[Disclaimer: Of all games featured only one, Caves of Qud, was given as a review copy, so it's only by happenstance I included it here.]
Genres in all media are something we can take for granted as they set expectations accordingly with what the creator(s) has in mind. Books rely on the genre to subvert or utilize their tropes to enhance the overall narrative as Mary Shelly did when her 1806 version of Frankenstein utilized a Gothic story with a spoken monster. Psychological thriller films like Inception or the Sixth Sense play with the characters’ and the audiences’ perceptions by redefining the experience at the end. Any Earthbound game is a satire of JRPG tropes as well as a playful manipulation of their mechanics, and any notable titles like Ultima IV for RPGs or Spec Ops the Line for Third Person Shooters can be viewed as commentaries on their respected genres. Out of all gaming genres, only one has become so schizophrenic amongst its audience and its creators between semantical, arbitrary requirements and codified gameplay standards. Of course, I’m referring to Walking Simulators as they apply player agency—wait, that wasn’t in the script—I meant, games in the vein of Rogue.
What’s Not to Rogue-Like?
While this topic has probably been worn out over the years, I find the discussion between what is and is not Rogue more fascinating than an issue of semantics. This genre is a great case-study for how games innovate from old ideas, redefine themselves through imitations into new staples, and then the original meaning becomes something entirely different from what it once meant. People have invented terms to establish the insiders (roguelikes) from the outsiders (roguelites), or absurd monikers like roguelikelikes or procedural-death-simulators to describe games that adhere to one tenet of Rogue or all of them. Often these distinctions are based on personal taste and exposure to newer titles that adhere to specific interpretations. In my personal lexicon, roguelikes are games that are strictly in the same vein as Rogue while roguelites are a prefixes to other genres such as Enter the Gungeon or The Binding of Isaac Rebirth are roguelite 2D bullethells. Everyone has his or her own standards and his or her own definitions, and this problem of identity became so pronounced that in 2008 several game developers got together in Berlin to come up with the Berlin Interpretation of Roguelikes.
The Berlin Interpretation is not the definitive answer to what it means to be a game like Rogue, but it does illustrate what factors people consider important. In the definition, there are two lists to describe what constitutes a roguelike, but not all are needed to constitute a game being in the same genre. High factors include random environment generation, permadeath, turn-based combat, grid-based world, non-modal (everything moves at the same time) movement, complex solutions to simple problems, resource management, hack’n’slash gameplay, and exploration/discovery gameplay. Low factors constitute playing as a single character, applying all rules to monsters and players, requiring tactical challenge (puzzles, combat strategy, etc.), displaying in ASCII (I always call it AS-KEYS displays), featuring dungeons with rooms and corridors, and deliberately showing all numbers (HP, Stats, etc.). Many factors are outdated given how reductive they can make a game such as ACII displays or the vague definition of dungeons, but the core values of what people enjoy are included. The three that seem vital no matter what brand of Rogue you are include Permadeath, Randomized Environments and Complexities. It’s these beneficial aspects that we also should examine what faults they create, and what lasting effects they have not only within their own genre but on player habits.
Difficulty Does Not Have to Turn Others Away
Despite how erroneous this conclusion may be as there are no statistics to prove players finish fewer games than in the past (or vice-versa), it’s safe to state that roguelikes/roguelites are not contributing to improve that problem. I would even argue they are conditioning players to be immediately hooked with a game or disown it within the first two hours beyond the Steam refund policy or any overall shorter attention spans. Before we delve into the rationales behind these bold claims, let’s first understand the fundamental dilemma of who are the targeted audiences.
Rogue-styled games are the natural solution created to satiate old-school players with not as much free-time to play the hundreds of hours’ worth of open-worlds with the same old-school challenge as well as newcomers who want something quick, simple to understand but challenging to master, yet also randomized entirely to not grow stale. One audience probably doesn’t even acknowledge the randomized systems as much as the other because tabletop games were not games you completed but enjoyed the experience, so losing was normal. Newer audiences, especially younger children, are prone to lash out when they fail as they are more competitive from the lack of experience with failure.[1] Linearity or the repetition of the same gameplay loops aren’t concerns for either group if there’s a noticeable difference every run; however, finishing a game means entirely different things although the goal of winning is the same. How players obtain enough knowledge, skill and experience in order to win are what fuels these underlining problems with Rogue games.
