I'm not the one who should judge it but I have a feeling that the term "rogue-like" is vastly misused: any game with randomly generated levels is called rogue-like nowadays. Perhaps it's me who is wrong but I would add turn-based movement, simplified RPG system and of course permanent death features to it.

I still play my favorite Sword of Fargoal on my old C64 (not rom! I have working C64 computer!) and it gives me a lot of fun. Some time ago my friend and his teenage son visited me when I was playing it and the first reaction of the youngster was "Whoa! I've never ever seen such a crappy computer! What is thi $hit anyway?!" I ignored him but he was just warming up so he went with "That must be the most stupid game ever created, why do you play it?!" and stuff like that. It was water off a duck's back to me. But finally he said: "I can beat this game with my eyes closed". "Sure thing" - I answered - "Give it a try". Believe me. It was hilarious. I know this game very well. Normally I would have said that he had an EXTREME bad luck. But I know better - that was my good old C64. He didn't take those offenses so lightly like I did ;) I mean what are the odds? He played it for three hours and he couldn't beat it even once. And it wasn't his fault either. He had the right approach but couldn't beat the game anyway. He almost cried when his sword was stolen when he was SO close to the final exit. That was just hilarious... Sorry for a little OT but whenever I think about rogue-like games I have this situation in my mind. Priceless
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_(video_game]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_(video_game[/url])

The abridged definition
"The roguelike is a sub-genre of role-playing video games, characterized by level randomization, permanent death, and turn-based movement."
Courtesy of wikipedia



Anyway, why do I like rougelikes?
Well, there are a couple of reasons (none of them being nostalgia, as I got into the genre on this side of 05).
-Rogue likes are challenging, and there is a rather clear and obvious way of measuring how much you've improved (how far can you get?). In some ways the appeal is similar to that of a challenging platformer or a shmup (two genres that I also happen to like).
-They are rather relaxing, due to them being turnbased. I can just sit back with a cup of tea in one hand and play the game at my own pace.
- The replay value is high, due to randomly generated dungeons & there (usually) being a lot of things to discover.

Well if you think all combat is "the same" then I guess that's true. But what I meant is that the level geometry will never be the same, they'll always be chests with a magic scroll or sword in a different place, etc.

Oh...OH. Now I get it. Thanks. This genuinely had puzzled me for quite some time, but not enough to actually research myself. Now I'm a little bit wiser.

like the other guys have said randomized levels, loot, challenge etc

You are welcome ;)

Part of the reason Diablo 1 and 2 were so good is because they implemented a roguelike element in their area generating system. It gives you this "fear" of the unknown and sense of exploration. I loved it. D3 on the other hand failed miserably at that.

Actually come to think of it, the genre dungeon crawer is just that - rpg mixed with rogueike.

Aficionados of rogue-likes get a rise from the hard-core gamer label associated with that genre.
Or sumthin'.

Tactical and strategic gameplay necessary to advance in a streamlimed RPG system that emphasizes exploration is the biggest draw for me. I tend to prefer roguelikes on mobile devices because they have a "pick up and play" feel but I don't think anyone has brought up the importance of exploration (miniature open world randomized dungeons) and tactics. Also, the difficulty tends to be more intense in my opinion. It's not just dying a lot but also chasing a higher score or further progress.

I haven't acquired Sword of the Stars: The Pit or FTL yet but those both look very promising. On iOS Cavern and Dungeon Plunder are fun.

edit: *** This post contains slight NetHack spoilers.


The coolest thing about the early roguelikes was the attention to detail.

In a mainstream RPG:
There is a creature that can turn you to stone.

In NetHack:
There is a creature that can turn you to stone if you touch it.
If you step on the dead corpse of said creature without footwear you'll turn to stone.
If you pick up the corpse without fancy gloves you'll turn to stone.
If you pick up the corpse with gloves you can use it as a weapon against other creatures.
If you are wielding or carrying the corpse and trip down a stairway (due to encumbrance, bad luck, or a host of other causes) you may accidentally come into contact with the corpse and turn to stone.
After a while of using the corpse as a weapon, it decomposes and becomes ineffective.
There may be a way to preserve the corpse so it lasts longer...

Now consider that this level of detail permeates every aspect of the game. So the game mechanic itself is a pleasure to explore. You can tackle obstacles with seemingly obscure strategies and they'll sometimes work, and it's satisfying when they do.

Heh, I see you know the NetHack ;) and if this was NetHack community website you would be banned immediately for the thing you just did ;) Seriously, I spent on NetHack forum less then 10 minutes. This guys are absolutely crazy. They can ban you even if write something like "I found a nice secrets today!" Why? Because some users may know more-less in which environment you are (from your other posts) so they may conclude that there are some secret there so you've just spoiled the game for them! "And I will never be able to be as pure as a diamond again! WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!" No offense but those guys go bonkers all the time.

Awesome. You're well ahead of me, I see!

And rightly so, I think! Half the game is figuring out what is possible. So I can see why I've sinned.

You are doomed already ;) Give up your hopes ;)

Good point, though I find it disturbing that this challeging gameplay is so important.
I sincerly disagree that a game should test the players abilities the way Dark Souls or others do.
Dying a lot doesn't mean a game is difficult.

But thats my preference, I don't like a game where I have to start again because it's "game over", I rather want a game where I start again because I chose to do so.
I don't know how many times I restarted the Witcher, Baldur's Gate I or II until I had the character I liked to play. Sometimes even half-through the game, I thought I wanted another approach.

Considering the amount and quality of the feedback I got thus far actually that would be a
nooooooo
in my opinion
but as already mentioned above: humans are all individuals with their own preferences.