Why is the game called a RougeLITE?

[0ero the Hammer Slayer]

I'm just curious why it's advertised as a Rougelite when there is no progression between runs, unless I'm missing something? I like it as a Rougelike but it's just a little nitpick I'm curious about.

[Nellvan]

Because progression got nothing to do with the term. It simply means something is inspired by (actual) Roguelikes and uses some of their mechanics or design philosophy but transfered into some other type of game.

Even if that ship has sailed years ago, calling these games Roguelikes still is about as silly as calling e.g. Assassins Creed an FPS.

[Ǵ̶͓̂͑lí̴̤̀̄́tcĥ̸]

There is "kind of" progression concerning the orbs you collect to unlock spells, and a couple other things. But nowhere near the usual for the "lite" genre, it's certainly closer to a Rogue'like'.

[MythArcana]

Noita has one third the calories of Nethack, DCSS, ToME or Caves of Qud.

[Stavbearer]

Originally posted by MythArcana:

Noita has one third the calories of Nethack, DCSS, ToME or Caves of Qud.

Oh, so THAT'S what the nutritional label was for!

[Gralzeim]

When you find spells via orbs you unlock them for spawning on wands in future runs, so yes there's progression. And it's a Roguelite because it only has like, one feature similar to Rogue, that being permanent death (having to start over when you die).

A game would be a Roguelike if it was like Rogue but only somewhat different, keeping the same core gameplay.

Honestly, it's barely even a Roguelite, let alone a Roguelike.

[0ero the Hammer Slayer]

I guess I only know the genre and not the actual game it's based off of. Thanks for the comments everyone!

[Citronvand]

Originally posted by 0ero the Hammer Slayer:

I like it as a Rougelike but it's just a little nitpick I'm curious about.

??? It's not a roguelike though. If you a genuinly curious what is and isn't a roguelike I strongly suggest this video: https://youtu.be/-13LUfagQhY?t=65
Yes, it is comedic, but the point he makes is no joke.

[Geckoarcher]

So there's a lot of snobbery and legitimate discussion around this. The "Berlin Interpretation" set out a definition for a roguelike, according to 8 high-value factors and 6 low-value factors.

High Value:
- high RNG and procedural generation
- permadeath (Noita's unlockables are a violation of permadeath by this standard)
- turn-based gameplay
- non-modality (all actions are available at all times... idk this one is weird)
- systemic/emergent gameplay (you can use the key to unlock a door, but you could also try fire to burn it down, or picking the lock... Noita is probably the best example of this ever)
- resource management
- the game is based on killing monsters, with few to no peaceful options
- the game involves finding unidentified items with unknown properties (a "red" potion might heal you one game and kill you the next)

Low Value:
- the game is based on controlling one character in a playthrough
- monsters have behavior similar to players
- the game is based on tactics
- the game is based on tiles represented by ASCII characters
- the game is based on dungeons consisting of rooms and corridoors
- the player's status is represented via numbers on the UI

This definition is a very traditional and extremely specific vision of what the genre should be, because it's basing its "roguelikeness" off how much the game is like Rogue. It gets criticism because it doesn't allow for innovation and basically wants a reskin of Rogue.

The modern roguelike definition (or, as traditionalists would call it, a "roguelite") basically only has two important qualities:

- permadeath
- high RNG and procedural generation

To a lesser extent, resource management is still common as well.

Traditionalists hate this because games like Slay the Spire or Spelunky are considered "roguelikes" but they don't look anything like those old text-based dungeon crawlers. But lots of people favor this because it loosens up the definition and allows for a more available genre description.

And, as "roguelike" has changed, "roguelite" has as well. Nowadays, "roguelite" will describe the progression of a game. Unlocking new weapons/spells/items for future runs oftentimes gets a pass if they don't actually make future runs easier. But a game like Hades or Dead Cells contains a gross violation of permadeath because you can unlock upgrades which make the game easier. Thus, "roguelite."

That's a very long rant but I find that history interesting. Game Maker's Toolkit has a video on the specificity of genres and why it can be important, but also dangerous. Worth a watch, if you'd like.

[0ero the Hammer Slayer]

Originally posted by Geckoarcher:

*snip*

Thanks for the history lesson and explanation! That explains why I think what a roguelike is what it is. I have never heard of the game the genre is based on so I just assumed it was what is currently being used as as opposed to what I guess Rogue fans say.

I feel like the term really changed from its original meaning. I don't feel like it makes much sense to just include "straight copy" of a game and makes more sense to have a broader definition. I feel like "Souls-like" has this same thing. I'd consider anything that has EXP as leveling and currency and losing it with the option to obtain once getting back on death a big part of "souls-like." Along with toughness too of course.

[SquareDildo]

Traditionalists hate the dilution of the term "roguelike" because it makes it harder to look for games. If "Roguelike" no longer means anything consistent, how do you search for tile-based turn-based permadeath procedural generation fantasy adventure games?

It's getting bad with "RPG" and "Immersive sim" nowadays. You can make a good point that Cyberpunk 2077 is as much an RPG as Far Cry is. I mercifully won't say anything about immersive sims, because proponents of the term don't know what they want.

