feel of your game, and can be left up to the player to pick a font if your engine supports that.
-
This is the one thing that keeps me using ASCII, it's super easy to add more content. I just have to pick a letter (or other symbol) and color and my art is done. The better the art, the harder it is to add new art as well.
Another aspect of this I played with is that changing fonts is an easy way to change the feel of your game, and can be left up to the player to pick a font if your engine supports that.
The traditional message log also makes it easier to add new game mechanics; graphical representation means each mechanic requires new animations, interface buttons, or special effects, which take more dev time than just generating a descriptive string.
Some developers are preferring direct representation on screen to messages in the log, even in ASCII games (see Mosaic, for example), but I think it has exactly the same tradeoffs as moving from ASCII to graphics. Many aspects of the game becomes more intuitive and the flavour becomes more visual, at the expense of the developer's person-hours-per-feature being diverted to work which doesn't directly increase the complexity or depth of the game.
Of course, current trends in complete, working roguelikes lean towards simpler mechanics than they did 15 years ago, so the resulting workload hasn't changed much.
-
It's strange to see people argue vehemently that ASCII (or console based) graphics aren't central to the genre when it's always been the case that the prominent examples minimally have a console (or some homebrewed facsimile) as a primary platform -- even to this day. (Equally obvious is the fact that the main innovation of rogue was using such graphics.)
Somehow the connection of roguelikes to UNIX and other multiuser systems has also been forgotten, much to the detriment of development and players alike. (It's worth pointing out that the most vibrant roguelike communities remain based around multiuser systems, dcss webtiles and public telnet being a prime example.) This is peculiar since now people seem to believe that permadeath is critically important, in spite of the fact that it is easily and frequently circumvented when games are played on a local system administered by the player.
That aside, what really disqualifies games as roguelikes is simpler than ASCII graphics and so on: It's being unworthy of the tradition of rogue, larn, moria, hack and nethack. That is: lacking the depth, detail, and diversity of early standard bearers and to some extent modern standard bearers. If there is any prestige to the genre -- and clearly there is -- it comes from the adrenaline rush of seeing a 'T' on the screen, as Glenn Wichman puts it, the creation of compelling gaming with the simplest technology. Without providing that kind of fullness of experience, any game's claim to being roguelike is pretense.
-
I don't think there is any one thing that makes a game "a roguelike" or "not a roguelike". It's more a combination of how many different roguelike aspects a game has. If a game has a lot of them (permadeath, procedural content generation, minimal graphics, turn-based, etc.) then it is more likely to be considered a roguelike; if not, it's less likely. If we went by the strictest definition, then two out of my three successful 7DRLs probably wouldn't qualify because they didn't have procedural terrain, only random placement of enemies!
This sounds pretty much in line with my own opinions. But unfortunately, people like to feel that what they are working on is special, or what they like to play is special, and one way to do this is to latch onto the cachet of something popular and well liked.
So what you get is people tagging their product or features with labels, like roguelike. Is saw an advertisement for a MUD the other day, which claimed to have a "roguelike map". What they really meant was that they had an ascii map which was printed out as part of the room description. Something various MUDs have had for over 10-15 years, without it being called "roguelike" until now.
And so the push to widen the meaning of the definition continues. Once it meant turn-based, text display, procedurally generated. I think it is now heading towards just meaning procedurally generated.
-
If we went by the strictest definition, then two out of my three successful 7DRLs probably wouldn't qualify because they didn't have procedural terrain, only random placement of enemies!
This is an odd formulation -- so the idea a "7DRL" is not a legitimate roguelike is somehow a suspicious notion? It seems to me that the seven day roguelike is itself a suspicious notion, similar to but somehow more contradictory than the 30 day novel.
It's not possible to produce something comparable even to early examples in the genre in seven days, much less comparable to current standard bearers. Too often the concept of roguelikeness is an excuse to produce something minimal to the point of incompleteness or worse. This is primarily the error of the definitions currently bandied about.
