安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
Roguelites have similar gameplay but are way more lenient and are more like normal games. Save progression are usually allowed and lead to way easier game progression as a result.
The difference between roguelikes and normal games with ironman setting is that roguelikes are built from the ground up with that idea in mind and play that card to the maximum of their abilities. Ironman modes usually are challenge modes people complete for fun because they find one particular game way too easy for them. Roguelikes just don't care at all about the hardcore stuff, they just happen to want to make a game similar in gameplay.
Uhm, yes it does. That is actually the main difference between a r-like and a r-lite.
A roguelike should start you with an entirely blank slate every run. Metaprogression can take various forms, from simply unlocking characters to levelling up your character or other means that make subsequent runs easier (and realistically unlocked characters can already do that).
I have yet to see a rogue-lite that allows you to hard save and load during a run.
---
@OP:
Not every roguelike does. Dungeons of Dreadmore is one that stays pretty true to the original formula. But sure a lot of them do nowadays so you do not feel like wasting your time with a failed run or one with bad starting conditions.
Random environment generation
Permadeath
Turn-based
Grid-based
Non-modal
Complexity
Resource management
Hack'n'slash
Exploration and discovery
Single player character
Monsters are similar to players
Tactical challenge
ASCII display
Dungeons
Numbers
The only reason you think it's useless is because you think it needs to have a ton of features.
When something is roguelike it can have features from the rogue game and roguelite have these features in a lesser way.
It doesn't need to be a carbon copy of the old rogue game to be a roguelike.
ASCII display should never be a mandatory feature to be classified as roguelike too.
A roguelike you only get better as you the player gets better, a roguelite gives you bonuses for dying/progressing, unlocks more (non cosmetic) things such as recipes, more powerful classes or whatever.
Trying to treat the term "roguelike" as if it should only apply to Rogue clones (which seems a perfectly common and useful way to highlight games that are much more slavish copies of some original well known game if a term is needed) seems unnecessarily limiting.
You say "now" but I'd say that the term "roguelite" never actually meant anything much at all ever.
Limiting the scope is exactly the point of having genres and definitions...
Take nethack, for example: you have next to no progress between playthroughs; levels are redone except for their fixed parts, potion colors are changed (so, if the blue potion was healing you on your last playthrough, it might now set you on fire) etc.
The only details that you could consider "progress" is the ghost system: when a player dies, there is a chance the game remembers a pile with some of his items (usually cursed, and possibly downgraded -- it's been a while) and a ghost with the player name and level guarding it. That's the only thing that can survive between playthroughs. Since nethack was originally done on Unix platforms, they even made this so you could encounter ghosts from other players too, not just your own.
And even if you consider that "progress", because something carries over from a previous game, it's not permanent.
D3 for instance on HC wiped your char but you still had your stash and I also think materials later on, while Paragon was account wide and only a QoL in the end and not a game changer. While other games most often only keeps perma upgrades though which where often game changers. Also either the systems are RNG or the content you're supposed to overcome is, or both.
I preferred the D3 approach because it's less tedious but also required more skill and felt more satisfying whereas other games are truly RNG meaning it can either make it or break it.
A cheap form of all this would be Demon's Souls and all its sequels because there is really nothing unique about it and is only there to waste your time to feel like it has any impact (sunken cost fallacy). You can see where this fails where some games try to copy this formula but then try to use ideas from roguelites which doesn't really work that well and end up playing more like DMC, NG or some Metroidvania where memorizing patterns (like DDR) is more important is also the whole idea about DS and its sequels. It's DDR in a 3D space with hints of a dungeon crawler (its roots).
It were two sentences. :D
The rest actually had little relevance.
The quoted part is you saying one of the main features people use to distinguish rouge-likes from -lites doesn't matter. Well, it does. It's one of the main features people use to distinguish rogue-likes from -lites. Yes, I wrote this to times to make it clear.
"Iron man mode" is commonly called permadeath and as you correctly said a feature of rogue-likes.
As said, I have yet to see a r-lite that let's you load a savegame upon death as well. The genre revolves around limited time runs. So this part is mostly obsolete.
The difference between a "roguelike" and a game with permadeath (a) doesn't matter as it was never part of the discussion and (b) is that a roguelike tries to emulate the experience of a game called Rogue, with more or less all of its features. A number of them are laid down in the Berlin Interpretation, that Mountain Months listed above.
So Witcher 3 in Iron Man mode would not be called a rogue-like, not because it focuses on the "hardcore stuff", but because it's a completely different type of game.
(aka you start fresh every time)
Rogue-LITE: You keep a little progress between runs.
(aka you will be a little stronger on your 200th run vs your 1st run)
Rogue-Likes are basically like arcade games, where every new run is a new game. Rogue-Lites have progression, so they tend to be more popular on home consoles. They are related but distinct from one another.
I don't even know what you are trying to argue here.
Once again: you said a game having meta progression doesn't matter. Whereas I stated, yes, it does, because it's one of the main features those two types of games are distinguished by.
I don't even know why you keep talking about Iron Man modes. It has nothing to do with the distinction between rogueli_k_e and rogueli_T_e. You keepfocusing on that one whereas I don't give a ♥♥♥♥ about it.
Roguelikes are a genre on their own. If they are not for you, you are simply on a wildly different page.
Roguelites has been established as a colloquial for "games with rogue-like features" an often sport meta-progression.
A lot of developers either don't know or don't care about the distinction anymore and throw it all in one pot., which does make it hard to find roguelikes which stay true to the original meaning. Hence this thread, I assume.