作者：Alexander King

作为一种相对低调的子类型游戏开始吸引硬核玩家的注意，roguelike游戏迎来了复兴时刻。让我们进一步着眼于它们的核心设计元素并看看不同游戏是如何利用相同的基础架构。

所以什么是roguelike？

Rogue1980(from tutsplus)

直至最近，“roguelike”这一词开始用于指代类似《Rogue》（游戏邦注：诞生于1980年的一款基于Unix的地下城潜行游戏，并成为了这类型游戏的原型）的游戏。即roguelike是用于表示整合了《Rogue》所使用的主要机制功能的游戏。并且这类型游戏也大量复制了《Rogue》的美学。

因为《Rogue》及其后续内容都是关于砍砍杀杀的RPG，所以其独特的游戏设计元素便是与它们所归属的RPG类型游戏元素结合在一起。而对此的正式定义便是我们所熟知的“Berlin Interpretation”。这里也包含了一些最重要的功能：

程序生成环境

永久死亡

道具特效的随机性

Berlin Interpretation同样也列出了基于回合的战斗，基于网格的环境，作为主要功能的怪兽杀戮，而这些都与最初的特别RPG roguelike游戏类型相关。因为roguelike结构已经不断扩展并超越行动RPG范围，所以这些RPG设计元素遭到了删除或忽视。

这三大功能经常出现在各种不同的游戏中，并且与roguelike这一词具有紧密的联系。所以从技术上来看，“roguelike”更多的是指代一组共享的机制和设计原则而不是类型本身。

结果便是各种类型的游戏都在利用roguelike的设计框架。这是既能用于行动平台游戏（如《洞穴探险》），探索和基地建造游戏（如《矮人要塞》），塔防游戏（如《无尽地牢》），自上而下的射击游戏（如》《Eldritch》），也能用于传统地下城探险的RPG游戏（如《地下城冒险》）的一组设计元素。

程序生成关卡

程序生成指代的是游戏元素（特别是关卡设计）并不是设计师事先编写好的，而是随机生成于每一个游戏模板中。这也表示玩家不可能记住任何有利的位置或需要避开的地点，所以他们只能盲目地进行各种挑战。

尽管地图的细节是随机生成的，但是每款游戏的地图整体形式仍保持不变。所以在像《主教之旅》这样传统的地下城潜行游戏中，地图通常都是关于房间和走廊，即与科幻的《超越光速》相似，即区域地图是由相连接的指向标和走道组成的。而在每款游戏中关于这种连接与节点的排列则是随机的。

对于整体设计程序生成拥有两大益处：

首先因为游戏区域每次都是不同的，并且因为地图通常都是玩家不认识的，所以这将大大提高游戏的重玩性。这将避免玩家记得关卡的特定挑战，如此玩家便可以尝试着适应隐藏于挑战中的模式。尽管你不一定知道下一扇门背后藏着什么，你还是能够去感受它。

其次，它能保证每个游戏攻略都能让玩家探索一个全新空间。因为地图始终都是不同的，所以不管玩家是第一次游戏还是第五十次游戏，他们都将进入一个未知领域。

实际上，设计师必须谨慎对待并大量测试关卡的随机性。如果某些内容的设置太过随机，那么游戏间的难度区别便会起伏过大，即有些内容非常简单而有些内容又超级复杂。基于游戏复杂性，确保所有可能的随机地图足够有趣且不会太过复杂便是一个非常重要的过程。拥有优秀设计的roguelike游戏往往能够让玩家在自己犯错而不是游戏犯错或创造出难度差距过大的地图时感受到自己遭遇了惩罚。

完善地图的难度将导致关卡的不断扩展。一个典型的例子便是《矮人要塞》。在这里，每次游戏都将生成一个带有生物群区，矿物，生物，文明和完整历史的巨大三维世界。大多数游戏都是采取一种更有限的方法，即通过关卡和区域去分割地图，所以它们的生成区域往往比经过完整测试的内容更小且更简单。

