This is bugging me pretty bad...

[RogueMaster]

I'm now in a point where I'm not sure if the game I'm currently finishing is really a Roguelike, an ASCII-RPG or a Roguelike-like.

I have been reading this thread:
http://roguetemple.com/forums/index.php?topic=1403.0

If you are not up to read it all, it's basically a flame discussion abour Legerdemain, is it a RL or not.

Also, it's mentioned the Berlin Interpretation, that is somehow accepted by the @'s community as a standard for knowing if XXXXX game is a RL or not.

So, my game is actually more close to Legerdemain than Rogue, if we talk strictly.
I habe been working on it for around 9 or 10 months, und still need many things to tweak, finish and polish, betatesting, blah blah blah...

According to the Berlin Interp., the game:

1.- Random environment generation
......Maps are PREMADE in human-readable format, i.e. not random generated
......Items absolutely random generated. (using basic patterns a.l.a diablo)
......Monsters absolutely random generated. (using basic patterns a.l.a. diablo)
......Also there is a lot of randomness in the game in many other aspects that don't event the most pure Roguelikes have.

2.- Permadeath
......It's available a 'roguelike' mode with permadeath and an 'adventure' mode without it. (Nethack has this setting available too)
......Even in adventure mode, it is possible only to have ONE character at once, since only one savegame will work.
......Dieing in adventure mode doesn't mean permadeath but the character will have some gold loss, exp loss or something, I have to decide, so dieing is something that should be avoided.

3.- Turn-based
......Yes

4.- Grid-based
......Yes

5.- Non-modal
......Yes and no. Yes because everything is worked out in the 'game' screen, EXCEPT combat, that is final fantasy-ish, more or less.

6.- Complexity
......A lot. Actually, this point is what I am proud of it. The game is absolutely complex, with many factions, currencies for different kingdoms, a lot of quests and sidequests, a lot of places to explore and a lot of player freedom, each player class has his own completely different background story and aims, quests can be dynamically modified by other events or quests... Basically there is a lot of complexity.

7.- Resource management
......Yes. A lot. There is food, there is water. Money is hard to find and use it wisely. Inventory space is very limited. There are a lot of different items, from weapons and armors to books, potions and many artifacts that may not have an obvious or immediate use or that they may look just decorative (and may have an use... or not). It is the player management efficiency which will make the difference.

8.- Hack'n'slash
......Yes and no. Combat is one important part of the game, but not the most important and not the goal of the game.
......There are many fights, but not every 10 seconds, and not one every 30 minutes. I think it's quite balanced.

9.- Exploration and discovery
......A lot. Actually, there are around 50 maps (some unfinished), with a lot of dungeons, caves and places to explore that are absolutely optional. There are sidequests that can lead to interesting discoveries. Many items will require the player to explore and find what such item is used for.
......But since maps are not random generated, playing the same several times with the exact same class and following the exact same steps, will be like playing the exact same game.

and minor points:

10.- Single player character
......Yes

11.- Monsters are similar to players
......Yes. They can cast the same spells as the player could and attack the same way as the player could.
......They no have inventory, but maybe I do it somewhere in the future.

12.- Tactical challenge
......Actually, a lot. Everything in the game requires some kind of tactic, planning and think-before-act. Of course, not for the most common actions.

13.- ASCII display
......Yes. It uses a tileset system. Default tileset is made of some nice 1-bit (black&white) sprites, but anyone can chance the sprites for ASCII chars or 4chan memes or whatever he wants.

14.- Dungeons
......A lot.

15.- Numbers
......A lot of numbers are revealed to the player in the character sheet.


So, is it a roguelike, a roguelike-like or just an ASCII-RPG?

[Krice]

It's a role-playing game. Roguelike has to have random world generation. It's the first rule.

[getter77]

Sounds like a Roguelike to me, though you could also call it those other things in addition/parallel if that's what it takes to appeal to some nebulous target audience that actually gets physically wound up about such things.

