Isn't pretty much every Roguelike actually a Roguelite?

[Ren]

I know there's a different set of definitions but they're less popular and are not the focus of my question.

Most commonly, a roguelike is a game with perma-death and procedurally generated levels. And a roguelite is that but has some sort of progression.

Isn't this every roguelike ever? I'm not sure if I can think of any roguelikes without progression.

Binding of Isaac has unlockable characters. Dead Cells (rip upcoming update) has boss cells.
Vampire Survivors has weapons/characters and a skill tree. Barony has a hidden progression where if you beat the game with a DLC class you can play it with any race you want. And so on.

The only game I can maybe think of is Strafe: Gold Edition. Which from what I remember doesn't have progression but maybe I'm misremembering.

Isn't this just a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ distinction?

[D. Flame]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Ren:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Start_Running:

It's a clade thing. All Roguelites are Roguelikes, but not all ROguelikes are Roguelite.
All Grizzlies are bears, but not all bears are grizzlies.

I understand this. I described it as such in my post. It's just that there's an anaemic number of "roguelikes" by this definition as most games are roguelites.

Seems like a useless distinction then no?

Yes, if you adhere to that interpretation, the term becomes meaningless. That's why the agreed upon definition became "like: No carry over between runs," vs "lite: some progression permanence."

[Lumios]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Ren:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Start_Running:

It's a clade thing. All Roguelites are Roguelikes, but not all ROguelikes are Roguelite.
All Grizzlies are bears, but not all bears are grizzlies.

I understand this. I described it as such in my post. It's just that there's an anaemic number of "roguelikes" by this definition as most games are roguelites.

Seems like a useless distinction then no?

No, not most games are roguelites, the point of that word was to mean a game with roguelike elements that does not qualify as a roguelike when it was first created.

If a game only has permadeath, that wouldn't be enough because that is not necessarily an element unique to roguelikes, arcade games usually have permadeath. Hence, it still needs to tick multiple boxes.

Of course, if you go by the definition every zoomer use, yes most games are roguelites and yes the distinction is pointless.

"Roguelite" is meant for games like Slay the Spire that are primarily a deckbuilder first and with the rogue mechanics coming second as an afterthought.

"Roguelike" is meant for games that play mostly like rogue such as Pixel Dungeon or Crypt of the Necrodancer.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย D. Flame:

Yes, if you adhere to that interpretation, the term becomes meaningless. That's why the agreed upon definition became "like: No carry over between runs," vs "lite: some progression permanence."

They are both already meaningless by virtue of having a definition so broad by the wider public that you could slip Minecraft, Terraria and Minesweeper into the category.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Tonepoet:

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.

It's the fault of scrawny youtubers and some game developers who use the term to promote their games. There was that Pokemon rom going around lately and advertising itself as a roguelike.
Consequently, those youtubers, the ones who typically have a sub count over 100 millions, call it a roguelike perpetuating the cycle. Even youtubers I watch regularly and whom I respect do that.

It's so obnoxious you can't imagine how I feel right now.

[Ren]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Lumios:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Ren:

I understand this. I described it as such in my post. It's just that there's an anaemic number of "roguelikes" by this definition as most games are roguelites.

Seems like a useless distinction then no?

No, not most games are roguelites, the point of that word was to mean a game with roguelike elements that does not qualify as a roguelike when it was first created.

Respectfully I did preface my thread with

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Ren:

I know there's a different set of definitions but they're less popular and are not the focus of my question.

I have quite a few friends who abide by the more traditional definition of the genre, but my question is about what normies use (not just zoomers)

[Lumios]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Ren:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Lumios:

No, not most games are roguelites, the point of that word was to mean a game with roguelike elements that does not qualify as a roguelike when it was first created.

Respectfully I did preface my thread with

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Ren:

I know there's a different set of definitions but they're less popular and are not the focus of my question.

I have quite a few friends who abide by the more traditional definition of the genre, but my question is about what normies use (not just zoomers)

Then, as I said roguelite and roguelike are essentially interchangeable with -like being permadeath + procedural generation and -lite being only procedural generation and adding in progression into the mix. That's the definition normies go by. D. Flame already answered your question, I'm only paraphrasing.

[Ren]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Lumios:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Ren:

Respectfully I did preface my thread with


I have quite a few friends who abide by the more traditional definition of the genre, but my question is about what normies use (not just zoomers)

Then, as I said roguelite and roguelike are essentially interchangeable with -like being permadeath + procedural generation and -lite being only procedural generation and adding in progression into the mix. That's the definition normies go by. D. Flame already answered your question, I'm only paraphrasing.

Well I wasn't asking for the definitions either... I already outlined what the general definitions are.
My issue is that one of these definitions encompasses very few games.

[Dwarven Runesmith]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Lumios:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Ren:

Respectfully I did preface my thread with


I have quite a few friends who abide by the more traditional definition of the genre, but my question is about what normies use (not just zoomers)

Then, as I said roguelite and roguelike are essentially interchangeable with -like being permadeath + procedural generation and -lite being only procedural generation and adding in progression into the mix. That's the definition normies go by. D. Flame already answered your question, I'm only paraphrasing.

You can claim it is interchangeable with those who do not know these genres.
But are they that interchangeable when you do know the genres? Not really.

