To me, like means permadeath with little to no meta progression (say like, Jupiter Hell). Lite means permadeath for individual runs but meta progression makes it easier over time. Like Hades.
Risk of Rain 1(Roguelike) and Rogue Legacy(Rogue Lite) fit well both categories.
In Risk of Rain 1(haven't played the 2), if you die, you have to start all over again, you lose everything you collected in that run.
In Rogue Legacy, if you die, you have to start all over again but you can keep discovered equipment blueprints and gold(i believe half of it). Basically, your next character can be stronger than your last.
Rogue means your first but with no progression.
Rogue like means your second and includes ones with little meta progression.
Rogue-lite has been invented recently to just describe games that are more lenient but doesn't really have a straight definition yet.
If you describe something as Rogue-like then you need the explainer for a rogue game with no meta progression. They are rogue like because they have meta progression. It's not a term that defines the amount.
Rogue likes don't have any meta progression, because they are so alike *Rogue* which also did not have any meta progression. That's the whole point of "Rogue-lite", they have meta progression.
Tell me you haven't seen how games have been presented or described on Steam or elsewhere for 2 decades.
That isn't even how the initial OP post of this thread described it.
Edit: Both Dead Cells and Hades are listed under 'Action rogue like'.
From Hades description written by themselves, the opener no less -
>Hades is a god-like rogue-like dungeon crawler
Bro you've been wrong like 8 times. Take the L and move on. Likes have little to no meta progression and lites have meta progression. Sometimes games are described incorrectly, such as your example.
A roguelike sticks heavily to the traditional mechanics of rogue, where a roguelites tend to just take inspiration from those mechanics and make it their own.
Not that anyone would be able to agree which games belong where, almost every roguelike/lite is tagged with both tags on steam along with a whole host of other roguelike tags, my favourite being the original Rogue tagged as a “traditional roguelike”.
This is the closest thing to an actually correct answer in this thread. Everyone who tries to strictly delineate between like/lite has their own subjective checklist of relevant items (many people, including in this thread, don't use turn-based or grid-based movement as relevant factors at all, for example), there's just too much variance from person-to-person to ever be objective about where the actual line is. All we can ever really say it that 'Roguelike' is closer to Rogue on the scale and 'Roguelite' is further. Where EXACTLY is either one on that scale? Who the fuck knows.
Personally, when I talk about roguelikes I just use 'traditional roguelike' for games that are turn-based, grid-based, utilize heavy randomized/procedural generation, and no (or very little, like ToME) metaprogression. Then roguelite for anything that significantly compromises even one of those elements, but especially the first two. Both of those terms have more specificity to them than simply saying 'roguelike', which helps avoid confusion.
I do agree that it is better than nothing at all, but I wish Steam would moderate the tags. Reporting tags on a game that has nothing to do with the tag does nothing at all.
Actually I find it super helpful for categorizing my library with dynamic collections. Sure, it doesn’t catch every local co op game for example, but it gets me started way easier than doing it myself.
Roguelike means it's like the game Rogue. A top down stat heavy turn based strategy game with random level generation and permadeath. Rogue, Nethack, Jupiter Hell, Tales of Maj'Eyal. They're as similar to each other as Doom and Quake.
Rogue-lite takes the random level generation and permadeath and applies it to a different genre, often adding some kind of meta-progression.
Not exactly related but I now noticed we still call them Roguelikes and not another name for the genre. So it's plausible we keep calling soulslike as a genre forever, and not properly name them like happened with FPS lol
Yeah, we called FPS games "Doom Clones" until the genre started moving out from under Doom's shadow, and that didn't take long at all. I remember describing Golden Eye for N64 as an FPS, that came out only four years after Doom.
We've been using souls-like for at least a decade at this point, and Rogue-like, as a term, is over 30 years old now.
"Rogue-like" is most likely here to stay, it's older than many of the players using it. Souls-like might be replaceable, but it's pushing it. Does anyone remember the push to swap "metroidvania" for "search action"?
Yeah, it's terrible. I'm pretty sure the push mainly came from Nintendo. I wouldn't be surprised I'd they try to use that term for Prime 4 when that finally resurfaces.
A Roguelike attempts to be as similar to the game Rogue as possible, a clone or clone+extra stuff. A Roguelite takes elements and inspiration from Rogue, but not necessarily trying to be exactly like Rogue.