Think of the Berlin thing as some general guidelines and let best judgment, spirit, and rational reckoning carry the day.   It should never be some sort of communal bludgeon ala the MPAA for movies here in the states.

You're in the clear.  


I personally see no issue with having set piece levels when it comes to the terrain and walkspace and whatnot---originally it was done as a technical limitation long since past a point.  What matters is what you DO with your setpieces versus the static like of those games that are clearly not at all channeling a sort of Roguelike spirit, aided by your making ample use of random bits otherwise in items and such.

In other words, don't let a literal mathematical thing derail the lot of it, nor is it any sort of "one drop" test in terms of Berlin.

[Game Hunter]

I only use the Berlin interpretation to help determine whether or not a game adheres to the "classical" roguelike genre. On the other hand, there are plenty of games that use drastically different mechanics and are still comparable to what the original Rogue expected of the player. That is:

• Endurance (many actions have short and long-term effects on a game's outcome: e.g., no quicksave/quickload)
• Creativity (creating and manipulating scenarios that would surprise even the developers: the game should be intentionally constructed to allow for this)
• Willingness to learn (tons of things to figure out as the game progresses, tons of nuances to explore)

I believe that it's vital to broaden the roots of what a roguelike is, even if that means coming up with an entirely different name that characteristically separates it from classical counterparts. There are, in fact, two suitable examples of this in the past. The first and well-known case is the FPS (first person shooter) genre. This name is straight-forward: the two critical features for any FPS are a first-person perspective and a focus on combat (traditionally with guns). However, as a result of Doom's booming popularity, thereby solidifying itself as the dominant FPS of its time, many of the FPS games that followed were actually nicknamed "Doom clones", even if their aesthetics (and sometimes even mechanics) diverged greatly from Doom.

The second, more recent, example is the genre that most of you probably know best via League of Legends: the MOBA (multiplayer online battle arena). The genre's roots can be found in a Starcraft custom scenario called "Aeon of Strife" (AoS), though popularity didn't boom until Warcraft III and its custom map "Defense of the Ancients" (DotA). Even though a lot of people may know the genre by MOBA (Wikipedia also suggests action real-time strategy, or ARTS, as a name), there are plenty, including myself, that consider these games either "AoS clones" or "DotA clones" (or variations thereof), simply because of the influence those games had on the genre. Ultimately, however, it made sense to come up with a "good" name for the genre, in order to broaden the genre's outlook and future.

So I'm not exactly saying we should drop the roguelike name itself: in fact, Krice's stringent criteria (or at least something similar) may be the way to go with regards to roguelikes in the truest sense. What I'm trying to get at is that we may want to look into finding a better title that describes all of the games that have been influenced by Rogue and its direct children. It could help distinguish the genre in a way that merely calling anything like a game that's like a game that's like a game that's like Rogue doesn't establish effectively.

But to actually be on-topic, I'd consider the lack of random mapping a pretty significant point against calling it a roguelike. In fact, given the other elements you stated, it sounds kind of like a mix between Final Fantasy Tactics and Neverwinter Nights. That said, I'd still think of it being "roguelike enough" to fit in the Roguebasin we have.

[Darren Grey]

I've not played your game, but it seems weird to me that you would have permadeath without random environments. Is this enjoyable?

Whether it ticks boxes or not is irrelevant to your own game design goals. Who cares if it's not a roguelike? Make the game you want to make.

[RogueMaster]

It's a role-playing game. Roguelike has to have random world generation. It's the first rule.

What are your rules or requisites for a game to be a RL?

[...]

Think of the Berlin thing as some general guidelines and let best judgment, spirit, and rational reckoning carry the day.   It should never be some sort of communal bludgeon ala the MPAA for movies here in the states.

[...]

I'm with you.

I quote directly from Basin's Berlin Interpretation page:

"This list can be used to determine how roguelike a game is. Missing some points does not mean the game is not a roguelike. Likewise, possessing some points does not mean the game is a roguelike."

