Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
I don't want to get into a whole debate about the Berlin interpretation or whatever, but a roguelike should be turnbased. The four key elements are procedurally generated "dungeons" (doesn't have to literally be a dungeon environment but you know what I mean), some semblance of permadeath, a tile-based layout, and turn-based combat.
I cannot for the life of me understand why "roguelike elements" is a thing. Why is this a selling feature? If your game is actually a roguelike - i.e. it has the four things I mentioned above - fine. But if it doesn't, it's not going to play or feel anything like Rogue, so why call it that? Does Rogue still have some magical goodwill or selling power?
Instead of saying "this is an action RPG with roguelike elements", or whatever, just describe the elements - "this is an action RPG with auto-generated environments", or some such. Just such a weird video game convention to use these buzzwords that are basically meaningless at this point.
|
Well that's why they started using "roguelite" for a while but then the "roguelites" are what took over the genre (Binding of Isaac, Dead Cells, Hades, Into the Breach, etc.) so roguelite just got dropped. The two important things are procedurally generated and permadeath now.
I think we're far enough into these types of games being a thing now that when someone says "roguelike" it's accepted to be a game that incorporates popular elements from the game "Rogue", not a game that plays exactly like it. Same with Metroidvania.