Roguelike vs Rogue-lite and why the distinction is important when discussing Sanctum

This is a really old topic elsewhere on the webs but now that GGG have given it a shot, it's important to discuss/clarify the difference.

Here's your TL;DR by the evidence presented below: The Forbidden Sanctum is not trying to be a roguelike but instead a rogue-lite.

That's why people here correctly compared it to Hades and not Nethack or Angband. If it's not turn-based, it's not a roguelike. If it draws inspiration from Rogue Legacy (the first of its kind and itself not a roguelike at all), it's a rogue-lite. They both have permadeath, but only the rogue-lite has meta-progression. Outside of a completely separate mode where each character death is absolute and no progress carries over (cornerstone of the roguelike), a PoE rogue-lite mode cannot but have metaprogression given your character doesn't actually 'die' in the Sanctum and takes some rewards from within it into the actual 'game'.

And here it is from GGG's own page for the league:

"

As you explore the Sanctum, you'll discover a special altar that Templar Relics can be placed on. These relics make you more powerful in the Sanctum and persist from run to run.

This is to me an irrefutable example of meta-progression and, just in case the lack of turn-based gameplay wasn't enough, absolute proof that Sanctum is not an attempt at a roguelike.

You can accuse me of pedantry but a roguelike is to the rogue-lite, roughly speaking, what a book is to a bookshelf (presumably well organised by genre, author or series). They sound alike, they have some elemental connections, but they are different in almost every other practical way. Understanding the difference may help us more fairly and appropriately critique/criticise The Forbidden Sanctum as an attempt at a rogue-lite mode. Most if not all arguments that are based on unfavourable comparison of The Sanctum to a roguelike are null and void and GGG would be right to ignore them.

http://www.roguebasin.com/index.php/Berlin_Interpretation -- further reading on what a game needs to be a roguelike from as close to 'experts' on the topic as you'll likely find.

The meta progression is so unbelievably light in this Charan that it honestly doesn't qualify as either, its like they weren't sure which to go for so tried and missed on both marks.

I'd call it a choose your own adventure novella :p its got about 10 pages

We chatted about this in the past so i'm glad you made this post instead of me to fulfil us pedants :D people kinda lose sight of the fact most roguelikes advertised as such these days are lites with very solid meta progression as you go.

"

Draegnarrr wrote:

The meta progression is so unbelievably light in this Charan that it honestly doesn't qualify as either, its like they weren't sure which to go for so tried and missed on both marks.

I'd call it a choose your own adventure novella :p its got about 10 pages

We chatted about this in the past so i'm glad you made this post instead of me to fulfil us pedants :D people kinda lose sight of the fact most roguelikes advertised as such these days are lites with very solid meta progression as you go.

Aye, well, I never said they succeeded, only that they tried.

I would also add that while it seems that it was implemented quite poorly, as experiences are varying wildly depending on build, and it appears far more punitive than rewarding with afflictions, the basic concept could potentially work in PoE.

It's like a smaller version of Lab (which I hate btw), but I don't think this was crazy of an idea to try.

As like a number of things in their past, great intentions, not so great follow-thru.

I appreciate any and all contributions but we have enough generic 'Sanctum sucks and here's why' threads. I'm much more interested in what people thought it was going for as a rogue-lite and how that turned out.

And, of course, just a typical me-style PSA to implicitly shut people up whingeing about how it's nothing like Rogue and/or engaging in prickly elitist gatekeeping with sentiments of how people who haven't even played Rogue shouldn't comment on Roguelikes and whatnot, which is not only rude but also unnecessary given the above proof that Sanctum has nothing to do with roguelikes beyond the Rogue Legacy connection.

You know, SSDD SNAFU etc.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

I'm much more interested in what people thought it was going for as a rogue-lite and how that turned out.

Well it's fair to ask what GGG was going for in the first place. They are the ones that said roguelike for the record, not lite. What players expected, which in full disclosure, was only days before this league launched, versus what GGG expected player response to be with what they wanted to accomplish with the league, is probably a difficult topic to trudge through. How many even truly understand the subject matter?

In general, I think these are tough questions to answer as a community. Even more so to the point that not all of the folks playing an arpg, specifically PoE Sanctum, even understand the nuance between "like" and "lite" anyways.