-
That aside, what really disqualifies games as roguelikes is simpler than ASCII graphics and so on: It's being unworthy of the tradition of rogue, larn, moria, hack and nethack. That is: lacking the depth, detail, and diversity of early standard bearers and to some extent modern standard bearers. If there is any prestige to the genre -- and clearly there is -- it comes from the adrenaline rush of seeing a 'T' on the screen, as Glenn Wichman puts it, the creation of compelling gaming with the simplest technology. Without providing that kind of fullness of experience, any game's claim to being roguelike is pretense.
Oh god yes, this, exactly!
-
That aside, what really disqualifies games as roguelikes is simpler than ASCII graphics and so on: It's being unworthy of the tradition of rogue, larn, moria, hack and nethack. That is: lacking the depth, detail, and diversity of early standard bearers and to some extent modern standard bearers.
DoDonPachi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJY_014jpsc) is deeper, more detailed, and more diverse than Rogue. Is it a roguelike?
-
It's not possible to produce something comparable even to early examples in the genre in seven days
PrincessRL is vastly superior to Rogue and on par with or better than most "real" roguelikes.
-
It's not possible to produce something comparable even to early examples in the genre in seven days
PrincessRL is vastly superior to Rogue and on par with or better than most "real" roguelikes.
Sounds like it's more of a 14DRL.
It seems to me that by restricting comparison to rogue, you're trying to bring down the standard I propose -- PrincessRL certainly isn't superior in terms of influence or innovation, so I can only guess you want to compare a product of 2010 favorably in terms of interface and gameplay to something written over 30 years ago. I don't know what you mean by "most 'real' roguelikes." Unless you mean something like "roguelikes that have been included in major unix distributions," I think this kind of comparison is meaningless.
-
That aside, what really disqualifies games as roguelikes is simpler than ASCII graphics and so on: It's being unworthy of the tradition of rogue, larn, moria, hack and nethack. That is: lacking the depth, detail, and diversity of early standard bearers and to some extent modern standard bearers.
DoDonPachi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJY_014jpsc) is deeper, more detailed, and more diverse than Rogue. Is it a roguelike?
I remind you that this thread is about disqualifying factors, i.e. what traits might disqualify a game otherwise similar to roguelikes from being an according-to-Hoyle roguelike.
-
By "real" I mean "non-7drl."
I remind you that this thread is about disqualifying factors, i.e. what traits might disqualify a game otherwise similar to roguelikes from being an according-to-Hoyle roguelike.
Ok, comment withdrawn.
I still don't think that's a good criterion though. A roguelike lacking in depth, detail, and diversity is still a roguelike. It's just a bad roguelike.
-
By "real" I mean "non-7drl."
I remind you that this thread is about disqualifying factors, i.e. what traits might disqualify a game otherwise similar to roguelikes from being an according-to-Hoyle roguelike.
Ok, comment withdrawn.
I still don't think that's a good criterion though. A roguelike lacking in depth, detail, and diversity is still a roguelike. It's just a bad roguelike.
Well, obviously the view held by some around here (perhaps including you) allows for a game to be judged according to some kind of objective criteria of "roguelikeness" or "roguelike factors," even arriving at a numerical score for 7DRLs. There is some discontent with that approach, it seems to me, and part of it is that it misses what I would call the spirit and tradition of roguelikes. It shouldn't be that one can score high on "roguelikeness" with something that is ultimately quite minimal and not very good. (Leaving aside the question of whether something literally hastily put together fits within that tradition.)
-
Mushroom you are conflating being a Roguelike with being complex and fun. Those are three different scoring criteria. It might be that your personal view is that a roguelike must be complex and fun. That's cool. Nothing wrong with that.
But in the scoring we use getting a high 'Roguelike' score is no measure of quality, fun or complexity at all. Roguelikeness is in the eye of the beholder.
In your personal view:
1 point. Not really a roguelike.
2 points. Hybrid or Roguelike-like.
