"Rogue-like"

[LibraryOgre]

So, I grew up on Rogue. The Epyx version. My brothers and I had strict rules for how long you got to play Rogue before someone else got a turn... the rules were always based on One Life, but there were exceptions for, IIRC, First Room deaths and what we called "Rat Rooms" (rooms where there's a ton of enemies and treasure, so you have to fight and fight and fight.

But, what defines "Rogue-like" to you? What makes a game "Rogue-like", 'cause I keep picturing ASCII graphics.

[N810]

ASCII graphics are usually seen, but sometimes it's simple DOS style graphics instead,
usually there are randomly generated levels and permanent death.
Notable examples range from dwarf fortress to Splunky.

[sleepy hedgehog]

In additiona to what N810 said,
I also expect it to be single player, third person, centered on the main character.
so Dwarf fortess's adventure mode would count, but not it's main game.

Nethack was the Rougelike that I mostly played

[Rodin]

Rogue-like is one of those cases where the definition is used so broadly that it's become useless. I've heard any kind of random map generation as having "Rogue-like elements", which is kinda like saying Call of Duty games are RPGs because you can level up.

I tend to use the broadest brush possible in these cases to avoid semantic quibbling. There's only two things I consider "core" to the Rogue-like that can't be removed without it not fitting.

1) Permadeath.

2) Random map generation.

Any features beyond that is just blending in additional stuff, rather than moving entirely into a different genre.

[Thrawn4]

1) Permadeath.

2) Random map generation.

This, exactly. Modern examples would be Faster Than Light and Don't Starve.

[Knaight]

It depends on how broadly the genre is being defined. At the broadest sense permadeath and level design with randomness is required. For anything in the core of the genre I'd add being turn based, having characters with statistics that can change, and possibly add having just one character. ASCII is a side note - ToME is definitely a roguelike, and it has graphics, and that's without getting into how there are tilesets even for things like ADOM and Nethack.

[danzibr]

ASCII graphics are usually seen, but sometimes it's simple DOS style graphics instead,
usually there are randomly generated levels and permanent death.
Notable examples range from dwarf fortress to Splunky.

Rogue-like is one of those cases where the definition is used so broadly that it's become useless. I've heard any kind of random map generation as having "Rogue-like elements", which is kinda like saying Call of Duty games are RPGs because you can level up.

I tend to use the broadest brush possible in these cases to avoid semantic quibbling. There's only two things I consider "core" to the Rogue-like that can't be removed without it not fitting.

1) Permadeath.

2) Random map generation.

Any features beyond that is just blending in additional stuff, rather than moving entirely into a different genre.

This, exactly. Modern examples would be Faster Than Light and Don't Starve.

Man, everyone beat me to it.

[Leecros]

1) Permadeath.

2) Random map generation.

I also tend to add "3) Very Hard" to the list.

I don't really consider Binding of Isaac: Rebirth to be a rogue-like, because I find the game pretty easy, but I do consider Sword of the Stars: The Pit a Rogue-like because despite like 250 hours into the game. I've only beaten it once(on easy). High difficulty was something that old Rogue-likes were known for.

[factotum]

I'm with Rodin and the others--randomly generated map and permadeath are what makes the roguelike to me. It's not a genre I'm very fond of, because by its very nature you tend to find yourself playing through the beginning bits over and over again and I find that sort of repetition boring.

[gooddragon1]

For me it's just random maps. So Diablo 1. I wish Diablo 3 had offline mode so I could cheat.

[Hamste]

I also tend to add "3) Very Hard" to the list.

I don't really consider Binding of Isaac: Rebirth to be a rogue-like, because I find the game pretty easy, but I do consider Sword of the Stars: The Pit a Rogue-like because despite like 250 hours into the game. I've only beaten it once(on easy). High difficulty was something that old Rogue-likes were known for.

Very hard isn't necessarily a requirement for rogue-likes. Generally they are pretty hard as it increases replayability (if you can complete it easily then replaying the game tends to get boring particularly the ones where there is little to no progress between runs) but it isn't always needed.

