What trait disqualifies a game from being a rogue-like.

[King Ink]

I may make a poll.

[TheCreator]

Man, I love flame wars!

[Rickton]

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.

[Samildanach]

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.

[mrrstark]

"What trait disqualifies a game from being a rogue-like?"

Intent

[Quendus]

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

[guest509]

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.

[akeley]

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.

[zasvid]

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".

[King Ink]

"What trait disqualifies a game from being a rogue-like?"

Intent

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.

[guest509]

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.

[akeley]

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? A whole article + a few videos and I still can`t tell...

[guest509]

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.

[Vanguard]

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."

[King Ink]

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.