Stupid marketing of non roguelike games

[Banesatis]

I know that this topic is talked about daily, but i just want to get this off my chest.
It's extremely infuriating how marketing of games that are not roguelikes exploits the genre. Why do they insist that their games are roguelikes? Is it "cool" being a roguelike?
I don't even know how is this possible, who would think to exploit a niche genre?
I hope that this permadeath and procedular levels trend dies out. Maybe then real roguelikes will have a resurgence.
This has gone so far that like every single month some fake roguelike comes out and thousands more people argue on the internet hooooow much they love dem roguelikes, only for true fans to correct them and then we are called pendantic. It's not "Not a big deal, definitions change" I don't want for another genre to die.

[Krice]

It's not that bad here, you should see Reddit. It doesn't really matter, because both "roguelites" and people who play them are more like regular bunch who operate on another level. Then again I'm also annoyed about advertising of games which are not roguelikes when they still use the word roguelike. But those developers need money, their motivation is based on money and I guess "genres" help players find games they are interested about. When you think about the commercial scene it's probably just as crazy as it ever was. Everyone is trying their best to extract money from unsuspecting young players, it was exactly like that when I was younger and spent money on dumb games I never should have bought.

[Skeletor]

Good thing tho is that new players can get into the genre and will eventually get led to the one and only community for roguelikers which is our Temple here, and only then they will be worth to receive our teachings.

But yeah, I hate roguelites.

[jofadda]

Alas the worst offending community for this is also one of the largest PC gaming platforms. Steams community'll label damn near everything/anything a "roguelike." They list goddamn Domina and Organ Trail as "roguelikes"(not that either are bad games, I actually like both, they're just not in the genre). Domina is a gladitorial training simulator basically(you manage gladiators, send them to fight etc). Organ Trail as anyone from the 80's will have probably guessed is a pun based around the game Oregon Trail, its literally "Oregon trail but we've thrown in a zombie apocalypse"
leave a comment about how X game isnt a roguelike and is more of a roguelite and people start bitching that "their classification is better" because "it allows more content". No, your definition is just gunna choke out actual roguelikes that would otherwise see reasonable commercial coverage. Keep your crap to the roguelite tag, if its even applicable at all.

[Krice]

Even roguelite is too much for some of those games. I think they use the term if the game has random content, but that's wrong, because it's not a feature only roguelikes can have. Although it is an important feature in roguelikes while also less seen in other type of games. But genre should be determined by the overall feel of the game, not only from isolated features. For example I think Spelunky is a platform game, not a roguelike. It just has random generation of the game world, but it sure plays a lot like platformer.

[jofadda]

I left a review on the game "Cave Blazers" on steam stating that it's not a roguelike(its basically "spelunky meets liero" minus the destructible terrain imo) and that roguelikes are similar to Rogue. A dude literally posted that "roguelikes have nothing to Rogue" and that I "needed to learn what roguelike means" in the comment section. TF!? We truly are in the bastardization era of roguelikes.

Its got other reasons why its not really a good game, but the fact that its not a roguelike and that it's actively marketed as such is the one that really gets my goat. I'll probably turn it into a proper review at some point tbh

[Krice]

It has something to do with marketing games with genres. I think "roguelike" genre is popular right now, or these roguelites. Someone selling these games could confirm this. But it's about money for sure and in a way I can't blame these people trying their best to get money. Money is nice. You can buy stuff and women with money. At the same time I find it both a bit sad and hilarious. This is part of larger issue which began when game development became a real industry. After that most companies and even indie developers take game development as a way to get money and most games are in genres that are popular and will sell. That's why some genres almost completely disappeared like text games and even adventure games (well they were graphical text adventures anyway).

[jofadda]

I personally find it infuriating as its kinda hard to find roguelikes that are actually "like rogue" without going through forums dedicated to the genre, whereas game platforms like steam are categorizing the genre as something that ignores the namesake thereof. It'd be like calling mario a metroidvania "cause you jump" or calling fallout 3/NV/4 a doom-clone "cause its an FPS."

A metroidvania is akin to metroid or castlevania, mario is neither of these.
A doom-clone mimics doom in a multitude of factors(FPS, non-open world, tight corridors, a lack of rpg elements, and other elements that make doom "doom") Fallout 3/NV/4 each only fit one factor ergo they dont belong as a doom-clone
as such caveblazers, spelunky, isaac, slay the spire etc arent roguelikes. The issue is that they're seen as "RoGuElIkEs" by a huge chunk of the commercial crowd when they're just not.
On the upside the fact that that marketing is tied to popularity of the tag means that this should blow over when the next gaming fad comes along.

[Troubler]

I don't think it's simply a cynical marketing decision.
The original spelunky was completely free for example.
And I doubt the creators of the Binding of Issac were thinking to just make a Zelda clone, but added random elements just so they can get away with calling it a roguelike on the store page.
As for using procedural generation as part of the marketing, there is nothing really wrong with that. It's what Rogue did wasn't it? That was a commercial game after all.

[Krice]

It's what Rogue did wasn't it? That was a commercial game after all.

What are you trying to tell? Rogue didn't claim to be a roguelike without actually being one. I think using a genre name makes it easier for people to find the game and get interested. It's marketing for sure.

