This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Your top 3 Rogue-Likes on PC?

#21ClouddxPosted 7/26/2014 6:40:23 AM
Shub posted...
It can't be a roguelike if it's not turn-based, think about that before posting things like Rogue Legacy, FTL or Spelunky. Great games, all of them, but not roguelikes.


Not true at all after reading the wikipedia. They even said Diablo could be classified at rogue-like.
---
i7-920 @ 3.6 // 770 GTX // 12 GB G.Skill Sniper Ram // PS3 // 360
FiiO e9+17 // AD700 + M50 // Deck Legend + 82 // DAS Ultimate S
#22ShubPosted 7/26/2014 6:44:35 AM(edited)
I'll stick with the classic definition (it's also on Wikipedia), thanks very much. Turn-based, tile-based, permanent death, random levels. If it doesn't fit those criteria, then call it something else, "roguelite" is the designated term for games that have some but not all of the characteristics of roguelikes.
---
-What is best in life?
-To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.
#23MarceloSampaioPosted 7/26/2014 6:45:35 AM
Clouddx posted...
Shub posted...
It can't be a roguelike if it's not turn-based, think about that before posting things like Rogue Legacy, FTL or Spelunky. Great games, all of them, but not roguelikes.


Not true at all after reading the wikipedia. They even said Diablo could be classified at rogue-like.


Yes, because Wikipedia is REALLY a very good reference. I mean, its not like anyone can edit it, right? ^^
---
If you believe in Marona as your Loli and Savior and you're not ashamed, put this in your signature. :3
http://i.imgur.com/GV8UFZR.png
#24ShadowThaReaperPosted 7/26/2014 6:47:26 AM
Roguelike has been around for 30 years. It's older than everyone here.

It doesn't get redefined just because a couple of indie jackasses decided in the past 3 or so years that adding 2 features to their games means that they get to classify as something they're not.
#25CircleOfManiasPosted 7/26/2014 6:47:38 AM
MarceloSampaio posted...
Clouddx posted...
Shub posted...
It can't be a roguelike if it's not turn-based, think about that before posting things like Rogue Legacy, FTL or Spelunky. Great games, all of them, but not roguelikes.


Not true at all after reading the wikipedia. They even said Diablo could be classified at rogue-like.


Yes, because Wikipedia is REALLY a very good reference. I mean, its not like anyone can edit it, right? ^^


There's this concept called "sources."
---
Sick liaisons raise this monumental mark
The sun sets forever over Blackwater Park
#26ClouddxPosted 7/26/2014 6:57:36 AM(edited)
CircleOfManias posted...
MarceloSampaio posted...
Clouddx posted...
Shub posted...
It can't be a roguelike if it's not turn-based, think about that before posting things like Rogue Legacy, FTL or Spelunky. Great games, all of them, but not roguelikes.


Not true at all after reading the wikipedia. They even said Diablo could be classified at rogue-like.


Yes, because Wikipedia is REALLY a very good reference. I mean, its not like anyone can edit it, right? ^^


There's this concept called "sources."


And who made up the definition of Rogue-like? Would you like to post a source please?]

https://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/30/04021/5281

List Diablo as rogue-like, as well as many other games that aren't turn-based.
---
i7-920 @ 3.6 // 770 GTX // 12 GB G.Skill Sniper Ram // PS3 // 360
FiiO e9+17 // AD700 + M50 // Deck Legend + 82 // DAS Ultimate S
#27MarceloSampaioPosted 7/26/2014 6:57:48 AM(edited)
CircleOfManias posted...
MarceloSampaio posted...
Clouddx posted...
Shub posted...
It can't be a roguelike if it's not turn-based, think about that before posting things like Rogue Legacy, FTL or Spelunky. Great games, all of them, but not roguelikes.


Not true at all after reading the wikipedia. They even said Diablo could be classified at rogue-like.


Yes, because Wikipedia is REALLY a very good reference. I mean, its not like anyone can edit it, right? ^^


There's this concept called "sources."




Yup, there is. And if you take a small effort to actually read Wikipedia articles, you'll notice that most of the definitions aren't really properly sourced. Hell, Wikipedia accepts links to other articles as 'sources', but sometimes these articles are amateurish, written by some random dude on the Internet.

Heck, the Rogelike article there only have ONE real source to the classic definition, the Berlin Interpretation one.

On the other hand, their source to defend Diablo's inclusion on the Roguelike definition is this: http://www.salon.com/2000/01/27/nethack/

Hard to take it serious, huh? :p


The thing about Wikipedia is that you can put whatever there, and put some source that can't even be considered official, just to try to convince naive people of your convictions Heck, I've done that MANY times. :p
---
If you believe in Marona as your Loli and Savior and you're not ashamed, put this in your signature. :3
http://i.imgur.com/GV8UFZR.png
#28ClouddxPosted 7/26/2014 6:58:31 AM
MarceloSampaio posted...
CircleOfManias posted...
MarceloSampaio posted...
Clouddx posted...
Shub posted...
It can't be a roguelike if it's not turn-based, think about that before posting things like Rogue Legacy, FTL or Spelunky. Great games, all of them, but not roguelikes.


Not true at all after reading the wikipedia. They even said Diablo could be classified at rogue-like.


Yes, because Wikipedia is REALLY a very good reference. I mean, its not like anyone can edit it, right? ^^


There's this concept called "sources."




Yup, there is. And if you take a small effort to actually read Wikipedia articles, you'll notice that most of the definitions aren't really properly sourced. Hell, Wikipedia accepts links to other articles as 'sources', but sometimes these articles are amateurish, written by some random dude on the Internet.

Heck, the Rogelike article there only have ONE real source to the classic definition, the Berlin Interpretation one.

On the other hand, their source to defend Diablo's inclusion on the Roguelike definition is this: http://www.salon.com/2000/01/27/nethack/

Hard to take it serious, huh? :p


The thing about Wikipedia is that you can put whatever there, and put some source that can't even be considered official, just to try to convince naive people of your convictions Heck, I've done that MANY times. :p


Well then post a "real" source with the definition of rogue-like. Who made the definition? Most likely players and not developers.
---
i7-920 @ 3.6 // 770 GTX // 12 GB G.Skill Sniper Ram // PS3 // 360
FiiO e9+17 // AD700 + M50 // Deck Legend + 82 // DAS Ultimate S
#29ShadowThaReaperPosted 7/26/2014 7:11:41 AM
Clouddx posted...
Who made the definition? Most likely players and not developers.


Roguelike is a 30 year old genre.
#30MarceloSampaioPosted 7/26/2014 7:15:31 AM(edited)
Clouddx posted...
Well then post a "real" source with the definition of rogue-like. Who made the definition? Most likely players and not developers.


Thats the thing: SOMEONE, ages ago, created the definition of a Roguelike. Probably the players or maybe a garbage man. Doesn't really matter, if you consider the fact that the definition was CREATED at the time.

The "official definition" is usually considered the one that feels closer to the original idea, in this case, a game like Rogue could be considered the one that coined the term.


Thing is: some developers decided to take this defiition and simplify it. The definition today is so simple that, by definition, games like Hero Siege and Avernum could be considered Roguelikes!


I mean, if YOU decide to create a new and original game, and people create a definition for it, 30 years from now this definition will STILL be the official one, since it was the original.
---
If you believe in Marona as your Loli and Savior and you're not ashamed, put this in your signature. :3
http://i.imgur.com/GV8UFZR.png