Basically what I understand with that phrase is that a game that shares several points of the Berlin Interpretation has a high chance to be classified as a Pure Roguelike instead of an ASCII-RPG or a less pure rogulike, but it is not necessary to have all and every of those points, and a game that mets them all may not be a Roguelike.

If a game XXXX is not grid-based, it may be still a Roguelike. Actually there are games that are Roguelikes and doesn't used a grid system that the player can see.
Also, there are Roguelikes that are pretty simple, without complexity, and they are still roguelikes, For example any RL in 7DRL are as simple as "scissors, paper, stone" and they are still roguelikes
There are real-time roguelikes instead being turn based, and they are still roguelikes.
Three major Roguelikes are Non-modal, and they are still Roguelikes and even tagged as "major".

So if in Berlin Interpretation all those are high-importance factors I don't know why missing the random map generation should tag a game like "non-roguelike" if all of the other points are met, while missing other requisites do not affect the game classification.

I've not played your game, but it seems weird to me that you would have permadeath without random environments. Is this enjoyable?

That's an option the player has available. It could be as enjoyable as dieing in Dungeon Crawl depth level 20 with pro equipment or dieing in Nethack when you found the Amulet of Yedor and a teleport trap sends you to a room full of monsters.

The point of playing permadeath mode is that the player will have a better chance to get better items and things (drop chance increases a little bit), and the player needs to play more carefully and will have the sensation of danger that you have in Rogue all the time.
There are no situations that the player can't solve with some degree of common sense and strategy. There are no monsters that can one-hit kill you at your same level. And also, you have the option to flee from combat if you think it's too much for you (actually flee success is a chance)
In addition there are many tools to survive many different situations.
Survivability here only depends on how you use your character and tools. The only way to die are monsters and starvation/dehydration. There are no mortal traps or random things that kill you without a true reason.

Whether it ticks boxes or not is irrelevant to your own game design goals. Who cares if it's not a roguelike? Make the game you want to make.

I'm doing the game I like, I'm only asking if it could be classified a RL because it has many things in common with them.

[Holsety]

I'm with Krice on this one.
If it doesn't have procedurally generated maps I wouldn't call it a roguelike.

I'm doing the game I like, I'm only asking if it could be classified a RL because it has many things in common with them.

Short answer, no.

True, adhering strictly to the Berlin Interpretation is bad and probably outdated; you can miss some of the flags and still be a roguelike.

BUT

That doesn't mean all the flags have the same value.
If you don't have permadeath, it's not a roguelike, and if the game isn't different to play each time (ie. randomly generated maps) it's NOT a roguelike.

You can't say, oh i have 12 out of 15 properties of a roguelike, guess I can call my game a roguelike tee hee.
To me, personally, the two properties I listed above are the bottom line of what defines a roguelike.
I'll let resource management, setting, mechanics of gameplay, turn-based/realtime etc slide usually because there has to be some freedom for innovation, but if you don't have permadeath and randomly generated maps you can call it what you want but it's just not a  roguelike 

The game you described having made is to me, a (grid-based) ASCII RPG.
Like a game made in MegaZeux or ZZT would be.
If it wasn't ASCII but had graphics, what would keep people from describing it as "complex Final Fantasy with random loot and monsters"?

Leniency in categorizing games is trending like mad here, and I'd probably be called an elitist by some people, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

[Darren Grey]

I'm doing the game I like, I'm only asking if it could be classified a RL because it has many things in common with them.

Well, from a marketing point of view I think it would be a mistake to call it a roguelike.  It has some things in common, but its gameplay won't directly appeal to roguelike audiences and you'd likely get a bad backlash from calling it something it's not.  Nothing wrong with saying it has roguelike elements or inspiration though.

Berlin Interpretation was to identify common factors in the genre, not to say what is or isn't a game.  Many of the elements appear outside the genre too (especially in RPGs) and it's easy to get an obvious roguelike scoring low and an obvious non-roguelike scoring high.

