Roguelike vs Roguelite - what's the difference? (whatnerd.com)

submitted 9 months ago by Risk@feddit.uk to c/games@lemmy.world

66 comments fedilink hide all child comments

My takeaway is that it's only original Rogue fans that care about the delineation of the terms. Is there a modern (i.e. post 2000s game) that matches the definition of a roguelike as given in the article?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 23 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Roguelikes are a pretty specific genre of game that generally feature procedurally generated levels, permadeath, no meta progression, tile-based gameplay, hunger systems, randomized loot appearances, etc. Nethack is probably the best known example of a true roguelike.

Roguelights are a wide variety of games that feature some of the features of true roguelike but not all of them, most commonly procedural generation and permadeath, but most of them feature meta progression.

Honestly if you've ever played a true roguelike, the difference is immediately apparent. They're usually not very similar at all. There's just a very good chance that you've never played one, they're not exactly wildly popular.

And just to stress: if a game features meta progression it is not a true roguelike. In true roguelikes, you start from zero every time.

[-] MajesticSloth@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

This is how I've seen it. I only like the Lights usually because I enjoy meta progression. I feel like it makes the difference for me to feel like I'm not just wasting my time. I should also mention I'm pretty terrible at games so the meta progression helps me make progress where other games I'd be stuck too often.

[-] eyeon@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I generally prefer rogue likes these days for the variety, but I do think meta progression can also make it feel like wasting your time in a different way. The game becomes gated by wasting enough time to unlock the rest, and doing so can feel more like an inevitability than an accomplishment.

[-] MajesticSloth@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I get that side of it. I honestly rarely play any games these days looking for feeling like a sense of accomplishment. I just play for an escape more than that.

I also enjoy some grindy games. So the meta progression can fit that for me. But I certainly agree it isn't for everyone. That is what makes gaming so great. Usually something out there for everyone and it would get pretty boring if they were all the same.

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

And just to stress: if a game features meta progression it is not a true roguelike. In true roguelikes, you start from zero every time.

What about meta-unlocks? In FTL you can unlock different starting ships, but you will always start the same when starting with the same layout.

In Slay the Spire you unlock different cards you may be able to find, but you always start with the same deck.

[-] johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

That's a good question, actually. I've played a fair bit of FTL and I do think it hews very close to the spirit of a true roguelike, since starting a game with the same ship is always the same experience. I do think meta unlocks change the way you play the game a bit, though, since you may target unlocks and achievements over victory. I'd ultimately put it on the "light" side, but I agree that the game skirts the line.

I haven't played slay the spire, but I'm thinking of games like Binding of Isaac with a lot of unlocks, and I'd say that those change the game experience quite a bit depending on what you have unlocked.