[Sian]

Difficult to Master
Turn-based
Permadeath
A Focus (but not necessarily only) on Procedurally generated maps, often after a couple of different matrixes as to either show a 'classical' room-and-corridor, cavernous or crumpled maps
Often ASCII art, rarely 'great' art
Only one player-controlled character.

Or perhaps somewhat in reverse

It shouldn't be easy
It shouldn't be reflex-based
It shouldn't be tactical based.

Sure, things such as Spelunky, Diablo (specially I on Hardcore), Binding of Isaac and FTL have significant "rogue-like"ish elements in them, but that doesn't make them actually one of the set. Don't Stave is in my mind even less of a rogue-like and much more of a survival/puzzle

[LibraryOgre]

For me it's just random maps. So Diablo 1. I wish Diablo 3 had offline mode so I could cheat.

The problem with that as the criteria that Daggerfall becomes Rogue-like.

[Domino Quartz]

The first time I heard "roguelike" used to describe something, it was in reference to Dwarf Fortress's Adventure Mode (which, from what I've read, seems to have a lot more in common with actual classic roguelikes than a lot of modern games described as roguelikes do). At the time, I had no idea what "Rogue" was. Then, somewhere between 2012 and 2013, I found out about Spelunky (which was described as a platformer with roguelike elements*) and Rogue Legacy (which the creators called a "rogue-lite", presumably because it has some of the gameplay elements of Rogue [randomly generated levels, permanent death of individual characters] but by no means all of them).

Knowing what I know now, I would probably consider a "rogue-like" to be any game that has most, if not all, of the same sort of gameplay elements as Rogue, while a "rogue-lite" would be any game that has permanent death of your character (no extra lives), randomly generated levels, and a fairly high level of difficulty. In that sense, I guess "rogue-lite" is more of a genre modifier than a genre in and of itself.

*The creator of Spelunky, Derek Yu, goes into quite a bit more detail in his book "Spelunky", which you can get from Boss Fight Books. I highly recommend the book. In short, he says that he took elements from platformers that he liked (the sort of general gameplay mechanics platformers have), the elements from Roguelikes that he liked (permanent death, randomly generated levels, and having every kind of object in the game world be subject to the same consistent set of rules), and made a game** out of them.

**The original Spelunky, which was a pseudo-retro pixel platformer (it had pixel art and chip-tune music, and ran at 30fps). The version released on XBLA and Steam (Spelunky HD) came later.

[Ashen Lilies]

Not much to add, the two core criteria (permadeath, random map generation) have been pretty solidly stated and I agree with them (and disagree with any added criteria beyond these).

The one thing I will add though is that with modern roguelikes, the Permadeath is more of a Permadeath* with games like Rogue Legacy and FTL adding earnable bonuses, unlocks, and equipment that carry between runs, adding a form of persistence and meta-progression that persists even though any particular run is still a discrete, one-off event.

Extra Credits did an episode on Roguelikes a couple of years ago that might be worth watching, though the discussion in the thread has already hit on most of the key points in less detail.

[Psyren]

For me it's just random maps. So Diablo 1. I wish Diablo 3 had offline mode so I could cheat.

Hardcore mode is essentially Roguelike, particularly in D3 where rifts have more variation than D2's replay-the-story structure. And like modern roguelikes like FTL, there is a degree of permanence via the cosmetic unlocks and paragon levels staying between characters.

[TaRix]

One thing to consider with a roguelike is that losing is (or should be) almost always the player's own fault.

A corollary to that is that the game should theoretically be beatable from the very first play.

[Alent]

I mostly agree with everyone so far, but disagree with one of the common points: a roguelike doesn't necessarily need permadeath, just a significant enough setback. An example would be the "partial" permadeath used in systems like One Way Heroics with carry over benefits or the variation that ejects you from the dungeon and forces you to reenter at level one, possibly with some items you chose to bank. It retains the "brutal" aspect of starting over again, but carries a different psychological weight and carrying the right items over can jumpstart the next play.