3 points. Very much like Rogue.
Sort of granular, and that's only one of the many criteria.
The other's are fun and scope (complexity) you've already mentioned, and then there is completeness (bug free?), aesthetics and innovation.
I tend to shoot for fun and innovation.
On this forum we are all fans of the genre, but I would hazard to guess that most of us don't list a roguelike are our favorite game of all time. I know I don't. I just like to design Roguelikes, they are fascinating and doable with minimal resources. I can make a cool one all by myself, that's awesome. I can chat with other devs, other hobbiests.
The competition was started to show you can make a minimal sized roguelike quickly. Being a great big huge monster was not necessary, a roguelike could be small and quick to make and not be in constant development for years on end, and still be fun (or at least playable lol!).
Still it's an RL competition, not a general competition, so we keep the Roguelike criteria as one of the 6 scores. Believe me it causes no end to internal debate among the reviewers each year, it's the most controversial scoring criteria.
You should join this year Mushroom. It's a blast. Or maybe do some reviews, we can always use more reviewers. :)
-
And Mushroom, I very much think there is an objective criteria for what a Roguelike is. Just like FPS, MMORPG, Scrolling Shooter, Turn Base Strategy and Metroidvania have objective criteria. It's all very fluid but obviously ToME4 isn't an FPS.
The problem comes when people get snobby and insular. If it's not a roguelike then they dismiss it. That's just universally...hipsterish?
My favorite game right now is Starcraft II. I'm playing the shit out of it with my buddies. God I suck at it but I like multiplayer games for the social aspect.
For single player games I like turn based strategy and roguelikes, with the occasional arcade style game. For development I like Roguelikes because I can be surprised by my own game, actually have some fun with my own game. Which is cool as shit if you think about it, like laughing at your own jokes. ;)
-
The 7dRL is a challenge, not a competition.
-
Yeah, I get the 7DRL concept, but it seems to me to be an inversion of what is/can be good about roguelikes, namely that minimal graphics and built-in content allows the developer to get a finished product in less time, rather than, say, develop game mechanics with depth and versatility across many sessions. I realize that 7DRL entrants often plan out their games fairly carefully in advance and heavily exploit libraries and other generic premade code (e.g. the engine from last year's 7DRL) to move things along faster -- this strikes me as reasonable, as long as the developer views the 7 day creation period as a bridge between having prototype material and having something reasonably playable to build on.
Roguelikeness is something a game should have to grow into. Again, I understand why you want to separate the concept from other factors in judging a competition, but I don't think they're cleanly separable.
I don't think this is a trivial or nitpicky point either. I don't think it's good to have a concept of roguelikeness that encourages a kind of been-there-done-that approach to development, where you work on something for a week and at the end you have something that at least plays like a roguelike for a little while and now you have another feather in your hat, like the one you got for writing a "novel" on your blog last November. I mean, sure, this is a marginal improvement over claiming to have worked on something for 20 years with little or nothing to show for it, but that's not a hard standard to beat.
-
re: Participation in 7DRL and/or (writing?) reviews, unfortunately, I cannot commit a week's continuous effort to such a project, but I could probably review a game or two.
-
So mushroom, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the word "roguelike" should describe a design philosophy rather than a genre?
I said earlier in the thread that we already a genre of grid-based, turn-based tactical adventure games with randomized content and no persistent saves. "Roguelike" is the only word we have to describe that kind of game. It's more or less what everyone understands the word to mean.
It would be useful to have a word to describe the kind of design philosophy you're talking about. Deep, mechanics-focused games with no persistent saves and a strong focus on replayability. But the word "roguelike" already means something else.
-
Through common use the word "roguelike" now means "contains some content which is at least partially randomized" and nothing more.
However this thread is not about what the word means, it's about what trait disqualifies a game from being a roguelike.
