Rogue-likes vs ARPGs, from someone with a lot of authority to make the distinction.

"

awesome999 wrote:

stuff

Tone down the condescension please. 'fucking loling' at someone else's argument isn't polite and it's not useful. Especially when your attempt at a refutation actually seems to be disagreeing with things that were never said. It's like you want to have this argument but no one here has put forth the point you want to argue against so you just attributed it to someone -- and, worse, to the one person who almost certainly won't respond.

Mark GGG is hardly a 'so-called expert' : I just said he has a lot of authority to speak on the difference between the two, since a) he works on a very successful ARPG for a living and b) claims to play the shit out of true roguelikes (you can't refute either fact). He clearly knows what a roguelike is and argues why ARPGs aren't roguelikes (also a fact), so I don't see why you are so antagonistic in your response -- you are actually agreeing with him. I don't think you really read this stuff anywhere near close enough to comment usefully, because everything you've said has already been covered in the past two pages. I know, two pages is a big ask, but...maybe give it a go next time. Hell, I'm not sure you even read the entirety of the reddit post I so helpfully quoted.

If you want to argue for the sake of arguing, please pick a different thread. No one here is saying anything that you've claimed they've said. At all.

And yes, Draeg -- COTN really threw some of them out, because somehow they couldn't understand that there can be a viable space between true real time and true paused time i.e. turn-based. Each beat represents a turn, yes, but the music adds an impetus not to take too long with each turn because the enemies certainly don't. But the fact that the enemies will move to certain beats even if you don't definitely pushes the needle much closer to real-time, so...yeah, it's a hybrid. As great games very often are.

And I think it's a great example of why I largely agree with that article saying that 'Soulslike' is a wasteful, damaging lazy bit of shorthand, and by extension so is 'roguelike' -- when something comes along that challenges these conventions in a clever, engaging way, rather than embracing it, some people reject it because it doesn't fit pre-existing boxes. I find that really sad, honestly, given those boxes wouldn't exist if someone hadn't challenged conventions in the first place.

I agree COTN was a game I saw and was like this is a tier more creative than i'm used to, loved it.

"

Draegnarrr wrote:

I agree COTN was a game I saw and was like this is a tier more creative than i'm used to, loved it.

I was in awe but I didn't play it much past a few levels and trying some of my own mp3s (power metal recommended; chamber music, not so much). It's one of those 'this is fucking brilliant but not really my thing' games that I happily advocate for without necessarily personally loving. But I have self-avowed terrible taste in computer games (occasionally I accidentally like a genuinely good game though) so that's probably not that shocking.

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

stuff

It is not condemning enough.

It is like calling cats dogs. Mark GGG think that is fine. Whether it is a cat or dog is now debatable.

You probably didn't fully comprehend what he is saying. He is saying it is ok to use words wrongly. Whether people say it is a cat or dog is neither "would necessarily be wrong"!!!! He know it is wrong but it is also ok.

The following are all my own definitions.


RPG:

You play a role.
In many games that means you select a class.
And/or you follow given or your own ethic rules and targets.
You learn skills (abilities) and become better in what you are doing (fighting, crafting, skills).
And you meet people and can change your relationships to them.
Usualy you get experience (XP) and raise in levels.
Dying can be "game over" but in most cases you load a save game or just continue where you died.


MMO (Massive Multiplayer Online):

100-10000s of players are playing online in a permanent (virtuel) world (realm) which is stored at a server.
This world IS the game for a long time of some months or years.
Most MMO are RPGs and many are ARPGs.
(But MMO games are classified as MMOs firstly.)
Dying means loosing some time and maybe some XP or items.
But you continue playing after being resurrected. There is no game over.


ARPG: Action Role Playing Game.

So a RPG with "more" action. Your actions are done in real time.
You are killing many enemies in a short time with a limited number of skills.
So many ARPGs have a (isometric) top down view to manage all the enemies.
Multiplayer ARPGs only allow a small number of players in a single game or game instance. Online multiplayer ARPGs usualy don't have save games and the game is saved continously.
Only if you play a "hardcore" version dying means game over.
Games: Diablo 1-3, PoE, Grimdawn, Borderlines 1-2, ...


Roguelike Games:

I'm not as experienced to these games as I am to RPGs.

The roguelike games I have played are short games.
When you die or complete the game you get a small advantage for your next try.
These advantage can be a new class, skills, items, buffs or whatever.
I don't know if that advantages are nowadays part of the definition.

But you have to start from the beginning every time.
Save games are not meant to continue after dying.
(But can be used to to this by cheating :-)

I don't think that a roguelike MMO exists. But RPG and ARPG do.

I had played classic "Rogue" on a Unix computer 1988.
The game was a RPG with a pure ASCII grafic.
When you died the game was over and you din't get anything!