Any Non-perma death Rlikes?

[mushroom patch]

Why are people so afraid of genres?  Genres are all about classification.  If someone hands me a new game and says "check out my roguelike!" and it is an rpg, I'm going to be pretty disappointed.  You shouldn't call a red apple green because it will give people the wrong expectations.  Krice may be a bit crazy, but he preaches the truth here.  Take a roguelike and remove permadeath and you do indeed have a turn-based rpg.  If people were getting boxed in by genre classifications then I would say it is a dangerous thing, but even a very shallow glance at the current state of roguelike development shows that this is not even remotely the case.  Things are blooming and expanding in all directions.

There's nothing at all wrong with a turnbased RPG either. Nothing at all. It's a different experience though, all about character building and/or story. Not about learning and dying.

I'm amazed by what's being suggested here. So if, for example, someone created a nethack variant in which some obscure and difficult procedure existed that would allow one to resurrect ghosts of dead characters encountered in the dungeon and play those characters through some player selection screen or the like, the addition of that feature would destroy the roguelike character of that nethack variant. It would now be a turn-based rpg, which wouldn't be so bad, after all, what with all the character building and/or story.

What if the feature was undocumented and no one found out about it for years? Would it cease to be a roguelike when the discovery was publicized? Or would there be outcry from the community of faithful players duped into years of inauthentic pseudo-roguelike play? What if there's a similar undocumented, undiscovered feature in ADOM? Would you be disappointed?

When you read the extreme positions people take about what is and is not a roguelike, it's impossible to escape the conclusion that people are being boxed in.

[AgingMinotaur]

P.S. Calling terminals dumb makes you look pretty asinine.  This forum is heavy in computer scientists you know

Computer scientists who don't know what a dumb terminal is? I better watch out.

Here, let me Google that for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_terminal#Dumb_terminal

Geek who doesn't get simple word play, huh? Yeah, you probably should.

As always,
Minotauros

[guest509]

I'm amazed by what's being suggested here. So if, for example, someone created a nethack variant in which some obscure and difficult procedure existed that would allow one to resurrect ghosts of dead characters encountered in the dungeon and play those characters through some player selection screen or the like, the addition of that feature would destroy the roguelike character of that nethack variant. It would now be a turn-based rpg, which wouldn't be so bad, after all, what with all the character building and/or story.

What if the feature was undocumented and no one found out about it for years? Would it cease to be a roguelike when the discovery was publicized? Or would there be outcry from the community of faithful players duped into years of inauthentic pseudo-roguelike play? What if there's a similar undocumented, undiscovered feature in ADOM? Would you be disappointed?

When you read the extreme positions people take about what is and is not a roguelike, it's impossible to escape the conclusion that people are being boxed in.

Wow look at the feisty new guy. I'll play...
1. Maybe
2. Maybe
3. Wouldn't matter.
4. Probably not.
5. More like laughter, maybe some outcry from people that take things far too serious. Do you?
6. Wouldn't care, it'd be neat to find though.
7. Agreed.

EDIT: I guess I should point out we're not so much a flame and argue forum. I have been known to be bated into it, as I am here. Krice has been known to start it with maybe Req' playing along. The majority of people will ignore you though. Just FYI.

[Vanguard]

Man, trying to draw a line in the sand to say what is and isn't a "real" roguelike is silly.  Roguelike game design tends to be extremely different from other genres in several significant ways.  It's a big genre.  It's diverse.

We can all agree that ADOM is a roguelike and Super Mario Bros is not, but for borderline cases like ToME in explorer mode, PrincessRL, Toejam and Earl, or mushroom patch's hypothetical Nethack variant, everyone is going to have their own interpretations of what does and doesn't count.

A better idea is to come up with a scoring system based on criteria like this.  Otherwise we're really just arguing about our own personal definitions of the term and the discussion goes nowhere.

[kraflab]

Here is my concern, and the reason why I like to discuss this: I don't want a future where we come on here and find borderlands 3 threads in the major roguelikes board

A better idea is to come up with a scoring system based on criteria like this.  Otherwise we're really just arguing about our own personal definitions of the term and the discussion goes nowhere.

