Talk:Rogue Legacy
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
_%22BIG_GOMEZ%22.svg)
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Roguelike?
[edit]My correction to the "roguelike" tag was reverted with: "roguelike-lite" is not a proper genre yet (still a NEO) Not sure what NEO means, but roguelike *is* a proper genre an Rogue Legacy is not a roguelike. I think it makes more sense to use a recent term than an incorrect one. It could also say rogue-lite, which is the term used on Rogue Legacy's website. 67.198.47.100 (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- NEO is "neoglism" aka a new term that has been invented but has not gained widespread use, and we avoid those on WP. While there is momentum gaining for "rogue-lite" and the related terms, it is not there yet, and the industry still uses, as a whole, "roguelike" to define games that have some of those features. But as we did on other games, we do retain the link to the "rogue-lite" section on Roguelike so the reader can see the distinction there. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Excuse me but do you have a source for this? What part of "the industry" is using "roguelike" for games with some of the defining features of roguelikes? Every indie game dev I can see making this sort of game is using one of your neologisms, and not calling their game a roguelike. I don't see non-indie devs going anywhere near the term. 67.198.47.100 (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry to revert again but you're not responding here. I don't see how a very widely used neologism is worse than using incorrect terminology. 67.198.47.100 (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Examples of how the industry is calling this and similar titles roguelike [1], [2], [3], [4]. Mind you, I'm fully aware that Rogue Legacy is not a "proper" roguelike, but it is the industry that defines the term, and until they figure out the difference between the idea of a proper roguelike and what these games which are more procedural death labyniths/rogue-likes, linking to roguelike (Which describes both styles of games!) is completely proper. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- You realize, the correction I kept making was still linking to the same roguelike article. It wasn't a red link. So anyone browsing would find the same information. There's no way this specificity could cause confusion. Now you're saying the game industry is defining the term, but you're not linking to game industry sources. The game industry is made up of devs, not journalists on review sites. Here is a relevant game industry source: [5] 67.198.47.100 (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oh and it gets better. Most of your links aren't actually saying what you claim they do. From IGN: "These studios took the roguelike genre’s principles and shaped them to fit their own needs, molding them to fit the game they set out to make." Gamespot: "Cellar Door Games’ 2D platformer with roguelike elements" eurogamer: "Critically acclaimed platforming action roguelike Rogue Legacy" gameinformer: "The hyper-difficult platformer, jam-packed with roguelike elements" None of these sources are calling the games roguelikes. Eurogamer comes closes with the phrase "action roguelike." Would you be happy with the compromise if we put in "action roguelike"? 67.198.47.100 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- First, I am aware what the game industry has said. A good fraction know what "roguelike" real entails, but the larger segment thing "randomly generated = roguelike". There is been push to move away from that or educate better or establish the concept of "procedural death labyrinth" as a true genre. However, it is not there yet; that term still remains a neoglism without an established consensus for use throughout the industry. It may be there soon enough. Same goes with "rogue-lite" or "roguelike-like", those that know recognize these, but they aren't established terms. That's why for the genre field, "roguelike" is the really the only encyclopedic term that we can use, but we can certainly link that to the specific section that talks about the less traditional roguelikes. --MASEM (t) 23:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- So an "encyclopedic" term that is wrong, is better than a term that is easily recognizable by anyone who knows the word "roguelike" anyways, but doesn't meet your standard of officiality? 67.198.47.100 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, that is what WP:NEO is about. The majority of the people in video games do not seem to have a clear understanding of what a true roguelike is compared to what they otherwise call roguelikes. It could be , in time, that the distinction between a classical roguelike and a procedural death labyrnith is ignored and/or lost, and all of these are roguelikes. Maybe the PDL term becomes the proper term to distinguish the genre. But at the present time we can't make the encyclopedic decision to try to force that issue if others still call this roguelike. If it was only one source, sure I'd discount that opinion (we've had a case of one and exactly one source called BioShock a "survivor horror" game, and that's been summarily rejects, and similarly we've had issues with people trying to call DOTA2 as a different term (what Valve calls it) counter to the common MOBA term that everyone else uses. I know it's "wrong" to roguelike purists, but I'm also considering that most see it as "right", and we have to go with majority here. --MASEM (t) 23:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- You have 0 sources right now actually calling these games roguelikes. You didn't read any of your own 4 links. I think your claims about a "majority" are totally made up, and possibly come from being a gamer who was not interested in roguelikes, but saw the tag being loosely used on steam. It's pretty clear to me that the term has been in use for decades, and most of the people actually using the term see it the way I do. Please stop using the royal "we." You seem to be a lone crusader here, just like me. Why not get some other people to weigh in? 67.198.47.100 (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Um, you're absolutely wrong. I love roguelikes - both the classical versions and newer interpretations. We as in the encyclopedia have our hands tied in this that these games are called roguelikes when we really know that's not correct, but we cannot change that as that would be original research. That's the problem here. If "rogue-like" or any equivalent term can get out of the neoglism issue, then we're in the clear, but right now, they are roguelikes despite knowing there really is a more specific term for it. