#1 Posted by BBAlpert (1259 posts) -


#2 Posted by BBAlpert (1259 posts) -

By "modern standards" I mean that Oregon Trail would be considered a Roguelike in the same sense that FTL or Tokyo Jungle are roguelikes.

#3 Posted by Video_Game_King (34603 posts) -
#4 Posted by MaxxS (190 posts) -

We need a subgenre of Roguelike and it needs to be called Rougelike-like. FTL, Tokyo Jungle, and Oregon Trail don't have random dungeons or that kind of thing, but they have similar enough concepts so that should be acknowledged, right?

#5 Posted by BeachThunder (11264 posts) -

@MaxxS said:

We need a subgenre of Roguelike and it needs to be called Rougelike-like. FTL, Tokyo Jungle, and Oregon Trail don't have random dungeons or that kind of thing, but they have similar enough concepts so that should be acknowledged, right?

I was thinking that before; but I guess at that point we really need a better genre name for games that involve procedural generation and permadeath.

#6 Posted by Dagbiker (6898 posts) -

Oregon Trail was more of a Visual Novel then a Roguelike.

#7 Posted by EquitasInvictus (1868 posts) -

I'd agree that it's a roguelike or rougelike-like. I'm not too keen on the distinction roguelike-like; hopefully we can actually coin a better term for that to appeal to those who want to distinguish.

#8 Posted by Quarters (1547 posts) -

Absolutely. Man, now I want to replay Oregon Trail.

#9 Edited by AmatureIdiot (981 posts) -

@EquitasInvictus said:

I'd agree that it's a roguelike or rougelike-like. I'm not too keen on the distinction roguelike-like; hopefully we can actually coin a better term for that to appeal to those who want to distinguish.

How about Roguelites?

They have bits of Roguelikes, but they don't go the whole way, therefore Roguelite.

#10 Posted by believer258 (11043 posts) -

Actually, yeah, by the definition that was attributed to it in one thread a little bit back.

@AmatureIdiot said:

@EquitasInvictus said:

I'd agree that it's a roguelike or rougelike-like. I'm not too keen on the distinction roguelike-like; hopefully we can actually coin a better term for that to appeal to those who want to distinguish.

How about Roguelites?

They have bits of Roguelikes, but they don't go the whole way, therefore Rougelite.

Sounds dumb modern enough. Better than the aforementioned alternative.

#11 Posted by lazarenth (28 posts) -

I third Roguelite. Sounds better than Roguelikelike and I also agree that they should be classified.

#12 Posted by MooseyMcMan (9738 posts) -

I still refuse to apply the term roguelike to games where the only roguelike like thing in them is the perma-death.

I agree that there should be a term like roguelike-like.

#13 Edited by BlackLagoon (1321 posts) -

@MooseyMcMan said:

I still refuse to apply the term roguelike to games where the only roguelike like thing in them is the perma-death.

Well, Tokyo Jungle doesn't really have that even - given that it more or less grants you extra lives as you play, it has the same level of permadeath as, say, the original Super Mario Bros.

What Patrick is focusing on when he calls TJ a roguelike is the "gameplay loop" of short challenging gameplay sessions where you keep dying and trying again until you achieve the goal. This does tie it quite neatly together with FTL, Spelunky and Binding of Isaac... But it also has nothing to do with most actual roguelikes, which can take tens of hours before the endgame is in sight (assuming you get that far). Sigh... (And, I guess, it also means Super Meat Boy can now be described as a mini-roguelike collection.)

#14 Edited by AndrewB (7190 posts) -

Give me a decent definition of Roguelike then, because my answer would be no. I wouldn't call FTL a Roguelike, either.

#15 Edited by Synaptic (300 posts) -

@BeachThunder said:

@MaxxS said:

We need a subgenre of Roguelike and it needs to be called Rougelike-like. FTL, Tokyo Jungle, and Oregon Trail don't have random dungeons or that kind of thing, but they have similar enough concepts so that should be acknowledged, right?