It's like saying there orientalism and oriental music are interchangeable. It would be only for those who do not know.

But let's assume here non of us are normies, why is these type of discussion unproductive?
They always begins with only listing few define features and calling it a day.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Ren:

Most commonly, a roguelike is a game with perma-death and procedurally generated levels. And a roguelite is that but has some sort of progression.

Like what he says here is not wrong, but that is like starting a discussion on FPS and only defining them by the shooting part and ignoring the FP in FPS. You see the problem?
It started with a flaw of the definition by only doing a partial definition, so the qeustion becomes "Partial rougelike are pretty much rougelites", which is true, most rougelites are partial rougelikes.
But that was not the question asked. Since we only viewing few building blocks of a house and not the full house.

It would be more productive by arguing games by showcasing the games.
Like say you mention rougelike game and you link:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/333640/Caves_of_Qud/
Now people have a game reference to go off, by instead we only list few things from the genre and that locks us in the semantics of partial lists fitting everything instead a full list that only fits certain games.

Like talking about 2D hack and slash games, no one is gonna drop Dynasty Warriors 7 to the conversation, most would limit to the scope of games like Golden Axe.
Since it's very hard to define a genre because it got so many systems that you might forget what systems or how it's even built with the selective mechanism.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/259680/Tales_of_MajEyal/
Like no one mentions the equipment tab in rougelikes. I never seen a conversation where they mention the DnD way of having slots for equipment like boots, helmet, clock or what not. It's always most versed tags like permadeth and meta progression. Which skips over some minor elements or big elements.

It might work for normies but at the same time, it also does not take that much time to learn what a rougelike is.

[Ren]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Dwarven Runesmith:

But let's assume here non of us are normies, why is these type of discussion unproductive?
They always begins with only listing few define features and calling it a day.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Ren:

Most commonly, a roguelike is a game with perma-death and procedurally generated levels. And a roguelite is that but has some sort of progression.

Like what he says here is not wrong, but that is like starting a discussion on FPS and only defining them by the shooting part and ignoring the FP in FPS. You see the problem?
It started with a flaw of the definition by only doing a partial definition, so the qeustion becomes "Partial rougelike are pretty much rougelites", which is true, most rougelites are partial rougelikes.
But that was not the question asked. Since we only viewing few building blocks of a house and not the full house.

It would be more productive by arguing games by showcasing the games.

Well, I did in fact give examples though to ponder upon the distinction. And I thought it's obvious from my tone it's not "calling it a day". It wouldn't be much of a discussion then would it.

[Dwarven Runesmith]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Ren:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Dwarven Runesmith:

But let's assume here non of us are normies, why is these type of discussion unproductive?
They always begins with only listing few define features and calling it a day.

Like what he says here is not wrong, but that is like starting a discussion on FPS and only defining them by the shooting part and ignoring the FP in FPS. You see the problem?
It started with a flaw of the definition by only doing a partial definition, so the qeustion becomes "Partial rougelike are pretty much rougelites", which is true, most rougelites are partial rougelikes.
But that was not the question asked. Since we only viewing few building blocks of a house and not the full house.

It would be more productive by arguing games by showcasing the games.

Well, I did in fact give examples though to ponder upon the distinction. And I thought it's obvious from my tone it's not "calling it a day". It wouldn't be much of a discussion then would it.

The problem becomes when you listed rougelites as rougelikes and then debate that they are rougelites.
You just when around a circle.

[Ren]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Dwarven Runesmith:

-snip-

You're the first person I've met who think's Barony is a rougelite. Unless you're one of the tryhards who thinks roguelike can only refer to games that are rogue clones (turn based, tile graphics/gameplay, etc). Then that's fair enough, though I don't particularly care about that view.

[Dwarven Runesmith]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Ren:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Dwarven Runesmith:

-snip-

You're the first person I've met who think's Barony is a rougelite. Unless you're one of the tryhards who thinks roguelike can only refer to games that are rogue clones (turn based, tile graphics/gameplay, etc). Then that's fair enough, though I don't particularly care about that view.

Dunno if "tryhard" is the right word here.
I view some aspects on rougelike not as important, but grid-based turn-based is definitely one of the higher ones.
But if we are going to use rougelike and rougelites interchangeably, it doesn't help at all.

We have twin-stick, FPS. 3rd person shooter, metroidvania, deck building, and many other types. Some use many aspects and other use very little aspects. Lite term is useless, it doesn't define anything about the game. Since most use meta-progression the only aspect that most always think of is randomly generated.
So even most games have little to do with lite as much with like.

[Eagle_of_Fire]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Dwarven Runesmith:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Ren:

Well, I did in fact give examples though to ponder upon the distinction. And I thought it's obvious from my tone it's not "calling it a day". It wouldn't be much of a discussion then would it.

The problem becomes when you listed rougelites as rougelikes and then debate that they are rougelites.
You just when around a circle.

You immediately lost my attention the moment you started to call those games "red-like".

Sorry.

[Dwarven Runesmith]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Eagle_of_Fire:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Dwarven Runesmith:

The problem becomes when you listed rougelites as rougelikes and then debate that they are rougelites.
You just when around a circle.

You immediately lost my attention the moment you started to call those games "red-like".

Sorry.

"Red-likes"?