Talk:Roguelike

International Roguelike Development Conference

Can more information about this group be provided? I note that it has met in different cities over the last four or five years but I can't find very detailed information about its history/background, event content, attendance, etc. It would be useful to know who organizes and hosts it, and if it has a public webpage or community forum. If this is an authentic and authoritative body, it probably needs a Wikipedia page as well. 50.54.225.39 (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Little thing

"Spelunky (2008) by Derek Yu, The Binding of Isaac (2011) by Edmund McMillian, Dungeons of Dredmor (2011) by Gaslamp Games, and FTL: Faster Than Light (2012) by Subset Games were all..." - why does the article specify the developers of these games? That hardly seems important, unless the developers themselves are now really big in making roguelike games. Should I remove the "by..." parts? Maplestrip (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Repetition

I added a redundant-tag to the Gameplay and design-section, which was removed with the following comment: "honestly ,I'm not seeing what is repetative about this. While there might be common elements of the Early RGs and Berlin section, the latter is a formalized definition and by necessity will repeat things" Let's look at what is going on:

Early Roguelikes: "Levels are procedurally generated each time a new game is started"; Berlin Interpretation: "Roguelike games randomly generate dungeon levels,"

Early Roguelikes: "and special magical items like potions or wands are named by random descriptor ("a bubbly potion", for example) until the item is identified, with the descriptors being shuffled each game"; Berlin Interpretation: "The identity of magical items varies across games. Newly discovered objects only offer a vague physical description that is randomized between games, with purposes and capabilities left unstated. For example, a "bubbly" potion might heal wounds one game, then poison the player character in the next."

Early Roguelikes: "Gameplay is turn-based, with the player moving the character one tile or performing one action, with all the other monsters then taking their turns"; Berlin Interpretation: "The combat system is turn-based instead of real-time."

Early Roguelikes: Not mentioned; Berlin Interpretation: "Most are single-player games."

Early Roguelikes: "Another core feature is the concept of 'permadeath'" (+ stuff about saving); Berlin Interpretation: "Roguelikes traditionally implement permadeath." (+ stuff about saving)

I understand why it is done like this, but the article is literally repeating itself. There seems to be barely any difference between the Early Roguelikes section and The Berlin Interpretation section other than how they are phrased and referenced. This might make sense from a referencing point-of-view, but a reader will only really see the same information being repeated. I added a tag rather than try to fix it because I don't know how to fix this. Thoughts? Maplestrip (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I can see some things that can be stripped out of the Early RL section, now that I see what you're talking about. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd think combining it in some way would be the best. I personally preferred most of the wording in The Berlin Interpretation part, and perhaps using the references used in the Early RL part in that part, renaming the sub-section to "Original description" or something alike and removing the Early RL part could be the best. Then if there are discrepancies between sources, that could be added to it as well.

...I just realized that I have a very good idea on how this could be done.. Maplestrip (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If you think you can manage it better, go ahead. I know what your concern was with now, so I don't see any problem in being bold to try to fix now. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I think I've now improved the article quite a bit, but it is by no means perfect. If you think you can improve upon this, please do! Maplestrip (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I just added one statement at the start to introduce the game concept. --MASEM (t) 20:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that was needed, thanks :) Maplestrip (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Omega

Can someone please add in references to Omega. I played it and really enjoyed it. It is like Larn / Moria in that you have dungeons, but you also get to travel around on the surface. When you're on your horse in the wilderness your food goes really fast - so you can die easily. It also had gods that you had to align yourself with (I don't think Nethack has this).

Here are some websites that refer to it: http://www.roguebasin.com/index.php?title=Omega http://www.roguetemple.com/2008/02/13/omega-for-windows-updated/ (also http://www.prankster.com/winomega/ and http://www.alcyone.com/max/projects/omega/ )

How important was it in the evolution of Roguelike Games? The first two links indicate that it influenced ADOM. It was released in the late 1980s. Lehasa (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Omega's in there already (as the first RG to have an overworld), though we don't have a reliable source that connects Adom to it. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. 198.2.69.104 (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Most Popular Rogue-Like Games Today

We need a section to show people that Nethack and Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup are excellent games that are still very popular today. Are there others which many people still play? Lehasa (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The difficulty is finding a source that says these are still played, even though this is likely true. I haven't been able to find any though we do point out that traditional roguelikes still are developed in the present. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Copied lead into Role-playing video game

I copied the lead section of this article into Role-playing_video_game#Roguelikes. The problem is that I don't know which references back up the content in the lead, since it is missing inline references. Could someone look it over and add the necessary citations? SharkD  Talk  19:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@SharkD, done. --MASEM (t) 19:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! SharkD  Talk  20:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roguelike/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 17:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Always nice to see a key slice of video game history come up in GA. It would be my pleasure to give this a go. Indrian (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here we go. This is a great article, so I just have a few language tweaks and the like. Detailed comments below. I am going to have to do this in a couple of chunks. I will let you know at the end of the review when I am finished. Indrian (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

My holiday travel plans got screwed up but I will get to this by next week if not sooner if others don't step in. Most of these are changes easily fixed or confirmed, the only aspect of immediate concern being the sourcing of general gameplay which can be done but will take access to sources. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem; I'm in no hurry. And don't worry about sourcing every last statement in the first section since we are only at GA, I just need to see a little sourcing here and there. Indrian (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Lead

•  Done"characterized by procedural generation of game levels, turn-based gameplay, tile-based graphics, permanent death of the player-character, and typically based on a high fantasy narrative setting following the nature of a dungeon crawl" - The bit about high fantasy really breaks the flow and does not fit in with the rest since its a "typical" feature rather than a core feature. I think that should be broken off into its own sentence.
•  DoneSince the article spends some time on Beneath Apple Manor and Sword of Fargoal there should probably be something in the lead about how even though the genre takes its name from Rogue, there were a couple of earlier games. Less than a sentence should do it.

General Gameplay

 DoneThis section is entirely unsourced. This is GA, not FA, so I don't feel that every last statement needs to be attributed, but an entire section without a source is problematic.

Key Features

•  Done"The genre of roguelike broadly encompasses the gameplay that was introduced in the text-based game Rogue" - As the article itself states, Rogue did not technically introduce much of this gameplay, though earlier examples were, of course, obscure. Maybe "popularized" instead of "introduced"?
  • You did not do this one, so I took the liberty of making the change myself. Let me know if you object to the new wording. Indrian (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Done"RogueBasin, a wiki dedicated to roguelikes and their development, lists several hundred roguelike games as of November 2015." - We really should not use a wiki as a source.
•  DoneTomeNET - Redlink. Is this important enough to keep, or should it just be delinked?

Early popularity

•  DoneThis section covers 20 of the 35 total years discussed in the article. I don't think that qualifies as "early."
•  Done"such as the dungeon crawling games like Colossal Cave Adventure (often simply titled Adventure) (1975), Dungeon (1975) and DND/Telengard (1976). Much of the development of the early roguelike games were based on these games as well as several dungeon crawlers written for the PLATO system, like the multi-user games dnd (1975) and Moria (1975)." - I have never seen any indication that any of these games save Adventure actually influenced the development of Roguelikes. Certainly the PLATO games did not, as Worth, Toy, Arnold, and Wichman have never mentioned having access to PLATO at the time they created their games. I cannot see every cited page of the Barton source through Amazon preview, but what I can see indicates that the source makes no claim that any of those games influenced Rogue or similar games; he just provides a chronological listing of mainframe computer games. This should be redone.
•  Done"Roguelike games were initially developed on computers with limited memory, including mainframes and early home computers" - Mainframe systems had quite expansive memory, though the demands of timesharing often limited what an individual programmer could actually use. This should be tweaked.
•  Done"Further, Rogue was considered to possess a tougher gameplay challenge, leading to it becoming the namesake for the genre" - It became the namesake of the genre because it was more widespread and popular than Beneath Apple Manor. Tougher gameplay had nothing to do with it.
•  Done"which was not released until BSD v4.3" - Do we have a date on that per chance? No big deal if not.
•  Done"most variants of Rogue could be classified into two branches based on two key games, Moria and Hack, that were developed in the spirit of Rogue." - I know this is true, but it should be sourced.
•  Done"he had placed the ultimate goal to locate and defeat the Balrog at the deepest level of the game, akin to the game's boss battle" - Lost an antecedent here. Which game's boss battle?
•  Done"From Moria spun off Angband (1990), by Alex Cutler and Andy Astrand at the University of Warwick" - Awkwardly worded.
•  Done"Morgoth became the game's final boss to defeat" - Awkward wording.
•  Done"Further deriving from the concepts in NetHack was Ancient Domains of Mystery (1994), or ADOM for short." - Passive voice and awkwardly worded.

Growth of the Rougelike-like

•  Done"The roguelike genre saw a resurgence in Western markets through independent developers after 2000" - This seems like it should be the first sentence of the preceding section, which discusses Roguelikes created after 2000. Its not really about roguelike-likes.
  • I tweaked this a little more myself. Indrian (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Done"Spelunky (2008), released shortly after the formation of the Berlin Interpretation, is considered to be a major contribution to the growth of indie-developed roguelikes" - Roguelikes, or roguelike-likes?
•  DoneIn general, this section apepars to use the terms "roguelike" and "roguelike-like" interchangeably and without distinction, creating overlap with the previous section as well as some confusion. Perhaps the "Continued developement" and "roguelike-like sections need to be merged and reorganized? At the very least the language needs more precision.

