Over the past couple of years, the Roguelike genre of computer games has been gaining more and more popularity. For the most part, these are projects from small indie studios, which, due to limited budgets, cannot afford the graphics level of modern AAA projects, but in return they offer you a unique gaming experience that evokes a wide variety of emotions
For those of you who are personally familiar with such projects as “Dead Cells, The Binding of Isaac, Hades” and other “representatives of roguelikes”, no special explanation is required about the features of the genre. However, you should not skip this article, because we will dive into the genre as deeply as possible, and you will definitely turn your idea of roguelikes upside down or even consider a new game to play. Well, for those who don’t particularly like to read long pieces of text, I suggest you watch my video adaptation of this article.
It’s worth starting with an explanation of what Roguelike is – this is a genre of computer games that involves dungeon exploration, random generation of levels and enemies, turn-based play, as well as the inevitability of consequences for the player’s mistakes. Death is the end point in the passage, without the possibility of revival or loading from a checkpoint.
Here you might be wondering, what about the games you mentioned earlier?? Neither the step-by-step nature nor the impossibility of revival apply to them. They are some kind of exception? No, it’s a little more confusing.
Both "DeadCells" and "Hades" can be called RogueLike as well as if a person called himself a monkey. Purely technically… remotely, maybe, but… I suggest you dive a little into history, because without it we definitely won’t be able to understand this issue.
You’ve probably heard about SoulsLike games or Diablo-ids, which are based on specific games in honor of which the genre is named. In the case of SoulsLike, this is "DarkSouls", and Diablo-ids, of course, originated from the "Diablo" series.
Likewise, the name of the genre RogueLike refers to its progenitor – "Rogue".
In 1980, Michael Toy and Glenn Wichman, a pair of University of California students inspired by games such as StarTrek and Colossal Cave Adventure, decided to create their own dream game.
In its final form, it is a dungeon exploration in search of the Amulet of Yendor, located on the lowest level. The character under the player’s control encounters and fights monsters, collects various treasures that help or complicate the game, and death is the final point of passage. Since the games the guys relied on didn’t offer a new replay experience, they decided to add procedural generation of levels, items and monsters to their project. An excellent example of the successful use of procedural generation 36 years before the release of NoManSky.
It was decided to make turn-based character control so that the player could plan his actions and respond competently to all threats, since death in "Rogue" is the end point of the journey.
Due to the enormous success of the game, in the distant 80s, its imitators began to appear, which gradually moved further and further from the original. To date, the most reliable imitator of "Rogue" is considered to be "ADOM – Ancient Domains of Mystery".
You might be wondering, “In the 42 years since the original was released, hasn’t there been a more modern imitator??"Is it possible that the game, released in 1994, is the most authentic game in the roguelike genre, only thanks to its graphics as ancient as the world? And all the other distinctive features of the genre against this background are not so significant?
In fact, by the https://jilikocasino.co.uk/ time ADOM was released, people had a mature understanding that with the release of more and more new imitators, it became impossible to determine whether a particular game belonged to the Rogulike genre, because each of them brought something new to the genre. This was the reason for the beginning of defining clear criteria for the genre.
Asking this question, in 2008 the participants of the International Roguelike Development Conference gathered together in Berlin. As a result of their discussion, 15 criteria were identified, divided into major and minor ones.
Such strict rules of roguelike game design have been repeatedly criticized, due to the fact that even some classic games of the genre did not always comply with all of them. "ADOM", recognized as the most accurate imitator to date, did not meet at least two criteria. First, non-modality. In the process of passing, the player received a bow with which it became possible to build ice bridges. And secondly – the graphics.
At the time of the release of the original "Rogue", video cards of the RTX series did not yet exist, so graphically the game looks like a simple set of characters and in fact it is. The image is displayed on the screen using the ASCII system – a coding table in which each character corresponds to its own letter of the alphabet or decimal digit.
Today’s emoticons that we use in various social networks. networks are also part of the coding system. Try typing two Latin characters “x” and “D” on VKontakte, and you will notice that when you send a message, it will be converted into a familiar emoticon.
However, by the release of the re-release of "Ancient Domains of Mystery" the ASCII table was completely outdated, so it was decided to use tile graphics, which goes against the above-mentioned features of the genre.
Too strict criteria, preventing even the most reliable imitators from being called roguelikes, pointed out the inconsistency of Berlin’s interpretation of the Roguelike genre. Since the Berlin interpretation does not correspond to current reality, on what then should we base the suitability of a particular game for its genre??
Both the public and representatives of the gaming industry have asked this question more than once, but all their attempts to define the distinctive features of roguelikes were either too vague to specifically determine whether a game belongs to the genre, or approached the same 15 criteria that place the genre in too narrow a framework.
For example, Tom Cadwell, a game designer at Riot Games, spoke at the annual gathering of professional developers – "Game Developers Conference", with a report that indirectly touched on this topic. He proposed defining genre as a cycle of failure, learning and success. With the addition of a diverse set of tools that open up during the game, as well as competing goals that require strategic thinking. And although this formulation is quite close, it is at the same time too vague to determine whether the game belongs to the genre. By this logic, the most reliable bagel would be “DarkSouls”. However, the lack of random generation, which the creators of "Rogue" intended as one of the most important parts of the game, indicates the fallacy of such a statement.
