Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
The most recent game I can think of is Age of Darkness but there are other games out that escapes my memory where you only really have that save function because no one is dumb enough being forced to play a game in one sitting if it's absurdly long.
You also have other games like Ys, Fire Emblem, and DMC which puts its own spin on the idea. Are they roguelites? No? Maybe? Perhaps even? The lines blurred together decades ago. Even (actual) dungeon crawlers aren't really a thing anymore except in very niche situations namely the cost cutting solution.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/289130/ENDLESS_Legend/
Maybe you're thinking of Killing Floor 2.
For free weekends afaik it doesn't say "add to account" like it does here.
If a toddler points at a cat and goes, "puppy," it does NOT mean that most puppies are cats. It simply means that the kid used the word wrong.
Hope this helps.
I discovered recently that the real roguelikes were filed under the "traditional roguelike" tag, so if you're looking for an authentic roguelike, try this tag pal.
Excuse me, but that's wrong.
That's the definition zoomers decided upon in recent years, but when the term roguelite was invented, it was a general term for games that played differently from a regular roguelike.
And by differently, I mean any of the following:
1. The lack of permadeath or procedural generation.
2. The lack of top-down grid-based movement gameplay.
3. The lack of dungeons to explore.
4. Having progression, permanent upgrades and savestates.
5. And more.
So, essentially point 1 is not pertinent if point 2, 3 and 4 are missing and would still qualify the game as a roguelite.
And diminishing the definition of roguelike down to "Rogue-Likes are basically like arcade games" is cringeworthy. I can't recount how often I've seen this hot take, but you might as well give it a funky name of its own like arcadecore or arcadelike if you like games like that because most of the games people attribute the "roguelike" moniker to are not arcade games, far from it.
Slay The Spire and Vampire Survivors (two completely different games of completely different genres by the way) do track your score, but Dead Cells, Hades, TBoI and Terraria do not. Yes, Terraria is a roguelike if the only criterion for a game to get the label are "permadeath" and "procedural generation" because Terraria has both of these things, so does Minecraft, Minesweeper and several actual arcade games.
The TC is right to call this term meaningless with this definition in mind.
See this https://roguebasin.com/index.php/What_a_roguelike_is and read about the Berlin interpretation.
This is what every discussion on roguelikes comes down to because the term has no widely accepted definition to it other than the most diminutive pErMuDaEth/proc gEnErAtIon that gets folks extremely confused and others like me absolutely livid.
Also, the source you linked is a wiki page that was edited as recently as 6 months ago, only references 1 source, that source is a blog, and that blog opens with, "(...) where I explored some of the interpretations on the Roguelike term."
I posted the link, so you can check the external links and the berlin interpretation article.
https://www.roguebasin.com/index.php/Berlin_Interpretation
And sure nobody agreed that this definition was the right definitiopn, even the article points that there are multiple definitions out there, but then you also said your definition was the right definition and then rambled about kids calling cats puppies or whatever when nobody who has played roguelikes for many years would agree with you.
As far as I care, while language is a social construct, I still want the term "roguelike" to be meaningful if 95% of all games are roguelikes because the term is too broad, then I would rather have the definition from the Berlin interpretation used.
See:
So by your own admission, you are wrong.
1.) You tried to claim that there was a set definition previously, which you now admit as being false.
2.) You, in your own words, admitted that a definition has been agreed upon in recent years.
You lose sir, good day.
1. How does "when the term roguelite was invented, it was a general term for games that played differently from a regular roguelike." indicate I was stating there is a set definition for roguelike, let alone the fact I was speaking of roguelites in that paragraph?
2. And like I said and which you quoted: "I still want the term "roguelike" to be meaningful if 95% of all games are roguelikes because the term is too broad, then I would rather have the definition from the Berlin interpretation used." In short; zoomer opinions don't matter.
3. Appeal to the majority is a fallacy. If everyone started saying the grass is red would you believe them?
Listen, we could do this all day, but the point I was trying to get across is that you show up to a thread and then start ranting about the definition. I called you out over the fact that definition isn't right at all and that's it. It isn't consistent with the Berlin Interpretation nor any definition of the word before 2010.
Take a look at the external links on the roguebasin page.
All Grizzlies are bears, but not all bears are grizzlies.
Why? Because straight rogue games are.. actually kind of boring. They are not unlike a game of solitaire. You never feel like you lose/win. You just feel lucky/unlucky. The progression systems usually function to add some depth and strategy to the game withiout inherently removing the rogue inspired elements.
The distinction between ROguelite and ROguelike has been accurately summed up as just whether or not you carry anything over from run to run in game. You always carry something from run to run...your experience.
Or you could consider Roguelites as an evolution of Roguelike. Call it Rogue+. Since in general the elements that make it Lite also add to the depth and complexity of the game. I mean seriously. Go play ROgue sometime. The game is boring as are many games that try to strictly copy the formula
Imagine calling The Legend of Zelda a Pacman Clone 'cause they're both top-down view games with progression through labrithine structures. That's sort of the level of ridiculousness we reached with the rouge-like label. Heck, we've even surpassed it. Zelda and Pacman share more in common with each-other than Rogue and Rouge Legacy or The Binding of Isaac.
I don't want to get into all of the nitty gritty details, but rougelikes feature tile based movement and turn based combat as primary gameplay elements. Isaac is more of a twin stick shooter, and Rogue Legacy is a sort of platformer. Neither of them count as roguelikes.
Rouge-like is supposed to describe a game very much like rogue, whereas roguelite is supposed to describe a game that is considerably less like rogue. Thing is, not everybody agreed to the distinction, so now you have a subset of people who will call every game with those two features roguelike because it shares those couple of elements in common with rogue, and a subset of people who make a distinction between roguelikes and roguelites.
Seems like a useless distinction then no?