One thing to consider with a roguelike is that losing is (or should be) almost always the player's own fault.

A corollary to that is that the game should theoretically be beatable from the very first play.

This. Absolutely this. Roguelikes are information processing challenges. There's a high amount of consideration that should go into making actions in a roguelike, it's this criteria that disqualifies Diablo as a Roguelike. As part of the information processing aspect, Roguelikes are often immensely simulationist and understanding the simulation better equips you to survive it. (Nethack's Basilisk Corpses spring to mind as an example.)

[Winthur]

Perma-death (many roguelikes have a feature that lets you keep on playing after death, akin to Nethack's Wizard Mode, but victories using such methods are not considered true YAVPs), turn-based, top-down view, with a role-playing game system running underneath (character development, equipment, etc.)

It's fairly absurd to think that a person who liked Nethack will immediately want to jump into Binding of Isaac or Don't Starve.

Some of those are games with roguelike elements, inspired by roguelikes, etc. but not roguelikes per se.

it's this criteria that disqualifies Diablo as a Roguelike

I don't consider D1 to be a roguelike for my own reasons, but the game does require you to process quite a lot of information and has quite many elements similar to roguelikes.

Drinking from pools in ADOM or Nethack for random benefits is similar to the shrines in D1, and you only have your trial and error and analysis to figure out what exactly did each shrine change. Some shrines are harmful.

There is an enemy who permanently eats your hit points. You need to watch out for that and realize that before your warrior becomes a husk with no HP.

Just the amount of analysis necessary to outperform The Butcher or King Leoric might be a thing.

Extra Credits did an episode on Roguelikes a couple of years ago that might be worth watching, though the discussion in the thread has already hit on most of the key points in less detail.

So, basically, Annoying Voice Guy just says that new roguelikes are roguelikes so that people can feel elitist about playing hardcore games without putting in the effort, and that it's a marketing thing?

Killed me a little inside when I went to a con to a panel about roguelikes and the panelist talked about Darkest Dungeons but didn't know what DoomRL is, in spite of it being a successful game from his own country.

[Knaight]

Difficult to Master
Turn-based
Permadeath
A Focus (but not necessarily only) on Procedurally generated maps, often after a couple of different matrixes as to either show a 'classical' room-and-corridor, cavernous or crumpled maps
Often ASCII art, rarely 'great' art
Only one player-controlled character.

Or perhaps somewhat in reverse

It shouldn't be easy
It shouldn't be reflex-based
It shouldn't be tactical based.

Perma-death (many roguelikes have a feature that lets you keep on playing after death, akin to Nethack's Wizard Mode, but victories using such methods are not considered true YAVPs), turn-based, top-down view, with a role-playing game system running underneath (character development, equipment, etc.)

It's fairly absurd to think that a person who liked Nethack will immediately want to jump into Binding of Isaac or Don't Starve.

That's true of any genre with any breadth though. It's fairly absurd to think that a person who liked Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl will necessarily like Borderlands 2. That doesn't mean they aren't both shooters with notable RPG elements, just that there's enough variety in the genre that people don't generally like all of it. It's a really unconvincing argument.

I mean, it's fairly absurd to think that a person who liked Nethack will immediately want to jump into Tales of Maj'Eyal. ToME is still undeniably a roguelike.

[Winthur]

That's true of any genre with any breadth though. It's fairly absurd to think that a person who liked Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl will necessarily like Borderlands 2. That doesn't mean they aren't both shooters with notable RPG elements, just that there's enough variety in the genre that people don't generally like all of it. It's a really unconvincing argument.

"Hey, I see you enjoy shooting in an open world with a loot system. Wanna try that other game out?"
"Hey, I see you enjoy turn-based fantasy dungeon crawler with permanent death and randomly generated levels. How about we play a survival open world game with perma death and randomly generated levels?"

