Author Topic: Please Not Market This As A Roguelike If It Is Not  (Read 5191 times)

Offline tombik

  • Full Member Mark II
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
Please Not Market This As A Roguelike If It Is Not
« on: October 13, 2015, 10:59:37 AM »
I am hearing rogue legacy like progression and roguelike word at the same time, and it itches my obsession about correct categorization.

If there is metaprogression, it does not fit in the definition of roguelike. And if it has not got grid based play, the only thing that might be common would be random generation, which does not justify selling this as a roguelike.

You guys also deceived me before in Bionic Dues, calling it mecha roguelike or something, while it was balanced for a save reload play. (I am not blaming anyone btw, I should have done my prepurchase research better). I know it has ironman option but game has so many implicit imbalances that you actually chose to make that mod as extra, not the main way to play.

Please do not call this a roguelike, if it is not. Call it roguelite. Roguelikelike. Or something.

PS: If you are more interested about why I am that freaked out with the word roguelike, there is more here:
http://steamcommunity.com/id/zulmetefza/recommended/241600/
« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 11:05:38 AM by tombik »

Offline Aklyon

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,089
Re: Please Not Market This As A Roguelike If It Is Not
« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2015, 11:12:57 AM »
No offense meant, Chris, but people need to stop using the term Roguelike when referring to games that don't occupy the same design space as Stone Soup, NetHack, ToME, Angband, etc. It's getting to the point where the term is beginning to lose all meaning as a strong descriptor and that when developers use the term, it says very little to the potential customer about the style/genre of the game. If you mean permadeath with high levels of randomness, say that. That alone isn't really a genre.

I realize there are 'rogue purists' out there stomping out the whole "this isn't a rogue or rogue-lite or rogue-like' thing. But lets face it, the term means much broader things than it did before. And if you want to quickly communicate some fundamental ideas, rogue-like is a legitimate one and that while not adhering to the strict sense of the term, is still a useful broad descriptor.

W'ere sorry us 'casuals' have hijacked the term but it is what it is. And youc ant blame people for using it in its new colloquial use, rather than its previous strict purist interpretation
Until someone else replies, I'll just leave the quote here from another topic.

Offline Misery

  • Global Moderator
  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,099
Re: Please Not Market This As A Roguelike If It Is Not
« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2015, 11:27:46 AM »
Ehhhh... Okay, I'm not supposed to reveal too much here, so I cant really say WHY I'll say this, but I do think the "roguelike" term will fit this one, based on... er... stuff.  Well, at least by my own opinion anyway, from everything I know of it so far.

I know turn-based roguelikes are, well, the "classical" types, but there are other sorts I do definitely consider to be those.... it very much depends.  One of my personal favorites, which is Isaac, I definitely consider to be one.  It's not turn-based, but absolutely everything else about it fits, and most people seem to think so as well (including the devs of the game).  Or something like Vagante (look it up if you havent seen it, it's very good) I also consider to be one, despite what it's like.  And a whole pile of others, as I have lots of these.  I mean, seriously, LOTS of these.  Both action-y and turn-based classic types.

Now, if I go to something like, say, Spelunky, then no, I dont consider that one to be of this genre.  It's definitely got some elements of it, and it's a fantastic game, but I'd really have a hard time giving it that label.  Same with Rogue Legacy; I dont see that one as a roguelike whatsoever.  It's a constant-progression Metroid-ish game with a randomized map. 

I swear, genre labels have become really subjective though in alot of ways these days.  I usually dont mind TOO much, but it is a little annoying at times.  Of course, alot of games are blending genres nowadays, so that just adds to the confusion.

Also, for what it's worth, I do consider Bionic Dues to be one as well.  I know the game doesnt have permadeath, but that's not really an absolute requirement.  A common feature, yes, but not a requirement of the genre.   Hell, even ToME defaults to having more than one life, and I cant imagine anyone saying THAT game isnt a roguelike.  Of Arcen's games though, BD is definitely the full roguelike among the group.  But with it's own unique twists.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 11:30:07 AM by Misery »

Offline tombik

  • Full Member Mark II
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
Re: Please Not Market This As A Roguelike If It Is Not
« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2015, 11:32:22 AM »
No offense meant, Chris, but people need to stop using the term Roguelike when referring to games that don't occupy the same design space as Stone Soup, NetHack, ToME, Angband, etc. It's getting to the point where the term is beginning to lose all meaning as a strong descriptor and that when developers use the term, it says very little to the potential customer about the style/genre of the game. If you mean permadeath with high levels of randomness, say that. That alone isn't really a genre.

I realize there are 'rogue purists' out there stomping out the whole "this isn't a rogue or rogue-lite or rogue-like' thing. But lets face it, the term means much broader things than it did before. And if you want to quickly communicate some fundamental ideas, rogue-like is a legitimate one and that while not adhering to the strict sense of the term, is still a useful broad descriptor.

W'ere sorry us 'casuals' have hijacked the term but it is what it is. And youc ant blame people for using it in its new colloquial use, rather than its previous strict purist interpretation
Until someone else replies, I'll just leave the quote here from another topic.

But that does not say anything about my point. The hijacked version of roguelike term does not include anything about the game itself, leaves much without any specification, so does a bad job as a word.

We use tags, categories and words for talk about things. And as the hijacked roguelike word will just imply randomized, why dont we use randomized instead? Why to cause confusion just for better marketability?

I am not a purist. I am a consumer, who has a small amount of time for my pre purchase researchs. So I really find it useful when all of the categories are well defined, and have a uniform meaning. I don't blame anyone to use the "hijacked version" wrongly.

Except the ones who are selling a game. This may lead confusion, or wrongly informed purchase decisions, and since even developers would be using a wrong term, it will cause that mistake's being even more common.

Also, for what it's worth, I do consider Bionic Dues to be one as well.  I know the game doesnt have permadeath, but that's not really an absolute requirement.  A common feature, yes, but not a requirement of the genre.   Hell, even ToME defaults to having more than one life, and I cant imagine anyone saying THAT game isnt a roguelike.  Of Arcen's games though, BD is definitely the full roguelike among the group.  But with it's own unique twists.

TOME is completely balanced for a single life run though. And afaik permadeath is the most definitive feature of roguelikes, even more so than grid basedness.

« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 11:35:50 AM by tombik »

Offline Misery

  • Global Moderator
  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,099
Re: Please Not Market This As A Roguelike If It Is Not
« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2015, 11:35:16 AM »
No offense meant, Chris, but people need to stop using the term Roguelike when referring to games that don't occupy the same design space as Stone Soup, NetHack, ToME, Angband, etc. It's getting to the point where the term is beginning to lose all meaning as a strong descriptor and that when developers use the term, it says very little to the potential customer about the style/genre of the game. If you mean permadeath with high levels of randomness, say that. That alone isn't really a genre.

I realize there are 'rogue purists' out there stomping out the whole "this isn't a rogue or rogue-lite or rogue-like' thing. But lets face it, the term means much broader things than it did before. And if you want to quickly communicate some fundamental ideas, rogue-like is a legitimate one and that while not adhering to the strict sense of the term, is still a useful broad descriptor.

W'ere sorry us 'casuals' have hijacked the term but it is what it is. And youc ant blame people for using it in its new colloquial use, rather than its previous strict purist interpretation
Until someone else replies, I'll just leave the quote here from another topic.

But that does not say anything about my point. The hijacked version of roguelike term does not include anything about the game itself, leaves much without any specification, so does a bad job as a word.

We use tags, categories and words for talk about things. And as the hijacked roguelike word will just imply randomized, why dont we use randomized instead? Why to cause confusion just for better marketability?

I am not a purist. I am a consumer, who has a small amount of time for my pre research purchases. So I really find it useful when all of the categories are well defined, and have a uniform meaning. I don't blame anyone to use the "hijacked version" wrongly.

Except the ones who are selling a game. This may lead confusion, or wrongly informed purchase decisions, and since even developers would be using a wrong term, it will cause that mistake's being even more solid.

Hmm, I actually think it's just because people have gotten used to it.  It's kinda baffling to me, but ALOT of gamers these days have no idea where the term "roguelike" even comes from.  They know it involves alot of random generation and permadeath, but they've never heard of the original Rogue, or even games like Nethack or anything like that.  I know a few people that are like this.  If I show them a "real" roguelike, one of the true classic types, they have no freaking clue as to what they're even looking at and may or may not declare it to be stupid. 

Yes, this is just as annoying as it sounds.

But yeah, it's become the sort of thing where it can be stuck into the description because people now just automatically associate the term with "randomized generation and possibly permadeath".  It's just an easy way to say hey, our game has these couple of specific qualities.   That it doesnt actually play like a real roguelike never seems to matter, does it...

