I'm going to assume you have at least tried it... How is it?
The graphics really appeal and I'm a sucker for anything roguelike so I'm really interested in this.

God, GOG almost has been bogged down in crappy games... In-dev-indie-pseudo-retro-pixel-kinda-JRPG-platformer-roguelites of thousands of colors and variants - does anyone on this planet still make NORMAL games? The answer seems to be, "No, no one does"...

There's only two choices, empty-shelled 64-bit-only AAA-mastodons (that are DLC-based-money-pumps in fact) or these aforementioned indie dreck (ah, there's third choice - online MMORPG-MOBA stuff but I can't talk about it without fits of vomit, sorry).

It's time to hang myself, 'cause I see no hope at all.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ouya/ouya-a-new-kind-of-video-game-console

So what, in your opinion, is a 'normal' game?

Indie developers tend to make retro games because that is what inspired them. Imitating and improving upon the games you love is how many indies choose to start out. With some experience under their belt they may then move on to 3D graphics and more innovative ideas.
AAA developers are always going to go where the money is, which is unfortunately boring DLC filled rubbish usually.

I think Gog has released quite a few interesting games of late, across a number of genres, so I'm curious what it is you're holding out for?

Roguelite means not-quite-a-roguelike. It's one of those arguable terms, but it (usually) runs like this:
-If it blends together another genre such as FPS or Platformer, it is a Roguelite.
-If it's real time as opposed to turn based it's a Roguelite.
-If it only uses certain parts of the genre (random levels for example) and calls itself a Roguelike, it is a Roguelite.
-If there are many features specifically made to turn down the difficulty, it may or may not be a Roguelite (arguable, as there are easier "pure" ones out there such as some made for the PS1).

NEXT

There is a big difference. A roguelike is a game in the style of the original Rogue, according to the Berlin Interpretation a roguelike must fulfil the following criteria:
- Random environment generation
- Permadeath
- Turn-based
- Grid-based
- Non-modal
- Complexity
- Resource management
- Hack'n'slash
- Exploration and discovery
http://www.roguebasin.com/index.php?title=Berlin_Interpretation

Of course like any definition one might allow some level of leeway, but this is the general principle. Many games have some of those elements like random environment and permadeath, hence the umbrella term "roguelite", but they are not roguelikes. The roguelite term is kind of useless because it's too vague, it can include a side-scroller like Rogue Legacy, as well as a FPS like Tower of Guns. I know GOG lists all those games under the "roguelike" genre, but it's still a wrong use of the term.
https://www.gog.com/games?sort=popularity&search=Roguelike&page=1

Guess I was just wondering where to draw the line between classic roguelike and the modern, more common roguelites. What if a game has all of these classic roguelike elements, except say one or two? Would it be more of a roguelike or -lite? Since most modern roguelites only use a small number of these game elements, usually procedural level generation and perma-death. Or what if a game has all of these elements, but also mixes in elements from other genres, which aren't typical for classic roguelikes?

Also the term roguelite seems to imply that these games are less complex, smaller or less challenging, which doesn't necessarily have to be the case. I guess it really is a rather vague or downright meaningless term, given how overused it is. Should a game even be considered a roguelite, if it uses only one or two Rogue gameplay elements?

( Side note: I've never typed "rogue" so many times in a single post. And I didn't even mistype it as "rouge" a single time. Success! )

Looks like it could be pretty cool. I really like the visuals, and the option to play without permadeath is appealing. I'm also very curious about the "Item Worlds" mentioned in one of the screenshots. I wonder if they work the same way as the Item Worlds in Disgaea, which allowed you to enter your items to improve them.

Whatever. I used to "know" what rougelike means, and played a number of games I considered roguelike, but apparently modern game developers know better. FTL is a roguelike now, I guess. How about instead of invoking the name of a long-dead game genre (well, granted, there are a few actual roguelikes on this site, but they are lost in the noise), developers just say what they mean? If it has permadeath, say it has permadeath. If it has randomly generated maps, say it has randomly (or "procedurally", if you want to pretend it's not random) generated maps. Note that neither of those two are necessary or sufficient for a game to be roguelike. This term has become so watered down it's meaningless.

On a different note: item world?! Last time I saw something like that was in Disgaea. Makes me long for a Disgaea clone, or, better yet, a PC port of the entire Disgaea series. Hopefully that name still has some meaning, as several reviews said Regalia was "Disgaea-like" when in fact the games have almost nothing in common.

In case you think I'm complaining about games being bad because they aren't enough like what they're claiming to be like: I'm not, really. I just want them to be honest and clear in their descriptions. Just like I wish monitors were sold based on size and resolution, rather than some nonsensical VESA designation like WXGA or whatever.

Sorry for the off-topic rant.

No, according to the very edition of the Berlin Interpretation to which you linked, ...which is good. I already disagree with certain things (such as "ASCII display") being on the list as even low-value defining factors; if they were trying to say "All Roguelikes must incorporate ALL of these elements," I'd have to call bullshit on the whole thing.
I always thought that was a really fucking weird (not really in a good way) idea. It also didn't really help that Disgaea was grindy as hell. I rented one once for the PS2, and declined to do so again.

I wonder if there are any games where you can have items enter YOU (i.e., your character) to improve them. If so, I bet they're also Japanese. =P

Yeah, while I'm perfectly happy with ASCII, I don't think it's really necessary for a roguelike to have it to be roguelike. It's not like Rogue and it's original predecessors did it out of choice. I imagine if they had more capability to display graphics at the time they would have used it.

To me random worlds, perma death and turn based are the most important features. Beyond that I would say feel has a lot to do with it, as some games can implement a lot of those features on the list and still not quite feel like a roguelike, while others might only have randomness and permadeath and feel very much like a roguelike.

I'm in favor of the adoption of MemoriesIn8bit's term for games that include random/procedural content and permadeath: RPM (randomized permadeath machine). Those are basically the two main roguelike factors that devs tend to mean when they say their game has "roguelike elements" anyway, and it would take some of the pressure off the overworked term "roguelike" (wishful thinking, I know).

I know we're deep into off-topic territory, here, but have you played much Spelunky? It's most definitely not turn-based, but it actually has a more roguelike feel than a lot of actual RLs, though its real-time platformer nature means that part of one's success will hinge on how proficient one can become with the controls, and the soft time limit means one can't dawdle on a level for too long, but still has to pay attention to one's surroundings, even while moving quickly. A somewhat different experience than traditional turn-based-RPG-lite roguelikes, therefore, but a rather similar feel, if that makes any sense.