Roguelikes

Why do people think that "action roguelikes" are a thing, or is a thing that can even exist at all?
Now I can enjoy a good roguelite like anyone else, but this still upsets me greatly. Who do I blame for this shit?

Attached: 1657295789.png (244x22, 5.4K)

It's roguelike autism, what did you expect

>turn-based roguelike
>remove turn-based elements
>it's now an action roguelike
Would you say this is impossible?

>first-person shooter
>make it third-person
>it's now supposedly a "third-person FPS"
Would be a more apt comparison. Roguelikes are turn-based, as Rogue was.

>Turn-based strategy
>remove turn-based elements
>it's now an action TBS

>roguelikes exist
>niche community of autists like them
>roguelites, such as Spelunky and Isaac start coming out
>people don't know how to categorize them, so they just call them roguelikes as well
>more games come out, so they get called roguelikes as well
>the autists start getting a bit upset that such different games are in the same category
>however it's too late, the mainstream accepts the term "roguelike" to mean all of these games
>but some more influential people think that these games are a bit different, so they create their own terms
>these terms, such as "roguelite" or "action roguelike" become a mess to the point where there is no clear consensus on what they mean
>and so, at the end, these games become popular and people just use whatever they want
>since few people actually know what they are talking about, noone really explains the normalfags what a roguelike is
It's a fucking disaster and I suggest accepting it as such. I personally think that we should just call these "run based games" and give the roguelike term back to the autists. But I doubt normalfags will like that and I'm not sure what the future will lead to.

Bad analogy, one overrides the other.
A turn-based RPG isn't "more" of an RPG than an action RPG just because turn-based was the standard originally. A sub-genre was created and expanded the meaning of the genre.

"turn-based roguelik" is redundant. They're already turn-based.
It's like you can't just take an Action RPG, remove the Action element, and pretend like it's still an Action RPG.

If you took rogue, made it an action game, but kept in permadeath and no unlocks, how would you call it? It's not a roguelite because "lite" refers to metaprogression, and according to you it's not a roguelike because all roguelikes are turn-based.

It becomes an ARPG. Diablo II Hardcore mode is exactly this.

>If you took rogue, made it an action game, but kept in permadeath and no unlocks, how would you call it?
An action RPG?
>It's not a roguelite because "lite" refers to metaprogression
No. This is just some bullshit peddled by people trying to make sense of the terms but without the context or knowledge to actually know what they're talking about.
Roguelites are quite simply just games inspired by roguelikes but for one reason or another aren't close enough to actually be roguelikes. Hence "lite".

It'd be action RPG, if it kept an RPG-esque stat/attribute system. Certainly wouldn't be a roguelike anymore, however.

Attached: wasted space.jpg (802x434, 159.81K)

Not all ARPGs have permadeath, how does that make sense? "Hardcore mode" - so are you saying the regular game isn't an ARPG?
>Roguelites are quite simply just games inspired by roguelikes but for one reason or another aren't close enough to actually be roguelikes
So, no matter how minor a change, it's a totally different genre now, despite no specific metric? Can you at least name something specific that differentiates them?

>So, no matter how minor a change, it's a totally different genre now, despite no specific metric?
No. It's a different genre when the change is big enough to become a different genre. It's not that complicated.

>when the change is big enough to become a different genre
And my argument is that the change isn't big enough for that, like how RPGs can be turn-based or action-oriented and still both be RPGs. It's a big difference, but not genre-altering. Again, can you name some specifics that create this distinction?

>despite no specific metric
Roguelikes are a very precise genre, which is exactly why people who have enjoyed them are baffled at whatever is called "roguelikes" these days. Roguelikes:
- are grid-based
- are turn-based
- have a stat/attribute system
- have permadeath
- have a randomly generated world -- most often a "dungeon" -- with randomly generated loot
Examples of such are, for instance, the classic NetHack and its forks, DCSS and its forks, Angband and its forks, and Tales of Maj'Eyal.

Attached: roguelike elements.png (426x434, 18.52K)

Turn-based, grid-based, and permadeath are usually seen as the defining elements of a roguelike. All three of them must be present or it's simply not a roguelike. Yes, this is a bit of a rigid and highly-specific definition compared to other genres. That's because no other genre is defined by a single game like roguelikes are (literally: "like" Rogue).

Yeah because roguelikes are all turnbased. It's an entirely different game if you remove it.

If I understand correctly, you want a comparison between a "roguelike" that is turn based and one that's not?
There is Crypt of the Necrodancer, which is basically a roguelike, except every turn you do is timed to a beat, so, it's effectively an action game. This makes it play significantly differently than a roguelike, as there is a lot more emphasis on the action than the turn based thinking.

Roguelikes are in their essence, gridbased, simulturn-turnbased RPG. With randomized environments that reset upon death. And if your game is not that, then it's no roguelike.
Why is this so difficult to accept for people who aren't even into actual roguelikes?

Try to spot the difference between the left column and the right column.
Even at a glance the games in the left column should be easily recognizable as part of the same genre. But the same can absolutely not be said for the games in the right side column.
But it's not as if the games in the left side column all play the same or anything. There is a huge variety in all of these games but they're still easily identifiable as roguelikes. And the games on the right side are not, and it's because none of them are even close to being roguelikes.

Attached: 1657299585.jpg (1600x4500, 1.96M)

Would you say it's bad to use the term "roguelike" to colloquially refer the games, like "RPG" and "turn-based" or "traditional roguelike" to game that are more similar to Rogue? I think descriptive definitions are generally more useful for distinctions between genres.
Necrodancer isn't the best example, since it still has a good bit of meta progression, I meant in the vein of an action "demake" with all the same base mechanics, but no turn system.
I don't see the point of playing spot the difference in a discussion about genres, you could do the same thing with the old retro RPGs and newer games in the genre and say they aren't a part of it because they look different.