Offline Coppermantis

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,211
  • Avenger? I hardly know 'er!
Re: Please Not Market This As A Roguelike If It Is Not
« Reply #5 on: October 13, 2015, 11:36:19 AM »

You guys also deceived me before in Bionic Dues, calling it mecha roguelike or something,


Just FYI, BD is, in fact, described as a "roguelite" on its Steam store page.

Quote
Bionic Dues is a tactical, turn-based roguelite with mech customization

I can already tell this is going to be a roller coaster ride of disappointment.

Offline tombik

  • Full Member Mark II
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
Re: Please Not Market This As A Roguelike If It Is Not
« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2015, 11:37:57 AM »

You guys also deceived me before in Bionic Dues, calling it mecha roguelike or something,


Just FYI, BD is, in fact, described as a "roguelite" on its Steam store page.

Quote
Bionic Dues is a tactical, turn-based roguelite with mech customization

Thanks, then my eyesight must have betrayed me back then :)


Hmm, I actually think it's just because people have gotten used to it.  It's kinda baffling to me, but ALOT of gamers these days have no idea where the term "roguelike" even comes from.  They know it involves alot of random generation and permadeath, but they've never heard of the original Rogue, or even games like Nethack or anything like that.  I know a few people that are like this.  If I show them a "real" roguelike, one of the true classic types, they have no freaking clue as to what they're even looking at and may or may not declare it to be stupid. 

So am I really wanting too much if I want Chris to not participate this mediocrity? :)

As far as I have understood from what you are saying, there is not even that big of a list which will justify using a word to express them. Permadeath is not required, even random progression is not a must that much for some games. (Risk of Rain anyone?). So we are basically including a word to describe a game, which adds exactly nothing to our understanding of the game.

Hell, we can even call a game Blue, and it will tell more about it.

If we are not to follow the "purist" version of the word, we must realize that the non purist version is actually a blabbering marketing trick which is not descriptive.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 11:45:15 AM by tombik »

Offline crazyroosterman

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,558
  • Cluck.
Re: Please Not Market This As A Roguelike If It Is Not
« Reply #7 on: October 13, 2015, 11:57:34 AM »

You guys also deceived me before in Bionic Dues, calling it mecha roguelike or something,


Just FYI, BD is, in fact, described as a "roguelite" on its Steam store page.

Quote
Bionic Dues is a tactical, turn-based roguelite with mech customization

Thanks, then my eyesight must have betrayed me back then :)


Hmm, I actually think it's just because people have gotten used to it.  It's kinda baffling to me, but ALOT of gamers these days have no idea where the term "roguelike" even comes from.  They know it involves alot of random generation and permadeath, but they've never heard of the original Rogue, or even games like Nethack or anything like that.  I know a few people that are like this.  If I show them a "real" roguelike, one of the true classic types, they have no freaking clue as to what they're even looking at and may or may not declare it to be stupid. 

So am I really wanting too much if I want Chris to not participate this mediocrity? :)

As far as I have understood from what you are saying, there is not even that big of a list which will justify using a word to express them. Permadeath is not required, even random progression is not a must that much for some games. (Risk of Rain anyone?). So we are basically including a word to describe a game, which adds exactly nothing to our understanding of the game.

Hell, we can even call a game Blue, and it will tell more about it.

If we are not to follow the "purist" version of the word, we must realize that the non purist version is actually a blabbering marketing trick which is not descriptive.
I wish some one would come up with a better name with this genera to stop the constant arguing over the name its not even a good name in the first place.
c.r

Offline Aklyon

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,089
Re: Please Not Market This As A Roguelike If It Is Not
« Reply #8 on: October 13, 2015, 12:01:14 PM »
Its about as likely roguelike will change its name as much as moba will become a reasonable genre name.

Offline tombik

  • Full Member Mark II
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
Re: Please Not Market This As A Roguelike If It Is Not
« Reply #9 on: October 13, 2015, 12:03:29 PM »
I wish some one would come up with a better name with this genera to stop the constant arguing over the name its not even a good name in the first place.

I really hope so.

Offline ElOhTeeBee

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Please Not Market This As A Roguelike If It Is Not
« Reply #10 on: October 13, 2015, 12:19:32 PM »
I would totally take advice on linguistics from someone who thinks "Please not market this as a roguelike if it is not" is grammatically correct.

Offline Misery

  • Global Moderator
  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,099
Re: Please Not Market This As A Roguelike If It Is Not
« Reply #11 on: October 13, 2015, 12:20:57 PM »
I wish some one would come up with a better name with this genera to stop the constant arguing over the name its not even a good name in the first place.