永久死亡

DungeonOfTheEndless_2014(from tutsplus)

“永久死亡”通常意味着玩家必须重新开始，并且他们不能重新加载拯救功能去重新尝试失败的挑战。这一功能经常吓唬那些不熟悉该类型的玩家。在玩家每次死亡后将他们踢回起点看起来像是一种过度的惩罚，这与互动性的设计原则是完全相反的。

但是基于永久死亡设定的游戏与试用了拯救功能的游戏是基于完全不同的创造方式。经典的游戏通常都是伴随着玩家可能只能看到一次的游戏部分（如简单的初级关卡），并且带有需要玩家进行多次尝试的难度峰值。相反地，roguelike游戏则是伴随着一些重复内容，所以死亡仍然是一种失败条件，而重新开始也变得不像其它游戏那么虐心了。

尽管在一开始永久死亡让人很难接受，但它还是能够带来一些设计利益。它将重新定义游戏的失败状态；并且比起期待着玩家一次完成游戏，并重新尝试他们失败的挑战，在这里玩家将会安全地通过整款游戏。所以“死亡”并不是一种暂时的挫折，而是游戏循环中的一部分。因为大部分尝试都将导致死亡，所以在这里有较少的“失败”和更多的“再次尝试”，同时玩家也能够使用自己所学习到的技巧。

最重要的是，永久死亡将赋予每个游戏攻略内在意义。如果没有重新加载这张安全网，那么当玩家的处境变得危险时roguelike的游戏行动也将变得更让人紧张。永久死亡所创造的风险在于为何这是roguelike游戏最具讽刺性的设计元素。在这里每个决策都具有重要意义，因为如果玩家犯了错，他们便不能只是简单地选择另一条路。这当然会让人感到压力并受挫，但这也会让玩家觉得成功更有意义；也很少有游戏能够拥有roguelike所提供的这种成就感。

尽管对于roguelike游戏来说立基环境便是英雄深入地下城中，但是在有限资源中对抗着未知敌人并努力生存下来的游戏玩法也将自己引向了恐怖游戏背景中。对于roguelike游戏结构来说生存便是一个天生的搭档，而当死亡负载着更多含义时它也会变得更加可怕。《饥荒》便是一个典型的例子，它创造了一个伴随着与Edward Gorey游戏风格相呼应的roguelike机制的恐怖氛围。《以撒的结合》中黑暗的主题元素也是基于潜在的roguelike机制所支撑着的。

发现与有限的用户留存

这一功能在使用上拥有最实质的变量。在传统roguelike中，游戏唯一保留下的东西只有玩家的技能。就像在《NetHack》，死亡意味着不只是失去所有获取的装备，武器，级别，当前的随机地下城，同时也会失去游戏过程中所发现的任何知识。举个例子来说吧，一瓶冒泡的药剂可能能够治愈玩家，但在下次游戏中这瓶药剂可能会变酸。就像世嘉五代的经典游戏《ToeJam & Earl》便以相同方式随机使用了升级道具。

现代游戏通常都不会执行这点（游戏邦注：特别是因为并非所有游戏都拥有能够随机分配的道具属性），但它们却仍会坚持设计精神。这里存在的目的在于玩家在不同游戏中唯一获得的东西便是他们不断增长的技能与对于系统的了解。就像在《NetHack》或《愤怒的小鸟》中始终需要识别药剂的设定便只是一种设计表达方式。这能够保证每个游戏攻略都是有意义且独特的，这也是程序生成和永久死亡所支持的内容。

关于这部分roguelike元素我们已经进行过一些实质性的试验。在这里一个最受欢迎的变量便是包含可打开的游戏元素，即能够帮助玩家追踪他们的进程。在《洞穴探险》中主角便拥有多个可打开的皮肤，但除了美感外这些皮肤便没有其它优势。在《超越光速》中，尽管飞行员拥有28艘舰船，并且每艘舰船拥有不同优势和能力，但在一开始玩家只能使用一艘舰船向前行进并实现特定目标去开启其它舰船。这似乎违背了原则，即更简单的运行对之后的行动具有明显的影响，但这却是逐渐打开完整功能的一种方法。在一开始《NetHack》拥有13种角色类别，但如果某些角色需要以某种形式“开启”的话它便不能完全改变游戏，因为每次游戏玩家不能控制超过一个以上的角色。

