Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DavionFuxa]

It has been a long time since I visited the Bay 12 Games Forum.

A Bit of background about myself:

I'm a Let's Player on YouTube, and the first video recordings I did were in regards to Dwarf Fortress - specifically the Adventure mode. Since that time almost 3 years ago, I've done recordings on other games - including many other Roguelike styled games, and some that weren't.

This is something I've been working on since the start of the New Year. Feel free to take from it what you will. It's a Google Document that I wrote up in regards to Defining Roguelikes, in what makes them a Roguelike.

For A Game To Be Considered A Roguelike
DavionFuxa Talks - Defining The Roguelike Genre

The first link here corresponds to the Google Doc I had wrote up, the second link to a YouTube Video of me reading the Google Doc and giving some additional insight.

As a disclaimer, anyone is free to take my definition and work with it as they wish. This is meant to be a starting point to work up a proper definition for the Roguelike genre.

Feedback is encouraged. I welcome further input to improve the document.

[Frumple]

Prooobably better off in Other Games, methinks.

Don't really have anything else to add -- I stopped really caring about a definite definition for roguelikes probably at least five or six years ago, and generally just get kinda' annoyed with the whole discussion at this point. If it's enjoyable and close enough, who cares what exactly you call it, y'know? Folks should spend less time arguing about what to call 'em and more time playin' 'em.

[DavionFuxa]

Prooobably better off in Other Games, methinks.

I'm technically discussing something that 'pertains' to and is partly derived from Dwarf Fortress. That's my rationality for posting it here. However I'd be fine if this was in Other Games if someone genuinely believes it should be posted there.

If it's enjoyable and close enough, who cares what exactly you call it, y'know? Folks should spend less time arguing about what to call 'em and more time playin' 'em.

I consider it partly important to argue the definitions for defining a Rogue-like because once you are done playing a game that is a Rogue-like, and want to play another Rogue-like game, then you want to know what the Rogue-like label encompasses so you can find another Rogue-like game.

I'll note that just searching through Rogue-likes by themselves is pretty broad, but I think just nailing down what the label 'Rogue-like' in and of itself encompasses should be the first step to take. From there, sub-genres (insert Traditional Roguelike for example, or Real-Time Roguelikes, or Platformer Roguelikes) can be established to help people further find the games they want to play.

[LordBucket]

a proper definition for the Roguelike genre.

"Roguelike"

etymology: "Rogue" as in rogue. "Like" as in "resembles"

Definition: resembles the game, rogue.

[Flying Dice]

Prooobably better off in Other Games, methinks.

I'm technically discussing something that 'pertains' to and is partly derived from Dwarf Fortress. That's my rationality for posting it here. However I'd be fine if this was in Other Games if someone genuinely believes it should be posted there.

This is the General (offtopic) board. 

And essentially a mix of LB and Frumple. A roguelike is a game which resembles Rogue. How strictly you define that relationship is probably best left to personal preference, because ye gods does it create an absurd amount of pointless argument.

[MagmaMcFry]

"Roguelike" is just a name for an implicitly defined subcategory of the "game" category. Calling something a "roguelike" gives new people a hint of what to expect when they give it a closer look. It is useless for any other discussion. The classification of a game as "roguelike" or not is perfectly unimportant to people who already know the game. Trying to formulate an explicit definition is therefore useless for any further discussion, since you are always discussing only one or two games at a time.

Let's say you had a definition of "roguelike", say "an RPG with permadeath and randomly generated terrain", and there is this game you're talking about. Looking at this game, you see that it is an RPG, it has permadeath, and it has randomly generated terrain. Now why would it be necessary to state that the game is a roguelike because it has these properties? By your definition of "roguelike", you just stated a perfect tautology, congratulations.

You have made an abstract category, and it is impossible to classify a thing as belonging to this category or not without knowing at least as much information about the thing as you would know after you'd just been told whether the thing is in the category or not. Your category is such that you cannot categorize with partial information, hence your category is perfectly redundant and serves as an abbreviation at best. The same logic applies to every possible explicit definition of "roguelike" that keeps close to the perfectly usable implicit definition that is already in common usage.