And that's it. I made a lot of grammar tweaks in addition to the comments above. Content-wise, the article is fantastic, but structurally it may need some work. Nothing that cannot be fixed in relatively short order, however, so I will place this article  On hold pending improvements. Indrian (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Indrian: I believe I have addressed all the issues identified above now, including the sourcing on the gameplay section. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Masem:Sorry for the holiday-induced delay there. I made a couple of small changes myself on top of your revisions, and I am now satisfied the article meets the GA requirements. Well done! Indrian (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Party-based roguelikes

The article doesn't mention any party-based roguelikes, which are an important departure from the standard development characteristics, IMO. Examples include GearHead, S.C.O.U.R.G.E. and Mysterious Castle. SharkD  Talk  20:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe the only mention of multiplayer gameplay in roguelikes is in the "Key features" section, if I am not mistaken. "Most are single-player games ..." onwards. Might be something that needs to be talked about in a bit more detail. ~Mable (chat) 22:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not talking about multiplayer video games. I'm talking about Party (role-playing games). SharkD  Talk  22:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

That would basically be the concept of a tactical RPG (controlling multiple characters) with roguelike elements, aka a roguelike-like. The problem is that I don't see much discussion of that in any third-party source as a "important departure" separate from roguelike-likes. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Still, they are worth a mention. SharkD  Talk  21:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Introduced roguelike games today's permadeath mode ?

Like in theme, Roguelike games mainly at the beginning was characterized by random localisations and incalculable actions which made that type of game very difficult, in past, commonly called as arcade game. Weak graphics in the beginning of computer technology caused that games weak graphics ability. Because of technology there was no possibility to save progress of game, at the beginning when character died that was his permanent dead. Is today's permadeath mode introduced in today's game the same , and we can say that games from 80 introduced permadeath. I think this is not correct theory. In that way we can notify that first cosmology introduced Indians.--Darek555 (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we're saying that roguelikes "created" the concept of permadeath, simply that they used that idea of permadeath, which had already existing in previous games. A central feature, there from the start of roguelikes, was the notion of permadeath, but it wasn't the genre that invented that concept. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• I want add to this section very important remark. Rogulike games are based on old games from 70's-80's, in that times games was short and consists of short session without save possibility. Short session must be end sooner or later. Today some group want continue that tradition that's all. Gameplay of this type is consists of session resulting of no-save mode, and so important score of this game can be repeated in short time after fails, this is main difference from today's permadeath games. As fans of this trend said rogulelike can't have save option and even the end. In the light of these facts rogulike is not permadeath mode game due of this characteristic. It brings big mess in terms of game classifications. Case is simple rogulelike is a traditional gameplay continuation depended on games from 70's and 80's, which evaluating to modern cRPG todays games. This is a tradition based on old games. Today's implemented permadeath is different from end in rogulike game's and even not similar.--Darek555 (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• • So that it is clear, I went back to the "Dungeon Hacks" book (used here for sourcing), and here's what happened with Rogue. Initially the game had no ability to save its state, so it had to be finished in one setting. They then added a save feature to avoid this issue, but found that people were "save scumming" from this, even on every turn as to get the desired outcome from battle, so they implemented the permadeath concept (though here, simply wiping away a save once it was loaded) to prevent that from happening. So no, the nature of the short games from the arcade cabinets of the 70s-80s were not the influence of the mechanic that ended up as a core feature of roguelike. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No, this you interpretation, There is no proof that inventors of Diablo and others todays modern cRPG inventors basics permadeath of his game on Rogue, no source ! Without proof where inventors confirm that, this is only supposition. This is please for professional knowledge. If I express clear ?.--Darek555 (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Gamasutra: "Although Rogue wasn't a commercial success, it has still had a considerable impact on the industry, including in its implementation of traditional fantasy conventions. Further, many credit its procedurally generated dungeons as the inspiration for Blizzard's Diablo (see book Chapter 4, "Diablo (1996): The Rogue Goes to Hell")." --MASEM (t) 17:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
      • You mix therm Rogue means scamp, its not means inspiration in many games where it is :), like I say there is no proof that Diablo and other is inspired on Rogue game, it is growing legend based on untrue--Darek555 (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
        • Um, that article is specifically talking, in that point of context, about Rogue the video game, not the type of person. It's a reliable source. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• You build your theory on opinion of small group fans of rogulike games, not on facts and proofs, you build some legend which is untrue :)--Darek555 (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • We're using reliable sources, including a work that interviews the developers. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Reliable ? is proved that inventors of Diablo based his game on Rogue, because this is only one true proof, rest is not valid only interpretations by some persons.--Darek555 (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
      • [1] From Diablo's creator "I came up with the idea for Diablo ... when I was high-school," says Brevik. "It was modified over and over until it solidified when I was in college and got hooked on an ASCII game called Moria/Angband. When we pitched Diablo to Blizzard, we pitched a turn-based, single-player DOS game." So yes, we know what the developer said. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
        • Ok, i said the same, cRPG evolved from firs game similar to Rogue and many other games made by people, but not all.--Darek555 (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
          • Do you have any sources stating games other than roguelikes as influences of this gameplay mechanic? ~Mable (chat) 21:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
            • Yes, life, logicaly evoluation of games, they becomes similar to real life not to old games, new young inventor don't have to know old games to develop game with permdeath mode. Now you build theory that every permadeath games come from rogulike, he--Darek555 (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
              • No one is asserting that the roguelike genre created the notion of permadeath, only that it is one of the genre's key defining features, and that other games using permadeath have likely borrowed how permadeath was implemented in roguelikes. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• I have last question, is "Pinball" of Microsoft pioneer of rogulike and permadeath ?--Darek555 (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Microsoft Pinball Arcade? Full Tilt! Pinball? I'm pretty sure these games are influenced by pinball machines rather than actual video games. ~Mable (chat) 21:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Games become similar to real life, you attach untrue theory to other games, and death in rogulike games is a result of its gameplay--Darek555 (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Clearly, roguelikes were inspired by real life, which mostly, AFAIK, features permadeath. (Joking.) SharkD  Talk  22:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Question about Rogulike game type

In this section please make simple clear reply, in accordance wikipedia as professional scientific place.

1. Is rogulike games the session type games (no-save game) ?
2. what is the name of the mechanic roguelike game based on short gameplay ?
3. Is the same END of rogulike games and today's permadeath games ?
4. Is the same gameplay of roguelike game and today's cRPG game ?
5. is possible developing games like cRPG and others if rogulike games never exists ?
6. All creators cRPG must base permadeath mode on rogulike games ?--Darek555 (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

These are all answered but to be specific:

1) As I checked today, Rogue was initially built to force the player to complete the game in the same session. By popular request, they added the ability to save because of how long it would take to finish the game. Saving as a feature has stuck in all subsequent roguelikes, so roguelikes are not session-type games by design.

2) Roguelikes were not meant to be "short gameplay", but did want to be repeatable gameplay. So there is no such mechanic you're asking about, since "short gameplay" was never a target feature.

3) Permadeath in roguelikes is the same as permadeath is understood in other genres.

4) cRPG typically do not have permadeath. You can save and reload from the same spot as many times.

5) Yes. both cRPGs and roguelikes are parellel development paths that extend from the original computer games like Colossal Cave Adventure, but also from tabletop RPGs like Dungeons and Dragons. While both genres borrowed elements from the other, they are two separate paths. Today, people would classify roguelikes as a subset of cRPGs.

6) As such, since all cRPGs are not roguelikes or even roguelike-likes, permadeath is not a required feature at all. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Does Rogue-Like really exist or just bad taxonomy?

I think it shows lack of clarity and creativity to call any games "Something-like". We don't call Fantasy RPG "Dragon Age Like" or SciFi RPG "Mass Effect Like" or any Fantasy Movie / Novel as "Tolkien-Like". No Single author, or game or creation is a genre of its own.

So Rogue-Like should fall either to "platformer" or "casual games" if it does not have anything unique but lack of save feature ("perma death is not a requirement")

MMORPG now should be called WOW-Like
FPS now should be called Doom-Like
RTS now should be called C&C-Like
jRPG now should be called Final-Fantasy-Like
Platformers now should be called Mario-Bros-Like
Sandbox Games now should be called GTA-Like

~~William 15 Sep 2016

Video game genres are often based on similarities to other video games, like Doom clone, Grand Theft Auto clone, Metroidvania, and Breakout clone. This is how video game culture works. You can go and try to create a unique word for roguelikes abs see if it catches on like [first-person shooter]], but language is purely cultural, so good luck. We don't name things here on Wikipedia: that's not our job. ~Mable (chat) 07:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The reason why no one can come up with alternative name for Roguelike is because it is lacking a clearly defined feature; which should lead to the actual question as to whether the so called genre actually exist. e.g. the word "Bae" in cultural teen talk can mean anything from "baby" to "good" to "Shit", i.e. the word can mean anything because it does not really exist. Roguelike is an imaginary word that can describe anything the marketer want it to describe, and I don't think Wikipedia should be ground for imaginary marketing word as it create justification for its existence. People assume it is a legitimate word because it is included in Encyclopedia Britannica / Wikipedia

While it is a justifiable argument that Wikipedia does not "name things", if Gaming taxonomy is to be taken seriously; the quality of Wikipedia article standards and its integrity is at stake here, else it would be just another "Urban dictionary online".