Call me a conservative, but I'm more willing to call games like Spelunky, Don't Starve, BoI or Diablo hybrids at most.
Saying that a game is a roguelike simply because it combines permadeath wtih procedural content feels like a misnomer, a dilutation.

I mean, it's fairly absurd to think that a person who liked Nethack will immediately want to jump into Tales of Maj'Eyal. ToME is still undeniably a roguelike.

Uh, why?
ToME started off as a fork of Angband. Angband is firmly in the oldschool roguelike family.

[Sian]

Uh, why?
ToME started off as a fork of Angband. Angband is firmly in the oldschool roguelike family.

Mind you, I've never played a whole lot of Angband (or DC:SS for that matter which is an half-sibling/half-cousin of that range) outside of ToME but...

Because Nethack is part of the other main variant of Rogue-likes (With 'Hack, and its deviates on one side, and Moria into Angband into its deviates) and there is quite a few differences, both in how they level-design and in how character progression is done.

This is prehaps most prevalent in looking at how leveling is done between Hack and ToME ... in 'Hack variants its a few additional bonuses to abilities and assorted numbers (ToHit, HP etc) but while a class might lean you towards something specific, you can "easily" play against type and play your Archer as a front-liner, whereas in ToME its much less flexible in as of how your class does things and hence you're much less able to play against type ... whereas in 'hacks you'd only play without any significant bonuses, in ToME you might almost as well be blindfolded with one hand tied behind your back.

Also, while ToME is still hard, its much less hard than 'Hack since there is to significant reason why you shouldn't go into each and every combat as ready as you can be, as there is no time-related reasons why you should push on (even if it might only be a dwindling supply of food).


Not saying that there aren't quite a few cross-player base between the two overarching sub-genres of old-school roguelikes, but they're at least as different as different types of shooters

[cobaltstarfire]

I kind of disagree that roguelikes must not have a "reflex" based aspect to them.

Mainly because of Crypt of the Necrodancer exists.

It is turn based, there is perma death, the monsters move and attack in predictable ways, the floors are procedurally generated, the shop keeper is not someone you want to triffle with, and you really want to learn how items behave and interact with each other.

It just adds another mechanic to the game, which is you have to do everything while moving to the beat of the music (or not if you use bard, then it becomes a traditional rogue-like).


I tend to agree that games like Binding of Isaac or the new Spelunky are not quite rogue-likes, mostly because they aren't turn based. To me they're more closely related to a Metroidvania or Legend of Zelda game, just the maps and items are scrambled.

My husband doesn't feel Faster than Light is a rogue like either, I'm not personally sure where it sits for me. It has more in common with the Oregon Trail, which has me wondering, does anyone consider the Oregon Trail to be a rogue-like? (what kind game is the Oregon Trail anyway, Survival/Simulation?)

edit:

I also don't think a game necessarily has to be hard or have permadeath in it to be a rogue-like. Pokemon Mystery Dungeon is definitely a rogue-like in terms of game play, it just so happens that death doesn't require you to start the game all over again from the beginning.

[boomwolf]

I also tend to add "3) Very Hard" to the list.

I don't really consider Binding of Isaac: Rebirth to be a rogue-like, because I find the game pretty easy, but I do consider Sword of the Stars: The Pit a Rogue-like because despite like 250 hours into the game. I've only beaten it once(on easy). High difficulty was something that old Rogue-likes were known for.

If you find Issac too easy, try Enter the Gungeon for a new experience that will challenge you.
Bullet hell that is pure skill based needle dodges, and little luck dodging involved (every attack is telegraphed and you got time, there are just so freaking many bullets on the screen at times and some move in really hard to follow pathing)
Luck in item finds is still a thing, not finding a good gun is lethal. But there is no fishing for silly game breaking combos, even the best items just give an edge, rather than nullify challenges.