[jofadda]

I don't think it's simply a cynical marketing decision.
The original spelunky was completely free for example.

yes it was initially free and it was criticized  for being a platformer in a 7DRL challenge, as it should've been.

And I doubt the creators of the Binding of Issac were thinking to just make a Zelda clone, but added random elements just so they can get away with calling it a roguelike on the store page.

Edward Mcmillen himself stated that he sees Binding of Isaac as neither roguelike nor roguelite and I agree with him there. Sadly other devs hop on the "Issa RoGuElIkE" train to market their games as roguelikes when they're just simply not, just because it sells well. I mean we've got not one but TWO goddamn Oregon Trail clones in the category, a myriad of platformers, lord knows how many twinstick shooters, and WHY the ACTUAL FUCKENING is Domina tagged as a roguelike!? Its a management sim, perma death does not matter in it and the RNG elements only count as the barest minimum "PrOceDuRaL gEnErAtIoN."

As for using procedural generation as part of the marketing, there is nothing really wrong with that. It's what Rogue did wasn't it? That was a commercial game after all.

There's nothing wrong with it, however to see those as the only defining characteristics of the genre is quite frankly to bog it down with games that just dont fit. A genre wherein a platformer(spelunky), a management sim(domina), a diablo-like(hero siege) and a zelda-esque dungeon sim(Isaac) all fit without contesting the definition is so broad a categorization that it isnt needed and quite frankly should not be.
Roguelikes should play "like rogue."

[Krice]

It's not only marketing. Something (weird I guess) happened couple of years, more like ten, ago. I don't know what, because roguelike is quite well defined genre. It's actually difficult to interpret wrong type of games as roguelikes unless you just don't care. Call me old, but I think this type of mentality is more prominent on young people.

[jofadda]

Krice, what happened was that Spelunky began getting recognition as the roguelike that it wasnt and isnt. It pains me to say this as Spelunky is a good game but Spelunky is essentially the "patient zero" of the "miscategorization epidemic" of roguelikes. Had spelunky not come in(a largely controversial) second place in the 7DRL that caused its inception it would not have achieved the Ill-deserved "roguelike" tag alongside the well deserved hype and affection it got.

I'm not saying spelunky wasnt/isnt a good game. It is and was(RNGesus and STATan both know I put WAY too many hours into spelunky 1.1). I'm just saying it was the first leakage of a dam breaking which spewed forth dozens of mis-categorized games labelled as "roguelikes" when they just arent.

[Troubler]

It's what Rogue did wasn't it? That was a commercial game after all.

What are you trying to tell? Rogue didn't claim to be a roguelike without actually being one. I think using a genre name makes it easier for people to find the game and get interested. It's marketing for sure.

In their eyes procedural generation is what primarily defines a roguelike, as is the case for most noobies.
Though some of these games (like Spelunky) are even directly inspired by roguelikes too, despite the liberties taken.
What I am saying is people didn't pick Rouge out from a crowd for being a turn-based non-modal RPG.
Same goes here, when advertising as a "roguelike" they are really just advertising the procedural generation.

Some people stretch that to include odd things, and some look like malicious marketing, but many cases are benign or just ignorance.
The kids on Steam are not going to be thinking "Wow, this must be just "like" that "Rogue" game from the 70's!"
What they are looking for is the procedural generation that the genre is actually known for.

yes it was initially free and it was criticized  for being a platformer in a 7DRL challenge, as it should've been.

Here is my general thinking.
Spelunky played a lot "like rogue" to me. I made similar considerations for similar problems I had elsewhere.
There is now a timing element to it and a different point of view, but my mental state when playing it is similar.
Really all I can judge it by is the dungeon generation. I see the platforming as more of a gimmick than anything else.

I will admit this though. Over the years I've played a lot of roguelikes, particularly the "kobolds and goblins" kind of thing.
I am a bit biased in that I am usually seeking out something new rather than further exploring these traditional design choices.
So it is not like I am completely objective here, but I think it is just a matter of spelunky's gimmick being more "visible" than other roguelikes.

As for Issac not being considered a roguelike by its developers at conception, that just reinforces it's not a marketing decision.
Sorry if I am pestering you, I am mostly just making conversation. There is not much to be had around here at the moment.

[jofadda]

Thats the issue though Troubler. They're categorizing things as they should not be. Roguelike was and still is a sub-genre between strategy and RPG. Spelunky does not have RPG elements, and its strategy elements are far and few between. The reverse should be said of Isaac.

The issue is that genres and sub-genres are categorization tools. How do we categorize things? By including the common and excluding that which isnt. A genre that encompasses too many things is in and of itself useless due to this fact.

Isaac is no more a roguelike than snes version tetris(hey its permadeath and every piece is procedurally chosen so its gotta count right?). A sub-genre wherein a twinstick shooter, a text adventure game, a turn based strategy game, a fps game, a deck builder, a platformer and a bloody gladitorial management sim all get lumped into the same category is of literal no value. The common factor of roguelikes being that they are like rogue is simply how things aught to be simply because Rogue is the namesake.
Calling Spelunky a Roguelike is no more valid than calling Euro Truck sim a racing game or calling super mario world a MeTrOiDvAnIa