What you might be trying instead is to fit this common implicit definition of "roguelike" into words. In this case, you are a historian and not a politician, and you may not use your "definition" to argue for or against anything, since it is not actually the definition, just a recording of common usage. And if it is actually to be a recording of common usage, you are not allowed to be biased towards your own idea of what a roguelike should be, but for some reason your doc is full of personal bias. Congratulations, you made a ten-page essay on your personal opinion of how a single word should be used or not. This is definitely not something you need public input on.

Therefore in any case your endeavor is pointless and this thread is useless except as flamebait. Hope you guys learned something, I'm out, /thread

[miauw62]

Oh, this thread again.

* miauw62 points to the "What is a game?" thread in OG

you can't make a good, universally agreed upon definition of roguelike, much like you can't make such a definition of "game". People focus too much on what genre a game is, that restricts creativity. Games that aren't really roguelikes but are still roguelikes a little bit like FTL are great fun, so why would we need a strict definition saying "you're a roguelike, and you're not"?

[MDFification]

Oh, this thread again.

* miauw62 points to the "What is a game?" thread in OG

you can't make a good, universally agreed upon definition of roguelike, much like you can't make such a definition of "game". People focus too much on what genre a game is, that restricts creativity. Games that aren't really roguelikes but are still roguelikes a little bit like FTL are great fun, so why would we need a strict definition saying "you're a roguelike, and you're not"?

... that made no sense.

I think the best definition of roguelike is games with a) a permanent failure state (if you die, it's back to character creation) and b) emergent gameplay (i.e. random loot drops, procedural level generation or extremely heavy ai-ai interaction - these make each playthrough unique to the player). Those were the two features of the original Rogue that have been imitated by other self-declared roguelikes. Having ascii graphics doesn't really come into it. Some of the most popular Roguelikes today are Crusader Kings 2 (an easy roguelike, seeing as it doesn't end with character death if you have kids, but it does intentionally have a permanent fail state if none of your descendents are inheriting a playable title and its emergent gameplay means each playthrough is unique) FTL and Minecraft's Hardcore Mode (procedurally generated world and permanent failure state).

[Frumple]

... except CK2 is clearly not a roguelike (it is, aptly put, a dynasty simulator), and some games that clearly are (The oiginal Gearhead, ferex) don't have permanent failure states. The biggest problem with trying to tie down what a roguelike is is that pretty much any metric you decide to use has been violated at some point by a game that's easily identifiable as a roguelike. About the only thing that even approaches consistent is procedural generation, but there's even a handful that violate that. Multi-point systems ala the berlin interpretation is probably the best we're going to get at this point, to the extent a best is even needed. Roguelike is long past the point of being a binary state, having instead evolved into a spectrum. Is why watching folks trying to lock it back down into a binary state is as frustrating as it is.

[miauw62]

... except CK2 is clearly not a roguelike (it is, aptly put, a dynasty simulator), and some games that clearly are (The oiginal Gearhead, ferex) don't have permanent failure states. The biggest problem with trying to tie down what a roguelike is is that pretty much any metric you decide to use has been violated at some point by a game that's easily identifiable as a roguelike. About the only thing that even approaches consistent is procedural generation, but there's even a handful that violate that. Multi-point systems ala the berlin interpretation is probably the best we're going to get at this point, to the extent a best is even needed. Roguelike is long past the point of being a binary state, having instead evolved into a spectrum. Is why watching folks trying to lock it back down into a binary state is as frustrating as it is.

this is basically exactly what i ment.

[DavionFuxa]

How strictly you define that relationship is probably best left to personal preference, because ye gods does it create an absurd amount of pointless argument.

Any amount of arguing, no matter how on target or pointless it might be, doesn't negate the importance of trying to define a 'Roguelike' if people are using it to define games.

....

Even if you are an old player, a definition can be useful, since it can help you locate particular items among many. People like structure and one way people break down a group of items that are easier to handle in their minds is by defining certain components. If you look in the Steam store for example, there are a lot of games. Tags are one way of breaking down those games, and people can use any number of tags to break down the pool of games into a much smaller pool to look at.