-
I think it's possible, even likely, that all discussions of this type - what it means to be a roguelike, what makes something not a roguelike, whether a certain game is a roguelike - are just thinly disguised excuses to complain about games the discussants do/don't like, and to shame developers for not making games the way the discussants want them. Often with the root cause that some of them are shocked by the revelation that some games they don't like are called roguelikes by other people.
I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
-
I don't think I've seen anyone do that except for maybe ascii purists.
-
So mushroom, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the word "roguelike" should describe a design philosophy rather than a genre?
I said earlier in the thread that we already a genre of grid-based, turn-based tactical adventure games with randomized content and no persistent saves. "Roguelike" is the only word we have to describe that kind of game. It's more or less what everyone understands the word to mean.
It would be useful to have a word to describe the kind of design philosophy you're talking about. Deep, mechanics-focused games with no persistent saves and a strong focus on replayability. But the word "roguelike" already means something else.
No, I agree that grid-based (but not turn based) play, fantasy/adventure theme, and procedural and/or random content generation to create variability between sessions are important aspects of the genre. To me, the word roguelike means "fitting within the tradition of a progression of games, starting with rogue, hack, larn and moria and including various others up to the present day." In other words, there's more to it than a checklist of features. To me, it's open-ended and ready to be built on (i.e. the genre expands in scope with each generation), but at the same time sets a certain standard of excellence for newcomers. I don't think this is just about a design philosophy (although I would suggest that "the roguelike design philosophy" is a separate thing that has been written about elsewhere on the internets, e.g. by ESR before he went nuts, and others as well -- can't find links anymore, it's old timey stuff and my memory fails me).
-
I don't think I've seen anyone do that except for maybe ascii purists.
I think most of the posts in this thread that accept the OP's premise and answer the question are doing that.
-
Through common use the word "roguelike" now means "contains some content which is at least partially randomized" and nothing more.
However this thread is not about what the word means, it's about what trait disqualifies a game from being a roguelike.
That's easy, it's not being like rogue. If it's not like rogue, then it's not a roguelike.
-
I think it's possible, even likely, that all discussions of this type ... are just thinly disguised excuses to complain about games the discussants do/don't like, and to shame developers for not making games the way the discussants want them.
That's a really good point that I think people often forget and some people never realize. I think that's a common problem with people who have a very strong back-and-white view of reality. But most of us can accept that what is good or bad has little to do with what we like or dislike. I may get bored with the narrative-heavy games but still see that a specific story-based roguelike is very well done and that I would recommend it to others even though it's not the style of game I like. Or I can dislike the "any item can be used for anything" and "every rule has a bunch of exceptions" and still say that Nethack is by far the best game for those who like that kind of thing.
It's only certain people who are too immature, or too dogmatic, or who derive pleasure from discouraging others, or... whatever... who mistake their feelings for objective truth. I've found it's often best to be weary of people who state their opinions as though they were objective reality: they usually have their head so far up their own ass that they can't see anything else.
I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
Hopefully you've seen some replies that are sensible discussions admitting that it's a wide community, there are different styles, different things that people want, and that there is room for subjectivity.
-
To answer the original question: None.
-
I think most of the posts in this thread that accept the OP's premise and answer the question are doing that.
That isn't necessarily true. I don't consider Spelunky to be a real roguelike, but I do think it's one of the best games ever made.
-
To answer the original question: None.
The trait of having absolutely nothing in common with Rogue.
-
What trait disqualifies a game from being a rogue-like:
If the developer says it isn't a rogue-like, then it isn't a rogue-like.
-
What trait disqualifies a game from being a rogue-like:
If the developer says it isn't a rogue-like, then it isn't a rogue-like.
I think you're just complaining about developers that don't call their games rogue-like! ;)
-
To answer the original question: None.
The trait of having absolutely nothing in common with Rogue.
Given that everything in the universe has at least one thing in common with Rogue (existence, minimally) this is a somewhat less than useful definition.
I'm onboard with Jo, no specific trait can remove roguelikeness, it has to be some combination of things. What things and what combination vary by the person evaluating the game.