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- So why are we obligated to fill the genre box for every game? If some new game bears less and less, or no resemblance to existing defined genres, at what point will you not feel the need to shoehorn it into an existing label? I don't think it's original research when most of the game devs releasing these sorts of games are saying either roguelike-like or rogue-lite. This is true on the official websites for Rogue Legacy, FTL, and Nuclear Throne. Binding of Isaac and Risk of Rain describe themselves as having "rogue-like elements" and Spelunky just describes itself. I don't know if I have a sample bias, these are just the games I happen to play myself. But unless you have some counterexamples, this does seem to be the industry standard. I don't think reading the descriptions by developers of their own games is "original research."67.198.47.100 (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- There's almost always a broad category - like "action" or "role-playing" - that every game can be fit into, it's the subgenres that are an issue. And yes, we have had issues where the devs call it one thing and the industry calls it another (Valve and DOTA2). This is why they may want to call it "roguelike" but we can link at least to the section on roguelikes about rogue-lite games. --MASEM (t) 22:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- The devs ARE the industry. In what other art form have wikipedians deferred to what some publishing companies say when the artists are all saying something else? If you're worried about neologisms, just put in "rogue-like elements" and link to that section. Then it's perfectly accurate and not misleading. You still haven't really presented any evidence that your conception of the industry says anything. You linked 4 articles that I already demonstrated you seemingly misunderstood. The only thing I can think of is that the tag is used broadly on steam, and that's a crowdsourced tagging system iirc. 67.198.47.100 (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- My two cents on this issue: http://roguelegacy.com/ On the Dev's official website, he calls it a "Rogue-'Lite'". In this case, do we go with what the original developer and producer calls it, or do we go with what the industry calls it? Just food for thought; I'm fine with either keeping it as a "roguelike" for the genre, but I think we should at least consider changing it to a "rogue-'lite'" as per the developer's own definition. JackALope044 (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- The devs ARE the industry. In what other art form have wikipedians deferred to what some publishing companies say when the artists are all saying something else? If you're worried about neologisms, just put in "rogue-like elements" and link to that section. Then it's perfectly accurate and not misleading. You still haven't really presented any evidence that your conception of the industry says anything. You linked 4 articles that I already demonstrated you seemingly misunderstood. The only thing I can think of is that the tag is used broadly on steam, and that's a crowdsourced tagging system iirc. 67.198.47.100 (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- There's almost always a broad category - like "action" or "role-playing" - that every game can be fit into, it's the subgenres that are an issue. And yes, we have had issues where the devs call it one thing and the industry calls it another (Valve and DOTA2). This is why they may want to call it "roguelike" but we can link at least to the section on roguelikes about rogue-lite games. --MASEM (t) 22:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- So why are we obligated to fill the genre box for every game? If some new game bears less and less, or no resemblance to existing defined genres, at what point will you not feel the need to shoehorn it into an existing label? I don't think it's original research when most of the game devs releasing these sorts of games are saying either roguelike-like or rogue-lite. This is true on the official websites for Rogue Legacy, FTL, and Nuclear Throne. Binding of Isaac and Risk of Rain describe themselves as having "rogue-like elements" and Spelunky just describes itself. I don't know if I have a sample bias, these are just the games I happen to play myself. But unless you have some counterexamples, this does seem to be the industry standard. I don't think reading the descriptions by developers of their own games is "original research."67.198.47.100 (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Um, you're absolutely wrong. I love roguelikes - both the classical versions and newer interpretations. We as in the encyclopedia have our hands tied in this that these games are called roguelikes when we really know that's not correct, but we cannot change that as that would be original research. That's the problem here. If "rogue-like" or any equivalent term can get out of the neoglism issue, then we're in the clear, but right now, they are roguelikes despite knowing there really is a more specific term for it. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- You have 0 sources right now actually calling these games roguelikes. You didn't read any of your own 4 links. I think your claims about a "majority" are totally made up, and possibly come from being a gamer who was not interested in roguelikes, but saw the tag being loosely used on steam. It's pretty clear to me that the term has been in use for decades, and most of the people actually using the term see it the way I do. Please stop using the royal "we." You seem to be a lone crusader here, just like me. Why not get some other people to weigh in? 67.198.47.100 (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, that is what WP:NEO is about. The majority of the people in video games do not seem to have a clear understanding of what a true roguelike is compared to what they otherwise call roguelikes. It could be , in time, that the distinction between a classical roguelike and a procedural death labyrnith is ignored and/or lost, and all of these are roguelikes. Maybe the PDL term becomes the proper term to distinguish the genre. But at the present time we can't make the encyclopedic decision to try to force that issue if others still call this roguelike. If it was only one source, sure I'd discount that opinion (we've had a case of one and exactly one source called BioShock a "survivor horror" game, and that's been summarily rejects, and similarly we've had issues with people trying to call DOTA2 as a different term (what Valve calls it) counter to the common MOBA term that everyone else uses. I know it's "wrong" to roguelike purists, but I'm also considering that most see it as "right", and we have to go with majority here. --MASEM (t) 23:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- So an "encyclopedic" term that is wrong, is better than a term that is easily recognizable by anyone who knows the word "roguelike" anyways, but doesn't meet your standard of officiality? 67.198.47.100 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- First, I am aware what the game industry has said. A good fraction know what "roguelike" real entails, but the larger segment thing "randomly generated = roguelike". There is been push to move away from that or educate better or establish the concept of "procedural death labyrinth" as a true genre. However, it is not there yet; that term still remains a neoglism without an established consensus for use throughout the industry. It may be there soon enough. Same goes with "rogue-lite" or "roguelike-like", those that know recognize these, but they aren't established terms. That's why for the genre field, "roguelike" is the really the only encyclopedic term that we can use, but we can certainly link that to the specific section that talks about the less traditional roguelikes. --MASEM (t) 23:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Examples of how the industry is calling this and similar titles roguelike [1], [2], [3], [4]. Mind you, I'm fully aware that Rogue Legacy is not a "proper" roguelike, but it is the industry that defines the term, and until they figure out the difference between the idea of a proper roguelike and what these games which are more procedural death labyniths/rogue-likes, linking to roguelike (Which describes both styles of games!) is completely proper. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Roguelike-like / Roguelite
[edit]If has been four years since the term rogue-lite was argued as neo. It is now a recognized genre. Half the games popularly tagged as roguelikes are also tagged as roguelite on Steam. Steam is a major PC digital distribution platform and therefore a good indicator. These genres are even recognized in the Roguelike wiki page itself. 2001:569:76D2:AF00:117A:F453:80FC:43CA (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Tags on Steam are used made, not by Valve or devs. --Masem (t) 11:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Which is exactly why it gives credence to it being a recognized genre. It proves that the general populace is aware and have acknowledged the term and genre. 2001:569:76D2:AF00:117A:F453:80FC:43CA (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's not how Wikipedia works, however. Claiming anything about populace is original research. We use reliable sources to source all statements. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- On the game's own official site, the game is classified as a roguelite. http://www.cellardoorgames.com/roguelegacy/roguelegacyfaq.html. Then there are the articles from TechnoBufallo, Hardcore Gamer, Siliconera, and The Game Freak Show calling it a roguelike. 2001:569:76D2:AF00:117A:F453:80FC:43CA (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- We are still at the problem that the industry recognizes the term "roguelike", but "roguelite" and its variations are not widely accepted, principally as it comes from those that want to keep the "purity" of the "roguelike" term (those that meet the Berlin Interpretation). Its similar to some that do not want to call MOBAs "MOBA" but instead as "action real-time strategy" because it doesn't met the exact definition. For the purposes of genres we try to stay with industry terms. --Masem (t) 14:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Assuming that the term roguelite is not recognized by the industry without any evidence is not how Wikipedia:RS works. This obsession over suppressing the term roguelite is unhealthy and pointless when there are those in the gaming press who already recognize the term. 2001:569:76D2:AF00:B58D:63CE:566E:39D7 (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- We are still at the problem that the industry recognizes the term "roguelike", but "roguelite" and its variations are not widely accepted, principally as it comes from those that want to keep the "purity" of the "roguelike" term (those that meet the Berlin Interpretation). Its similar to some that do not want to call MOBAs "MOBA" but instead as "action real-time strategy" because it doesn't met the exact definition. For the purposes of genres we try to stay with industry terms. --Masem (t) 14:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- On the game's own official site, the game is classified as a roguelite. http://www.cellardoorgames.com/roguelegacy/roguelegacyfaq.html. Then there are the articles from TechnoBufallo, Hardcore Gamer, Siliconera, and The Game Freak Show calling it a roguelike. 2001:569:76D2:AF00:117A:F453:80FC:43CA (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's not how Wikipedia works, however. Claiming anything about populace is original research. We use reliable sources to source all statements. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Which is exactly why it gives credence to it being a recognized genre. It proves that the general populace is aware and have acknowledged the term and genre. 2001:569:76D2:AF00:117A:F453:80FC:43CA (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)