Personally I've always said "permadeath + procedural content" is the key formula for a roguelike - everything else is side dressing.  These two elements tie together in a special way in roguelikes to make a replayable and interesting experience.  Proc Gen makes little sense without permadeath, and vice versa.  Just "random" doesn't cut it - it has to be procedural design.  On top of those non-modal single character control is a fairly important factor for getting that immersive feeling of roguelikes, but that's a bit more qualitative.

[Krice]

What are your rules or requisites for a game to be a RL?

-random world generation
-role-playing game
-turn based
-permadeath
-tiles and/or ascii
-complex gameplay with alternative tactical solutions in combat etc.

[Darren Grey]

And how do you define role-playing game?  (I agree with the rest of your list at least in terms of what I seek in a roguelike, though FTL passes on turn-based for its time control mechanic.)

[guest509]

  I agree with Darren here in regards to FTL. Being able to pause makes a game just as decision heavy as any turn based game, as opposed to the click fest of a real time game.

EDIT: As to the general question of the definition of a roguelike, I've always defaulted to that old American judicial absurdity, "I know it when I see it." That was how pornography was largely defined for a great many years until it was finally codified. The judge was just expected to know, a very subjective thing. With Roguelikes we'll probably settle on a very simple definition, something similar to this:

"Roguelikes are like Rogue, a game that finds its fun in the replayability created through the interplay of procedural content and permadeath."

Others like to tout the item interaction component, turn based game play and strategy/tactical situations, but plenty of Roguelikes exist without this.

[Quendus]

Make the game you want to make, and then people who would rather talk about games than play them then can argue how much like rogue it is.

Personally I more-or-less ignore the BI and consider a game roguelike if:

• Procedural content and permadeath make the game replayable
• The game is difficult enough that the player requires thinking time (which the game provides)

Discretisation of space and time, ASCII display, interesting interactions between gameplay mechanics, etc. are just nice bonuses.

[RogueMaster]

What are your rules or requisites for a game to be a RL?

-random world generation
-role-playing game
-turn based
-permadeath
-tiles and/or ascii
-complex gameplay with alternative tactical solutions in combat etc.

According to that, Rogue is not a Roguelike because Rogue doesn't have any complexity in combat unless you call complexity "choose among two or three basic tactics".

But a random generated Sokoban game could be a Roguelike because it is random, you could play it as a simple RPG game where you need to place boxes to avoid a Trolls' invasion, it is turn based, if you lose you have to start all over (permadeath), it has tiles and it has a lot of alternatives for solving the same situation.

[Krice]

According to that, Rogue is not a Roguelike because Rogue doesn't have any complexity in combat unless you call complexity "choose among two or three basic tactics".

It's quite roguelike I think.

[Holsety]

According to that, Rogue is not a Roguelike because Rogue doesn't have any complexity in combat unless you call complexity "choose among two or three basic tactics".

Rogue's not a roguelike. It's rogue. You wouldn't call chess a chesslike, either, if someone took the trouble to coin a term so awful.

Rogue does have some complexity in combat, you have to know when to look out for Orcs and Centaurs, what Ice Monsters, Aquators, Snakes and Leprechauns do etc etc.
There's plenty of complexity in the resource management system, and the risks you're willing to take with scrolls and equipment you find, the food you have, whether or not to explore after you've found the stairs and so on.

But a random generated Sokoban game could be a Roguelike because it is random, you could play it as a simple RPG game where you need to place boxes to avoid a Trolls' invasion, it is turn based, if you lose you have to start all over (permadeath), it has tiles and it has a lot of alternatives for solving the same situation.

Here's the thread for Mutant Aristocrats, where people entered into a mindblowing discussion over whether a game that looks and plays like a roguelike is a roguelike even if it doesn't have procedurally generated maps, and if people would think differently if nobody told them beforehand that the game didn't have procedurally generated maps.

http://roguetemple.com/forums/index.php?topic=2300.0

I'm not gonna say what my vote was, but it's a very interesting discussion.

Ah, and dscreamer's last post is a good take-home message.