有些游戏可能会包含更有意义的进程。就像在《雨中冒险》中，除了可开启的角色类别外，玩家还能够通过实现特定目标去开启某些道具的能力并让它们成为之后游戏进程的必需品。像这样的系统可能会模糊没有任何优势这一界限，但它们的效果其实不大，且玩家获得的主要优势还是他们不断提升的技能。这将让roguelike的游戏挑战变得更容易，因为比起实现一个非常复杂的目标（在一个游戏攻略中不损失任何生命地赢得游戏），它能够提供给玩家一些随着游戏进程而不断变难的挑战。尽管这可能会有点模糊了前提，但这却能够提供给玩家明确的前进感。

而有些游戏可能会完全忽视这一点。就像《Rogue Legacy》便突出了一个让玩家能够在每次后续尝试中购买不断提升的技能和利益（例如更高的生命值）的功能。所以尽管游戏是一款带有程序生成关卡和永久死亡的roguelike行动平台游戏，但游戏也需要玩家通过不断尝试逐渐创造出游戏内部的优势（除了提升玩家技能）。即将问世的游戏《Temple of Yog》便采取了一种类似的方法，即玩家在roguelike战斗中取得成功后将获得有关自己的村庄以及之后在地下城中的行动的优势。这些游戏都进一步延伸了roguelike的定义，但它们也仍然维持着通过逐步发展而重复有意义且独特的尝试内容的核心游戏玩法。

结论

关于roguelike游戏的定义并不是针对于其特定功能，而是它们所引出的游戏风格。roguelike结构能够呈现出游戏最美好的一面，即要求玩家为了获得成功而不断重复与迭代。它们提高了玩家经历永久死亡的风险，并确保玩家的每次尝试都能够因为随机的布局并且不具有之前游戏的优势而获得全新体验。这也是为什么这类型游戏能够创造出优秀的roguelike，并且不管是益智游戏还是平台游戏。而如果roguelike机制可以成为任何类型游戏丰富的补充物，你何尝不亲自尝试着创造出这样的游戏？

（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转发，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

The Key Design Elements of Roguelikes

by Alexander King

Once a relatively obscure sub-genre that appealed to a hardcore fan base, roguelikes have been enjoying a recent renaissance. Let’s take a closer look at their central design elements, and see how different games are making use of the same underlying architecture.

So What is a Roguelike?

Until very recently, the term “roguelike” narrowly referred to games that were like Rogue, a 1980 Unix dungeon crawler that became the archetype of the genre it named. “Roguelike” was used to indicate that a game incorporated the primary mechanical features that Rogue had. The aesthetic of Rogue (that of an adventurer attempting to reach the bottom of a dungeon) was widely copied as well.

Since Rogue and its direct descendants were hack-and-slash RPGs, the unique design elements of the games tended to be conflated with aspects of the RPG genre they otherwise belonged to. This was formalized with something called the Berlin Interpretation, which outlined the defining aspects of a roguelike. These include some of the most important features:

Procedurally generated environments

Permanent death

The randomization of item identities

The Berlin Interpretation also lists turn-based combat, grid-based environments, and killing monsters as key features, which are more closely aligned with the specific kind of RPG roguelikes originated as. As the structure of roguelike has expanded into genres beyond action RPGs, those RPG design elements have tended to be dropped or ignored.

The primary three features (procedural generation, permadeath, and randomization of items) have found use in a variety of different types of game, and are strongly associated with the term “roguelike”. So, technically speaking, “roguelike” refers more to a shared set of mechanics and design principles than a genre in and of itself (though I’ll continue to use ‘genre’ as a shorthand).

