# Talk:The Binding of Isaac (video game)

My prod template was removed with the edit comment "Game has been published in multiple print sources, and the Steam page is a higher Google result than the Wikipedia page for the Biblical story.)". If there are reliable sources in print, please add them to the article. All I see at present is links to blog-like reviews. The remark about Google is not convincing either. I'll leave it a couple of days for acceptable references to be provided. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it add considerably to the notability, that it's the newest work of the well-established and renown video game designer Edmund McMillen? Spiderboy (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Could this game also fit in the Action Role Playing Game genre?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.167.73.241 (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC) 

Removed the roguelike genre as the game is not actually a roguelike, one of the reasons is it not having turn based gameplay. http://roguebasin.com/index.php/Berlin_Interpretation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.122.53 (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC) 
Nothing on the page you linked specifies that a game absolutely must be turn-based to be considered a roguelike. Since the game has 5 of the 8 "high value factors" (and 3 of the 6 low value ones) listed on that page, it's actually more than 50% roguelike. Read the second and third paragraphs of the "General Principles" section on the linked page before you sperg out and remove the genre again.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.114.188 (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC) 

Since an IP is trying to remove this again, I stress the point that 69.* points out above - it doesn't met the strict Berlin definition, but has more than enough in common with those. Further, numerous sources attach the word "roguelike" to this. So there's no reason not to call it a roguelike. We just can't call it a "Berlin Interpretation" roguelike. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
This isn't a roguelike - It might fulfill some of the criteria, but it isn't turn based, which is a requirement. I'd be happy to change it to "roguelike-like" (Which is, in fact, a genre), but as someone who is essentially an expert on the topic, I can't allow for it to stay as a "roguelike". --User:Bens dream (t) 21:51, 30 June 2013 (GMT)
The problem is that what a "roguelike" is is not limited to the roguelikes that exactly meet the Berlin Interpretation, based on how much the word is thrown around today with games like this, FTL, Rogue Legacy, etc in reliable sources. It's considered part of this larger genre, but clearly its not a strict rogue-like game. --MASEM (t) 21:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the term is thrown around pretty loosely, but should fact be sacrificed for a social convention? Sites like IGN or other major gaming sites calling them roguelikes doesn't make them right, it just makes them part of the masses who don't understand what a roguelike actually is. Ben 22:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bens dream (talk • contribs) 
We go by what sources say, and by the reliable sources used by our project, they have effectively shifted what the definition of a roguelike is.  This is why its clear on the roguelike page that there's the classical/Berlin approach, and the more modern one that generally related to a subset of said features. As WP, if a large number of sources are using a term in a "wrong" but otherwise consistent manner, we can't change that in how we report information. --MASEM (t) 22:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I can agree with that. If the whole world starts calling a horse's leg a "tail", how many legs does the horse have? It still has four, regardless of what society thinks. Ben 09:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bens dream (talk • contribs) 
It's not that journalists are creating a brand new definition of what a roguelike is, but simply instead of saying "a roguelike must have all the facets of the Berlin Interpretation" that "a roguelike has many of the facets of the Berlin Interpretation" (Which is true - Binding has procedural generated dungeons and permadeath, for example). We're not talking about a complete corruption of the definition, just a broadening of the term to include more games within it. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
this game is not a fucking roguelike you fucking nimrods. wikipedia is an extremely popular website and if you are going to propagate incorrect assumptions with no regard for the facts then i guess i understand why this website isnt allowed as a source for college papers. fuck all of the people who think this game is a roguelike, fuck everyone defending the choice of words, and fuck anyone else who never played rogue games and yet still uses the label so wantonly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.9.29 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Take your trolling elsewhere please, this game is not only a roguelike but the original of it is the very game that brought the entire genre out of obscurity where it was rotting in since the mid 90s. By the way, you can consider every new room entered as a turn if it suits you.37.191.217.214 (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
This really isn't a roguelike, though, and the idea that Binding of Isaac "brought the entire genre out of obscurity" is just plain ignorant. If any roguelike-like deserves that distinction, it's Diablo, or Spelunky. Binding of Isaac was late to the party.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.1.183.14 (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Binding, along with Spleunky and a few others (but not Diablo) are well noted at Roguelike to have crafted the roguelike-like subgenre. Diablo is not a roguelike since it does not have permadeath - it is noted though at Roguelike as being an edge case, as well as inspired by roguelikes. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
You are completely wrong. This game is nothing like a Roguelike. 67.241.240.42 (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I have no idea why this still is described (only) as a roguelike. Even if we accept the proposed wider definition, calling it a roguelite or roguelike-like would still be more unambiguous as to what part of that wide definition it would fall under. And a quick google search for "The Binding of Issac" shows that most publications calls it first and foremost a "top-down shooter with RPG elements", "action-RPG shooter" and similar, and when the term roguelike is used it's usually to say the game has roguelike or roguelike-inspired elements, not that it is its principle genre. 82.164.34.180 (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