I was thinking that before; but I guess at that point we really need a better genre name for games that involve procedural generation and permadeath.

Roguish? Perhaps Rogueakin/Roguealike. Jokes aside though, I think Roguish might be the best bet.

#16 Posted by Abendlaender (2597 posts) -

It's probably because videogame genres are fucked anyway (look no further than the "action adventure" genre) but I don't care.

If a game has randomized events/environments, death is permanent and you are supposed to die a lot then it's a roguelike to me. Don't really care if it is completely accurate, when people tell me "FTL is a roguelike" I basically know what to expect.

#17 Edited by Synaptic (300 posts) -

@Abendlaender said:

It's probably because videogame genres are fucked anyway (look no further than the "action adventure" genre) but I don't care.

If a game has randomized events/environments, death is permanent and you are supposed to die a lot then it's a roguelike to me. Don't really care if it is completely accurate, when people tell me "FTL is a roguelike" I basically know what to expect.

yeah, it's pretty much the same for me. the meaning of terms changes over time anyways, so whata roguelike used to be (a game very much in the same vein as rogue) now encompasses a game that's kind of like rogue in that it has similar core elements (permadeath, randomization, single player, higher than standard difficulty)

#18 Posted by Laiv162560asse (487 posts) -
@Abendlaender said:

It's probably because videogame genres are fucked anyway (look no further than the "action adventure" genre) but I don't care.

If a game has randomized events/environments, death is permanent and you are supposed to die a lot then it's a roguelike to me. Don't really care if it is completely accurate, when people tell me "FTL is a roguelike" I basically know what to expect.

Really? You'd expect 2D tactical spaceship combat with crew management from hearing the term 'Roguelike'? For me a genre descriptor is useless if it isn't telling me the most important things about a game. I don't think that randomisation and permadeath are the most defining elements of FTL.

'Action Adventure' is a painfully woolly phrase, but as long as people are using it to describe a more or less homogeneous category of games it can still be useful. In my mind, that's basically any 3rd person game where the focus isn't mostly on platforming or cover-shooting, but where there aren't enough character progression mechanics to make it classifiable as an 'action RPG'.

#19 Posted by Ravenlight (8033 posts) -

@AmatureIdiot said:

How about Roguelites?

They have bits of Roguelikes, but they don't go the whole way, therefore Roguelite.

That's beautiful. +10 internets to this man!

#20 Posted by ajamafalous (11591 posts) -
@Laivasse said:
@Abendlaender said:

It's probably because videogame genres are fucked anyway (look no further than the "action adventure" genre) but I don't care.

If a game has randomized events/environments, death is permanent and you are supposed to die a lot then it's a roguelike to me. Don't really care if it is completely accurate, when people tell me "FTL is a roguelike" I basically know what to expect.

Really? You'd expect 2D tactical spaceship combat with crew management from hearing the term 'Roguelike'? For me a genre descriptor is useless if it isn't telling me the most important things about a game. I don't think that randomisation and permadeath are the most defining elements of FTL.

'Action Adventure' is a painfully woolly phrase, but as long as people are using it to describe a more or less homogeneous category of games it can still be useful. In my mind, that's basically any 3rd person game where the focus isn't mostly on platforming or cover-shooting, but where there aren't enough character progression mechanics to make it classifiable as an 'action RPG'.

But what makes an RPG? People call Zelda an RPG all the time because you are "playing the role" of Link, but Zelda doesn't have any of the stat allocation/leveling up/skills etc that you'd expect upon hearing the term 'RPG.' Pick any two games described as a Roguelike and they probably have a hell of a lot more in common than any two games described as an RPG.
#21 Posted by Karkarov (2622 posts) -

Well the fact that none of those games are rougelikes sort of makes this a moot question. You can save in Oregon trail, at least in the non 5.4 disc versions, it wasn't that hard to beat if you were smart, and it was hardly random. There were some events that "might" or "might not" happen but for the most part the chances of say running into Donner Pass was actually pretty strong and there was always certain key events you faced every time.

