I don't think the subgenre should exist but that doesn't mean I think that most "roguelites" are roguelikes either. The further down the rabbit hole you go with that logic, the more ridiculous it sounds. God knows why Spelunky has anything to do with "roguelike(ish)" (people can't even make up their minds on the label) when it's clearly a platformer. which opens the possibility that a game like Call of Duty would be labeled as such the moment it features random maps generation. One of the main reason why people call them roguelites is because they have some amount of procedural generation. Binding of Isaac being my favourite example it should just be called a bullet-hell or a twin-stick shooter. I personally don't like the term because most games labeled as "roguelites" deserve to be categorized elsewhere. There wouldn't so many people trying to discourage others from talking about them here if people didn't view it as such. Lets be inclusive while still enabling others to cut conversations short and push people away. Mods should make it more clear, one way or another, but I'm starting to believe that they think the definition is already as clear as it should be leaving room to some interpretation despite a lot of draconian mindset that most people here have. something I'd be completely down to agree with yet, at the same time, games like Hieroglyphika and Darkest Dungeons are treated here as non-roguelikes. This is a subreddit where, according to the side-panel, Hoplite and WazHack are considered Roguelikes. The latter being a problem considering 2/3rds of this subreddit rules are specifically against "roguelike-like." so Rogue-lites would still be, technically, Rogue-likes but they insist that other people should look elsewhere despite the subreddit being called " /r/roguelike" and not " /r/traditionalroguelike." Not understanding that a sub-genre fits within the genre.Making said sub-genre(s) vague as hell.These people usually agree with each other by pure coincidence.Īnd most of the people that think this way don't want to bother working on a better definition, evolving the genre and, in the name of "clarity", dump everything that doesn't fit their ideal into a sub-genre. Others just point to a vague interpretation on a wiki and treats it like a bible.If one game fails to completely satisfy all of the items on the list (even if other features provided would be complementary to the genre), then it doesn't belong. Others define the genre by a very selective and limiting list of features.Despite the fact that a good majority of the games they'd call roguelikes have more things that sets them apart from Rogue than they have things that are similar/identical. so, if it isn't "like" Rogue, then it doesn't apply.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |