Rogue-like vs Rogue-lite: The Ultimate Explanation

A very common question that I get is "What is the difference between a Rogue-LIKE and a Rogue-LITE?", so here's a quick explainer on the terms!

00:00 ► Start
00:19 ► Chapter 1
01:23 ► Chapter 2
04:08 ► Chapter 3
05:54 ► Chapter 4

----MEMBERSHIPS & MERCH----
--------

PLAYLISTS

OTHER SUPPORT LINKS
🦗Epic Games Store Referral Code ► CLEMMYGAMES

SOCIAL LINKS

INTRODUCTION
I'm Clement, nice to meet you! I have a passion for Indie Games due to how fun, creative and OUT OF THIS WORLD they can be, so this channel helps get the word out on the Best Indie Games.

Feel free to get in touch via Twitter / email for comments, requests or just to make a human connection and I'll do my best to get back to you.

PS: Most of the links above are tied to some affiliate program where I do get a percentage of the sales, so thank you for supporting the channel.
#BestIndieGames #indiegames #ClemmyGames

[Phirestar]

The term “non-modal” has some misconception around at, as I’ve come to find out more recently. What non-modal means is that all elements of gameplay take place within the same _mode, _ and the game isn’t broken up into multiple modes. A great example of what a “modal” game is like would be Pokémon or many turn-based JRPGs. In those games, there is an exploration mode, where you traverse an overworld map and speak to NPCs, and a battle mode, where you’re taken to a specific screen outside of the overworld in order to fight. The confusion came in when “everything is a part of the same mode” became interpreted as the experience being self-contained, or lacking in any progress between individual runs. I don’t think that meta-progression actually goes against the non-modal aspect, because the act of unlocking new items is typically done throughout your runs.

I would actually say that many roguelites are non-modal, because the question isn’t about whether gameplay is segmented between runs, but rather if gameplay _itself_ is segmented into different parts. The first game that comes to mind me for me, when thinking of roguelites that break the non-modal classification, would be Darkest Dungeon. There is the dungeon mode, where you take your party in to explore and fight, and the town mode in which your managing your party and their ailments. Those modes are separated and act independently of one another, whereas for a game like Enter the Gungeon: once you’ve selected your character and entered the door to begin, all aspects of gameplay - combat, exploration, etc. - occur together in the same place. (And I know there’s optional challenges called “modes”, like Rainbow mode or Challenge mode, but the definition there is not the same as in the context of non-modal.)

Overall, I think that the difference between roguelike and roguelite can be simply boiled down to whether a game adopts the specific style of gameplay from Rogue - that is to say the turn-based, grid-based movement and combat, and the focus on being an RPG - or whether it chooses to instead substitute that gameplay for elements of other genres. Some people might label meta-progression as a core trait of roguelites, but (and I am be wrong about this, keep in mind) I’m pretty sure the original Spelunky that started the genre didn’t have meta-progression.

What I do think is very important is that people start to attach the “dungeon crawling” label to the definition of roguelite, because at their heart, all roguelites (and roguelikes) are dungeon crawlers. It is the characteristic which separates these games from titles like Minecraft and Don’t Starve. Those games are distinctly different from roguelites, and do not play anything like them. Enter the Gungeon, Dead Cells, Slay the Spire, Darkest Dungeon, Cryot of the Necrodancer - all of these games share a particular theme of trying to conquer a series of dungeons, and gather power through a pool of randomized upgrades that require knowledge and mastery through repeated attempts. Survival games are not centered on dungeon delving, nor are their tools of progress different each run. To say that any game with procedural generation and permadeath is a roguelite would be, in my eyes, no different than claiming that every game in which your character can level up and unlock new things is an RPG.

[KingLnk]

This is a genre which has transcended its ability to be defined in any concrete way.

[riz]

I feel like this is the most definitive way of explaining the genre I've seen so far on the internet. I hope this explanation becomes the standard of how "roguelites" and "roguelikes" are separated because they definitely are confusing to mention and will definitely be the way I explain and talk about them in my videos moving forward thank you!