~~ William 12 Oct 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.66.144.38 (talk • contribs) 

You are certainly right we want to avoid being Urban Dictionary (and in fact, we have WP:NEO for that reason), but however, "roguelike" is used throughout sources to describe this type of game, and that's what we go by. "Roguelike-like" "Rogue-lite" and all that, those are very diffuse, and you can't find a strong definition for it, for certain, but it is a work associated with "roguelike", and all those variations are used throughout sources, so we're sorta stuck with it. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I've personally held the belief for a long time that video game genre terms absolutely suck. Roguelike is the least of our worries, honestly. But yeah, none of this really worries me. You should contact influential publications like PC Gamer, Destructoid, etc, if you want to "change" the way these words are used. As I said, we just document whatever catches on culturally. Wiktionary has a definition for bae too. There's just not much to say about it from an encyclopedic point of view yet. ~Mable (chat) 09:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Engadget and Destructoid are now using the term roguelike or rogue-lite 2001:569:76D2:AF00:B58D:63CE:566E:39D7 (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Community section

Shouldn't there be such a separate section? Especially before the genre's resurgence in indie games, there was a small, devoted and almost cult-like community to these games. Example, see what I found from a five-minute search: Gamasutra: "overlap between player and developer" especially Josh Ge's quotations. One current given ref "Where I'm @: A Brief Look At The Resurgence of Roguelikes" says stuff like " For all the supposed elitism of roguelikes, I've never encountered communities which are more welcoming, sharing and friendly..." and goes on further. There's must be more refs too. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Another reason for it would be that most of these games are open-source, thus increasing community participation. But even major longstanding ones without it like ADOM (besides closed source, it's not even freeware anymore I think) and Dwarf Fortress, have active communities. That has been raised with the developers (PC gamer interview) and fans guessing, reverse-engineering it for writing wikis or making mods etc. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Its quite reasonable to create a section for this which I've done, though how much more we can add without going to wikia/etc. might be difficult. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

New category

Should we create a Category:Roguelike-like video games category? What games should go in it? SharkD  Talk  21:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Given that there's a potential OR issue, I think that 1) that cat should be a subcat of Category:Roguelike video games and 2) it is a non-diffusing sub-cat (a game can exist in both). Once that is set up, then I think it would not be OR to say "this is considered a roguelike, but it clearly looks nothing like what the Berlin Interpretation anticipates, so it is a roguelike-like", as one with Spleunky or FTL." We aren't going to have most sources actually called the roguelike-likes as roguelike-likes; they will still use "roguelike" as a bulk name. This also avoids having to get too far into the weeds of how much the Berlin Interpretation applies, as if we can't easily make a very quick non-analysis decision, it should just remain at the higher level (such as the case with Drawf Fortress. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

That sounds fine. SharkD  Talk  01:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Advantages/disadvantages of roguelikes versus other CRPG genres

In this article Jaakko Tapani Peltonen of NetHack: Falcon's Eye talks about some of the positive traits and disadvantages of roguelikes when compared with other CRPG genres. It is his opinion of course. It might be useful for the article though. SharkD  Talk  23:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Roguelike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6EMcKGsTA?url=http://www.1up.com/features/essential-50-rogue to http://www.1up.com/features/essential-50-rogue
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6EMcKGsTA?url=http://www.1up.com/features/essential-50-rogue to http://www.1up.com/features/essential-50-rogue
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.next-gen.biz/features/japan-votes-all-time-top-100

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

"Key features" issues

• Maybe half of the content is inappropriate to an encyclopedic list of features, like how to circumvent them, commentary about them, or comparing features in early and later variations of roguelikes. Either each bullet item should concisely describe a single key feature of roguelike games, or the whole section should be reorganized into article format with paragraphs, which would allow for some of the tangential bits to be included.
• The last line of the opening paragraph states that the list derives straight from the Berlin Interpretation. But the list explicitly includes things from outside the BI, such as rivers, and mentions things which are common to roguelikes, but not specified under BI, like whether they can be multi-player ("single-player" being different from "single player character"). Either the list should strictly conform to BI (perhaps referring to deviations parenthetically?), or the opening paragraph should be altered to reflect that the list does not follow BI, and is merely descriptive of games generally considered roguelike.
• The Berlin Interpretation has a stated purpose and two levels of importance for features. All this must be incorporated into the top paragraph in the section, if reference to BI is kept. And before that, a justification for only using BI definitions has to be made.

--Atkinson (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• • I reworked the BI section, running down the high- and low- value lists. I did keep commentary to make it clear if there was a known deviation from the BI (where the BI actually notes some of these, like fixed levels or non-modality of shops), or where others have commented further on the BI's points. I also added the text that explains that the BI is not an absolute, but meant to id games as roguelike canon to the 5 games they picked in 2008. --Masem (t) 16:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Roguelike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160919020229/http://insight.ieeeusa.org/insight/content/views/371703 to http://insight.ieeeusa.org/insight/content/views/371703
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522210006/http://www.1up.com/reviews/nightmare-of-druaga_2 to http://www.1up.com/reviews/nightmare-of-druaga_2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Should a new page be created for roguelites and roguelike-likes?

As time goes, roguelike-likes are becoming far more common, and the lack of a separate page and categories is resulting in a lot of miscategorization and misinformation. As of right now, Roguelite redirects to this page, although I've made it at least redirect to the roguelike-likes subsection.

--Asmageddon (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is needed. What makes a roguelite is so diffuse with the only consistency being randomness and permadeath that a separate page would not be useful when much ties to the roguelike genre itself. Further, the industry has a whole has yet to figure out where a roguelike ends and roguelite begins (the term is inconsistently used). --Masem (t) 18:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd personally say as the genres diversify from one another it will eventually be needed for posterity sake of the roguelike genre. We already have Risk of Rain and Risk of Rain 2(henceforth shortened to RoR and RoR2) being quantified as "roguelikes" when they literally share about as much in common with the roguelike genre than tetris. Neither RoR or RoR2 have procedural generation(henceforth referred to as proc-gen) of levels, neither have the turnbased, nor tactical components, neither have any real elements that make roguelikes roguelikes save for permadeath. The snes tetris also used a randomization algorithm for its pieces so one could make the argument that its "technically" proc-gen. Tetris likewise eschews the tactical components, the RPG elements etc. Snes version Tetris is both permadeath and proc-gen whereas RoR and RoR2 use slight and incremental variation of the same level/area. So then the Snes version of Tetris is a "roguelike" if we allow the dilution of the genre that RoR and RoR2 and other games of similar vein create.

As more and more roguelites diversify from the origin of the genre of roguelike in increasing ways and increasingly different ways we will see either one of two things, the collapse of the genre into a meaningless term tossed around with complete disregard, or we will see a split between the two genres. I'd rather the split because at least then the genre has purpose. 47.72.113.98 (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"New Game" vs "Run"

I already made a couple minor edits adding this word in but the whole article might need to be reworded for better comprehension. Unless "run" is more of a modern, roguelite thing and people don't call Rogue games "runs". The sentence "The identity of magical items, including magically enchanted items, varies across games." just sounds wrong since the meaning can be interpreted two different ways. Give me your thoughts. Ben R4m-Z (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2018

Maybe "runthrough" or "playthrough" - "run" is a tiny bit too informal. Nothing against the change to separate "game" from "run". --Masem (t) 17:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Is "roguelike-like" WP:NEO?

I looked through the references, and I couldn't find a single one that used the term roguelike-like. Even the interview with Digital Eel, the only developers who are referenced to have used it, indicates that they dropped the extra "-like" early on and believe that roguelike is the proper umbrella term. Everyone from fans to industry to the press only uses the terms roguelike and roguelite, so the constant use of this term in "Growth of the roguelike-like" smells very WP:NEO.

Based on this article, it appears to now be a joke term.

Perhaps "Evolution of the Roguelike" would be a better section header, and the use of "traditional roguelike" when necessary to refer to the strict "Berlin interpretation" games. --SilverbackNet ^talk 20:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Its's still a term comes up, I think "roguelite" has been the more "preferred" version. But in terms of NEO, we're not using either term to describe these games (eg elsewhere, roguelite are not called that, just "roguelike"). --Masem (t) 21:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

"co-opting"

To the IP editor that keeps adding this: I am well aware that a minority of die-hard, Berlin Interpretation-roguelike players take issue with the use of "roguelike" to describe the newer games ala Spleunky. Unfortunately, we don't have any reliable sources that make this case, and we are required to have those. We cannot just make claims without such sources (that's original research), and its also a minority viewpoint, and so forcing that is against the neutral POV policy.