Also, if I was to define myself, the closest thing that I would call myself is 'theorist'. Given the abstract and partial information available, here is the explanation I give. Whether or not I am biased is irrelevant - the main thing is that it fits with the evidence given. If you see anything I stated that you disagree with because you think it goes against the evidence then let me know. That's why this is posted here.

You can't make a good, universally agreed upon definition of roguelike, much like you can't make such a definition of "game". People focus too much on what genre a game is, that restricts creativity. Games that aren't really roguelikes but are still roguelikes a little bit like FTL are great fun, so why would we need a strict definition saying "you're a roguelike, and you're not"?

The definition doesn't have to be universally agreed upon, some people will be stuck in there ways that a Roguelike 'has to be this and only this' so it would be impossible - I fully admit that. However that doesn't mean a definition can't be formed that a majority of people can agree on. The main thing is that this is a clear definition that can be useful for helping define a certain set of intrinsic that one thing has against other things.

I'll also note that FTL would be classified as a rogue-like under my definition. People should probably read how I drafted my Google Document since I actually don't take a sort of 'ingredient list' approach to forming my definition - such as seen in the Berlin Interpretation for example.

[Neonivek]

Well you could say FTL is "Atypical" for a roguelike while being one itself.

The game that I don't know if I want to qualify it as a roguelike is Spelunky.

[Flying Dice]

How strictly you define that relationship is probably best left to personal preference, because ye gods does it create an absurd amount of pointless argument.

Any amount of arguing, no matter how on target or pointless it might be, doesn't negate the importance of trying to define a 'Roguelike' if people are using it to define games.

Frumple already put it well and I'm not going to restate everything he said if you're going to ignore his post. We're well past the point of "Is it a Roguelike?" being a universal and objective yes-no question. Ergo, it's rather pointless to ask "What is a roguelike?" because every person is going to have their own answer and pet issues, and few of them are wholly wrong. It's the same thing that's happened to capital-L Literature.

[Tylui]

idk I think this is an important discussion, and a well written article, from the points that I read. Many games now-a-days are touting roguelikeness, which can be as loosely defined in their minds as procedural levels, or character permadeath and that's it. I'd argue that lots more goes into it than just that. Good work Davion, keep it up!

People who are saying you shouldn't ask the question probably shouldn't be responding to this thread with that statement. Just sayin'. There are tons of definitions to the question "What defines music as being part of the metal genre", and while those answers have a huge variety of answers, they are all clearly separate from country, or from rap, and the question is still a valid one. Same here.

[Flying Dice]

That's sort of the point I was making, though. Metal is clearly distinct from country or rap and you can immediately tell which is which, even if you can't explain why. What I'm saying, to continue the analogy, is that it's rather pointless to argue about whether a given subgenre of metal is actually metal. For example, the people who whine about ToME not being a roguelike because it uses tiles and has non-permadeath modes and features.

It's easy to tell, even. Take the example of Minecraft: you control a single PC, you can play in permadeath mode, the world is procedurally generated, and almost nobody would call it a roguelike.

I'm not saying that the question shouldn't be asked period, I'm saying that most cases where it is asked are people starting fights over petty differences within the genre, because most everyone can tell (barring a rare handful of borderline cases) what is or isn't a roguelike, in the same way that most people can tell the difference between a grand strategy game or 4X and an RTS.

tl;dr: Give a bunch of roguelike players a survey asking them to identify a large selection of games as "roguelike" or "not roguelike" and I'd estimate a very low overall degree of deviance on each.


e: If you had to ask me, I'd answer that what defines a roguelike as a roguelike isn't the features it has, but the question of whether and how those features are central to it. Let's take one of the most oft-cited ones. Games can have permadeath without being roguelikes, and games can be roguelikes without having absolute permadeath. Why? Because it isn't the fact of permadeath that makes a game a roguelike, but rather how the existence of permadeath affects gameplay and player behavior. Go through that same process for each of the traits commonly attributed to roguelikes and you have a good understanding of why those features generally define the genre, why games which possess them can nevertheless not be roguelikes, and why games without one or even several of them can still count as roguelikes to most players.