[Sian]

I also don't think a game necessarily has to be hard or have permadeath in it to be a rogue-like. Pokemon Mystery Dungeon is definitely a rogue-like in terms of game play, it just so happens that death doesn't require you to start the game all over again from the beginning.

I guess that is a valid point to a certain extend ... That said, Mystery Dungeon are most often on the easier side, with less strict failure conditions (given the fact that they were made for handhold in mind, to be able to play for half an hour or so, and feel that you advanced) with Pokemon Mystery Dungeon furthest on that sliding scale, but are still so heavily influenced by Rogue that its difficult to outright not consider them valid roguelikes ...

That said, the difference is just as pronounced between 'oldschool' Roguelikes and Mystery Dungeons, as the difference is between action-rpg, crpg and Japanese RPG (take Skyrim vs Pillars Of Eternity vs Final Fantasy), even though they're all recognized as rpgs, few would consider there being a whole lot of native overlap between their playerbases

Enter the Gungeon for a new experience that will challenge you.
Bullet hell that is pure skill based needle dodges, and little luck dodging involved (every attack is telegraphed and you got time, there are just so freaking many bullets on the screen at times and some move in really hard to follow pathing)

Bullet hell is difficult because it's bullet hell not because of any borrowings from Rogue... It's difficult nature is more due to Arcade shooter gameplay with luck elements, than its due to Rogue-lite elements (which are quite limited, and given that the game have progression via unlocking new items from killing the same bosses over and over.....)

[Knaight]

"Hey, I see you enjoy shooting in an open world with a loot system. Wanna try that other game out?"
"Hey, I see you enjoy turn-based fantasy dungeon crawler with permanent death and randomly generated levels. How about we play a survival open world game with perma death and randomly generated levels?"

That's one way to put it. Another would be:
"Hey, I see you enjoy a bunch of high energy firefights involving various RPG powers. Want to try a gritty, post apocalyptic game with a focus on realism in the combat system?"
"Hey, I see you enjoy a short, skill based game with perma death and randomly generated levels. Want to try that other game out?"

There's variety within genres, and the idea that games are in different genres if you can't expect near complete overlap in who likes them is bizarre.

Uh, why?
ToME started off as a fork of Angband. Angband is firmly in the oldschool roguelike family.

For one thing, I can confirm that I don't like Nethack and really like ToME - so assuming it also goes the other way is reasonable. For another, there are huge differences between the games.

[Sholos]

What I don't understand is why people get so upset when things like Binding of Isaac are referred to as roguelikes. Like it's some kind of title that needs defending.

[Leecros]

If you find Issac too easy, try Enter the Gungeon for a new experience that will challenge you.
Bullet hell that is pure skill based needle dodges, and little luck dodging involved (every attack is telegraphed and you got time, there are just so freaking many bullets on the screen at times and some move in really hard to follow pathing)
Luck in item finds is still a thing, not finding a good gun is lethal. But there is no fishing for silly game breaking combos, even the best items just give an edge, rather than nullify challenges.

In fact, I have Enter the Gungeon as well. I've played about 50 hours in and while it is harder than Isaac...I've done most of what the game has to offer. I don't feel like there's quite as much there compared to Isaac.

What I don't understand is why people get so upset when things like Binding of Isaac are referred to as roguelikes. Like it's some kind of title that needs defending.

I don't think anyone in this discussion is getting upset at Isaac being referred to as a roguelike...Although I have seen those arguments in the past. I think the problem is that people have different definitions of what Roguelikes are as a genre.

Part of the problem with that is that nowadays it's sometimes difficult to define a genre of games. So many games(especially Indie games) take inspiration from several genres and it sort of muddies the water and people ultimately start arguing over semantics.

[cobaltstarfire]

Also when you get a group of people who are very passionate about anything you're going to run into folks who are various levels of pedantic.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I've heard games like Binding of Isaac, Enter the Gungeon, and the like where you have persistable elements between new characters after permadeath referred to as 'Rogue-lite'. Honestly don't know how I feel about that title, though.