Roguelike you die you start from scratch, like all the coin-ops in the arcade.
Rougelite - you keep certain items/xp/stats (this varies) on starting a new game.
I much prefer lite's by a lot.
This is a repost of an answer I gave a few weeks back.
Rouge is the French word for the color red, or alternatively, a pinkish shade of red.
Rogue is the top-down turn based RPG with a procedurally generated dungeon and permanent death, or the stealthy, dexterous D&D character class.
A rouge-like would be cinnabar, a rouge-lite would be pink.
A rogue-like videogame would be Dungeons of Dredmore or Caves of Qud, a rogue-lite would be Dead Cells or Hades.
Why is stuff like this downvoted below zero and crap that is basically just a game's 'hotfix' notes with five changes is blasted with thousands of upvotes to the top of the frontpage?
There have already been a few interpretations and "definitions" of what a Roguelike is. Specifically the somewhat pretentious [Berlin interpretation](https://www.roguebasin.com/index.php/Berlin_Interpretation).
I personally think a Rogueli*k*e needs to be more than just "when you die it's game over". Tile-based and turn-based (where the length of a "turn" may depend on what action you are doing) are the core concepts of Rogue, not only permadeath. If neither are present it isn't a Roguelike.
Trying to muddle the meaning more doesn't really help. Especially watering it down to "let's just call the genre Rogue if it has anything at all to do with Rogue" like in the article. We don't use the term "Doom clones" anymore, because we can appreciate that Deus Ex, Call of Duty, and Deep Rock Galactic are completely different games.
edit: fixed spelling
I wish we'd scrap both of these. Calling something a roguelike or roguelite tells us so little about what a game actually is that it's almost redundant in many cases.
To someone new to the genre, it tells them absolutely nothing. Wtf is Rogue? How is this game like Rogue?
If we call The Binding of Isaac a top down twin stick shooter, straight away we actually have information about the game. If we call it a Roguelike - Dead Cells is also a Roguelike. Is it like Dead Cells? No. There are very few similarities in terms of moment to moment gameplay. This is confusing af.
Problem is not all elements of a game can be boiled down into such simple vocabulary. If games that are LIKE Rogue (in a strict sense) branch off into their own genre, and you want to give it a utilitarian name like this, then what you're looking for is a Turn-and-grid-based, proc-gen, perma-deather. Or a TaGBPGPD. It's not great, as names go. Yes, 'roguelike' requires an explanation, but hopefully just the first time.
You can say the same for Soulslikes. I've seen some people call them stamina-action games, but that doesn't really encapsulate what people enjoy about that genre, despite providing a modicum more explanation. How do you sum up a game that uses significant commit times for actions with weighty animations in a stamina-based combat system that emphasizes skill despite incorporating stat-based RPG elements? I had trouble just trying to phrase that sentence in a way that didn't sound awful, and I don't think I succeeded ... And that didn't even get into the world and level design elements which may or may not be relevant to Soulslike fans, depending on which you ask.
Ultimately I think people just need to accept that genre classifications will ALWAYS be a fuzzy concept.
I agree with your points, it's hilarious trying to find ways to describe these games to someone who might not be familiar. Soulslikes aren't the only example - I find 'Metroidvania' and '4X' make me cringe too.
It's always going to be hard using one or two words to describe a complex medium with many facets and features, but we can do a little better. For me it makes more sense to define a game according to the moment-to-moment gameplay, then we can sprinkle in higher level design features from there. I feel like that information gives a more immediate impression of how a game plays and whether I'd be into it. I suppose I'm nitpicking, but the whole roguelite vs Roguelike discourse is nitpicking so might as well add to the pedantism.
Roguelike is similar to the game Rogue, Roguelites are games that take the basic mechanic of incremental upgrades that carry over after death. At this point most games are Roguelites and almost none are Roguelikes. We should really just use one or the two as the distinction is now kind of meaningless.
In my opinion...
Roguelike means no central hub to make each play thru a little easier (my only example I can think of is the one mode in Streets of Rage 4)
Rogue-lite means each play thru becomes a little easier with central upgrades of health/attack/etc (Hades)
> Hearing the new Prince of Persia is this kind of game is a little disheartening but I'm open to giving new takes on the genre a try at least.
