Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
There is no authoritative way to define what is and what is not a roguelike. This classification is based on my interpretation which stems from my informal research on the history of the roguelike term.
That is why I emphasize the importance of the "dungeon" in defining the genre. A roguelike game revolves largely around the dungeon, if the developers admit it or not.
Tetris has no dungeon, Sim-city has no dungeon, minecraft has no dungeon, dwarf fortress has no dungeon, but "immortal redneck" still does.
Roguelikes were first commercially successful back in the 90's
Maybe japanese ones, but not in here. Not really. Rogue (graphical version) and Ragnarok were the only commercial roguelikes anyway, and I wouldn't call them a success in a way much more succesful games were. The reason some developers make commercial versions today is that there are way more players than back then, so everything that attracts some kind of interest will sell ok, I guess? Ok enough to put your game in roguelike genre even it's not a roguelike. That's the problem, sir.
QuoteCommercialization is killing roguelikes,
Roguelikes were first commercially successful back in the 90's, even if regional in exodus not unlike Metal and Wizardry, such that it is now 2019. Death pronouncements along these lines have been a factor year after year after year now---yet, curiously, Things Continue with this not being appreciated on a cognizant level not unlike apocalyptic movements missing a midnight deadline yet rallying that it'll totally happen next weekend. "Pre-Millenium" Roguelikes dying out any time soon just doesn't have a leg to stand on when they keep cropping up(even just the last few weeks have granted the world The Red Prison and Zorbus!) and the classics either still actively live (like IVAN!) or are preserved in graceful repose.
You want a real risk? Death of developers and/or their ruination otherwise---as per Dwarf Fortress. People are ALWAYS at a more paramount risk than broad constructs hewn broadly around their great works, doubly with a small population compared to other sectors.
Games aren't weeds, even weird GaaS stuff serves some purpose so long as the gambling/addiction interlopers are kept in check---games are an ecosystem with biodiversity being key to a rich environ full of intrigue.
You can venerate a corpse or a spirit---while the former has an absolute value to the ecosystem at a foundational level, the latter is where the potential dwells from that inherited will.
It is just a damned Steam tag, something they only even started bothering with in recent times as one of many things slapped onto their buckling platform to grant an illusion of agency and discoverability to compensate for their refusal to set actual people to work alongside foolhardy attempts at algorithmic cleverness. Marketing copy is also just that, AC positioning is just as as something like "immersive adventure" or whatever wasn't as snappy or resonant.
Modern gaming isn't even real, there's only ever been Now with the slim benefit of the immediate past as the industry proper ran away from systemic problems staring it down since the 80's. Try not to let such machinations have an undue hold over your peace of mind and enjoyment of things---be an enthusiast, not merely some consumer fit for a whipped mob's froth.
You get infinitely more mileage boosting the good and nigh forgotten/out of the limelight, than hopping on an outrage bandwagon that only has fine grains of a point buried deep within---less stress over the already successful Hero Siege and the sequel to come that veers harder on the Diablo evolution, more active emphasis/playing/testing/feedback etc on...hell I don't know...one of the many stupidly ambitious and well wrought projects like Axu that punches in the same weight class as Caves of Qud?
A bit of tempest in a teapot as even jrpgs have weathered a similar drift/mutation/We Somehow Forgot---not too far removed from Roguelikes, the original aim was to adapt western tabletop P&P doings either directly as per Final Fantasy or indirectly as per The Black Onyx. Even most enthusiasts, international or otherwise, since the 90's would be likely to not find that out until long after the fact, if at all.
That which is dead and doomsayed is oftentimes quite alive after a fashion----depends on how the immortal spirit is inherited or leveraged.
That's why I feel we should keep an open discussion about it, to be able to point people that, for instance, permadeath was and still is an important aspect of roguelikes. If we are open to talk about other games, we have a chance to inform their players about the history of the roguelikes and how their game ended up being labeled as a roguelike even if it lacked critical aspects of the traditional ones.
I'm not lumping together all these different games into a single genre, but rather recognizing that the elements they share are sufficient to provide interesting conversation material for people who play them.
I don't believe allowing discussion of variations to the classic formula will "kill the genre", in fact, this discussion is healthy so people never forget there is a Classic / Traditional style of roguelikes, their importance in history and that there are games keeping up more closely with their style that are being actively worked nowadays, expanding the genre in different directions.
As for the "roguelike mislabeling" issue, the most negative effect I've seen is on discoverability on platforms like Steam, it might be hard to find a traditional roguelike there, but there are alternate ways to do that, like using IRLDB, or querying for traditional roguelike in other platforms. Recently, devs have become aware of this, and have started tagging their games with the infamous rogue-lite tag.