The biggest problem with Rogue games, especially for new players who feel they are being thrown a book, is the inherent focus on obfuscation. You could look everything up on the wiki or read community guides to get most essential information like crafting options, but the majority of players want to go into games completely free of spoilers. Some games like Sword of the Stars: The Pit alleviate this problem with one metagame reward system decode more and more of the recipes, so you don’t have to memorize everything. Most roguelites, however, rely on this supposed benefit to a fault as they apply a shock-therapy approach to teaching players what is and is not useful (without the title-card as in the Bart Simpson vs. Hamster example.) There isn’t any objective problem as it does teach most players from experience, yet it can also be viewed as filler or artificial difficulty to people who hate starting over from one bad experience. Every Rogue style game deals with this problem in its own way and players either learn it or learn to deal with it if these games wish to continue.
This aspect also leans into the problem of determining when a game is too complex or too simple. Again, complexity can be hard to nail down as every game and every player portrays it differently. Between games like Enter the Gungeon and The Binding of Isaac, who both share a heavy focus on memorizing enemy attacks and strategies for engagement, yet the former is far simpler with its weapon systems, level-design, and overall gameplay whereas the latter has individual items that can artificially make the game easier or harder as well as different room layouts and means of escape. Outside of these titles, a game like Tales of Maj’Eyel is so packed full of nuances with its ten-year-old interface, thirteen classes, hundreds of abilities, items, etc it’s incomparable. There isn’t any arguable way to state one game is complex enough, and it’s this vagueness that attributes an overall intimidation from players who may avoid a similar title even when they make strides to accommodate the seasoned and the newly ripe players for the picking.
Permadeath and procedural generation are the Reece’s buttercup blend that Rogue games are known by as well as what many people expect, even cynically as the more devout players might lament how often it is a replacement for well-crafted level-design. Good level design is like an indescribable sensation; it’s easier to detect from experience than convey what that means or how to quantify it. Often we may compare games in a genre with each other, such as the classic meme of Duke Nukem 3D’s levels versus Duke Nukem Forever, but with Rogue games we should examine not only how their level design works but also how they approach engaging players in the long term with permadeath, level designs or metagame rewards. Although these aspects are also dependent on the game, unlike other traits we can point to different approaches that provide useful information to apply in future titles. For examples on how we can examine these values, let’s examine how these five games deviate with various reward systems, level-generation techniques, and approaches to permadeath.
In the case of Spelunky, while the reward systems and permadeath are staples, its level designs are more curated than artificially generated, which is explained by Mark Brown’s video or Derek Yu’s book Spelunky. To describe the level selection process briefly is impossible, but the simplest description is there are rules to place every area with entrances, secret areas, exits; next, there are templates of “authored” content and randomized values to work with the generated layout; lastly, enemies and items are generated from dice-rolls with set limits.[2] There are also rules within these spawns to keep the game from being as crazy as it could be if everything was all left up to chance. The result is the design may not be realistic, yet the experience always feels intentional like other platformers. Instead of metagame rewards for long-lasting engagement, it’s the tailored nature that keeps players engaged.
On the other side of the spectrum, we have games like Binding of Isaac or Enter the Gungeon, which while they have their differences they generate completely randomized rooms like boxes. This is the common method in most Rogue games. Where the Binding of Isaac allows different room sizes, floors, boss variants and different enemy set-ups depending on the floor method, Enter the Gungeon has tiers of enemies, rooms and bosses that are scaled for every floor. One results in massive spikes or troughs of difficulty depending on what items you pick up or what the RNG generates; the other becomes more repetitious due to its content being arranged like a five-layered wedding cake. Another noticeable difference is the metagame unlocks are completely random where in the Binding of Isaac you complete specific challenges to unlock characters, items or new content and in Enter the Gungeon you simply collect tokens from bosses to get more guns. Permadeath in both titles as well as in all other common Rogue games trains players in order to eventually finish the game either through the accumulation of skill or the result of RNG.