People need to stop trying to apply labels that simply don't fit.

#22 Posted by BlackLagoon (1321 posts) -

@ajamafalous said:

But what makes an RPG? People call Zelda an RPG all the time because you are "playing the role" of Link, but Zelda doesn't have any of the stat allocation/leveling up/skills etc that you'd expect upon hearing the term 'RPG.' Pick any two games described as a Roguelike and they probably have a hell of a lot more in common than any two games described as an RPG.

Originally, RPGs were attempts at bringing pen and paper Role-Playing Game like gameplay to computers, and Rogue was actually one of the earliest ones with its mechanics being heavily influenced by Dungeons & Dragons. The roguelike genre then evolved as a more specific sub-genre of computer RPGs, while the much looser RPG genre grew to encompass many other sub-genres. The two generally serve quite different purpose when it comes to defining what kind of game its describing.

#23 Edited by Laiv162560asse (487 posts) -
@ajamafalous said:

@Laivasse said:

@Abendlaender said:

It's probably because videogame genres are fucked anyway (look no further than the "action adventure" genre) but I don't care.

If a game has randomized events/environments, death is permanent and you are supposed to die a lot then it's a roguelike to me. Don't really care if it is completely accurate, when people tell me "FTL is a roguelike" I basically know what to expect.

Really? You'd expect 2D tactical spaceship combat with crew management from hearing the term 'Roguelike'? For me a genre descriptor is useless if it isn't telling me the most important things about a game. I don't think that randomisation and permadeath are the most defining elements of FTL.

'Action Adventure' is a painfully woolly phrase, but as long as people are using it to describe a more or less homogeneous category of games it can still be useful. In my mind, that's basically any 3rd person game where the focus isn't mostly on platforming or cover-shooting, but where there aren't enough character progression mechanics to make it classifiable as an 'action RPG'.

But what makes an RPG? People call Zelda an RPG all the time because you are "playing the role" of Link, but Zelda doesn't have any of the stat allocation/leveling up/skills etc that you'd expect upon hearing the term 'RPG.' Pick any two games described as a Roguelike and they probably have a hell of a lot more in common than any two games described as an RPG.

I definitely don't agree with your last sentence, but it's not that relevant to Zelda anyway. Pretty much every gamer knows what a Zelda game entails, so the entire useful purpose of genre classification - that is to say, describing a game in a few words - kind of falls by the wayside. People play fast and loose when classifying Zelda games since they know that prior knowledge already exists and nobody is going to make a purchase based on a genre tag.

But even having said that, there's close overlap between what's described as 'action adventures' and 'action RPGs',  as I said. You could accurately describe most of the post 16-bit Zelda games as 'action adventures', but the history of the franchise and the RPG hallmarks like fetch quests, dungeons, towns and heavy character interaction often make people toss in the RPG label.  However you rarely see someone describe a Zelda game simply as an 'RPG' without tossing in a load of heavy qualifiers. It's probably more useful to take that blend of elements and compare other games to it - as some people do; I've seen 'Zelda-type game' used as a descriptor - than clumsily pigeonhole the Zelda games within genres that don't describe them.

Likewise with these newer 'Roguelike-likes'. I don't understand the desire to label them as Roguelikes, when the 'Roguelike' bit just describes a part of the design philosophy. Someone who enjoys high difficulty and randomisation, but who hates 2D platformers is going to be led astray by a simple description of Spelunky as a 'Roguelike', likewise if they hate spaceship combat but they're attracted to FTL by the term. It's more useful to describe their design philosophy as part of a more in depth discussion of the game, rather than use it to attempt to classify their entire genre, at the expense of mentioning their main characteristics.

#24 Posted by mtcantor (922 posts) -

The definition of roguelike is getting way too stretched. At some point, someone is going to argue that Pac-Man is a roguelike, and then where will we all be?

I remember the days when roguelike meant a game that was a lot like Rogue. Man.