I’ve been thinking about a taxonomy of Roguelikes that should help us speak more clearly about this genre - or group of genres - that we love. I’d rather do this than just call things “roguelites”, which basically doesn’t mean anything. So here we go!
True Rogues: you’re alone in a dangerous, randomly-generated dungeon, moving one turn at a time (except for speed-altering mechanics), with the possibility of permadeath always looming. Less objectively, these games tend to be more dangerous up-front, and require the player to master the mechanics in early levels - while still ramping up the threat for players who survive to later floors. Rogue, Brogue, Nethack, Jupiter Hell, and DCSS all fit here.
Bandlikes: inspired by Angband. Distinguished from True Rogues by the presence of one or more “towns” - places of safety that allow you to recover or improve outside of danger - with the attendant “town portal” abilities to get you there & back easily. This results, quite deliberately, in a longer “run”. Also they tend to ease the player in - early floors have a lot of weak monsters designed to pad the player’s early experience levels. I’d put Caves of Qud and Tangledeep (on hardcore mode) here.
Mystery Dungeons: think Shiren, or basically any console Roguelike. Take the mechanics of a True Rogue, but add some degree of meta-progression which can lead to an all-but-guaranteed win over time. Outside of official Chunsoft-made Mystery Dungeon games, I’d also put Nippon Ichi’s ZHP and Guided Fate Paradox here.
Action Rogues: you still get random dungeons and permadeath, but now in real time! For whatever reason, these games tend to have “variety” meta-progression - you can unlock new features that don’t objectively make things easier, but add more variation to future runs instead. Spelunky, Gungeon, 20XX, Streets of Rogue, and Necrodancer fit here.
Coffee-break Rogues: seemed to be all the rage a while back, but I haven’t heard about them recently. These are one-floor dungeons with still enemies, where figuring out the ideal way to have your character approach each encounter is the key to success.
Cardlikes: focused on card-based battles, with dungeons generally (but not always) abstracted into icons for fast traversal. Slay the Spire is the most famous example, and I’m enjoying Dicey Dungeon here too.
Darkest Dungeon clones: basically Darkest Dungeon and the games which clearly want to be regarded as like DD. Vambrace: Cold Soul and Warsaw come to mind, since they’re in my library.
Grinders: having only random dungeons, and no permadeath - or at least the ability to reload a save in case of defeat - I sometimes see these discussed in RL communities. Dragon Quest Monsters 1, Pokemon Mystery Dungeon (on its main quest anyway) and Lufia: The Legend Returns are the best examples. I’d also put Rogue Legacy here since the grinding basically obliterates any concept of loss from death.
I think in some cases a game can fit multiple terms - Rogue Legacy is an Action Rogue and a Grinder, Diablo (on Hardcore mode) is a Bandlike and an Action Rogue, Tainted Grail is a DD clone and a Spirelike, and One Step From Eden is a Spirelike and an Action Rogue. Most Mystery Dungeon games have True Rogue modes or bonus dungeons outside of the main experience, too.
There’s a few games that I can’t quite classify yet - Into the Breach and Dwarf Fortress, mainly - but there’s always room for improvement.
I think this could help us when presenting new games to the community. Any thoughts?
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.
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.
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.
Dunno about the rest but Diablo is a Hack’n Slash not a rogue-like or a roguelite.
Sure, but they mentioned Diablo and the first game in particular is definitely a descendant of Rogue.
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
This sounds like a fun project! :) I’ve only played one game in this genre, Cave Noire for Game Boy. It has randomly generated dungeons. It’s turn based. There’s no stats to level up, instead the player just has to improve their own gameplay strategy. There’s 40 stages (to put it simply), each getting a little harder. After you beat a stage the game saves and you never have to play that one again. How would you classify it?
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.
Nice! I will admit to not having played many Survival Rogues so they’re not prominent in my thinking, so I’m glad you mentioned them.
