Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aoi]

I always favored a more strict interpretation because, ultimately, the classifications exist to make things easier to group. When the definition gets too vague, it becomes effectively meaningless.

Like while I can see where they're coming from, but calling Borderlands a roguelike just seems like a stretch to me-- on the other hand, "FPS scifi Diablo" works for me, even though Diablo itself is basically one generation removed from a classic roguelike, and the jump from turnbased to realtime is an obvious evolutionary path. Alternatively, there were plenty of people raising eyebrows at Cultist Simulator's inclusion into HB's recent (and current) Deck Builder Bundle. While you are accruing cards and shoving them around... no; it's just so different at a conceptual level.

[King Zultan]

I've seen people use the term DFlike on this forum but don't think I've seen it used anywhere else.

[EuchreJack]

I've seen people use the term DFlike on this forum but don't think I've seen it used anywhere else.

I think I've seen in on Steam by developers trying to hawk their products.
Slightly more accurate are reviews using the term DFlike.

[Iduno]

I am just quite rigid on what constitutes genres. The games I listed are roguelites, IMO. Being labeled by the devs or the community is not enough for me.

Yeah, genres aren't that important anyway, but their only use is knowing exactly what you'll get. A game (or other media) doesn't need to fit into one genre or another, but keeping the meaning of what a genre is helps a lot for short descriptions of what something is.

I'm sure most of the reason I dislike Rogue Legacy so much is that its description is a lie. What you get and what you expect are so dissonant, that you'll be disappointed if you think you'll like it. If you were told instead that it's a platformer that you have to gain currency from doing as well as you can so future characters can progress further, you'd find an audience who would happily play it and enjoy it.

I always favored a more strict interpretation because, ultimately, the classifications exist to make things easier to group. When the definition gets too vague, it becomes effectively meaningless.

Like while I can see where they're coming from, but calling Borderlands a roguelike just seems like a stretch to me-- on the other hand, "FPS scifi Diablo" works for me, even though Diablo itself is basically one generation removed from a classic roguelike, and the jump from turnbased to realtime is an obvious evolutionary path. Alternatively, there were plenty of people raising eyebrows at Cultist Simulator's inclusion into HB's recent (and current) Deck Builder Bundle. While you are accruing cards and shoving them around... no; it's just so different at a conceptual level.

Agreed.

[Chiefwaffles]

At the end of the day, language is what people use it for.
People use the terms "roguelite" and "roguelike" to mean certain kinds of games. The fact that you disagree with the majority of people does not make their use of the terms any less valid.

As for a game like DF (fort mode) at least, I've seen people use comparisons to Rimworld to signify this type of game more than anything else. It's funny, but such is life.

[delphonso]

Well games like Towns or Castle Story are at best, improved visualizations on a much pared down version of DF. For that reason I tend to see 'knock off' or 'copy' thrown around a lot instead of 'DF-like', though games like Rimworld do have enough going on to be considered DF-like.

Rise to Ruins certainly is DF-Like, although the core game mechanics are pretty different from DF.

Odd Realm is somewhere in between. It seems like a pure copy of DF, straight down to world gen, but its charming visuals and good polish put it out of knock off and into DF-like as well.