I really hope so.

Aye, all of this is why these days I just dont even really look at the "genres" too much anymore when browsing Steam and whatnot.

Just simple screenshots can often tell me more about the nature of the game in question, than any stupid labels.

It's like, okay, I understand fully WHY the labels are chosen the way they are, but they really dont help so much anymore.  So for me it's screenshots, and bullet-point lists (is that what they're called?) of the game's features.   Any developer worth their salt will have those two things up, and that's all I think is truly necessary.

Ugh. Used to be so much simpler.  Back in my day, a platformer was a platformer, for instance!  Ya hopped around and jumped on Goombas, and called it a day!  And we liked it that way, dagnabit! didn't need like, an FPS and a fighting game squeezed in there too!  Bah.   And every day we walked to school uphill, in the snow, both ways, for 30 miles and... *nonsensical rambling*

Offline nas1m

  • Master Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,254
Re: Please Not Market This As A Roguelike If It Is Not
« Reply #12 on: October 13, 2015, 12:23:32 PM »
Also, for what it's worth, I do consider Bionic Dues to be one as well.  I know the game doesnt have permadeath, but that's not really an absolute requirement.  A common feature, yes, but not a requirement of the genre.
Actually it has by now - by conduct ;).
Craving some more color and variety in your next Bionic run? Grab a boost and a couple of custom floors!

Offline x4000

  • Chris Park, Arcen Games Founder and Lead Designer
  • Administrator
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,086
Re: Please Not Market This As A Roguelike If It Is Not
« Reply #13 on: October 13, 2015, 12:24:28 PM »
Okay, a few notes:

1. I think that, personally, the difference between "roguelite" and "roguelike" are mainly in terms of how the penalties for death are handled.  And how progression is handled. 

2. With Bionic we went with "lite" because it has a lot of progression outside of the individual levels... and the levels themselves are not really full runs anyhow.  Overall the entire campaign is kind of your run, but kind of not.  It's a mix because there's not an exact analogue there.

3. With Bionic we also went with lite because it has a back and forth strategy element to it.  Losing has consequences, but in the same sense that a strategy game does: you lose ground.  Eventually that can lead to an overall loss, but it's not a given.

Regarding Rogue Legacy:

4. I definitely view that as more of an RPG in a lot of respects given how much is based around you definitely dying and then doing another run.  And how much is revolving around stats in general.

Regarding Isaac:

5. I view that as a roguelike because you're unlocking things only based on the run you are in.  And the other things you unlock that are for cross-run are basically just making future runs more varied and interesting, or harder, or what have you.  But each run is self-contained.

Regarding Starward Rogue:

6. There's not overarching progression like BD or RL, per se.  That said, you do have an overarching objective like you do in RL or BD: in this case, repairing your ship.  And like BD, you can't do this without doing multiple runs.

7. That said, the ship repair work is more of a meta-goal between runs, and doesn't really affect individual runs much.  You also have to win runs for that to be improved.

8. Overall that provides goals for progressively harder runs, and progressively more complexity in the runs, etc.

9. The RPG elements are absent.  You can't grind stats.  This is a skill-based game, and if you can avoid taking hits you could win every run without getting any upgrades or whatever at any point (that would be incredibly tedious, though, if you never upgraded your weapons as part of a given run -- but not upgrading your health any would certainly be possible yet tense).

Regarding genre labels:

10. Overall we have to choose terms that match as closely as possible so that people have some idea of what the heck they are looking at at all.  If I tell you that a game is "blue" or "it's a game," then you have no idea what I mean.

11. If I get TOO specific to the point that you are misled, that's a problem obviously.  But I don't think most games do that.  Saying something like "this is a clone of Rogue, but minus these elements and plus those" would be really descriptive, but obviously a lie if that wasn't an accurate descriptor.  Also, the odds of a game being able to be described as "Triple Town but with a snow theme" is very... questionable.  That rarely happens with legit games.

12. Beyond that, getting as close as possible with subgenre labels that mostly-fit-but-not-completely is the best that anyone can do.  Genre labels are easy: people agree that if you are holding a gun and it's a first person view, that's a FPS game.  Although actually even the strategy and simulation labels can be contentious: what degree of simulation do you have to be before it's simulation?  How much focus has to be on strategy before it's strategy?  Anything with levels and EXP is an RPG?  Etc.

