Hades and FTL are rougelites. You’re expected to do them in one sitting, they have randomly generated levels and minor progression carrying over playthroughs. Vampire Survivor is an odd one out that’s just plainly not a roguelite.
If they’re interpretting ‘roguelite’ as single-session games with meta-progression between runs, then VS qualifies. I wouldn’t have called it a roguelite personally, but I can at least see where they got it from.
I guess the best approach is to not limit yourself to just one label. Games like Enter the Gungeon, Nuclear Throne (or even Binding of Issac for that matter) are roguelite top down shooters. Spelunky is a roguelite platformer, FTL is a roguelite tactics game.
[warning: weird and unnecessary microgenre rambling ahead]
And don’t get me started on metroidvanias. Dead Cells is a metroidvania roguelite. Dark Souls is a metroidvania too, but also a souls-like. Technically all souls-likes are metroidvanias. Vampire Survivor-likes or whatever we are going to call them are probably going to branch out mechanically too, if they didn’t already.
I think I’ve seen VS (and games like it) called “bullet-heaven” since they’re kind of the opposite of bullet-hell in a way. I like that, since imo VS-type games are essentially a new genre separate from rogue-lites.
What is Vampire Survivors lacking that would more firmly define it as a roguelike? Weapon pickups are randomized, each run is short but there is meta progression as you play. I’m not disagreeing I’m just not sure what the difference really is when compared to something like Hades.
I’m not really sure how they are defining terms, but to me the reason vampire survivors shouldn’t be on the list is the live until x time gameplay. A rougelite or rougelike game should have a more definite win condition.
Hades and FTL are rougelites. You’re expected to do them in one sitting, they have randomly generated levels and minor progression carrying over playthroughs. Vampire Survivor is an odd one out that’s just plainly not a roguelite.
If they’re interpretting ‘roguelite’ as single-session games with meta-progression between runs, then VS qualifies. I wouldn’t have called it a roguelite personally, but I can at least see where they got it from.
VS has static levels and every enemy wave is predefined. On that merit alone it can’t be a roguelike/roguelite.
I think it’s more a top down shoot-em-up.
Llike alien breed, chaos engine, or even asteroids for that matter
I guess the best approach is to not limit yourself to just one label. Games like Enter the Gungeon, Nuclear Throne (or even Binding of Issac for that matter) are roguelite top down shooters. Spelunky is a roguelite platformer, FTL is a roguelite tactics game.
[warning: weird and unnecessary microgenre rambling ahead]
And don’t get me started on metroidvanias. Dead Cells is a metroidvania roguelite. Dark Souls is a metroidvania too, but also a souls-like. Technically all souls-likes are metroidvanias. Vampire Survivor-likes or whatever we are going to call them are probably going to branch out mechanically too, if they didn’t already.
I think I’ve seen VS (and games like it) called “bullet-heaven” since they’re kind of the opposite of bullet-hell in a way. I like that, since imo VS-type games are essentially a new genre separate from rogue-lites.
What is Vampire Survivors lacking that would more firmly define it as a roguelike? Weapon pickups are randomized, each run is short but there is meta progression as you play. I’m not disagreeing I’m just not sure what the difference really is when compared to something like Hades.
I’m not really sure how they are defining terms, but to me the reason vampire survivors shouldn’t be on the list is the live until x time gameplay. A rougelite or rougelike game should have a more definite win condition.