Unlocking new weapons/spells/items for future runs oftentimes gets a pass if they don't actually make future runs easier.

Nowadays, 'roguelite' will describe the progression of a game. But lots of people favor this because it loosens up the definition and allows for a more available genre description.Īnd, as 'roguelike' has changed, 'roguelite' has as well. Traditionalists hate this because games like Slay the Spire or Spelunky are considered 'roguelikes' but they don't look anything like those old text-based dungeon crawlers. To a lesser extent, resource management is still common as well. The modern roguelike definition (or, as traditionalists would call it, a 'roguelite') basically only has two important qualities: It gets criticism because it doesn't allow for innovation and basically wants a reskin of Rogue. This definition is a very traditional and extremely specific vision of what the genre should be, because it's basing its 'roguelikeness' off how much the game is like Rogue. the player's status is represented via numbers on the UI the game is based on dungeons consisting of rooms and corridoors the game is based on tiles represented by ASCII characters monsters have behavior similar to players the game is based on controlling one character in a playthrough

the game involves finding unidentified items with unknown properties (a 'red' potion might heal you one game and kill you the next) the game is based on killing monsters, with few to no peaceful options Noita is probably the best example of this ever) systemic/emergent gameplay (you can use the key to unlock a door, but you could also try fire to burn it down, or picking the lock. non-modality (all actions are available at all times. permadeath (Noita's unlockables are a violation of permadeath by this standard) The 'Berlin Interpretation' set out a definition for a roguelike, according to 8 high-value factors and 6 low-value factors. So there's a lot of snobbery and legitimate discussion around this.

Games like noita