Setting the Publicly Accepted Term : Roguelike vs Roguelite

[VinTJ]

I'm pretty sure I'm correct and wanted to check how many people agree with me. Straight to the point:

Roguelike:
-Turn Based
-Level is made of Square Grids
-Top Down
-Procedurally/Randomly generated enemies, items, and level structure
-Permadeath, with "insignificant things/nothing at all" carried over into the next run.

while Roguelite:
-Procedurally/Randomly generated enemies, items and level structure
-Permadeath, sometimes providing the ability to have unlocks that carry over to the next run, although only as possible item/rewards


Essentially, that means :

Roguelike : Strictly defined by some rules
Roguelite : Any game that has some, but not all, rules of Roguelike.

Did i miss anything? If this is widely accepted then I can live with it.

Because Rogue-Like should mean = Similar to the old game Rogue, which contains many of these features in terms of gameplay. Not counting graphics since graphics is subjective and does not fully define what a game is.

[tmwfte]

They're all rouge-likes. Every single one of them. Since it's inevitable that anyone playing them will eventually wind up seeing red. A lot.

[Washell]

Arguing game/genre definitions can be a fun pastime, but don't expect anything to get settled.

Originally posted by tmwfte:

They're all rouge-likes...
wind up seeing red. A lot.

Especially around the cheeks...

[VinTJ]

https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/246887/whats-the-difference-between-a-roguelike-and-a-roguelite-game , the top answer states that "Roguelite is missing some, but not all, of roguelike elements"


that is where I got my conclusion from, and I strongly believe that the purpose of language is to effectively and quickly transfer our thoughts to another person.

That's why in language, "correct" definitions are important to set, and in language, sometimes "Majority is right". But the problem is, over time, different, and newer people, may have an unclear understanding of a term, and cause a Majority-Misconception. This is why I'm trying to dig up what the term roguelite "MEANT" , and what it means now, and if the meaning is lost to time, then I'm trying to spread it again.

Rogue"Lite" means it's somewhat... lighter? smaller? so it makes sense that rogue-lite is a game that only has some elements, and the main elements being "Permadeath" and "Randomly Generated" makes the most sense.

These two traits also, implies another trait, "Multiple possible runs". No point of buying a game where once you die, you can't restart.

[tmwfte]

Originally posted by Washell:

Especially around the cheeks...

Full face for some people. Full on dies irae for some playing those rouge-likes.

[slowdeath]

I just call them all roguelikes because it makes nerds mad.

[Blargo]

It's just semantics, in my opinion.
The type of genres they're defining are so similar that it might as well just be one definition.

It's pretty much the same as saying PVP shooters and PVE shooters are different genres. They have slightly different characteristics, but they're still shooters at their core.

[WildKhaine]

http://www.roguebasin.com/index.php?title=Berlin_Interpretation

Basic definition of what a rogue-like should have but not necessarily all the elements are required. One of my favorite rogue-likes, Angband and it's variants, doesn't fit some of the points but I'd still consider it a rogue-like. Personally, if it doesn't have ASCII graphics I consider it a rogue-lite. It's pretty much open to personal interpretation really though.

[VinTJ]

@WildKhaine thanks, exactly the thing im looking for. I guess it kinda is personal interpretation then, even though the world would communicate better when we all have the exact same understanding of the exact same words.

[talemore]

They're all rogue-look alike. Rogue elitism is when you hear memes from dark soul. Because only for example I could easily put both in one category when comparing the terms with xcom2 who both has random generated structures, items and turn based and permadeath.

Cloak and dagger mean you not carrying any armor while welding a sword and is a signature of a rogue in rpg. Sword and shield mean you have both armor and weapon.

Wizards tend to be roguelike in games carrying sword and robe. Because there's a balance between damage and protection.

In a real fight I wouldn't want to be the guy in the cloak but games uses its own game-time that roguelike games been used to explain the concept of superhuman agility.

[Start_Running]

Rogouelikes needn't be turn-based. Simply randomized, procedural permadeath.
ROgue lites basically skip the permadeath or give you somethin g that carries over between sessions.

[BossGalaga]

While I don't agree with games that abuse buzzword salad or use "roguelike" to define *any* game with random elements, I also realize that there is a difference between "traditional" roguelikes and others games that are in the same vein/spirit as rogue but don't follow the exact same formula.

Apart from games that are just throwing hot buzzwords into their store description, I don't hold what some would call an elitist or purist view of roguelikes and I think that games with post-death progression can still be considered roguelikes.

Even ToME has forms of post-game progression and many traditional and famous roguelikes like Nethack for example, have certain areas that are static throughout the game which would technically break "the rules" of the genre.

[VinTJ]

The link I posted also states this.

Originally posted by Someone who got top answer:

The line between roguelike an roguelite is fuzzy; it resembles the definition of pornography a bit: 'I'll know it when I see it.'

And the "I'll know it when I see it" in the link has some sort of... hyperlink? That apparently takes me to a wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

And in this page, I can quote exactly what I want to say the situation is with Roguelikes/Roguelites:

Originally posted by William T. Goldberg(says wikipedia):

In effect, “I know it when I see it” can still be paraphrased and unpacked as: “I know it when I see it, and someone else will know it when they see it, but what they see and what they know may or may not be what I see and what I know, and that’s okay."

I guess again, as the marked answer, it's now open to personal interpretation, because virtually almost no one except like 3-4 people in this thread somewhat agrees with making both terms different from each other.