If you continue to try to add it without showing sources, you will likely be blocked. --Masem (t) 13:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

"co-opting: the reply"

To co-opt something is to assign usage to that unlike the original. The usage of the word co-opting is correct in context. The same way that it would be correct in context if every pop music band were to suddenly call themselves metal they could easily co-opt the term "metal" in reference to musical genres. Would this be accurate to the music genre? No. Would this be accurate to history? No. Would this be accurate to what the genre is at its core? No. What you and others propose for the definition of roguelike being synonymous with roguelite is nothing more than argumentum ad populum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.72.113.98 (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

It's against our original research policy. We need reliable source that state that these newer roguelikes co-opted the term. There are none that I can find. Plenty of forum posts that complain about it, but forum posts aren't reliable sources. --Masem (t) 00:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The sources you're asking for are the simple fact that roguelites are quite frankly unlike the genre defining games, as the article states. The sources you ask for are quite frankly within wikipedia itself in the articles present state and in its edit history. To call such games roguelikes when they are roguelites is inherently an act of co-opting in the same vein that calling pop music "metal" would be an act of co-opting. It is inherently an act of co-opting in the same vein that usage of the pentagram by those of Satanists, Laveyan or otherwise is a co-opting of the symbol from paganism and potentially other earlier religions/folklore.

To say that this is not an act of co-opting is to eschew both the definition of the word "co-opting"("to divert to or use in a role different from the usual or original one") as well as to ignore the original definition of the term "roguelike." If one were to say it were an "intentional co-opting," well now then they've got to prove intent, and that is a whole separate kettle of fish. 47.72.113.98 (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

We have too many reliable sources that call these newer games "roguelike" and do not consider this a co-opting. You can't point to Wikipedia to counter the sources, you need other sources. --Masem (t) 01:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Those other sources are the very reason the term is being co-opted whilst said sources want to sweep said co-opting under the rug. Of course they are not going to say that they are co-opting the term. Furthermore there is a long history, detailed in this article and the sources it draws from showing roguelikes to be those games that are akin to rogue. That should quantify for the statement that using the term to refer to roguelites is in fact an act of co-opting.

Also try again without the argumentum ad populum 47.72.113.98 (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

We have to go with what reliable sources have said. User-driven arguments cannot be used on WP. --Masem (t) 03:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Yet to go by said "reliable sources" is to go against the Usenet forums that defined roguelikes as a collection of games similar in large capacity to Rogue. Yet to go by said "reliable sources" is to go against the Berlin Interpretation which was created specifically because games like Spelunky, Triangle Wizard etc were being lumped into the sub-genre underneath RPG despite the fact that they had tenuous connection to Rogue. Hell Spelunky has no RPG elements. If Roguelikes are in fact a subgenre under RPG then Spelunky itself does not fit.

Most of these "reliable sources" also go against all the resources that cite the original definition of roguelike. This is blatant evidence of co-opting.

Lastly most of these "reliable sources" use the argumentum ad populum based on the idea that Spelunky is a roguelike when its not even an RPG so it aught to be disqualified by not fitting into the first category let alone its subcategory. It'd be akin to calling frogs a subspecies of waterfowl because "both frogs and ducks have webbed feet" 47.72.113.98 (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Do note: we recognize that there is the Berlin Interpretation, and we do recognize that terms like "roguelite" and "roguelike-like" have come into play to describe these games as differing from those that ahead to the Berlin Interpretation. We are not ignoring that it is recognized that its hard to put Rogue and Splelunky side by side and say they are the same genre.

The issue is the argument that these games co-opted the term. That's absolutely an opinion, not fact. I could readily argue that when the first games lke Spelunky came out, which had these roguelike features, members of the press decided to call these roguelikes because they had no other word to describe them. That's not co-opting term. Misusing perhaps, but they were clearly not trying to twist the meaning, as some people feel.

Basically, we can note that modern "roguelikes" are not the same as original "roguelikes" and there's attempts to clarify this difference. But we can't use words like "misuse" or "co-opt" as to imply these newer game purposely or forcefully took over the term, unless there are reliable sources that make this claim. )we definitely can't use user forums for that). --Masem (t) 04:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thats the thing though, it is co-opting as it is taking a term specifically used and made for the usage to define a genre of game, then twisting said term to be wholly unlike its source. That is the literal definition of co-opting within the context by which its used. To say it is co-opting with intent is arguable. To say that it is or isnt co-opting is not arguable. It is an act of co-opting by the very definition of the word "co-opt" regardless of intent. To say otherwise is to ignore the very definition of the word "co-opt" 47.72.113.98 (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I have made a compromise edit, given that a) co-opt does not mean what you think it means, at least not in any credible dictionary and b) in any case the phrase "games using the term" or "games co-opting the term" does not really make proper sense. The games themselves are not using the term. It would be more accurate to state "game developers, game distributors, gamers, reviewers, journalists etc. using/co-opting the term...". I have therefore changed the sentence so that it says "games known as roguelike" - we have abundant, high quality sources which refer to these as roguelike, so this should not be debatable. If there is some debate as to whether the use of roguelike is accurate for these games, then this should be discussed in a separate section or in the origin section (provided it is of sufficient relevance). --TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Your compromise is a failure. https://imgur.com/a/C3Wxtv0 this is a screenshot googles definition. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/co-opt definition 2: b as the Merriam Webster dictionary reads also backs up the usage of the word. by any accurate account to call it a co-opting of the term is in fact correct. To say otherwise is to deny the history of the genre.

121.75.204.98 (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

First, all definitions of "co-opting" imply that it was done purposely. I see nothing to imply that this was a purposeful co-opting of the word.

Second, consider why there was a Berlin Interpretation anyway: it wasn't because people were making games and then backed into calling them roguelikes. They were making roguelikes that may have looked like Rogue etc, but lacked principle features of what long-time roguelike fanatics would have considered. The BI was made only to determine high-value qualities of what makes a roguelike game. Failure to meet all the high level qualities did not make a game not-roguelike. Essentially, these newer games also meet some but not all of the high-value BI qualities. Their only commonality is that most are not ASCII-tile-based games and visually look different. So no, going by the past, at no point has anyone co-opted the term, its just how much of the BI high-values do these games hit. --Masem (t) 14:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere in the contextually accurate definitions of "co-opt" did it say intent mattered. Intent does not mattter as to whether or not a thing is co-opted. Using a traditionally tied Hijab as a fashion piece when one is outside of the Muslim faith is an act of co-opting regardless or intent. The act of calling a california roll "sushi" is inherently a co-opting of the term regardless of intent.(hate to bring in godwins law, so forgive me here but) The co-opting of the Swastika as a piece symbol and redefining as the Nazi flag is an act of co-opting regardless of intent. The change from roguelike to roguelite is co-opting regardless of intent. There's also the fact that most traditional roguelikes had small and independent teams working on them so the part that cites roguelites have "smaller and independent teams" is erroneous as roguelikes have the same qualifier. Lastly stating that roguelites are roguelikes with the line the "successes of these modern roguelikes" is erroneous. We also have modern roguelikes that are actual roguelikes being developed, both in and out of the commercial market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.75.204.98 (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The major point above is that games that have some but not all of the BI' high-value requirements have been called roguelikes before the non-tile based/non-ASCII games like Weird Worlds came along. If you are so insistent about co-opt, it started well before 2008's convention where the BI was defined. But I stress, if you read the BI, it's not like they wanted to purge any non-pure roguelike out of the roguelike category, just to define the high-level values that make a game "more" roguelike-ish. Nothing changed when Weird Worlds and Spleunky came out, just that there was more mainstream coverage of these games calling them "roguelike". In the current text, it is clear that some would rather have us use "roguelite", etc., which indicates there is some concern about dilution of the original roguelike games, and hints towards whether there was co-opting, but sources do not cover this terminology issue in that fashion otherwise. --Masem (t) 18:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion does not reflect history. The roguelike-like term was coined(and then shifted to roguelite as of 2013) specifically to separate games that do not fit within the genre. saying that they are the same genre is an inherent co-opting while also erasing a term used to define a genre. 121.75.204.98 (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It reflects what our sources say. "Roguelite" and "roguelike-likes" are not well used terms, the industry still calls these roguelikes. We can't change that, and it is POV to try to say anything was co-opted without reliable sources to back this up. --Masem (t) 18:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The industry is wrong, period. The industry only cares about what sells, as such it has co-opted the term roguelike to fit roguelites as the populous at large does not distinguish between the two. To say otherwise is just argumentum ad populum. Hell the article itself states roguelikes are RPG games, most roguelites eschew so many RPG elements that they dont even fit into the RPG genre, let alone the roguelike genre. That is a redefinition of terminology that is blatant, albeit mostly unwitting co-opting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.75.204.98 (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

We are required to go by what reliable sources say. You may feel they are wrong, but it is original research (and in this case, also pushing a point of view) but saying otherwise. We cannot say this at all. --Masem (t) 18:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not "feel they are wrong," they are wrong period. They go against an established definition of an established game genre and lump games wholly unlike anything within the genre and claim they belong. That act is inherently the definition of the word co-opting within such a discussion context. One can argue intent, but the thing is that co-opting does not by definition require intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.75.204.98 (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

