efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
That's completely fair. I feel like in case of shooters, the motivation for creating a distinction is more a result of there being a critical mass of such games on the market, whereas these types of games seem to be much rarer to me. But I'll fully admit I'm not up to date on many of the releases in recent years, so that may be changing.Well, I am curious what others in here are going to say on the matter and I dont really mind that much personally, but currently I dont see any reason why there shouldnt be two distinct genre categorizations for such games.
I think the only reason why these get so jumbled up in the first place, is because "randomization+permadeath" was inherent to roguelike game design with it being the only genre that used these aspects in such a way. Since roguelikes are the only comparable genre, the notion of all those other games being "roguelikes" simply stuck.
It just seems to me that those "Roguelites" are like a new breed of games that lend some prominent aspects of the roguelike genre to create their niche. I mean we have other genres that are quite a lot closer being distinct genres too. 1st person and 3rd person shooters have some different mechanics that are common to each distinct type (the difference in how cover and cover based shooting is used for example), but overall, they are about moving 1 guy with a gun to shoot enemies in a usually very "cinematic" way.
So what would be the main distinction between roguelikes and "oregon trail-likes"?
Is it real time interaction? (played Oregon Trail so long ago I don't even remember if it had that..) Is it the non fantasy setting? Or managing a group rather than an individual?