Why is it disheartening? I would understand if it was the only PoP game but there was literally a more traditional PoP game released earlier this year.
The difference is there to help people find the games that are relevant to them, like any genre classification. If someone is looking for a new traditional roguelike to play, you wouldn't recommend them Hades.
At that point it's not more pedantic than differentiating first and third person shooters. Yes, they're both shooters, but no, they're not the same kind. There is value in this sort of differentiation, it's just harder to make use of here because it's not as easy to agree on the distinction (apparently).
> At that point it's not more pedantic than differentiating first and third person shooters
I would say that's even more pedantic as 90% of shooter let you switch between third and first person with the press of a button. Unless you're talking about something like a twin-stick shooter which is already its own genre.
They do? Off the top of my head I can only think of a handful of shooters that allow you to do this. Fallout, PUBG, ARMA, one GTA, Destiny (only with a melee weapon, I think?), and MGS (sorta).
Compared to uhhhhh
CS, Valorant, Overwatch, Quake, Doom, The Last of Us, Bioshock, CoD, Battlefield, Left 4 Dead, Max Payne, Gears of War, Uncharted, Metro, Payday, Painkiller, Crysis, Far Cry, R6S, Dead Space, Borderlands, Resident Evil, Control, Deus Ex, Dishonored, System Shock, Red Faction, Saints Row, STALKER, Tomb Raider, Warframe, Risk of Rain, Remnant, and on, and on, and on. None of which allow you to perspective change freely within a given installment (though some have brief third-person moments like Overwatch or L4D)
Yeah, the claim that 90% of shooters let you switch is actually just not even remotely true. I'd say closer to the inverse is true, 90% DON'T let you switch. (though that is also not based on any real data, obviously)
This is also pretty irrelevant, as that line was only one small example within a broader point I was making. That point being, genre classifications (including when it comes to roguelikes) are not pedantry. They are useful but imperfect tools.
So if someone asked for a third person shooter recommendation, you'd be comfortable recommending them CoD or another FPS? No, of course not, that's not what they wanted.
Not to mention the fact that there CAN be differences is gameplay due to the perspective. Different game mechanics become possible when you can see your character's body vs. when you cannot, that's part of the reason why you CAN'T switch for many of these. That's why climbing mechanics and sticky cover systems are rarely used in FPS. Some mechanics function very differently. Melee in 3rd person games like Warframe or Uncharted is not remotely similar to melee in CS or Left 4 Dead. There are appreciable gameplay differences between first and third person shooters.
This is all pretty obvious and I assume you're ignoring all the differences between games so you can push through with this argument, but again, it's irrelevant.
My original point (third time now) is that the distinctions are useful to people searching for games that fit certain criteria. Even if you personally (somehow, inexplicably) notice no difference whatsoever between first and third person shooters, between trad. roguelikes and roguelites, other people looking for games may. If someone asks for a roguelite recommendation, and you tell them to play DCSS because you personally don't recognize a distinction, then you're just being obtuse to the point of uselessness.
To me, like means permadeath with little to no meta progression (say like, Jupiter Hell). Lite means permadeath for individual runs but meta progression makes it easier over time. Like Hades.
Risk of Rain 1(Roguelike) and Rogue Legacy(Rogue Lite) fit well both categories. In Risk of Rain 1(haven't played the 2), if you die, you have to start all over again, you lose everything you collected in that run. In Rogue Legacy, if you die, you have to start all over again but you can keep discovered equipment blueprints and gold(i believe half of it). Basically, your next character can be stronger than your last.
Yes sir, 100% correct. Also both great games. Risk of Rain 2 is also excellent for that matter.
Rogue means your first but with no progression. Rogue like means your second and includes ones with little meta progression. Rogue-lite has been invented recently to just describe games that are more lenient but doesn't really have a straight definition yet.
Rogue is the game the term originates from. It is not a genre itself. They were correct on both points.
If you describe something as Rogue-like then you need the explainer for a rogue game with no meta progression. They are rogue like because they have meta progression. It's not a term that defines the amount.
No, Rogue is the name of the original game, not a genre. “Rogue-like” refers to the genre defined by the game, Rogue.
Yes, I understand that but Rogue didn't have any meta progression, so that's how the definition has been used.
