Just to point out: it's called "roguelite", not "roguelike", which tries to be true to the fact that it's not actually "like" Rogue.

Roguelite and roguelikes have one major difference though, roguelites have some sort of progression like items or experience levels that cumulate on your several playthroughs giving you new features.

Good examples of Roguelites would be Wizards of Legend, Flinthook or Moonlighter. To my understand (having not played), Noita would fall under a roguelike as the game resets after your death and you don't carry anything over to the next playthrough except for your newly accumulated wisdom of how you died and how to avoid that :)

I think that's a reasonable distinction between the genres but the boundary can get a bit gray. Two examples:

Bones levels have been a staple of Roguelikes since Nethack, where you can find the area that one of your previous characters died. Usually this means a huge power boost if you can deal with the threat of your ghost and/or whatever killed you.

Angband is an ancient and classic Roguelike but it has a "monster memory" that accumulates the knowledge of the enemies you have fought, both in your current playthrough and all previous playthroughs. This represents a significant assistance as you progress through the game, both because the knowledge that "this beast has killed your ancestor" is a big caution sign, and also that you eventually "know" the stats of all the monsters.

It feels to me like 'roguelike' has recently come to mean something totally different than in used to. It used to be games like Nethack, Moria, Angband, and later AdoM, where you're an @ walking between walls of # fighting d and o. Now it seems they can be any game that involves dungeons and fighting.

You do carry over some things. As far as I know the orbs unlock spells you can't find in the wild before then. It's relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, admittedly.

it's not remotely rogue "lite" either. In the context of all other "lite" things a rogue"lite" would be a rougelike with less features, not a some completely unrelated game genre.

The "lite" is in terms of punishment. Death in a roguelike is usually "game over, better luck next time". Death in a roguelite still generally resets you to the beginning of the game, but there is a metagame progression between runs that means you aren't starting over from scratch.

What does it have to do with rogue though? Nethack is a roguelike. But also somehow is FTL which is a multi character top down space adventure.

I recently played a pretty decent game that was a card game in its essence. They called that one a roguelite due to essentially its bones files. But it’s a card game, not really an RPG even. Rogue is a very specific style of RPG. So what’s the definition of roguelike and roguelite?

I think the following characteristics define "roguelike" games:

* Permadeath / "ironman mode", generally enforced by the game

* Procedural generation of game levels/encounters

* "Progression" elements, where the encounters get more difficult but the player is gaining resources to allow them to overcome those challenges (as opposed to simply gaining mechanical skill at the game)

These three elements combine to make a game where you lose early and often, but starting over gives you the opportunity to experience the game differently, due to the procedural nature as well as because you have the opportunity to invest your resources differently, hopefully making better decisions.

I don't think they need to be strictly RPGs, but the progression elements are key. Those elements are present in FTL, for example, if you consider that the ship itself is the main character.

Careful calling it an RPG, because to fans of actual RPGs, roguelikes don't involve any actual roleplaying. It's just the hack & slash and level progression elements.

Just like there are people who care about the definition of 'roguelike', there are people who care about the definition of 'rpg'.

There's the so-called Berlin Interpretation[0] which attempts to codify exactly what a roguelike is, basically, according to that definition, if it isn't a turn based gridlike hack and slash in randomly generated dungeons with permadeath, it isn't a roguelike. Of course, /r/roguelikedev will point out that the most popular roguelikes all deviate from that in one way or another, and people do seem to disagree[1] with the definition.

I personally don't think the distinction matters that much, except to pedants and purists.

[0]http://www.roguebasin.com/index.php?title=Berlin_Interpretat...

[1]http://www.gamesofgrey.com/blog/?p=403

I would use that definition for "roguelite", precisely because because they are not top-down RPG.

The distinction I make is that roguelites are designed around metagame progression rather than / in addition to the in-game progression used by roguelikes.

For example, Rogue Legacy is almost entirely focused on metagame progression between runs, whereas your character barely develops at all mid-run. Classic rogue-lite.

The problem is that roguelike is a very old and established genre, and it is topdown RPG with permadeath. I don't see why meta progression is a feature worth of its own genre - you could easily add it to a roguelike like nethack without any change of genre.

The metagameplay -- rogue reset you, permanently, when you died. Similarly when you die in FTL you have to start all over.

It's both an incorrect term (because, as you mentioned, the overlap with rogue is limited) and absolutely the correct term (because people generally understand what it means, even if they've never heard of rogue).

I think it's important to remember that language evolves, it's more important to be understood than to be correct. Shouting into a hurricane isn't going to stop the storm, no matter how right you are.

Except its not understood whatsoever. When I read roguelike or roguelite I understand that it should be something similar to "rogue". Since I'm not actually a fan of rogue I will therefore look no further at the game since it was clearly labeled as being similar to "rogue"

What other "~lite" or "~like" in the entire language as a similar property of being nothing like the "~" part?

You might not understand it, but the term is well understood in the gaming community. Just like Metroidvania, the genre description has evolved from previous games.

Another common genre is Souls-like, stemming from the mechanics of Dark Souls. It's a term for a game that has bonfire like mechanics, high difficulty, punishments on death, etc. There are many games that are souls likes that share none of the visual themes or moment to moment combat mechanics of Dark Souls.

And as several other people have commented, the games are similar to rogue, just at a higher level of abstraction than you are looking at them.

MetroidVanias though actually make sense. The game play is similar to Metroid or Castlevania. So taking that same direction a roguelike should be similar to rogue. I've seen zero MetroidVanias where the similarities to Metroid and Castlevania aren't 100% clear.

Rogue as a gametype is defined by having a randomized world with complexe rules, which will disappear after each gaming-session. Lite and like then say whether there is progress saved between the sessions, influencing way you tackle and maybe randomize the next session, or whether every run is as fresh and original as the run before and the only progress is in the player himself.

Whether the genre is RPG, action or economical simulation doesn't matter nowadays. The only relevance is whether there is a complex gameworld, to tell apart from the simple randomized game-boards which solitair or bejewled offer.