[Ben]

It's not ROUGE though, it's ROGUE.

[MythArcana]

Originally posted by Ben:

It's not ROUGE though, it's ROGUE.

Maybe it's Maybelline? 😂

[Geckoarcher]

Originally posted by Butcher:

Both Slay the Spire and Spelunky feature unlockable characters. Spire has unlockable cards for your deck...

True, I forgot about Spire's unlockable cards and relics. Even by a modern definition, you could consider Spire a roguelite (although as I mentioned earlier, a modern definition sometimes gives unlockables a pass as long as they don't give a power boost). Spelunky's unlockable characters are cosmetic only, though. I think it's extremely weird to consider that a violation of permadeath.

Spelunky also has unlockable tunnels that will automatically teleport you part of the way through the dungeon, but again I don't think that violates permadeath because they're basically practice modes you have to unlock by reaching some achievement first.

Originally posted by Butcher:

To avoid confusion there could be special subgenre of literally everything called "permadeath-randomizer..."

I think as definitions shift, we're going to start seeing "traditional roguelike" pop up, and roguelike is going to stay as that "permadeath randomizer" sort of definition.

Originally posted by SquareDildo:

Traditionalists hate the dilution of the term "roguelike" because it makes it harder to look for games.

Yep. I think this is the biggest argument against calling games like Noita "roguelikes" and it does make sense. People say "if a definition isn't narrow what's the point."

This is why I think it's incredibly important we keep "traditional roguelike" in the collective conscious, even if roguelike is permanently diluted - we should be able to concisely describe those games in one short phrase.

But I also think it's interesting to look at how "roguelike" fits into genre conventions. The modern definition of a roguelike is more a modifier you can add to a game's description to clarify it. Slay the Spire is a "roguelike deckbuilder," Spelunky is a "roguelike platformer," and Dead Cells could be called a "roguelite platformer metroidvania." Some people have added soulslike onto that, if you want another controversial definition.

As games differentiate, genres become less about conforming to a category and more about giving a concise description of gameplay in just a few words. Fascinating stuff.

[Boksha]

Honestly, while I appreciate the Berlin interpretation, I think a much simpler rule is:
If it plays like Rogue, it's a roguelike.
If it's an entirely different type of game (e.g. an action game) in the spirit of a roguelike, it's a roguelite.

Spelunky is really the archetypal roguelite, in that its developer, Derek Yu, himself explained that what he tried to achieve with it was to take the spirit and core concepts of roguelikes and put them in a platformer game. The Berlin interpretation is nice because it gives some good examples of those core concepts, like procedural generation, permadeath, emergent gameplay, and having to learn how to play effectively over the course of multiple attempts.

Noita leans much more heavily on those core concepts than the average modern roguelite (which, honestly, tends to be pretty shallow), giving it a very harsh and unforgiving feel and steep learning curve that is also present in most roguelikes, but it's still an action platformer and not a turn based RPG, so it's advertised as a roguelite.

[Morphic]

Personally, I felt Roguelite represents games that have similar qualities to Rogue but are generally more open ended or have persistent unlocks/progression regardless of death. Basically games that have core concepts but stray from tradition.

For example; I'd say Dead Cells or Hades is a Roguelite. The gameplay is not the same as Rogue, but there is a big learning curve, it is difficult and expects the player to discover things on their own. There is "permadeath" as you have to start a run over
Yet there's many unlocks/upgrades that persist after death that give your next run/character an advantage. For a more traditional example, I'd point to Dungeonmans or Rogue's Tale. There are many things that persist after a character's death... but you still need to start a new character and it plays very similar to Rogue.(Tiles, Turn Based, resources, stats, leveling, gear, etc.)

Whereas Roguelike represents games focused on trying to emulate Rogue or be a spiritual successor.

To me, games like POWDER, ADoM, ToME, Cataclysm: DDA, etc. would be examples of a Roguelike. It has majority of the core elements, design and gameplay of Rogue or Nethack but might stray here and there for certain things. ToME would be an example of this mutation as it features many unlocks(Races/Classes) but they aren't something that gives you an advantage regardless of your character. Unlocking Archmage doesn't make your other characters more powerful or be able to use spells. Though the Player Vault and Difficulty/Death options could be used to argue ToME is a Roguelite as the Vault can be used to transfer gear from one character to another and you could use the Difficulty option to turn off Permadeath.(Vault items still have stat requirements and level restrictions, so a level 1 can't use that legendary axe you stashed. Plus the game is balanced around Permadeath/Nightmare Difficulty.)

Though I understand where that Berlin Definition is coming from and why people would want that enforced. When it comes to Noita, I wouldn't call Noita a Roguelike or a Roguelite.(Just as I wouldn't call Binding of Isaac a Roguelite) There's really no persistent progression or advantage unlocks, no Turns, no Tiles, barely any resource management, no Leveling/Gear(more than just a "weapon" ala wands), etc. I would call Noita an "Action Platformer" but with today's common definition of Roguelite... I don't mind Noita being called a Roguelite.