I don't think most roguelike players would describe those games as roguelikes, though.
The quintessential roguelikes are Nethack, Moria, Angband and AdoM. You're a @ fighting monsters represented by other ascii characters, in an environment (usually a dungeon, though AdoM expanded that) represented by ascii characters. Procedurally generated, turn-based, super deadly, very tactical, with an almost infinite amount of stuff you can find, use, or do. Playing all the way through the end is nearly impossible, would take many hours on a single run, but years to learn and master the game to the point that you can actually make it that far in a single run.
I can understand adding some graphics to the game (though I'm personally not a fan of that), and AdoM certainly showed how the genre can be stretched from a single dungeon to a landscape with multiple very different dungeons, but the further you move away from this core, the less roguelike the game becomes. Because it simply becomes less like the original game rogue (which nobody seems to have played).
I suppose 'roguelite' is a more suitable name for games that take some of the roguelike elements but not all of them, and make it into something completely different.
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.
The issue is not with players categorizing a game as a roguelike (or not), it’s developers categorizing their game as a marketing tactic. The way discovery works on a platform such as Steam, developers are incentivized to tick as many boxes as possible on the genre list in order to get their game seen by as many players as possible. In effect, this self-categorization lets developers dilute the meaning of genre labels in order to make money.
Roguelike just happened to be one of the genre labels with a long-standing and passionate community. Now the community members are everywhere speaking out against this dilution. This is not gatekeeping — anyone is welcome to play roguelikes — it’s preservation of the genre’s distinctiveness.
Gatekeeping pertains to people, not things. If you have a rock n' roll club you're allowed to say that "Happy Birthday" is not a rock n' roll song. That's different from saying "people who like the Happy Birthday song aren't allowed in the club", which is gatekeeping.
"Roguelike" is nowadays commonly defined by having a meta progression system (unlocks). Scroll through reviews of a game like Noita or DCSS (Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup) and you will see some people complaining the game doesn't have (enough) permanent unlocks.
They may be roguelikes with additional elements, but there's no one true definition of what a roguelike must be.
And yes, I'm aware of roguelites. The existence of a more specific piece of jargon does not invalidate the use of the more generic term.
Insisting on a narrow, historical use of language serves only the purpose of gatekeeping and pedantic "I know better than you" behaviors.