[soulplayrt]

Ok, yes this is all correct however I think personally these terms need to be different with a defining difference, this is my crack at it off the top of my head

Rouge Like is the same, a grid like game with permadeath being an improvement of the classic rouge

The new term for Rouge lite would be
Incarnation, this phrase stems from the form of re incarnation as well as a part of something, re incarnation is the term of something being a cycle where you have a different path after death but can take on many forms, to not get into religious views and to keep it catchy, incarnation is the new term

This would make crypt of the necro dancer a rythm based rouge like dungeoun crawler


Where as a game like retournal would be a 3D open world incarnation shooter


The main confusion of this was do to how you had two seperate terms meanings for each terms differences, the rouge like meaning it follows the origins of rouge, but then people would say well is a permadeath game where you have a new path also a rouge like ? if yes then what about if it didn't have perma death, or what if it was or wasn't grid based ? You start to see the problem and nobody wants to have to have 4+ terms all sounding similar when we already have 2, so this is my idea

Rouge like is the same as was before but now also takes on all improvements as tribute to the original rouge

Incarnations take the idea of re incarnating, set on a new path after dying and expanding more on the idea of throwing off boundaries tied to the original tribute of rouge


The first takes Rouge and tributes & Expands & Improves upon it paying tribute

The second takes Rouge as an inspiration but the key difference is it has no bounds, it does not focus on building off of Rouge but makes it it's own

This is my idea

[Bolsty]

I was so happy when you shat on the Berlin interpretation.

[commentarytalk]

Brilliant research! Good job, that is to be acknowledged and appreciated.

Those lists of games are excellent:

RogueLIKES (Classic):

* Rogue
* Angband
* Nethack

RogueLIKES (Modern):

* Cogmind
* Caves of Qud
* Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup

In effect, all the above apply Berlin Interpretation but "Modern" add graphical, UI/UX updates to add more quality of life features to attract players. I can't pick any one from the many brilliant ones, but Cogmind has an especially delightful "Modern Sheen" of pixel Tile-Set Graphics with a UI that mimics being a machine/matrix.

Rogue-LITES as Clemmy stated have taken SOME (core) features of Roguelikes (Berlin Interpretation Features eg Permadeath etc) and RADIATED THESE into other Genres:

* Action Rogue-LITE eg Binding of Isaac, Nuclear Throne
* Tactics Rogue-LITE eg Enter The Breach, FTL
* Platformer Rogue-LITE eg Spelunky, Rogue Legacy

Etc. In fact people in discussion about these ARE using these terms to communicate more clearly with each other, so the naming conventions - if people learn them and use them correctly - is helping and will only improve with the use of sub-roguelite genres eg action, tactics, deck-builder.

People respond lazily: "What does it matter?" Well if you said that in ancient Greek none (or v few!) would understand you, so you assume because you know English that you are understood. Again you have to learn the SUBJECT LANGUAGE in ENGLISH as well to again communicate clearly and once you do and you know your way around these games it's enjoyable to do so.

It's true the names on first look are very similar and it causes confusion, but equally the similarity helps keep the connection all the way back to the original Roguelike Genre - which is a good thing because there's more inspiration from there to be used in more genres!

[angelotorres]

in the end it becomes more subjetive but as long as you explain the other genres included it's fine and not too confusing. Great video

[DigitalEelRich]

The Berlin interpretation is about a period of time, based on a small group of games which all used the same setting and format. It describes the foundation, which is fine. But, thinking in the present, it denies the fact that every single roguelike trait is only enhanced by use in other types of genres and presentations. A very cool "side effect" of this is that by so evolving, innovation is almost guaranteed to occur, moving the roguelike form forward, even as it remains intact--just as we saw when Diablo was released. Weird Worlds and FTL are good examples of this (with a drastic change of setting, innovations will occur--while the overall roguelike form and traits carry on).

[CozyBloom]

More 101 videos please, I like how you introduced games and new ones in this style of video, it's a win win, good move, and appreciate all the research you did for us thanks

[travelfix]

This video deserves millions of views!