In as so much, I'm not sure that specific delineation actually matters. Either players are going to like it or not. Either the intent of the league from GGG lands or it doesn't. You might get few anecdotes from experienced Roguelike/lite players like "You are supposed to get stronger in progression as you go, not afflicted into oblivion". And while luck plays a role in each dive into Sanctum it seems pretty out of whack to me, more so if you played melee or not as mobile a character, which would typically not be a rogue related issue. Those are in fact important to the concepts generally speaking, at least I think so.

I suppose the point is they could have released a Roguelike perfectly in terms of how it functioned, and it still might not have landed well amongst the players. Unfortunately the execution will likely make that a side note.

"

Darthski44 wrote:

I suppose the point is they could have released a Roguelike perfectly in terms of how it functioned

Are we not in agreement that a sine qua non of roguelikes is turn-based gameplay? In which case, no, they almost certainly could not have, not within PoE using PoE's signature realtime ARPG gameplay. Of course, an actual PoE-derived roguelike could be a real trip (I mean, someone already made a PoE-derived TT and GGG themselves published a PoE-derived gamebook, so why not? Get to it, fans...)

"

Even more so to the point that not all of the folks playing an arpg, specifically PoE Sanctum, even understand the nuance between "like" and "lite" anyways.

If they don't understand it after what I originally posted they likely never will, or just don't want to.

"

They are the ones that said roguelike for the record, not lite

I was actually trying to find any mention of either style when writing the OP. The official Sanctum page has not one instance of the word 'rogue' but I know I saw it somewhere. And whoever it was manning the machine gun spraying bullet points from the safety of the Community_Team bunker, if they said Sanctum is GGG's take on a 'roguelike', then they got it wrong too. Fallibility is absolutely a thing you should anticipate from any human, including the ones working at GGG. Fallibility concerning a very common gaming misconception? Not just anticipated but almost scheduled. Fact-checking sub-genres when you kinda don't want people comparing your attempt at that sub-genre with actual exemplars of the sub-genre? Ain't nobody got time for that.

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

Are we not in agreement that a sine qua non of roguelikes is turn-based gameplay? In which case, no, they almost certainly could not have, not within PoE using PoE's signature realtime ARPG gameplay. .

Well certainly not in terms of the actual combat, but the "turn" being selecting the features for the room you are about to enter, which then remains, or are permanent for the specific individual Sanctum run. I suppose we could also discuss the failure of Sanctum room or run via resolve "death", where in a true Roguelike that means perma-death.

So yeah "perfectly" was a poor choice of words on my part, but I think that's going a bit too far in the spirit of the conversation. Otherwise there would be no actual comparison to a true roguelike in any measurable way, even though that's clearly what GGG intended here. Hell not even Hades lives up to that binary standard, but you see the terms interchange quite a bit when that game is described.

There is some nuance, at least in my view, in how many features are being adopted in a lite version versus a true roguelike, where no substitute would technically apply. A measurable level of "liteness" if you will. This does get passed around quite a bit in the rogue community because in so many cases these lite versions are so much more popular generally speaking, compared to the more hardcore, true, roguelike.

Getting back to PoE though, what does that actually matter in terms of managing player expectations? It was never going to be a turn-based, perma death, focused carry over-experience, as a league mechanic anyways. I would feel comfortable saying nobody actually expected that, so the verbal nuance of lite vs like isn't as important as how it actually was intended to function.

Edit: If that's unclear, which maybe it is lol, I think it's fair that GGG said this was their version, or an interpretation, of a Roguelike as it relates to their game. If they published Sanctum as a standalone product (just for argument sake cuz that's not happening obviously), then yeah I would classify it a Roguelite in that context.

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

This is to me an irrefutable example of meta-progression and, just in case the lack of turn-based gameplay wasn't enough, absolute proof that Sanctum is not an attempt at a roguelike.

Sounds to me you need to type less and read more. It's silly for you to try and carve out in stone which technical definition is the most accurate. Hell even in your expert write up about some heavy BERLIN interpretation, they even mention quite prominently:

Missing some points does not mean the game is not a roguelike. Likewise,
possessing some points does not mean the game is a roguelike.