I think we need to make a community graph that has one axis as roguelike <-> puzzle and another axis as roguelike <-> rpg and then evaluate games on their position on said graph.  Then maybe angband is a (0,0) and someone can say "New (5,1) roguelike" and people would know that it is a bit more puzzly

[guest509]

Tell ya what. When the Borderlands/Diablo crowd invades I'll be right with you.

[Nymphaea]

In all honesty, I think Jo has said the main feature of a roguelike in the past. Permadeath isn't important, it's the fact that you have to learn from your mistakes, and that the player them self must learn new skills to beat the game. If you can beat the game first try, it isn't a very good roguelike. If it takes them a couple dozen tries, and the game has the content to make it continue being fun, that would be a good roguelike.

I'd say a good example would be a roguelike with multiple dungeons. If you die, you are sent back to town and have to restart the dungeon, and hopefully you've learned what caused you to die the first time down so you can avoid it the next time.


Also, I still laugh whenever people say Rogue isn't roguelike... That's like saying Diablo isn't diablolike, or Linux isn't *nix.

[deathknight1728]

Don't get me wrong, there is still a lot of fun to be had with games like that. Its just not as fun when you realize that you just lost all those hours of time spent. The reason why it isn't fun for me, is that I am the type of person that will probably make the same mistakes over and over again. If it was real time roguelike with permadeath, I probably won't make the mistakes. With turn based permadeath-the chances of me finishing one of those games is slim to none.

I still agree with you guys on what is and isn't a rogue like, but  just wish that I could get better at those games. Probably won't

[kraflab]

In all honesty, I think Jo has said the main feature of a roguelike in the past. Permadeath isn't important, it's the fact that you have to learn from your mistakes, and that the player them self must learn new skills to beat the game. If you can beat the game first try, it isn't a very good roguelike. If it takes them a couple dozen tries, and the game has the content to make it continue being fun, that would be a good roguelike.

I don't disagree with this, but I personally haven't played a game without permadeath where I felt the same effect as a typical roguelike with permadeath.  Take Dark Souls, which I thoroughly enjoyed, where death carries a heavy punishment and the need to learn is strongly enforced (similar to your death in a dungeon returning you to town idea).  I'd say it just doesn't have the same impact as permadeath in a roguelike.

Also, I still laugh whenever people say Rogue isn't roguelike... That's like saying Diablo isn't diablolike, or Linux isn't *nix.

The idea isn't that rogue is not a roguelike, but that the definition of a roguelike does not mean "like rogue".  The roguelike genre is defined by the first games that someone would point to and call roguelikes, such as angband and nethack (or whatever their predecessors were).  I.E. a lot of factors that people might list that give roguelike points are things that weren't even in rogue.

[guest509]

Don't get me wrong, there is still a lot of fun to be had with games like that. Its just not as fun when you realize that you just lost all those hours of time spent. The reason why it isn't fun for me, is that I am the type of person that will probably make the same mistakes over and over again. If it was real time roguelike with permadeath, I probably won't make the mistakes. With turn based permadeath-the chances of me finishing one of those games is slim to none.

I still agree with you guys on what is and isn't a rogue like, but  just wish that I could get better at those games. Probably won't

I don't like it when a roguelike takes hours to complete. I really don't. I like lots of content making the game super variable, but I hate losing those hours.

[Vanguard]

The hours weren't lost.  Most RPGs are about improving your character, but roguelikes are about improving yourself as a player.  As long as you learned something, you've made progress.

[guest509]

  Yeah...I just like my flesh ripped off in little strips...you know?   

[Darren Grey]

I don't see how the hours are any less "lost" if you managed to beat the game. You're still wasting time on a computer game. Learn to have fun and not get caught up in imaginary achievements

[Vanguard]

I don't see how the hours are any less "lost" if you managed to beat the game. You're still wasting time on a computer game. Learn to have fun and not get caught up in imaginary achievements

Good man!

You said it much better than I did!

[guest509]

Lol. I was just saying that losing a character after less than an hour is 'fun' and makes me want to play again. Losing one after a few hours just makes me want to walk away. Especially if we are playing DiabloIII, and I die due to server lag.