Somewhere in the middle we have games like Tales of Maj’Eyel or Caves of Qud where the overworld maps are completely fixed while the dungeons are completely randomized. Quests are fairly limited though varied with a higher value placed on their narrative elements than other games as they are structured to be roguelike RPGs. These games best resemble the tabletop influences as these aren’t games you complete in an hour or two; instead, it takes you around fifteen to twenty hours to achieve victory. However, one single battle handled incorrectly, especially at lower levels, can end the game if you become careless. As a result, both titles allow permadeath and/or options for a more lax experience, which if the name wasn’t already taken these would be literal light Rogues (or Rogues, Hold the Death for Me). Out of the two, Tales of Maj’Eyel is the more interesting as you can choose Adventure mode which makes level-progression unlock extra lives on a scale where you can only die ten times, and on the Classic/Permadeath setting you can respawn if you find a shrine or alternative means of reincarnation. Caves of Qud simply allows one or the other, relying on its multitude of traits, mutations and other perks, good or bad, to encourage replayability. Neither approach is better or worse, and I much prefer these long-term roguelikes that take what was originally a brain-dead title which simply reduced all the complexities to stats alone. (Seriously, as much as we tout the name Rogue around, load up Rogue on abandonware sites to see how basic it was.)
These experiences are only the most notable titles I’ve played, and given how oversaturated the market is for Rogue games there is bound to be approaches foreign to me. Like a canvas in an art store, any random customer could come in to purchase it and the tools needed to paint a Soup Can, another Michelangelo, or some other strange thing people call art these days. What players and game designers should take from all these approaches is not to restrict the definition into a series of checkboxes, but to take these lessons and create games that go beyond Rouge. Essentially, I’m asking that we demand for Rogue Going Rogue.
Games that Do Go Beyond the Name
Some of these games have been explained in detail, but I think it’s important to understand what it means to beyond the former definitions for Roguelikes. To describe why these games are an example, it goes back to my personal definition with describing these games as prefixes to other games. Instead, it’s not the roguelike features that take a larger role but the other genres instead.
Spelunky (Platformer Roguelite)
Spelunky is what I would describe as one of the first games to go beyond the limitations of roguelikes successfully as it takes what works in the former games and applies it to platforming. The roguelite elements don’t need any further explanation, so let’s focus more on its platformer elements. Jumping is the central mechanic whether on enemies, scaling walls or avoiding attacks, and the controls are precise enough to feel fluid while leaving any mistakes on the player’s lack of skill, not bad luck. Items like guns or other tools are there to help the player, but the central mechanic is all built on the core features of jumping. Level themes and specific platforms do exist, but they’re not as highly diverse as say the eight worlds in a Mario title. In spite of this neglected element or the many rogue-element features like the Damsel in Distress mechanic or the shop, you could look at this game as any other platformer—one that simply makes sure you learn the game through skill, not from memorization.
Cave of Qud (CRPG Roguelike)
Despite initial appearances, Caves of Qud (KUH-D) is not a throwback to Rogue; it may feature a similar art-style that isn’t exactly ACII format as character models are not displayed as alphabetical values, but that is all it shares in common. Combat is like Tales of Maj’Eyel where ranged and melee attacks have class-based skills or progressions to make encounters slightly more engaging than mashing the arrow-keys against enemies. The gameplay is still very convoluted despite its simplistic controls with status effects, the water is money mechanic, survival meters, and hundreds of other features. What does separate it from its predecessors is the overworld map and its procedurally generated history. Rogue was always a dungeon-crawler, not an RPG; playing Caves of Qud highlights this distinction because it’s a CRPG with roguelike mechanics like permadeath and random generation. There are seventy or so traits to influence your character builds, hundreds of abilities, fifty or so factions with their own reputations, and a narrative included with the game, not the manual. The procedurally generated history feature is mostly an auxiliary to the world generation as towns nor citizens change, only the cultures’ past do you see any differences such as different stories of Sultans on statues. These features are enough that I would consider this game a very retro throwback to CRPGs.
