Why do you think a group of people who never played a roguelike (a term with an established meaning for decades) should be the ones to redefine what a term means?
The only people who use "roguelike" so loosely are people who never knew what it meant in the first place.
You seem to be under the (imo mistaken) impression that language is prescriptive. The idea that we define a term and then people will either use it "correctly" or gave stigma for being wrong.
Imo, language is descriptive - people use a word a certain way and the definition evolves to meet that usage.
Just like how "literally" means "figuratively" in some contexts. You might feel that's wrong, but fundamentally the language is being used that way.
Words can't just mean what anybody wants, whenever they want. Otherwise communication becomes impossible.
Define roguelike. You tell me what you think it means, and we will see if that definition is applied with consistency.
> Just like how "literally" means "figuratively" in some contexts. You might feel that's wrong, but fundamentally the language is being used that way.
Congratulations, you have discovered sarcasm. The meaning of literally is not different because people employ sarcasm. It means that they are being sarcastic. You literally can't be sarcastic if a word like "literally" doesn't have an agreed upon meaning.
Literally isn't always used in a sarcastic tone. "That was like, literally the biggest breakfast anyone has ever eaten!" Means it was a very large breakfast.
And words can change meaning to whatever is understandable. Definitions follow usage, not the other way around. Merriam Webster didn't write "yeet" down and then a bunch of teens started using it.
A roguelike prominently and predominantly features some combination of most of the following:
1) Run based (re)play, typically starting from a weak state and moving into a strong state. Then restarting at that weak state many times.
2) Randomization of the run in upgrades, powers, environment, or choices. Thinking on your feet and dealing with the random. Typically, environmental randomization is necessary.
3) Permanent death within a run. No save scumming - if you die in a run you'll have to start another run
4) Some sort of meta progression, whether that's a home base the player returns to, or just the increased knowledge of game systems (like in Nethack)
5) A community consensus that the game is a roguelike.
6) Emergent gameplay from multiple overlapping systems, often interacting in unexpected ways
7) Exploration or selecting paths through an environment where progress in the game usually requires leaving familiar areas and entering unfamiliar ones
So rogue and Nethack meet all of those, absolutely. But so does Hades and Spelunky and binding of Isaac and Hades and FTL. Some games have roguelike elements, but are probably not roguelikes, say Inscryption.
Four out of seven is MOST. "Parts of 2" is all that is required, because you used OR. And realistically, it meets 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7.
"Community consensus that it is a roguelike" is not a real definition, anyway. Did you think yourself particularly clever for coming up with that one?
Anyway, thank you for proving my point. Your inability to adequately "roguelike" demonstrates that, as I have been saying, it doesn't actually mean anything the way people use it.
Language evolves. Rogue, Nethack, Angband, etc are now just a type of roguelike.