13. Subgenre labels will usually be only partly-correct unless a game does nothing that is too novel.  How realistic do the controls have to be for a game to be a legitimate flight simulator?  If I make a very arcade-y flight sim that would be accessible and fun for non-purists of that genre, but that would be a huge disappointment for someone looking for the true pilot experience, did I describe it well or poorly?  Probably the best descriptor there is "an arcade-y flight sim."

In other words, to sum up:

14. I think that devs almost never give a game a given description in order to deceive you.  That would be incredibly stupid, because unhappy customers is the last thing anyone wants -- at least if they plan on making more than one game and then disappearing into the night.

15. Describing games with the right amount of precision that people can find things that interest them means going a bit too broad sometimes.  If there are things that are kinda-sorta-roguelikes, don't you want to know about those?  I know that I do.  It's easy for me to read more about a given one and then hit Not Interested if it's not my bag.  And a ton of them aren't.  But they were definitely in the realm of what would scratch my roguelike itch, so the tag did its job.  I wasn't getting gas stations when I search for restaurants or something (thanks Yelp).

16. Overall that's kind of what it comes down to.  If I get gas stations when I look for restaurants, that's a problem.  If I get McDonalds and Ruths Chris in the same list... well, I think that's valid.  Both are restaurants, despite one being fast food (and both being an immediate "no" if I'm looking for typical medium-priced food options).  Finding Rogue Legacy in your list of roguelikes is I think like finding a Chilis and going "hey I just wanted non-chain restaurants!" or something.  I won't do them the discredit of comparing them to Micky D's.  But basically I get that you think roguelike means something a lot less mass-oriented, by the very nature of part of its definition.  So that's going to be something you just kind of have to sort through.  The alternative is that you might miss out on some really cool games every so often.

17. The other alternative, of course, is to come up with constant new genre labels.  If we say that something is a "castle intrusion upgrade" game, what the heck does that mean, though?  Is it some kind of stealth game?  What exactly am I upgrading there?  Do you mean a literal castle, or just some sort of stronghold?  And imagine being presented with another 40-such labels that you suddenly have to remember what each means.  That quickly becomes less meaningful to you than subgenre labels that only sort of fit, or fit but kind of look wonky while being worn by the game in question.

18. Or we could just do away with labels entirely and go witih two-page descriptions of every game.  But people realistically would read a line or two of that and form an initial impression based on that whether to read further a lot.  So those first lines would get more and more symbolic and jargon-y to the point that we are back to labels with then the added description that is longer.  ...Which is the system that we have now!

19. In short I think that the system we have now (as an industry) is pretty good.  New subgenres would be nice to add a bit more often than we do, perhaps.  And sometimes a game gets a bit off-categorized, but usually that opinion is not universally held on a given game.  Sometimes specific devs could do a better job of categorizing a given game.  But ideally in those instances the description text and/or bullet points helps to clear up any confusion that might result.

And... whew.  Back to work for me. ;)
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline crazyroosterman

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,558
  • Cluck.
Re: Please Not Market This As A Roguelike If It Is Not
« Reply #14 on: October 13, 2015, 12:41:02 PM »
Okay, a few notes:

1. I think that, personally, the difference between "roguelite" and "roguelike" are mainly in terms of how the penalties for death are handled.  And how progression is handled. 

2. With Bionic we went with "lite" because it has a lot of progression outside of the individual levels... and the levels themselves are not really full runs anyhow.  Overall the entire campaign is kind of your run, but kind of not.  It's a mix because there's not an exact analogue there.

3. With Bionic we also went with lite because it has a back and forth strategy element to it.  Losing has consequences, but in the same sense that a strategy game does: you lose ground.  Eventually that can lead to an overall loss, but it's not a given.

Regarding Rogue Legacy:

4. I definitely view that as more of an RPG in a lot of respects given how much is based around you definitely dying and then doing another run.  And how much is revolving around stats in general.

Regarding Isaac:

5. I view that as a roguelike because you're unlocking things only based on the run you are in.  And the other things you unlock that are for cross-run are basically just making future runs more varied and interesting, or harder, or what have you.  But each run is self-contained.

Regarding Starward Rogue:

6. There's not overarching progression like BD or RL, per se.  That said, you do have an overarching objective like you do in RL or BD: in this case, repairing your ship.  And like BD, you can't do this without doing multiple runs.

7. That said, the ship repair work is more of a meta-goal between runs, and doesn't really affect individual runs much.  You also have to win runs for that to be improved.