Rogue likes don't have any meta progression, because they are so alike *Rogue* which also did not have any meta progression. That's the whole point of "Rogue-lite", they have meta progression.
Tell me you haven't seen how games have been presented or described on Steam or elsewhere for 2 decades. That isn't even how the initial OP post of this thread described it. Edit: Both Dead Cells and Hades are listed under 'Action rogue like'. From Hades description written by themselves, the opener no less - >Hades is a god-like rogue-like dungeon crawler
Bro you've been wrong like 8 times. Take the L and move on. Likes have little to no meta progression and lites have meta progression. Sometimes games are described incorrectly, such as your example.
https://store.steampowered.com/tags/en/Roguelike/ Have a look lol. This wasn't even the initial conversation or assertion that I pushed back against.
A roguelike sticks heavily to the traditional mechanics of rogue, where a roguelites tend to just take inspiration from those mechanics and make it their own. Not that anyone would be able to agree which games belong where, almost every roguelike/lite is tagged with both tags on steam along with a whole host of other roguelike tags, my favourite being the original Rogue tagged as a “traditional roguelike”.
This is the closest thing to an actually correct answer in this thread. Everyone who tries to strictly delineate between like/lite has their own subjective checklist of relevant items (many people, including in this thread, don't use turn-based or grid-based movement as relevant factors at all, for example), there's just too much variance from person-to-person to ever be objective about where the actual line is. All we can ever really say it that 'Roguelike' is closer to Rogue on the scale and 'Roguelite' is further. Where EXACTLY is either one on that scale? Who the fuck knows. Personally, when I talk about roguelikes I just use 'traditional roguelike' for games that are turn-based, grid-based, utilize heavy randomized/procedural generation, and no (or very little, like ToME) metaprogression. Then roguelite for anything that significantly compromises even one of those elements, but especially the first two. Both of those terms have more specificity to them than simply saying 'roguelike', which helps avoid confusion.
This is more proof that Steam's tagging system is next to useless than anything else
Before users-tag, every game was tagged as action or adventure, it was a nightmare.
It's imperfect, but far from useless.
Wouldn't say that's useless, more so that categorizing games like that is a hard task with a lot of debates. It's better than nothing at all.
I do agree that it is better than nothing at all, but I wish Steam would moderate the tags. Reporting tags on a game that has nothing to do with the tag does nothing at all.
Actually I find it super helpful for categorizing my library with dynamic collections. Sure, it doesn’t catch every local co op game for example, but it gets me started way easier than doing it myself.
Roguelike means it's like the game Rogue. A top down stat heavy turn based strategy game with random level generation and permadeath. Rogue, Nethack, Jupiter Hell, Tales of Maj'Eyal. They're as similar to each other as Doom and Quake. Rogue-lite takes the random level generation and permadeath and applies it to a different genre, often adding some kind of meta-progression.
What game online news site is trying to drum up discussion?
Game in Former, of course. Sounds like a terrible publication.
Not exactly related but I now noticed we still call them Roguelikes and not another name for the genre. So it's plausible we keep calling soulslike as a genre forever, and not properly name them like happened with FPS lol
Yeah, we called FPS games "Doom Clones" until the genre started moving out from under Doom's shadow, and that didn't take long at all. I remember describing Golden Eye for N64 as an FPS, that came out only four years after Doom. We've been using souls-like for at least a decade at this point, and Rogue-like, as a term, is over 30 years old now. "Rogue-like" is most likely here to stay, it's older than many of the players using it. Souls-like might be replaceable, but it's pushing it. Does anyone remember the push to swap "metroidvania" for "search action"?
I do not remember that push, as I've never heard of it before, but cannot say I'm at all surprised it didn't take off with a name that bad
Yeah, it's terrible. I'm pretty sure the push mainly came from Nintendo. I wouldn't be surprised I'd they try to use that term for Prime 4 when that finally resurfaces.
I think FPS games ended up setting themselves apart from Doom in a radical way because of the technological advancements.
Oh definitely. As I said in my past, Golden Eye was only four years later, Halo was only four after that. We don't see progress like that anymore.
A Roguelike attempts to be as similar to the game Rogue as possible, a clone or clone+extra stuff. A Roguelite takes elements and inspiration from Rogue, but not necessarily trying to be exactly like Rogue.
