Any taxonomy that doesn’t include the Berlin interpretation or consider it’s existence is missing an important piece of roguelikes history and elements imo
It’s a bit rough around the edges, but you (or someone else) might enjoy Genesis: Alpha One
You fly a space ship (well, mine usually look more like stations that can also move), across different life-infested solar systems. The main gimmick is that you build the station yourself out of different modules.
So when your scientists come back from planet surfaces, with some spores on their suits, you might find pockets of ewww hiding in the vents of the station you made yourself. You have/unlock multiple times ways to make sure that the infestation stays relatively isolated to, say, the landing bay. But even with those, you’ll find yourself doing a lot of first-person vent-crawling to figure out where that disgusting crab-thing just came from.
Plus, it’s a rogue-lite with some permanently unlockable progression. There are multiple player factions you can unlock and there’s a NG+ mode, but I found myself not replaying it too much (even though my one played campaign was quite fun). Still, I sunk a good 16-20 hours into it, I think.
Workers and Resources is an interesting one. It focuses on the material reality of running a planned economy without internal money supplies. Also a very good city/industry builder.
You can usually pick up Terraria when it’s on sale for about $5. I haven’t played it in forever but I enjoyed it at the time and apparently it’s only improved since.
First thing’s first: Luciole is right. Making hardline categories doesn’t work and you’re better off coming up with properties games could have. But if we’re gonna go down this route:
Dwarf Fortress adventure mode is one among a few games (Stoneshard being another?) that go for… an open-world with fairly traditional rogueish mechanics?
Hardcore Diablo, alongside other ARPGs and stuff like Tales of Maj’Eyal and Rift Wizard, I’d call “skill rogues”? If we’re not gonna care whether they’re turn-based or not. Games where you have a bunch of skills to unlock with cooldowns and very little importance placed on map loot.
Calling everything that isn’t turn-based an “action rogue” seems wrong. Like, Barony? Sure it’s real-time, but it’s seriously the classic Roguelike experience, except in first-person and co-op now. It’s rad as hell.
Something you’re missing IMO is… sandbox-ness? Like the “skill rogues” don’t have a lot of systems that can interact in weird unexpected ways. Nethack is the quintessential systemic sandbox. More modern examples would include Spelunky and to a much greater extent Noita. There’s a lot of overlap with totally different genres here- Immersive sims inherit some of Nethack’s sauce, and so does Dwarf Fortress (as in Fortress Mode).
What the heck even are DoomRL and Jupiter Hell? They’re turn-based but built to almost feel like they’re not. I feel like they’re their own special thing in a way.
Papers, please. This was dystopian but it still felt like it captured the banality of some of communism’s negative side rather than just creating moustache twirling villains.
While the game is pretty fun and the banality is the point, I feel like it doesn’t have a lot of things to say about communism itself. You can swap it out for any failing country and it would just work the same.
While Papers Please is very good, it has more in common with nations in a post-soviet balkanisation than a communist nation. The banality is very present in modern western government as well, and the inability to afford medicine for your child is something that is ripped straight from the modern USA. It is a great approximation of what people imagine due to media conditioning, and that makes it very easy to role-play within the game and really enjoy it.
All in all, amazing game, amazing soundtrack, not really indicative.
Very much so! They add a ton of content to an already pretty content-rich game, and after you have them, you’ll barely notice they weren’t part of the base game before, except maybe the Castlevania one because of the obvious difference in theme. Still, lots of quality content that adds tons of variety to your runs!
Stuff like FTL and “The PIT” doesn’t fit super well into your categories I feel. I think they’re a little to defined and narrow.
I think one way to slice it would be how the games handle progression, is there any? Is it only on complete runs or also on partially complete runs or every single run you gain something?
It’s similar to what you’re on but a bit more concise. So
No progression: the game is about completing a run, which is very challenging but also very rewarding.
Some progression: the game builds over multiple runs offering different/new ways to tackle it as you complete runs or discover stuff.
Full progression: every run builds on your previous runs.
I don’t see the point in naming a genre for rougelike card games. To me it’s a mash up between a full progression rougelike and a card game, and it doesn’t need a name. Also a name for rougelike with safe havens seem weird as well. And rougelikes with full progression by nature become grindy since that becomes one way to win.
The fact that you can say “rougelike card games”, and we all know exactly what you mean, is precisely why we should name that genre. There are plenty of folks who want to seek out roguelikes and not be inundated with Slay The Spire clones. (I like them just fine, personally.)
FTL is what I’d call an Action Rogue, even though it’s pausable (and actually a lot, maybe all, Action Rogues are pausable).
I haven’t played The PIT - I need to look it up.
The idea of classifying based on progression is one of the most important ideas here, you’re right about that. But I also want to capture the idea that the core gameplay itself - grid combat, real-time, cards, JRPG-style battle screens, whatever - is important.
What I’m saying is those already are genres, a game can have more than one genre so use that. Rougelike TCG, Rougelike RPG and Rougelike Action RPG are all valid and much more universally understood than trying to make people understand what “Action Rouge”, “Bandlike” or “Cardlike” is. Then mentioning the type of progression helps as well. But if we try naming all permutations with more than 3 games fitting it then we’ll just end up with 10 new genres noone will use or understand.
Word of warning: systematically classifying video games is HARD. It’s a bit like classifying any form of creative media: music, cinema, visual arts, etc. It’s hit-or-miss. RPG forums routinely fall into that rut and the infamous corollary: [insert game here] is (or is not) an RPG.
If you’re dead set on this endeavour, I’d suggest identifying main features and tagging games with a number of them. Try and pick required ones if possible. Or don’t, because gate keeping sucks. If you know how to code, this is sort of the Composition over inheritance mindset.
I agree with this methodology, and it’s reminiscent of how traditional roguelikes are defined here. I’ve used a similar approach in my own endeavor of defining incremental games - define a canon, find the qualities they share, and indicate which ones seem most important to have.
And then there is cataclysm DDA, which I guess would be described as a “Survival Rogue” based on your other names. Games with a focus on long-term survival & crafting. I think Unreal World would also fit into this category.
bin.pol.social
Gorące