If you can't provide any reliable sources that basically says the industry is wrong, then all you are saying is how you feel, and thus we can't document that in WP. It's original research without sourcing, and its your POV that its a co-opting without sources, both which we cannot have. --Masem (t) 19:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Roguelikes are inherently RPG games correct? This is the definition that this very article states, it is the definition that all traditional roguelikes are made under and within. The trouble with saying that the people stating "roguelite is equivelant to roguelike" isnt an act of co-opting is that its saying that games that arent RPGs such as spelunky, Rogue Legacy etc fit under the same genre. You cannot state that games eschewing a genres core elements(in this context one of which being that roguelikes are inherently RPG games) fall within said genre without it being an inherent act of co-opting along the same lines as the hijab for fashion, along the same lines as the california roll as to traditional sushi, along the same lines as the swastikas original meaning an the nazi co-opting(again forgive the godwins law). 121.75.204.98 (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Which is all original research, which we cannot use without sources. This is why I've stressed the importance of the Berlin Interpretation (something we can source which still calls games rogulike even if they only have a few of the high-value propositions. And since nearly every "roguelite" is based around procedural generation and permadeath (two high value factors), even the BI would consider them roguelike. --Masem (t) 19:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear anonymous IP user - you are turning this matter into an edit war. Respectfully, please could you desist from repeating this edit while it is still not resolved in the talk page, and at least until such a time as you are able to provide valid sources to support your claim that the use of these terms is "wrong"? Wikipedia is not a place where we can decide ourselves what is the "right" or "wrong" use of a term, because that is original research. You have given your reasons as to why you think it is wrong. I disagree and have many reasons why I do not think it is wrong. However none of that is relevant, because the article has a multitude of relaible sources which DO apply this term to the games in question and, as of yet, no sources which suggest said usage is incorrect. If you can find a reliable source which supports your claim or perhaps some kind of definitive definition of "roguelike" which objectively excludes these games, then you could add a new section which disucsses this. Otherwise, I would request again, that you respect the Wikipedia conribution process and refrain from repeating the same edits seemingly in the hope that no one will notice. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Your sources are nothing more than argumentum ad populum. The original meaning is wildly different to the meaning wrongfully applied to the term roguelike. Ergo this is a co-opting of the term. 121.75.204.98 (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately WP goes by WP:V "Verifyability , not truth". No RS treats it this way, so we cannot describe it this way. --Masem (t) 13:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Your continued reference to "ad populum" is reductive and non sensical in the context of this discussion. You claim that the sources are "nothing more than argumentum ad populum" however your only source is your own opinion. There is no "official" definition of what a roguelike game is, therefore, we must go by the common definition of that game, as per reliable sources. You frequently refer to "the original meaning" of rougelike - however you have no source which shows us what the original meaning is. There is no such source, because the term is informal and vague. This was the very point of the Berlin interpretation (to try to formalize the definition) and even they did not preclude these newer games from being roguelike.

So to summarize: A) There is no official or original meaning of Roguelike, B) we therefore must use what is the common definition of the term C) we find this common definition by using reliable sources - this is not the same as an ad populum argument and D) the one major attempt at creating an official definition did not preclude these more modern games from being considered roguelike. Please could you stop making edits until you at the very least provide a source which shows what the "original meaning" of the term is? TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

There is an original definition though, games that are "like rogue" hence the genres title! Spelunky is no more like rogue than it is dance dance revolution. Is it now a rhythm game? That definition widened to include games that are like nethack, like Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, like ADoM etc as genre defining games, however Spelunky, Rogue Legacy etc are not "like rogue" in any moderate capacity let alone a large one. They are no more Roguelikes than they are first person shooters. Furthermore there is a wide enough history on roguelites to be on their own page AWAY from the definition of roguelike, as they very well aught to be. They are not "like Rogue" nor like ADoM, nor Nethack, nor ToME nor any of the genres founding titles by any large capacity. To call any of the above titles "Roguelikes" is an inherent(though largely unwitting) co-opting of the term away from its very source. 121.75.204.98 (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Talking of sources - do you have any at all? I mean I could argue myself blue in the face that XCOM is a turn-based tactics game and not a turn-based strategy game, but that doesn't stop it being overwhelmingly referred to as such. At some point it's clearly necessary to review what are the definitions of genres like this and where are they sourced? Naturally, they are fluid concepts and as such it is bizarre to suggest that your POV should be stated as fact. EvolutionaryTheorist (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Howdy, Spelunky, Rogue Legacy and Weird Worlds (discussed above as allegedly not roguelike games) are all listed on Steam as roguelike. What source is there supporting the claim that they are not roguelike? The anonymous editor above does not provide one, so it seems to me like it's just one person's opinion; not what Wikipedia is about. EvolutionaryTheorist (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not provide a source as the reference is already listed by wikipedia in the article that you lot so crudely want to lump roguelites into. The USENET newsgroups established Rogue as the common denominator for roguelikes(hence the name "ROGUElikes"). Rogue is a tactical/strategic(some will say strategic, others tactical either way that argument is splitting hairs) tile based RPG with alphabet symbols representing tiles(technically not ASCII, as ASCII refers to making a whole image from letters/numbers), permadeath and procedural generated areas. Nethack was exactly that, as was Lynleys Dungeon Crawl(now DCSS), as was ToME, as was ADoM, these then became seen as equal genre definers as to the roguelike genre. This is fact, documented in this article and several of the references it draws from. Nethack then shifted to a full graphical-tile based system without losing its gameplay elements, as did DCSS and the other genre defining games(as to "when" I'd have to reference the specifics for DCSS, Nethack etc which isnt whats being discussed). As such we have a baseline of Rogue and games that fit within the genre with references already listed. Games that play like those are roguelikes. Those that are not like rogue but borrow elements of the genre are rogueLITES. A FPS with procedural generation, metaprogression and a lack of RPG elements(Immortal redneck) is not like rogue(a tactical, tilebased RPG, based on procedural generation and permadeath), nor is it like any of the genres defining games either. This isnt opinion, this is simple observation. A sidescrolling platformer that nixes all RPG elements and keeps naught but the procedural generation elements(spelunky) again is not like Rogue, nor like any of the genres defining games. A bullet hell that draws more from Legend of Zelda(Binding of Isaac) is not like Rogue, nor the genres defining games. Calling these games Roguelikes is inherently to draw the phrase "roguelike" away from ROGUE and the genres defining titles. Its no more valid than saying your fridge is a school-desk because they both have hinged draws. Lastly it is a valid co-opting simply because that's the VERY DEFINITION of co-opt in such a very context.

121.75.204.98 (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I will stress this again: unless you have a reliable source (not a Wikipedia page) that says that the new style of roguelike games ala Spelunky "co-opted" the term, it is a POV violation to add, no matter how much you believe that these games should never be called "roguelikes". We have far too many RS sources that say otherwise, and it would a POV violation to go against that. --Masem (t) 04:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I stress again the USENET newsgroups established Rogue as the common denominator. I stress again that Rogue is unlike the games lumped into the "modern definition" of the genre. Tell me how is a FPS like a turn based RPG? Tell me how is a sidescrolling platformer like a turn based RPG. They are inherently different as per the sources already noted in the article.121.75.204.98 (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

We can only go by what reliable sources say. Otherwise it is POV and original research. --Masem (t) 05:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Your reliable sources go against an already established, documented and previously well used definition. as per the sources already listed within this article(note: I do NOT mean the article itself, I mean the USENET newsgroups and the other listings that reference rogue as the genres namesake). If games that are unlike a genres namesake are being lumped into the category that is an inherent, albeit potentially unwitting co-opting.

USENET posts are not reliable sources here. This is what WP:V is all about , "Verifyability, not truth". You may feel what you say is true, but unless you have reliable sources - not USENET group, not pointing back to a definition, but actual reports in reliable media - then we have to go with what reliable sources say, even if they are "wrong".

You're also wrong about calling "FPS" as a fork of Doom clones. Doom clones became known as FPS, nothing was forked off. --Masem (t) 13:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

We should be careful about using Steam listings as proof since those can also be manipulated by users. That said, the majority of RSes still call them roguelike, with a few acknowledging they are more "roguelite" titles. The issue that the IP keeps raising is the claim that these games co-opted the term "roguelike", which is just not true. Roguelike was a diluted term at the point of the Berlin Interpretation (the whole reason they had that), so its hard to say a diffuse, diluted definition was co-opted by games that met that diffuse, diluted definition. --Masem (t) 14:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This makes sense, of course. But equally, in the absence of any recognised authority of what exactly a "roguelike" is, surely the sensible place to look is to the playerbase? To my mind this is at least a source, which is infinitely superior to just some random IP's musings... EvolutionaryTheorist (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

TBH we shouldnt use steam listings at all. According to steam Euro Truck simulator is a "racing game". According to steam portal is a "FPS". According to steam at one point "What Remains of Edith Finch" was also an "FPS"

Well, it would be hard to argue that Portal shouldn't be regarded as an FPS, for example. Of course I could see the argument for this case but it is referred to as such in the industry (e.g. here). But in general the same problem is present here also - in the absence of an authority on video game genres - surely looking at the manner to which games are commonly referred by their players is the sensible option? Rather than just letting random editors determine what's what without reference to any sources? EvolutionaryTheorist (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Echoing Masem and others' points. In this wiki-neighborhood, we go by sources, even if we have strong convictions about state of the world. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Sad to see the anon IP lose

