‘Punishing’ roguelike Ruin of the Reckless is out now

Ruin of the Reckless

Just watching clips of top-down roguelike Ruin of the Reckless [official site] makes me want to have a lie down. It looks manic, and there’s more screen shake than most minor earthquakes.

But don’t fear – you can turn the vibrations down and enjoy (if that’s the right word) a “punishing” melee brawler with hundreds of enemies to dodge.

Judging by what I’ve seen, it could be right up your street if you like a fast-paced challenge and don’t mind dying repeatedly in pursuit of a goal.

Here’s what developers Faux-Operative Games have to say:

“Ruin of the Reckless is a 2D retro-styled, fast-paced roguelike brawler focusing on melee combat. With light progression elements and a challenging difficulty curve, players can choose Stargrove or Stella to fight their way through a mysterious randomly generated tower, home to the most reckless of spirits.

“Explore the nuances of twin stick brawler gameplay, experiment with your attacks, and unleash screen clearing spells that obliterate your opponents. Ruin of the Reckless is a highly replayable and challenging game where the more you risk, the more you gain – if you survive…”

It’s £10.99/14,99€/$14.99 on Steam, GOG, itch.io and the Humble Store, and you can pick up its trippy soundtrack and an art pack, if you feel so inclined.

Here’s the full trailer:


  1. gleb09 says:

    Yet another “roguelike” that isn’t a roguelike.
    !!Not saying anything about the game.

    • golochuk says:

      It’s actively harmful. What’s the benefit of titling this article “‘Punishing’ roguelike Ruin of the Reckless…” and not “‘Punishing’ brawler Ruin of the Reckless…” ? The word “brawler” appears more often in the promotional copy, and is far more accurate.

    • PseudoKnight says:

      It tells me that it’s probably permadeath, randomly generated levels, replayable, and hard. In this case it’s obviously real time, so the biggest difference is noticeable right away. They include “brawler” as the other term to describe it. So together it paints a fairly good picture if the video is any indication. Roguelikes of this type tend to appeal to a specific type of gamer, so it’s still a helpful word when used more broadly. We’re talking about being descriptive here, not genre territorial. That said, I have no objections to “roguelite”.

    • April March says:

      Wait, why is it not a roguelike? It certainly has procedurally generated levels, and the lotsa dying in the trailer at least suggests there’s permadeath. That’s a roguelike. Unless you’re complaing that it’s not like the 1983 game?

      • LW says:

        >not like the 1983 game
        Ding ding, we have a winner. Roguelike is a pure and pristine term that may never change, never gain new context or definition.

        Shades of Hyper Light Drifter here, anyway. Imitation and flattery, and all that.

        • April March says:

          Oh, right then, you’re one of those people who don’t know how language works! Glad we settled that.

          • LW says:

            Man, I hope that was a sarcastic reply to my sarcastic reply. Bloody internet. But yes language is both rules and tool; tools improve, and rules change to cover new circumstances. Roguelike nowadays means random-gen, and perma-death with most likely some form of long term improvement. Anything else is to taste.

      • GeoX says:

        The original definition of roguelike is “turn-based crawler with random dungeons where players and monsters move at the same time.” It is of course true that language changes, but I dunno…I feel like it’s a still a helpful term to have. What’s so bad about “roguelite?”

        • syndrome says:

          Really? Does that definition actually bear some seal of authority or is it like some sort of a standard certificate?

          Because the last time I checked, roguelike meant “similar to Rogue in terms of its numerous but rather characteristic staple mechanics, give or take particular features.”

          To be blunt, the entire controversy stems from having two schools of interpretation: one that sells the idea of a new-age term coined up to streamline communication, and the other that dismisses it as a modern euphemism to label anything procedural, but hard to explain properly without referring to original Rogue.

          The truth is actually outside of this spectra: WE ALL NEED A PLETHORA OF NEW WORDS TO TALK ABOUT GAMES, their mechanical intentions, underlying systems, interactive, narrative, and mathematical concepts at play.

          In the absence of a better vocabulary, ‘ROGUELIKE’ WILL DO just fine. Even ‘rougelite’ is completely unnecessary.

          Is that so hard to understand?

          Whoever invents a new lexicon THAT LASTS, will open a gold mine of gaming semantics, for everyone involved.

          This has been a problem since the dawn of games, and frankly, It’s much better to have half-assed names from the gaming community, but that mean something, than retarded acronyms from the retail and marketing management which was typical done during the nineties. Not to mention the feature “highlights” (sigh)

          • PseudoKnight says:

            Heh. I like this. The gaming lexicon is fairly lacking. Even the term “game” is not appropriate anymore. Instead, we’ve transformed existing words for our new needs. But when we create a new kind of word, “roguelike”, it gets people angry because it was derived by something that doesn’t perfectly describe its meaning. But that’s exactly how new words are created all the time. Categorization is always going to be terrible. We do what we can.

  2. Bobtree says:

    The bland presentation and permanently screen shaking trailer make a terrible first impression.

    • Person of Interest says:

      Yes but the PR blurb is unusually descriptive and succinct, so I have some hope that the developers made considerate choices for the gameplay too (or at least made an efficient menu screen… “can turn the vibrations down” is a good sign), even if they went a bit cheap on the art/gfx .