As a result, games from a huge variety of genres have made use of the roguelike design framework. It’s a set of design elements that can be used equally well in action platforming (like Spelunky), exploration and base-building (like Dwarf Fortress), tower defense (like Dungeon of the Endless), top-down strategy (like FTL), stealth (like Invisible, Inc), first person shooters (like Eldritch), and traditional dungeon-delving RPGs (like Dungeons of Dredmor).

Procedurally Generated Levels

Procedural generation indicates that elements of the game, especially the level design, are not hardcoded in advance by the designer, but instead are generated randomly from a template each game. As a result, it means the player cannot memorize beneficial locations or places to avoid, and so must play each game blind.

Though the specifics of the map are randomized, the general form of the map stay the same each game. So, in a traditional dungeon crawler like Cardinal Quest, the map is always rooms and corridors, and similarly in the sci-fi FTL, a sector map is comprised of beacons linked by lanes. It is the specific arrangement of these links and nodes that is randomized each game.

Procedural generation has two main benefits to the overall design:

First, since the field of play is different every time, it increases replayability as the map is always unknown. This frees the player from having to memorize a level’s specific challenges in and of themselves (as one might do in a challenging platformer like a Megaman game or Super Meat Boy), so the player must attempt to adapt to the pattern underlying the challenges. While you can’t ever know for sure what’s behind the next door, you can develop a sense of what might be behind it.

Second, it ensures that every playthrough is an exploration of a new space. Since the map is never the same, the player will always be plunging into the unknown, whether it is their first game or their fiftieth.

Exactly how random the levels should be requires substantial testing and care from the designer. If the placement is too random, the difficulty between games may vary too drastically, with some being very easy and others being unwinnable. Depending on the complexity of the game, it can be an intensive process to ensure all possible random maps are fun and able to be completed. The best designed roguelikes make the player feel punished when they make mistakes, not when the game itself makes mistakes or generates a map that’s unfairly difficult.

The difficulty in perfecting the maps increases the larger the levels are. A famously complex example is Dwarf Fortress, where a vast and detailed three dimensional world with biomes, minerals, creatures, civilizations and entire histories is generated each game. (Replicating just a fraction of these with graphics instead of ASCII was part of the inspiration for Minecraft.) Most games take a more limited approach by segmenting the map by level or area, so the generated areas are relatively smaller and thus easier to fully test.

Permanent Death

“Permadeath” generally means that the player must restart from the beginning upon their death, and that they can not reload a save to reattempt a failed challenge. It’s this feature that often intimidates players unfamiliar with the genre. Kicking the player back to the beginning after every death can seem unduly punishing, and contrary to the design principle of interactivity.

But a game designed with permadeath in mind is built differently than one that assumes the use of saves or lives. A typical game will be built with portions of the game the player might see only once (like easy initial levels), and balanced to have difficulty spikes intended to require several attempts. Conversely, a roguelike is built with repetition in mind, and so while death is still a failure condition, restarting is much less onerous than it might be in another game.

While permanent death can seem jarring at first, it does bring some design benefits. It essentially redefines the failure state of the game; rather than expecting the player to play through the game once, while re-attempting challenges they fail at, instead the player is expected to play through the entire game without dying once (a tall order!). So “death” isn’t a temporary setback, but rather part of the cycle of play. Since the vast majority of attempts will result in death, it’s less “You Lose”, and more an invitation to “Try Again”, while hopefully applying what you learned.

Most importantly, permanent death gives visceral meaning to each and every playthrough. Without the safety net of reloading or lives, the action of a roguelike can become heart pounding as the player’s position becomes precarious. The stakes that permadeath create is why it’s the most iconic design element of a roguelike. Every decision made is given critical meaning, because, unlike in most games, the player can’t simply have another go if they make a mistake. This can certainly be stressful and frustrating, but it also makes success feel much more meaningful and hard-won; few games can match the feeling of accomplishment that roguelikes offer.