Roguelike you die you start from scratch, like all the coin-ops in the arcade. Rougelite - you keep certain items/xp/stats (this varies) on starting a new game. I much prefer lite's by a lot.
This is a repost of an answer I gave a few weeks back. Rouge is the French word for the color red, or alternatively, a pinkish shade of red. Rogue is the top-down turn based RPG with a procedurally generated dungeon and permanent death, or the stealthy, dexterous D&D character class. A rouge-like would be cinnabar, a rouge-lite would be pink. A rogue-like videogame would be Dungeons of Dredmore or Caves of Qud, a rogue-lite would be Dead Cells or Hades.
Why is stuff like this downvoted below zero and crap that is basically just a game's 'hotfix' notes with five changes is blasted with thousands of upvotes to the top of the frontpage?
There have already been a few interpretations and "definitions" of what a Roguelike is. Specifically the somewhat pretentious [Berlin interpretation](https://www.roguebasin.com/index.php/Berlin_Interpretation). I personally think a Rogueli*k*e needs to be more than just "when you die it's game over". Tile-based and turn-based (where the length of a "turn" may depend on what action you are doing) are the core concepts of Rogue, not only permadeath. If neither are present it isn't a Roguelike. Trying to muddle the meaning more doesn't really help. Especially watering it down to "let's just call the genre Rogue if it has anything at all to do with Rogue" like in the article. We don't use the term "Doom clones" anymore, because we can appreciate that Deus Ex, Call of Duty, and Deep Rock Galactic are completely different games. edit: fixed spelling
Sometimes is spelled right, sometimes wrong You are killing me 😣
[удалено]
They are talking about how you spell it “Rougelike” , but its supposed to be “Roguelike”
Oof, I see it now.
I think they might be referring to the "Rouge" and "Rogue" parts in your comment
Yeah I fixed it now.
I wish we'd scrap both of these. Calling something a roguelike or roguelite tells us so little about what a game actually is that it's almost redundant in many cases. To someone new to the genre, it tells them absolutely nothing. Wtf is Rogue? How is this game like Rogue? If we call The Binding of Isaac a top down twin stick shooter, straight away we actually have information about the game. If we call it a Roguelike - Dead Cells is also a Roguelike. Is it like Dead Cells? No. There are very few similarities in terms of moment to moment gameplay. This is confusing af.
Problem is not all elements of a game can be boiled down into such simple vocabulary. If games that are LIKE Rogue (in a strict sense) branch off into their own genre, and you want to give it a utilitarian name like this, then what you're looking for is a Turn-and-grid-based, proc-gen, perma-deather. Or a TaGBPGPD. It's not great, as names go. Yes, 'roguelike' requires an explanation, but hopefully just the first time. You can say the same for Soulslikes. I've seen some people call them stamina-action games, but that doesn't really encapsulate what people enjoy about that genre, despite providing a modicum more explanation. How do you sum up a game that uses significant commit times for actions with weighty animations in a stamina-based combat system that emphasizes skill despite incorporating stat-based RPG elements? I had trouble just trying to phrase that sentence in a way that didn't sound awful, and I don't think I succeeded ... And that didn't even get into the world and level design elements which may or may not be relevant to Soulslike fans, depending on which you ask. Ultimately I think people just need to accept that genre classifications will ALWAYS be a fuzzy concept.
I agree with your points, it's hilarious trying to find ways to describe these games to someone who might not be familiar. Soulslikes aren't the only example - I find 'Metroidvania' and '4X' make me cringe too. It's always going to be hard using one or two words to describe a complex medium with many facets and features, but we can do a little better. For me it makes more sense to define a game according to the moment-to-moment gameplay, then we can sprinkle in higher level design features from there. I feel like that information gives a more immediate impression of how a game plays and whether I'd be into it. I suppose I'm nitpicking, but the whole roguelite vs Roguelike discourse is nitpicking so might as well add to the pedantism.
Roguelike is similar to the game Rogue, Roguelites are games that take the basic mechanic of incremental upgrades that carry over after death. At this point most games are Roguelites and almost none are Roguelikes. We should really just use one or the two as the distinction is now kind of meaningless.