This article is less valid than the reddit roguelike forum because of the addition of the roguelite section. Quite frankly for posterity and for accuracy that should be its own page. Roguelites are unlike rogue, they are unlike nethack, ADoM, lynleys dungeon crawl and every other actual roguelike. I was really rooting for the anon dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jofadda (talk • contribs) 20:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS before you add content to the article. As stated many times above to the IP, Wikipedia uses reliable sources, such as WP:VG/RS. User-generated sources, such as Wikia, Reddit, etc. are not acceptable. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 07:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to say roguelites are roguelikes. They were not considered as such until the popularization of Spelunky and Binding of Isaac(which by the by Edward McMillen himself stated is not a roguelike). Use google search metrics prior to these games inception(2007 and 2011 respectively) and you'll see an inherent difference between the actual term roguelike and the modern bastardization of the term. Furthermore although we do not have a concise date for the inception of the term "roguelike-like" we do have one for the term "roguelite" just as we do for the term roguelike, we also have enough info on it as a genre of its own, separate from but not entirely dissimilar to roguelikes ergo it should be its own page. 121.75.206.253 (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

nailed it anon, although you forgot to mention what the inception of the term roguelite was, that being the creation of the game Rogue Legacy. Prior to Rogue Legacy the term roguelite did not exist and roguelike-like, was used. We can see this in the search metrics of google for the term roguelite compared with the date of release of rogue legacy, we dont just see a spike in the terms usage, we see a flatline until that date followed by a steep incline on the graph. TotalBiscuit covered this quite well on his youtube vid about roguelikes VS roguelites, it's quite a pity he's not still kicking around. Jofadda (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Well that, and its not "search metrics" unless you're using the statistics of a search, so when you say "use google search metrics prior to these games" I think you mean "use googles 'wayback machine' to examine what roguelikes are"Jofadda (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for that. There's also the fact that the IRLDB(international roguelike database) doesnt cover any of the modern junk co-opting the name of the genre, search for isaac, spelunky, crawl etc there and you get nil results, search for an actual roguelike and you'll get what you're after. There is an inherent difference between roguelike and roguelite seen and exemplified in these websites 121.75.206.253 (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I will stress this again: Wikipedia cannot go away from what reliable sources say, even if you think they are bogus and changed things. We work on verifyability, not truth, unfortunately. Today nearly all major outlets consider roguelikes to be as broad as it is, and not the original tight definition back when the genre was emerging. We can't change that at all, even if we think that's the truth. And I will still point out that the Berlin Interpretation, the most "official" means to measure what a roguelike is, still allows for these types of games to be considered to have some roguelike character. --Masem (t) 21:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Your sources are invalid. They lable virtually anything as a roguelike, we have a set in stone namesake of the genre, therefore we have a set in stone standard to measure the genre by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jofadda (talk • contribs) 21:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Also your argumentum ad populum is showingJofadda (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a majority of sources actually believe there is little distinction today between the traditional roguelike and the new ones. To call them as different as the arguments here want them to be reflects the fringe view of what sources present. I fully can appreciate the argument that is being presented that "roguelites" are different, but I have never found sourcing to support that drastic a change to this page to present that stance. --Masem (t) 22:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

That majority is ignorant. To rely upon it is agumentum ad pupulum at its most blatant. We have a set in stone standard, Rogue and games that are similar to it. Games that are dissimilar but borrow elements qualify as roguelite. Do an experiment. Have a group of people who dont play roguelikes play a bunch of different types of videogames and group them into genres, you'll find racing games grouped together, FPS grouped together, Fighters grouped together etc. This'll give you a baseline to show people can competently group games of like qualities, and that like qualities define genres, not the other way around. Then get those same people to play rogue, nethack, ADoM, DCSS and other actual roguelikes, have them then play games like Spelunky, Downwell, Isaac, Slay the Spire, Risk of Rain and RoR2. Then ask them to batch them into groups like the previous task. You will find every instance of this task you'll get a distinct divide between roguelike, and roguelite.

I've personally done this test several times to show the difference between 'like and 'lite in reference to these games. Not once has it failed. Furthermore people come to the realization that roguelites are in fact lite on their qualifying elements quite fast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jofadda (talk • contribs) 23:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

And the point still remains, unless you can show reliable sources that clearly make this distiction, we have to so with what the existing reliable sources say. WP cannot make up content that this line of argument basically is. No matter how right you may think you are, lacking any sources to show that will go nowhere on WP. This is not WP's fault that roguelites have been grouped in with roguelikes, that's the majority of sources that did that for us. --Masem (t) 00:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The point that these are not like rogue, and the point that the IRLDB, Roguebasin, Temple of the Roguelike and many other websites disagree still stands, those websites are valid sources. We also have the fact that prior to Rogue Legacy that games like Isaac, Spelunky etc were considered roguelike-like due to the fact they were not based on rogue, but based on a few elements of the genre without being within it. We have the fact that no website dedicated to roguelikes shares your view. We have the fact that we have both a set in stone namesake and by that set in stone namesake a set in stone standard by which to say that roguelites are not roguelikes and vice versa. We also have a 1600-ish and growing compendium of roguelikes that are not roguelites within roguebasin and IRLDB. These games fit within the genre, roguelites do not. Jofadda (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

To add to that the international roguelike convention itself disagrees that roguelites are roguelikes. While most people there celebrate both roguelikes and roguelites while there, there is the clear, distinct and precise separation from roguelikes and roguelites. 121.75.206.253 (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Those are NOT valid sources. They're mostly fan run, and not experts in the video game arena. The International Roguelike Convention has determine what high value aspects should be used in roguelikes but they do not discount games that do not have all those high value factors as roguelikes. Sources are king here to make any change. --Masem (t) 01:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Those are valid sources, they were using the roguelike genre well before the commercial bastardization of the term, and they were and are sources that exemplified what roguelikes are, were and will be well after your little fad dies out. Furthermore to say they are not valid sources is akin to saying many roguelikes are not roguelikes simply because those are the only areas such roguelikes are listed. Jofadda (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

They are not valid sources for Wikipedia. User-generated content sites are not usable sources. The larger point is that we do well to recongize the idea of roguelites, and that there is some that feel they should be distinquished from rogeulikes, but the majority of sources that are appropriate for WP combine these two areas. We cannot change that without reliable sources. --Masem (t) 01:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

They are valid though. They literally helped define what a roguelike /IS/ before the rampant commercialization and bastardization of the term. If we cannot consider those sources valid, then we cannot consider this article valid and thus it aught to be re-flagged for deletion. Jofadda (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

We can use what reliable sources, which likely have reviewed these others sources, have said about it, and they do not make the case that rogulites should be 100% differentiated from roguelikes. Most point to the vagueness of the Berlin Interpretation to point out that no line can really be drawn. --Masem (t) 02:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a line drawn though. Look at what IRLDB covers and what it doesnt. Look at what roguetemple covers, look at any organized 7DRL challenge. Look at the difference between googles search data of roguelike between now and pre-2011, look at what roguebasin covers. Hell minesweeper is verifiable as more "like rogue" than most <sarcasm>"commercially verified" "roguelikes" is minesweeper now a roguelike?</sarcasm> No.

Point blank you cannot shove a flower into a rectal cavity and expect to reasonably call it a vase. Same excrement, different flush here.

Lastly if we're saying that IRLDB, the roguelike convention and roguebasin are inaccurate sources then this whole article is of no merit Jofadda (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

So looking at IRLDB, one of the first articles comes up is [2] which clearly includes both traditional and new roguelikes into the same group. It even points out that it is only a hard-core set that want to insist that roguelites must be distanted from the roguelike term - the same notion all reliable sources we use carries. Insisting we make a strong split between roguelike and roguelite fails WP:FRINGE and cannot be done. --Masem (t) 02:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

You've cherry-picked a specific point, that specific point happens to be invalid. Roguelikes and roguelites are different in the same way first person and third person shooters are. Yes you still shoot, but the gameplay is wholly different. Hell most roguelites happen to be metaprogression based, not permadeath based.Jofadda (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I pulled one of the first articles on the site that goes into detail on the term, and you're saying its invalid now? Again, I think we're at a point where its clear that its is a small dedicated group of people that want to see roguelike and roguelite fully distinguished from each other, but the reliable sources and the more common opinion represented by those say otherwise. WP cannot cater to the smaller crowd here particularly when there are no sources that we can use to support that view. We've done everything we can to acknowledge this die-hard group and approach does exist, but WP's hands are tied to go any further. --Masem (t) 02:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Once again, a new wikipedia page for the term roguelite is needed, dump your crap there. Roguelites are not accurately able to be called roguelikes in the same way that Mike Tysons Punch out isnt a first person shooter. In the same way it is inaccurate to call spelunky a metroidvania(although quite frankly no less accurate than calling it a roguelike). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.75.206.253 (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Games can exist in multiple genres, or have elements of multiple genres. --Masem (t) 22:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

We're not saying games cannot have multiple genres, we're saying that roguelikes and roguelites are separate. The aught to have their own separate pages. We're saying the to mislabel roguelites as roguelikes is to bog down an already existing genre that did and does differ from what the populous at large is trying to lump into it. We're arguing that the roguelike genre simply ISNT what the general populous is trying to call it. If enough people stick flowers up their backsides would you then call them vases? No. Jofadda (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

"If enough people stick flowers up their backsides would you then call them vases?" If enough reliable sources said so, then yes. If you don't understand this distinction, then you are missing the point of Wikipedia. We collect information from sources, we don't invent information. WP:TRUTH explains this. If you disagree with this information, you are not disagreeing with Wikipedia, you are disagreeing with the available sources. Take it up with those sources -- the IGNs and Eurogamers of the gaming media. They are the ones that failed to provide correct information. All we did was summarize their content. There is no point trying to change this on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is a tertiary source -- we simply aggregate other sources that occasionally fail to be accurate. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 06:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

This discussion has already been resolved pending new reliable sources which support the claims made by the anon IP contributor. If you have such sources please provide them. Failing that, how about we try not to pollute the talk page too much? Can I recommend also that you review WP:SOCK rules and in particular WP:MEAT. As others have stated, Wikipedia can only summarize what the majority sources state. If anyone has issues with that, they should brigade the sources, not Wikipedia. Falling foul of WP:SOCK rules can lead to accounts and IP addresses being blocked from Wikipedia. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

DUCK and MEAT violations ahoy! Can he complete the hat trick with a 3RR? It's pretty clear to everyone that you forgot to log out a few times there to reply on the IP. May the Source be with you. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about?Jofadda (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Before starting to edit on Wikipedia, it's a very good idea to learn about the rules of this place. Axem Titanium and I are referring specifically to the rule about so-called "sock puppets", i.e., using several accounts to edit Wikipedia in a concerted effort to sway the balance of the majority view or disrupt the normal editing process.