"

Shurgosa wrote:

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

This is to me an irrefutable example of meta-progression and, just in case the lack of turn-based gameplay wasn't enough, absolute proof that Sanctum is not an attempt at a roguelike.

Sounds to me you need to type less and read more. It's silly for you to try and carve out in stone which technical definition is the most accurate. Hell even in your expert write up about some heavy BERLIN interpretation, they even mention quite prominently:

Missing some points does not mean the game is not a roguelike. Likewise,
possessing some points does not mean the game is a roguelike.

True enough, but once you open that door, your meanings...start to lose meaning. Without mutual agreed upon definitions, we cannot have meaningful discussion. Instead we get mired in arguing over the meaning itself, and as you've no doubt seen in your life of reading the internet, that's often a good way of wasting time.

There's a Latin saying I really like, ascribed to Ovid. I saw it in a dictionary once, and it really stuck: Barbarus hic ego sum quia non intellegor ulli. 'I am as a barbarian here because no one understands me'. (There are various versions of it and no one seems able to agree which is the real one, which is really ironic imo). I read this as 'if we're not speaking the same language, it doesn't matter how smart we may be, we will never see the other as anything but unintelligent and stupid'. And that is why I think establishing concords of meaning *before* engaging in discussion is paramount.

But thank you for your input. And you are correct. There are SO many books I've yet to read, and pretty much zero chance of reading them all before I die.

Unfortunately I like typing, so y'know, don't tell me what to do. You're not my dad. :)

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

So yeah "perfectly" was a poor choice of words on my part, but I think that's going a bit too far in the spirit of the conversation. Otherwise there would be no actual comparison to a true roguelike in any measurable way, even though that's clearly what GGG intended here. Hell not even Hades lives up to that binary standard, but you see the terms interchange quite a bit when that game is described.

That's because Hades is a rogue-lite, not a roguelike, and it fits the generally accepted criteria of a rogue-lite like a beautifully animated, well-voiced glove. It traces its lineage to Rogue Legacy, not Rogue. Does it do its own thing? Essentially and necessarily. The binary between roguelike and rogue-lite doesn't have to be absolute but it does have to be defined and then a 'best fit' method applied to whichever game we're considering. Some folk like to believe that 'genre' only exists for marketing and critics, and while it's true most genres make the marketing and the critical assessment easier, we as humans are natural sorters. We define by difference more than than we define by similarity. We wouldn't be so damn quick to form prejudice or embrace tribalism otherwise.

I mean, 'compare and contrast' is one of the first ways we learn of telling things apart and, by extension, discerning their function and value.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

There is some nuance, at least in my view, in how many features are being adopted in a lite version versus a true roguelike, where no substitute would technically apply. A measurable level of "liteness" if you will. This does get passed around quite a bit in the rogue community because in so many cases these lite versions are so much more popular generally speaking, compared to the more hardcore, true, roguelike.

You've illustrated here why 'rogue-lite' is such a bad choice of words: there is nothing 'lite' about rogue-lites in terms of rogue; again, if you see 'rogue-lite', just think 'Rogue Legacy-like'. You cannot and should not look at the 'lite' in 'rogue-lite' in and of itself. My guess is Rogue Legacy 'created' that term because it's a platformer with 'light' Rogue-inspired elements.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

Getting back to PoE though, what does that actually matter in terms of managing player expectations? It was never going to be a turn-based, perma death, focused carry over-experience, as a league mechanic anyways. I would feel comfortable saying nobody actually expected that, so the verbal nuance of lite vs like isn't as important as how it actually was intended to function.

Edit: If that's unclear, which maybe it is lol, I think it's fair that GGG said this was their version, or an interpretation, of a Roguelike as it relates to their game. If they published Sanctum as a standalone product (just for argument sake cuz that's not happening obviously), then yeah I would classify it a Roguelite in that context.

Eh, that's fair enough. I maintain they themselves confused the two IF that's what they said. I still haven't seen a citation of it.

As I said above, if we get too caught up in this difference, they win by distracting us from what should be the actual argument: why what they did do failed and whether or not that has to do with a lack of adherence to the sub-genre(s) OR some other factor.