PREY: Mooncrash (Immersive Sim Roguelite)
There have been many attempts to create a rougelite FPS, and none ever blended these systems seamlessly with the core FPS mechanics. Ziggurat was almost there with its Hexen/Heretic throwback for maze-like levels, yet the statistical influence made the gunplay elements feel neutered when they weren’t in your favor. This problem is endemic to all games in this subgenre as I don’t think any diehards of DOOM or Quake would say these titles have as well-made levels as the games from the past nor as interesting gameplay as the classics. PREY’s newest DLC, Mooncrash, however, does point out how immersive sims are a more natural fit to roguelites.
One of the biggest problems with the base-game of PREY is solved in this DLC, and that is how often you could get by exploiting the game’s systems. Medical Operators were plenty; salvage and resources were abundant; and before the last update, there were no weapon degradation systems to stop players from using their best gear. Mooncrash solves these problems by including injuries, weapon degradation and an unique mode that takes the best of Immersive Sim gameplay first then brings roguelite elements without compromising the level design. The Moon base is a persistent environment that changes routes you can access or the hazards and enemies you encounter to get all five people safely offsite. In addition, new weapons, abilities, metagame unlocks, and enhancements to previous gear like different types of elemental effects keeps these runs fresh. That sense of discovery feels refreshing every time you reset the simulation whether because you lost all your crew members or you died to the infection spreading over time—the only major blunder on an otherwise flawless expansion. There’s a great sense of reward scrounging by what you have and completing the challenge checklists of metagame challenges, and you have to actively ignore the old exploits that made the base game too easy. As a result, Mooncrash might be the first and the best example of how to take FPS mechanics into the Roguelite world, and it’s by exploring the unknowns of a different genre.
Binding of Isaac & Enter the Gungeon (2D Bullethells Roguelites)
These games are the tried and true method for how to get games to go beyond the original Rogue, and there doesn’t need to be much more said that hasn’t already been covered. In fact, most games in the Rogue genre pretty much incorporate one or two elements from either game, especially with the case of the Binding of Isaac. Although no game since the Binding of Isaac gives the players a few easier wins from the start before it begins to stretch itself out into the actual endgame content. It genuinely surprised me that I completed my very first run on The Binding of Isaac Rebirth within fifteen minutes while fifteen hours into Enter the Gungeon I have yet to get to the final floor once.
Each game has its own style and way of rewarding players and their own balance between skill and chance that varies between whom you ask. Although my personal preference sides more with one model, whichever method is superior is not what should be taken away. Their successes, even though they are essentially opposite spectrums from the same idea, should serve as a reminder as there isn’t a single method to incorporate existing genres into the Rogue category. Complacency and idolizing old standards as timeless is another obstacle that will come with the genre in the future, but we should always utilize the best resource games have, innovation, to further refine what ideas came before us as with the successes of these two games.
Dead Cells (Metroidvania Roguelite)
Now, truth be told, out of all the games on this article, I included this one not because I have played a significant amount of the game but from what I’ve heard and seen about the title. Everyone whom I follow for reviews, impressions, or more avenues to discover new games unanimously agree this game is perhaps one of the best roguelites out there because it doesn’t feel like a roguelite. (My only perspective is I played a game that felt the exact opposite, Abyss Odyssey.) More often than the permadeath or the procedural generation, it’s the combat mechanics, the randomized weapons, the sense of exploration and reward, and the overall refined nature of its 2D platforming/brawler gameplay are the focus in the critic’s coverage. These other important elements are still there to be found, yet the core gameplay is unmistakably good enough for many people that players who may not enjoy other roguelites may be tempted to give it a try even though it’s still in Early Access. This sort of reception is what I believe will make this genre into something greater of its own accord to rival the classics of old, and it’s strides like Dead Cells that will make that dream an ever more believable reality.
Sources:
Berlin Interpretation: https://blog.roguetemple.com/roguelike-definition/roguelikeness-factors/
http://www.roguebasin.com/index.php?title=Berlin_Interpretation
Playlist for the International Berlin Conference on Roguelikes: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEFC7B8888265466C
[1] Article on Younger Ages Dealing with Failure: https://www.parents.com/toddlers-preschoolers/development/behavioral/win-some-lose-some/
[2] Mark Brown Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqk5Zf0tw3o
Comments