I highlighted in particular the rule regarding "meat puppets", which states that, even where two accounts are not the same person, "when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."

Editors who are found to be breaking this rule can have their accounts and IPs banned from wikipedia.

Finally, I believe Axem Titanium was referring to the wikipedia convention of the Duck Test in the context of sockpuppets or meatpuppets. This test holds that, if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then it is a duck. Or in other words, if two users are trying to make the same edits and one of them is a brand new account and they use the exact same arguments and same reasoning, then for all intents and purposes, they are sock puppets, or meat puppets.

While I would never discourage anyone from editing Wikipedia, I would strongly recommend that you learn the rules before editing, especially what Wikipedia is not. Especially before engaging so passionately in an edit war. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

An encyclopedia without truth as its standard is not encyclopedic, it's propaganda. Instead of ad populum, also, I think the fallacy here is appeal to authority. If the mission of Wikipedia is not to provide truth then its mission is corrupt and I have no idea why anyone should sacrifice their time in what was allegedly an altruistic endeavor. Before anyone accuses me of being someone's sock, rest assured that what I said stands up just fine, regardless of who said it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.194.65 (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Roguelike-like outdated, unused term?

Is there a reason this article is still using this term? It is not a term used in any of the major game distribution platforms, news articles, or any relevant/recent sources I can find relating to roguelikes (I believe Nuclear Throne is the only game I can find that even references the term). Can we move to have this term removed (or at the very least mentioned far less) and replaced with the more modern term "Roguelite", which is much more prevalent? In particular "Roguelite" is widely used on Steam, within news articles (both minor and major), in reddit/forum communities, and perhaps most importantly referenced by many developers themselves as a descriptor for their games. Some examples of games directly citing the term include Dead Cells, Noita, Streets of Rogue, Synthetik, and more - all according to their official game descriptions within Steam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.165.173 (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me - I would agree that roguelike-like is rarely seen in relevant external sources TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

"Roguelike-like" still has historical relevance, but I do agree that "roguelite" should be the predominate term. --Masem (t) 20:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

= This Article Lacks A Clear Definition of the Term: I have heard the term "Roguelike" being used for a while and I thought Wikipedia would be a good start for finding out what the term means. Boy, was I wrong. For one thing, I have been playing video games since the Magnavox Odyssey (circa 1971) and I have never heard of any of the games in this article other than maybe Moria. Secondly, all I can gather from this somewhat lengthy article is that a Roguelike is a fantasy RPG that is turn-based and utilizes permadeath. In that case, there's a whole hell of a lot of games that fit that description that are not mentioned. 2600:1700:5DD0:60A0:C5D9:27C0:433D:2B43 (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

"Modern" graphics

I was reverted: [3] by @TheSLEEVEmonkey:. With all due respect, there is nothing "modern" [4] in isometric graphics. Zaxxon from 1982 uses isometric graphics (in real-time). Using "modern" here is disparaging. In the roguelike community one distinguishes between tile graphics (which can be isometric) and the character/ascii/terminal interface. Most players/users use the character/ascii/terminal interface (to the point that tile graphics are often an add-on) - not because of tradition, but simply since the character/ascii graphics are better at conveying what exactly is on the map much-much quicker. The tile graphics are eye candy, but players of roguelikes aren't interested in eye candy - it isn't the point of the game (and tile graphics usually "suck" compared to commercial graphic games that are geared to graphics). The character/terminal graphics are often more "modern" than the tile graphics on particular games, since the tile graphics are developed less often and sometimes fall behind (e.g. lacking new monsters). In short, "modern" here is wrong. Isometric tile graphics existed in Zaxxon in 1982. --Duke of Chaos (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think "Graphical" is right here, since I think by this point we stressed that original RLs were ascii-based which really aren't "graphics". There's no easy "opposite" to "tile-based" or "ascii-based" that I know of, but saying "Graphical" vs "modern" is better. --Masem (t) 17:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

We really need to be careful with this article. The "roguelike community" has very opinionated views about terminology and distinctions which are not necessarily reflected in external sources or other wikipedia articles, or of any real interest for an encyclopedic article. For example, it is pretty bizarre to suggest that ASCII graphics are not 'graphical' but an isometric view is. We establish at the outset that the genre relies on "tile based graphics", so how does calling the isometric view 'graphical' help to distinguish it from the tile-based graphical? I have never played a roguelike game in my life but have been playing videogames for the past 25 years - and this article is one of the most confusing and jargon-ridden ones I have come across in gaming. There is nothing in the article which would help divine why the isometric view is being considered "graphical" as opposed to the tile-based views, and so as a descriptor it is completely redundant. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

In a sense you are correct in "graphical", however the the distinction here is between Terminal mode on UNIX (and DOS back in the day) and use of a graphical display that allows pixel (or sprite) level access. Terminal mode displays (Text-based user interface) usually do not count as Graphical user interfaces. On a technical level terminal mode also allows telnet/ssh servers: e.g. Nethack public server list here). The distinction between text and graphical follows convention elsewhere (on Wikipedia and out of it): Text-based user interface vs. Graphical user interface (even though strictly speaking a terminal with a fixed character set is al graphical, but computer convention is that it usually isn't). Duke of Chaos (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

"The distinction between text and graphical follows convention elsewhere (on Wikipedia and out of it): Text-based user interface vs. Graphical user interface (even though strictly speaking a terminal with a fixed character set is al graphical, but computer convention is that it usually isn't)."

Please provide a reliable, external source which supports this distinction in this context. The Text-based user interface article only has one potentially reliable source (which in any case discusses only one specific operating system) and does not discuss video games. The Graphical user interface article does not support your statement as it claims that "The term GUI tends not to be applied to other lower-display resolution types of interfaces, such as video games (where head-up display (HUD) is preferred)[...]"

Furthermore, applying a distinction here between "text based" and "graphical" is doubly confusing, because it muddles the line between actual text-based games (such as Star Trek, Colossal Cave Adventure and The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy) which genuinely rely on written text input and output, and games like Rogue which use the ASCII charcter set to graphically represent the game world and command keys to manipulate the graphical game world.

If you can provide a reliable external source which shows that this distinction applied to roguelike games is a common convention, and/or a reliable external source which suggests that an isometric graphical display is less modern than an ASCII display for video games, I will be happy to accept it.TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

There is a distinction between a "textual" and a "graphical" display (particularly in adventure games). It is the tricky facet of tilesets that make the distinction hard because tilesets would give it the "graphical" nature in this context, but I think we're all aware this doesn't compare to, say, pixel-level rendering compared to tile-level rendering. I'm all for a different word than "modern" but just don't know what to call it. --Masem (t) 18:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Both this article and the Text-based game article use the terms "ASCII graphichs" and "tile-based graphics" specifically because the distinction between this type of display and genuine text-based games (like Star Trek, Colossal Cave Adventure and The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy) is an important one, especially in the historical context of Rogue and its key attributes. If you are going to call an isometric view 'graphical' but ASCII graphics 'non-graphical', then what distinguishes the ASCII graphics from genuine text-based adventures? It is just confusing. And the fact that players of rogue games may prefer the more antiquated ASCII display because it makes the game easier does not mean that ASCII is more modern in the context of video games than an isometric display, especially in the context in which it is being used for this specific image. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

You don't understand the subject matter. Roguelikes use ASCII not because it "makes the game easier" but because it is better. It is better at representing the game world, and leaves the player imagination open. graphical isometric displays existed when most major roguelikes were developed. Zaxxon came out in 1982. You have failed to show that isometric is "modern" whereas ASCII is "antiquated" in this context. Do you have a source for that? Here is Kill Screen: [5]

"ASCII and the roguelike genre are practically inseparable. ASCII was there at the birth of the genre, bringing Rogue (1980) itself to life—and it’s stayed, with today’s most ambitious roguelikes such as Dwarf Fortress (2006), Ultima Ratio Regum (2012), and Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead (2013) crafting sprawling worlds and adventures from ASCII’s collection of characters."

"It’s understandable why ASCII persists even as the roguelike expands into myriad subgenres and aesthetics. The simple abstractions of your @ hero, potions, enemies, items, and so on, as letters and symbols allows for vast potential without having to visually display such complexities. Instead, flavor text, underlying gameplay systems, and the player’s imagination do the hard work."