[lupinblitzkreg]

To all the people bemoaning that they think Isaac or Spelunky or Dead Cells is a "roguelike."

Play Rogue. It's nothing like the games you're arguing similarity to.
Turn based genres like roguelikes matter.

Now let me explain WHY seeing roguelikes as inherently turn based matters:
Lets say hypothetically I make a slow paced puzzle platforming game where the game is devoid of sound. Lets say I called it "Sounds of Nothing" or "SoN." Lets then say "SoN" took off with a community, spawning many slow methodical puzzle platformers that are also devoid of sound, called "SoN-likes."
If someone then starts referring to all games without sound as "SoN-likes" they're wrong. They've taken by and large the least impactful aspect of the genre and gutted everything else. They've taken an aspect that can be applied to any game and begun arguing for the idea of seeing that is a "genre."
Lets say that mindset takes off and people create a bunch of soundless games that have nothing to do with each other, Souls-Like games where your character cant hear unless they have X-maguffin, FPS's that have no sound isometric RPG's where the main character is deaf etc, you get the idea.
These are not SoN-likes because they're not puzzle platformers. In calling these games SoN-likes you would be erasing the specific blend of soundless puzzle platformer I had set into creation with the first SoN game.

Further still lets say that the people who only applied sound as their genre-metric in defining what a SoN-like is were to say "Abes Oddysee and the DOS Prince of Persia arent SoN-likes because they've got sound" they're taking games that aree very close to the SoN-like genre, if not practically a part of it and saying "yeah these arent it" while also promoting a pointless boggish mash as if it were the genre.

Apply the same logic to Roguelikes being turn based instead of SoN-likes being puzzle-platformers.
Not every genre of videogame should be liked by everyone because a genre liked by everyone is simply too widely varying to function as a genre in the first place.
If you dont like turn based games, maybe roguelikes just arent for you. I personally dont like twitch-reflex based games, bullet hells arent for me and that's ok, what ISNT ok is for me to go around spouting some codswallop about Jupiter Hell being a bullet hell just to fit it into a genre that it has nothing to do with.
Do you see what I'm saying?

[katsukikubota]

Yea like you and others have stated, the simultaneous turn-based/grid is what really defines it for me. Without those it just doesn't feel like a roguelike.

[rasuren]

great explanation, now i just need an explanation about souls like since most difficult game generally labelled as souls like even though it feels nothing like souls series

[rafaelaudy]

I love this type of games. Definitely what makes me keep gaming. Your channel is great! Thanks for the content. I always check your monthly gaming summary to check if I missed something :)

[youngmostafa]

Damn. this was very well made and in-depth. Thanks

[deadfrg]

The “roguelike, ” not to be confused with the “roguelite, ” not to be confused with the “roguelikelike, ” not to be confused with the “coffee-break roguelike, ” not to be confused with the “minimalist roguelike, ” not to be confused with the “tiny roguelike, ” not to be confused with…

[AlienDenzil]

I've been subscribed to your channel for a little while, but th algorithm has only just suggested this video - very useful as a 101-type video. I find myself a fan of the more meta-progression end of roguelites, but it is fun just seeing what indie developers are doing when creating their own roguelites and -likes!

[authormichellefranklin]

Great explanation! Rogue-like mechanics have also been used to create new genres, like souls-likes and deckbuilders. It's sometimes difficult to explain the difference, but you did a great job!

[aname]

Enjoyed the video. I think I understand it in basically the same way. Roguelike = all the roguelite elements, but also grid based and turn based. Roguelite = everything else, lol, but most important is the presence of procedural generation and permadeath. I have no idea whether crypt of the necrodancer is roguelite or roguelike either based on this, but I personally view it as a roguelike rhythm game. Also that game is amazing.

[theinvisibleskulk]

You know what I'd love to see? A game that regenerates the world with every death, and with keeping some or all upgrades and/or items when dying, but also with save points scattered around the game world.