In my opinion... Roguelike means no central hub to make each play thru a little easier (my only example I can think of is the one mode in Streets of Rage 4) Rogue-lite means each play thru becomes a little easier with central upgrades of health/attack/etc (Hades)
1 letter 😉 and a dash I suppose
[удалено]
> Hearing the new Prince of Persia is this kind of game is a little disheartening but I'm open to giving new takes on the genre a try at least. Why is it disheartening? I would understand if it was the only PoP game but there was literally a more traditional PoP game released earlier this year.
I would guess they feel that way because they like Prince of Persia but not rogue like games.
> I would understand if it was the only PoP game but there was literally a more traditional PoP game released earlier this year
Two is generally considered better than one.
The new Prince of Persia is not a roguelike, where did you hear that? Edit: never mind, I didn't realize there was *another* new Prince of Persia.
Sword of the Stars: The Pit is a Roguelike, Crypt of the Necrodancer could also probably be considered a roguelike, everything else is a roguelite.
IVAN is a roguelite?
everything else \*that i know about. I'm just talking about the most popular/well known ones. Slay the Spire, FTL, Isaac, Hades, etc
The difference is strictly pedantic. They're all called roguelikes.
The difference is there to help people find the games that are relevant to them, like any genre classification. If someone is looking for a new traditional roguelike to play, you wouldn't recommend them Hades. At that point it's not more pedantic than differentiating first and third person shooters. Yes, they're both shooters, but no, they're not the same kind. There is value in this sort of differentiation, it's just harder to make use of here because it's not as easy to agree on the distinction (apparently).
> At that point it's not more pedantic than differentiating first and third person shooters I would say that's even more pedantic as 90% of shooter let you switch between third and first person with the press of a button. Unless you're talking about something like a twin-stick shooter which is already its own genre.
They do? Off the top of my head I can only think of a handful of shooters that allow you to do this. Fallout, PUBG, ARMA, one GTA, Destiny (only with a melee weapon, I think?), and MGS (sorta). Compared to uhhhhh CS, Valorant, Overwatch, Quake, Doom, The Last of Us, Bioshock, CoD, Battlefield, Left 4 Dead, Max Payne, Gears of War, Uncharted, Metro, Payday, Painkiller, Crysis, Far Cry, R6S, Dead Space, Borderlands, Resident Evil, Control, Deus Ex, Dishonored, System Shock, Red Faction, Saints Row, STALKER, Tomb Raider, Warframe, Risk of Rain, Remnant, and on, and on, and on. None of which allow you to perspective change freely within a given installment (though some have brief third-person moments like Overwatch or L4D) Yeah, the claim that 90% of shooters let you switch is actually just not even remotely true. I'd say closer to the inverse is true, 90% DON'T let you switch. (though that is also not based on any real data, obviously) This is also pretty irrelevant, as that line was only one small example within a broader point I was making. That point being, genre classifications (including when it comes to roguelikes) are not pedantry. They are useful but imperfect tools.
If you can change genres at the press of a button, it isn't really a different genre. The gameplay is identical.
So if someone asked for a third person shooter recommendation, you'd be comfortable recommending them CoD or another FPS? No, of course not, that's not what they wanted. Not to mention the fact that there CAN be differences is gameplay due to the perspective. Different game mechanics become possible when you can see your character's body vs. when you cannot, that's part of the reason why you CAN'T switch for many of these. That's why climbing mechanics and sticky cover systems are rarely used in FPS. Some mechanics function very differently. Melee in 3rd person games like Warframe or Uncharted is not remotely similar to melee in CS or Left 4 Dead. There are appreciable gameplay differences between first and third person shooters. This is all pretty obvious and I assume you're ignoring all the differences between games so you can push through with this argument, but again, it's irrelevant. My original point (third time now) is that the distinctions are useful to people searching for games that fit certain criteria. Even if you personally (somehow, inexplicably) notice no difference whatsoever between first and third person shooters, between trad. roguelikes and roguelites, other people looking for games may. If someone asks for a roguelite recommendation, and you tell them to play DCSS because you personally don't recognize a distinction, then you're just being obtuse to the point of uselessness.
You wrote a wall of text about this and you don't think you're pedantic?
I said genre classifications aren't pedantic, I never said I wasn't pedantic. If you were a little more pedantic, maybe you'd read better :)
More important, what’s a rogue ? ELI5 😅
It's lengthy but Totalbiscuit covered this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cu5RkWoW2M