8. Overall that provides goals for progressively harder runs, and progressively more complexity in the runs, etc.

9. The RPG elements are absent.  You can't grind stats.  This is a skill-based game, and if you can avoid taking hits you could win every run without getting any upgrades or whatever at any point (that would be incredibly tedious, though, if you never upgraded your weapons as part of a given run -- but not upgrading your health any would certainly be possible yet tense).

Regarding genre labels:

10. Overall we have to choose terms that match as closely as possible so that people have some idea of what the heck they are looking at at all.  If I tell you that a game is "blue" or "it's a game," then you have no idea what I mean.

11. If I get TOO specific to the point that you are misled, that's a problem obviously.  But I don't think most games do that.  Saying something like "this is a clone of Rogue, but minus these elements and plus those" would be really descriptive, but obviously a lie if that wasn't an accurate descriptor.  Also, the odds of a game being able to be described as "Triple Town but with a snow theme" is very... questionable.  That rarely happens with legit games.

12. Beyond that, getting as close as possible with subgenre labels that mostly-fit-but-not-completely is the best that anyone can do.  Genre labels are easy: people agree that if you are holding a gun and it's a first person view, that's a FPS game.  Although actually even the strategy and simulation labels can be contentious: what degree of simulation do you have to be before it's simulation?  How much focus has to be on strategy before it's strategy?  Anything with levels and EXP is an RPG?  Etc.

13. Subgenre labels will usually be only partly-correct unless a game does nothing that is too novel.  How realistic do the controls have to be for a game to be a legitimate flight simulator?  If I make a very arcade-y flight sim that would be accessible and fun for non-purists of that genre, but that would be a huge disappointment for someone looking for the true pilot experience, did I describe it well or poorly?  Probably the best descriptor there is "an arcade-y flight sim."

In other words, to sum up:

14. I think that devs almost never give a game a given description in order to deceive you.  That would be incredibly stupid, because unhappy customers is the last thing anyone wants -- at least if they plan on making more than one game and then disappearing into the night.

15. Describing games with the right amount of precision that people can find things that interest them means going a bit too broad sometimes.  If there are things that are kinda-sorta-roguelikes, don't you want to know about those?  I know that I do.  It's easy for me to read more about a given one and then hit Not Interested if it's not my bag.  And a ton of them aren't.  But they were definitely in the realm of what would scratch my roguelike itch, so the tag did its job.  I wasn't getting gas stations when I search for restaurants or something (thanks Yelp).

16. Overall that's kind of what it comes down to.  If I get gas stations when I look for restaurants, that's a problem.  If I get McDonalds and Ruths Chris in the same list... well, I think that's valid.  Both are restaurants, despite one being fast food (and both being an immediate "no" if I'm looking for typical medium-priced food options).  Finding Rogue Legacy in your list of roguelikes is I think like finding a Chilis and going "hey I just wanted non-chain restaurants!" or something.  I won't do them the discredit of comparing them to Micky D's.  But basically I get that you think roguelike means something a lot less mass-oriented, by the very nature of part of its definition.  So that's going to be something you just kind of have to sort through.  The alternative is that you might miss out on some really cool games every so often.

17. The other alternative, of course, is to come up with constant new genre labels.  If we say that something is a "castle intrusion upgrade" game, what the heck does that mean, though?  Is it some kind of stealth game?  What exactly am I upgrading there?  Do you mean a literal castle, or just some sort of stronghold?  And imagine being presented with another 40-such labels that you suddenly have to remember what each means.  That quickly becomes less meaningful to you than subgenre labels that only sort of fit, or fit but kind of look wonky while being worn by the game in question.

18. Or we could just do away with labels entirely and go witih two-page descriptions of every game.  But people realistically would read a line or two of that and form an initial impression based on that whether to read further a lot.  So those first lines would get more and more symbolic and jargon-y to the point that we are back to labels with then the added description that is longer.  ...Which is the system that we have now!

19. In short I think that the system we have now (as an industry) is pretty good.  New subgenres would be nice to add a bit more often than we do, perhaps.  And sometimes a game gets a bit off-categorized, but usually that opinion is not universally held on a given game.  Sometimes specific devs could do a better job of categorizing a given game.  But ideally in those instances the description text and/or bullet points helps to clear up any confusion that might result.

And... whew.  Back to work for me. ;)
I guess your right but I just wish people would arguing over what to call this genera it does waste a lot of time also I generally speaking don't really look for games it tend to come across them by accident and usually I tend to try them if they look interesting enough I don't really think about what genera it is when I'm looking into a game.
c.r