Though the cliché environment for a roguelike is heroes delving into a dungeon, the gameplay of surviving on limited resources against the unknown lends itself very well to a horror setting. Survival is a natural partner for the roguelike architecture of real consequences and a world you can’t memorize, and dying is scarier when it carries more weight. Don’t Starve is a good example that fosters an atmosphere of horror with its roguelike mechanics acting in concert with its ominous Edward Gorey inspired art direction. The Binding of Isaac’s dark thematic elements are similarly bolstered by the underlying roguelike mechanical architecture.

Discovery and Limited Retention

This is a feature that has the most substantial variation in use. In a traditional roguelike, the only thing retained between games is the skill of the player. In NetHack, death means not just losing all acquired equipment, weapons, and levels, and losing the current random dungeon layout, but even also losing knowledge of any discoveries made during play. For example, a bubbly potion might heal the player, but in the next game it might contain acid instead. The Sega Genesis classic ToeJam & Earl uses power-ups in randomized presents in a similar manner.

Modern games don’t tend to strictly implement this (especially since not all games have item attributes that could be sensibly randomized), but do tend to adhere to the spirit of the design. The intent is that the only thing the player keeps from game to game is their own increasing skill and knowledge of the system. Always needing to identify potions in NetHack or Angband is just an expression of that design. This ensures every playthrough is meaningful and unique, which procedural generation and permadeath also support.

There’s been substantial experimentation with this aspect of roguelikes. A popular variation is to include unlockable game elements, which can help the player track their progression. In Spelunky there are multiple unlockable skins for the main character, but they confer no advantages besides different aesthetics. In FTL, though, there are 28 ships to pilot, each with different strengths and abilities, but only one is available to start with, and making incremental progress or achieving certain goals gradually unlocks the others. This would seem to violate the principle, as earlier runs have a demonstrable impact on latter ones (by making new things available), but it’s really just a way of slowly unveiling the full feature set as the player becomes more engrossed. NetHack has 13 character classes available from the start, but it wouldn’t dramatically change the game if some needed to be “unlocked” in some manner, since you can’t play more than one per game anyway.

Some games may include more meaningful progression. In Risk of Rain, in addition to unlockable character classes, achieving certain goals unlocks the ability for items and powerups to appear in future playthroughs, and making them available can become necessary for continued progress. Systems like this may blur the line of not retaining any advantages, but their effect is generally small, and the main advantage the player gains is their own increased skill. This can make the challenges of a roguelike more palatable, because instead of one very difficult goal to achieve (beating the game in a single playthrough without dying), it gives the players some incremental challenges to beat as proof of their progress. Though this may dilute the premise slightly, it’s a concession that gives players a tangible sense of progress they can visualize, since their increasing skill level is more subtle.

Some games may even ignore this entirely, however. Rogue Legacy features a progression system that allows you to purchase incremental skills and benefits (like higher HP) for each subsequent attempt. So while the game is otherwise very much a roguelike action platformer with procedurally generated levels and permanent death, the game requires repeated attempts to slowly build in-game advantages, in addition to building player skill. The upcoming title Temple of Yog takes a similar approach, wherein the player’s success in the roguelike combat portion is rewarded with incremental advantages to the player’s village and to subsequent runs in the dungeon. These games further stretch the definition of roguelike (Rogue Legacy identifies itself as a “Rogue-Lite” for this reason), but they still maintain the core familiar gameplay of repeated meaningful and unique attempts with gradual progression.

In Conclusion

The defining aspects of roguelikes are instructive not for their exact features, but the style of play they give rise to. The roguelike architecture brings out the best in games which require repeated and iterative attempts at success. They raise the stakes for such play through permanent death, and ensure each attempt is a new experience by randomizing the layout and having no (or limited) carryover of advantages from previous games. It’s why such a diverse range of games can make good roguelikes, from puzzlers to platformers. And since roguelike mechanics can be rich additions to games of any type or genre, why not try making one yourself?(source:tutsplus)