They aren't calling Dwarf Fortress (2006), Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead (2013), or Cogmind (2017) choice of display "antiquated" - rather the opposite. Duke of Chaos (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, then what is a better term? Isometric graphics are, relatively speaking, a more modern development than ASCII graphics after all, especially in the context in which it is being applied here, i.e. as an updated graphical display for an older game. So there is nothing 'disparaging' about this term. And using 'graphical' as a term is pretty pointless in this context because all user displays are graphical. If you can think of a better word which encapsulates this then you should suggest it, but don't forget that this article isn't for "the roguelike community" or avid fans of roguelike games who might find a simple term like 'modern' "disparaging" - it is an encylopeadic article and should be written as such. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Tile-based graphics vs. ASCII (or terminal-mode) graphics. And no this is not an "updated graphical display for an older game". Nethack is actively developed. So is Angband. In both games, players mostly use the ASCII graphics (out of free choice). The tile graphics are often "less modern" in that they can lag behind the main game development fork. The tile-based schemes simple replace each character on the screen with a tile - it is a one-to-one swap - it doesn't change the underlying game - and players usually prefer the ASCII as it allows a higher density of information as well as precision (e.g. the precise color of a 'D' monster or telling the type of monster/object apart is usually much more ascertainable in the character graphics).Duke of Chaos (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Kill Screen in an article says "ASCII art". Duke of Chaos (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This Games and Culture] journal article is titled "The Use of ASCII Graphics in Roguelikes: Aesthetic Nostalgia and Semiotic Difference" - so ASCII graphics. Also a comment on text adventures vs. roguelikes: text adventures often also have graphics on the top side of the display (often just pictures showing the room). In roguelikes - there is the ASCII map. However most roguelikes also use text for other interfaces (inventory list, story narrative, other interaction). Duke of Chaos (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I've linked in ASCII art, and reworked that G&C article a bit better to that. --Masem (t) 15:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"Non-ASCII graphics" would be the most straightforward distinction. Other alternatives would be "illustrative graphics", "depictive graphics" (although if you really wanted to nitpick you could argue that ASCII graphics are in some sense also "illustrative" or "depictive") or a combination, "illustrative non-ASCII graphics".--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I think I'm seeing the old argument about the superiority of the paper book with just text vs. one with pictures. It's apples vs. oranges. No one can function as the Universal Arbiter of Art and tell everyone that they can't have pictures in their books because it makes them simpletons with stunted imaginations nor can others point to them and call them Luddites. So, at issue is the defining of genre. Novels without pictures remain popular. They are seen as relevant, even though more evolved technology is available, like VR environments. Why is it that people are so often satisfied with paper books when they could, instead, have a "more modern" VR environment to go with the words? Similar arguments revolve around the use of voice-overs rather than text windows. One person thinks it's an enhancement ("more realism and excitement") and another a drawback (e.g. "It takes away my ability to imagine the character in my way"). Does the existence of evolved/superior/modern graphics representation technology (high-end VR vs. printed pictures) mean novels need VR environments to be considered the modern novel? If novels are exempt why shouldn't a type of video game be? Novels, after all, can have printed pictures. There has been plenty of time for that technology to displace picture-free books... but it hasn't happened. Why not say they must have them or they're failing to be more modern? One person says more technologically primitive graphical representation technology(s) is an essential quality for defining a genre. Another contradicts that, arguing that essentially all video game genres are inexorably swept forward into greater modernity via ever-increasing demands in terms of visual fidelity. All of the positives that more "modern" graphics technologies provide come with new drawbacks. VR causes motion sickness. Wearing headsets is annoying. There is the old argument about freeing the imagination. Et cetera. So, what's the solution here? Jettison the loaded and vague term "modern" for some alternative, perhaps? In botany, species are hierarchically organized as more basal vs. more derived. There have to be plenty of options for hierarchical characterization vis-à-vis the technological demands progression of the genre. It can be rationally argued, for instance, that modern incarnations of this genre can use primitive forms of graphical representation, just as modern novels (e.g. Stephen King's) rely on the printed word and only pictures in certain subgenres. Or, is Stephen King not modern because he started publishing in the 1970s? Who decides — the latest VR purveyor, or AAA video game publisher? I'm sure plenty of executives would be happy for people to suddenly believe that paper books are obsolete and that one must buy one of their games to experience "modern" entertainment. Perhaps the solution is simply to point out that some believe that the genre gets along just fine without the latest in whiz-bang graphics tech (e.g. high-end VR environments) while others feel that increasing graphical fidelity is an essential part of improving it. Give the pros and cons of both. Everything, no matter how technologically demanding, carries new drawbacks to go with the benefits. Sometimes those drawbacks are enough to outweigh the benefits for a particular context (as with VR in so many). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.194.65 (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Permadeath permadeath permadeath (on and on)

The article is too repetitive. It's obsessive about permadeath (14 mentions, two of which are in the opener). Is there some way to make it more elegant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.194.65 (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Assume good faith

But this article is filled with bad faith. It is not my fault but a fault on who writes it.

• Opinionated about permadeath and some features that are considered as "must-have" but they are arbitrary.

• What is (or what features must have) a rogue game is a GUIDELINE, not a RULE.

• A lot of arbitrary examples. Nethack for example, it's right because of their predominancy but most examples are MARKETING and hand-picked.
• Everything in "Growth of the rogue-lite (2005-onward)" is trash, it doesn't contribute with anything that it was already explained.
• A lot of link-spam. For example, Engadget, why Engadget is here?.

16:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)200.74.122.118 (talk)

• Permadeath is considered a high-value feature per the Berlin Interpretation and sticks with the roguelike-likes. Its clearly a defining feature.
• Examples are based on what reliable sources give. And on the topic of reliable sources Engadget is considered one for WP's purposes.
• The Growth section is establishing the history, rather than gameplay elements of the roguelike-like. --Masem (t) 16:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Missing Important Eastern Roguelikes

This article takes a very narrow view of Rogue-likes, ignoring Eastern titles that helped grow and expand the genre. In particular the Mystery Dungeon and Shiren series of games; Z.H.P. and The Guided Fate Paradox. These titles (Mystery Dungeon and Shiren in particular) were inspired by the original Rogue and introduced the genre to Japan. Daigoji (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Games that are being called roguelikes in the article, but do not identify themselves that way

"Dead Cells, a roguelike incorporated with Metroidvania-style of platform games;[102] Slay the Spire, bringing roguelike progression to a deck building game;[103] Crypt of the Necrodancer which uses a rhythm game-style approach in a roguelike dungeon;[104] and Enter the Gungeon which establishes roguelike progression in a shoot 'em up.[105] Hades, a roguelike action role-playing game, was built to strongly incorporate elements of non-linear narrative into the game, giving the reason for the player to continually delve into replaying the game, and helped to draw in players to the roguelike genre that otherwise had been put off by its high difficulty level before.[106][107]"

With the exception of Crypt and Hades, these games mentioned call themselves a roguelite or another genre borrowing roguelike elements on their store page. They do not refer to themselves as a roguelike which is being inferred by the above section. Examples:

• https://store.steampowered.com/app/588650/Dead_Cells/ - "Dead Cells is a rogue-lite, metroidvania inspired, action-platformer."
• https://store.steampowered.com/app/646570/Slay_the_Spire/ - "We fused card games and roguelikes together to make the best single player deckbuilder we could."
• https://store.steampowered.com/app/311690/Enter_the_Gungeon/ - "Enter the Gungeon is a bullet hell dungeon crawler following a band of misfits seeking to shoot, loot, dodge roll and table-flip their way..."

And as a point of order, Hades is falsely advertised as a roguelike on their store page, it doesn't have permadeath and is full of meta progression. The whole game revolves around keeping things between runs. Even IGN calls it a rogue-lite: https://www.ign.com/articles/hades-review

This section is named "Growth of the rogue-lite" - can we please keep our roguelike vs roguelite language clean and consistent so as not to be misleading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.96.9 (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem is still that what differentiates a roguelike from a roguelite is still vague, and as such, they still get classified as "roguelikes". (Hades does have a permadeath mechanic, BTW). We acknowledge that there is this roguelite term, but what that is far to vague to create a genre for --Masem (t) 03:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Vampire Survivor is not a roguelike

Vampire Survivor has none of the traits of roguelikes mentioned in the opening paragraph of the article, it's just an arcade-style game with meta-progression. The article given as a source stating games like it constitute a subgenre of roguelikes only says it has roguelike elements and does not say it is a roguelike game, nor does it claim that there is an entire subgenre of roguelikes with these elements. Given that the game only game out two years ago, I find it extremely unlikely that it has already spawned a distinct genre. Since the claim is not sound and misleads people as to the nature of roguelikes, I believe that claim should be removed. 128.187.116.4 (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It has permadeath (you can't even save during one run) and has procedural elements in terms of the leveling bonuses. RSes call it such. It probably fails many of the Berlin Interpretation traits of a true "roguelike" but absolutely fits into "roguelite" but because there is a huge gray area of these terms, we purposely avoid "roguelite" and call such games "roguelikes". Masem (t) 01:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Reference 18 (the berlin interpretation) link is broken

Reference 18, The Berlin Interpretation, is used about a dozen times in the article. However, the link does not work. 178.235.184.97 (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I marked the URL in the ref as dead, now the title links to an archived version.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

"Roguevania" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Roguevania has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 24 § Roguevania until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)