Card strategy "Reigns" from Devolver Digital can also serve as an example of the need to create clearer criteria than those proposed by Cadwell. In this game you control the king, balancing between four parameters, by choosing answers to his subjects from two proposed options. As soon as one of the parameters reaches "zero or a hundred", the king dies – this is the cycle of failure in Cadwell’s theory. After this, the player is given the opportunity to start over as a new descendant of the king, and during the game he can receive items that open up new opportunities. It’s a learning cycle. Having received new opportunities and learned to balance between 4 parameters, the player continues to move further in the game progression, which can be called a cycle of success. Thus, we see full compliance with Cadwell’s criteria, however, having played “Reigns” personally, it will be difficult for you to call it a roguelike. Returning to the more detailed Berlin interpretation, we immediately see these inconsistencies. One of its most important points – HackandSlash gameplay – is broken.
Since to this day we have not been offered a consistent version of the criteria, the Berlin interpretation is still the most reliable, despite all its shortcomings. Therefore, I propose to turn to the games mentioned at the very beginning and check their compliance with the Berlin criteria.
Let’s immediately put aside the outdated ASCII graphics, the release of games with which today would mean either becoming antiquated or a regression of technology to the level of the 70s.
Let’s start with the game "The Binding of Isaac" – an indie game developed by Edmund McMillen and Florian Himsl. According to the canon of the genre, it has gameplay in the style of Hack and Slash, random generation, resource management, supported by complexity, permanent death and modeless gameplay. It would seem that everything is according to the patterns of the Berlin criteria, but even relying solely on the main criteria, we see a discrepancy. Turn-based gameplay has been replaced with real-time combat.
"Dead Cells" is a game from indie developer Motion Twin that also goes beyond the genre’s criteria when it comes to its turn-based nature. However, what is more interesting is the discrepancy between the other two points. Firstly, the game partially violates the principle of permanent death. Yes, after death a character loses all accumulated items and characteristics, but the presence of end-to-end progression in the form of character improvements, as well as the discovery of new pieces of equipment, allows us to conclude that death is not the final point of passage. Secondly, during the game, the character receives at his disposal items and skills that give him access to new locations. They also relate to end-to-end progression and at the same time, are a distinctive feature of another genre – Metroidvania. As you might have already guessed, this violates the principle of non-modal gameplay, according to which access to all locations and opportunities should be open from the very start.
The situation with "Hollow Knight" from Team Cherry is much funnier, which in its essence does not belong to the bagel genre at all, but there are often people who think differently. Apparently no one had ever told them about Metroid and the whole genre of games based on it.
If we see that these games violate the basic criteria of the genre, then why does anyone classify them as roguelikes?? Why do many of the so-called Rogue-like games have this seemingly unfair attribution in their genres?? And what does “roguelike lite” mean in Steam tags?? The answer lies in the Roguelite "genre".
The Internet is filled with countless articles about the differences between the Roguelike and Roguelite genres. If you have ever been interested in this topic or accidentally come across information on it, you may have been misled.
The popular opinion is that Roguelite is the same genre of roguelikes, which has some allowances for breaking the rules. That is, "Dead Cells" does not meet the criterion of non-modality – which means it is not a Roguelike, but a Roguelite. "Hades" from Supergiant Games has an end-to-end progression – it’s also a Roguelite.
If this is so, then why doesn’t any self-respecting developer indicate Roguelite in the genres of their game??
"Dead Cells" is an indie computer game in the mixed genre of roguelike and metroidvania. "The Binding of Isaac" is an action-adventure computer game with roguelike and top-down shooter elements. "Hades" is a computer game in the roguelike and action/RPG genres.
However, the postscript “Roguelite Simplified” or if in English “Roguelite” on Steam confuses users. After all, most people don’t notice that the game page doesn’t list genres, but user tags from the same players.
The fact is that there is not and never has been such a genre as Roguelite.
Roguelite is not a genre, but a tag. Some kind of designation that the game contains mechanics inherent in the roguelike genre.
The already mentioned "Dead Cells" is not a bagel. It’s a Metroidvania with roguelike elements. Or, as they call it today, a game in a mixed genre.
Where are the real bagels then?? The answer is simple. They remained in the distant 80-90s along with their ancestor. Technological progress coupled with the need of gamers for new experiences has left the genre with no choice but to turn into an appendage to other genres. Would you today play a classic turn-based Hack and Slash roguelike, with graphics from table symbols, when in contrast there are beautiful, juicy Action/RPGs, metroidvanias and many other genres with Roguelike elements? Perhaps as part of nostalgia or familiarization with old-school gaming.
Is it bad? Yes, why?? Internet technologies will make it possible to forever preserve this turn of the industry in people’s memories and, if desired, will allow them to get acquainted with the projects of those times.