As no one objected to this in over a year I went ahead and changed the genre to "shooter-roguelite" in the opening and "Top-down shooter, Roguelite" in the infobox.84.202.101.38 (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
We don't use "Roguelite" on WP as its not a well defined genre. --Masem (t) 23:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The roguelike article has a subsection on roguelites which is what the link redirects to, but even if we can't use that term here I don't see how the current description can be justified for a few reasons:
1) the 'broadened definition of roguelike' (as you call it) has to be as ill-defined as the term "roguelite" is as they are synonymous save that the latter is reserved specifically to differentiate from the stricter, original definitions of the former (as a sub-genre of turn-based RPGs). So if "roguelite" is not well-defined enough to use we should perhaps avoid using the term "roguelike" at-all outside those games that fit the traditional definitions.
2) Even disregarding that, the roguelike-inspired elements are just one small facet of the gameplay and I do not understand why it is singled out over say, the shooter elements, or even the non-roguelike-spesific RPG and action-adventure elements. Would it not be better to describe the game by the genres it definitely fit, instead of only by one it arguably fits the margins of the broadest possible definition of?
3) As pointed out above it is not like the sources are in agreement that this is a roguelike and only or even principally a roguelike. Just as often, if not more so, descriptions like "RPG", "shooter", "dungeon crawler", "roguelike-inspired", "with roguelike elements", "roguelite" and "roguelike-like" seem to show up.
4) Not only would describing the game in different terms be less ambiguous and potentially confusing, but it would also circumvent the entire "roguelike"-appropriation controversy and definition debate in the first place, while leaving a more in-depth discussion of how roguelikes inspired the game for later in the article.
If we (for some reason I do not understand) must have "roguelike" in the beginning of the article and the infobox, can't we at the very least call it a "roguelike-inspired shooter" or something along those lines? 84.202.101.38 (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

This games features some outstanding music that has great overall impact to set the mood. The article should detail this at least mention the music composer!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.134.223.11 (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC) 

File:Binding of Isaac Rebirth.jpg
I've posted this picture in the article twice for Rebirth's infobox, but it has been removed by Masem both times. Why shouldn't the logo be included? I don't know. I've been told to bring this to the talk page.  [Soffredo] 14:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a non-free image, so it has to meet our WP:NFCC policy. In general, we only allow one cover image on an article about a published work (per WP:NFCI#1), any additional cover art needs to have sourced discussion about the image. In this case, Rebirth is only a remake (not a new game) and the logo is very similar to the original game's logo, so we cannot include the Rebirth cover here. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hasn't the anti-religious misotheistic message of this title drawn controversy? --134.193.229.228 (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess something about this should probably be in the article. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
And having looked, it is! Samwalton9 (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
But not coverage of how the story actually relates to the Biblical original. Unlike what would've happened in existent forms of religion surrounding Abraham, Isaac was not in fact sacrificed, which was the whole point of the original text: an end to human sacrifices, not an encouragement of it. --99.185.229.78 (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Considering that isn't covered by the source I doubt it would add to the article. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

A half-year after the proposal, the Rebirth article has not progressed much and is not summarized well in the main article. Feel free to boldly merge more of Rebirth into the main article whether or not the former is kept separate. – czar 15:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Revisiting this: in finding a few articles that explain how Rebirth came to be while adding them here, Rebirth is clearly a remake, not an entirely new game. There's nearly no development aspects of Rebirth that are not tied to the development from the base game, so more than ever a merge makes more sense here. Just because Rebirth has more items and objects, from an encyclopedic standpoint, it is the same game as the original Binding. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@Masem: The Development section and the 2 new DLCs added for :Rebirth would be too large to merge into this article. The Gameplay section needs updating so that it contains more info on the new bosses from Rebirth, Afterbirth and Afterbirth†. The only thing that is basically the same is the plot and even that was changed, with the cutscenes after each "Mom" and "Moms Heart" fight. Anarchyte 10:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Not true. Since details of gameplay like bosses is gamecruft and not included, there is no real new gameplay to add from rebirth. The only two key additions are the two expansions from rebirth as Development, and reception of Rebirth, both which easily fit into this and keep the article well within size requirements. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Binding of Isaac (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 10:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

McMillen and Himsl released an expansion "Wrath of the Lamb" in May 2012 - should be Wrath of the Lamb, instead of "Wrath of the Lamb"
The Binding of Isaac has been well-received and by July 2014,  -Can be slightly expanded. What was praised/criticized?
The lead is very well-written. Well done!
The gameplay section needs to be supported by much more reliable sources.
top-down 2D dungeon crawler - top-down, 2D, dungeon crawler need to be wikilinked
six other unlockable characters as they explore the dungeons located in Isaac's basement - not supported by the source.
The Wired source also mentions the game's classes: "four character classes — Fighter, Thief, Cleric and Wizard — and use them to collect items, solve puzzles"
What kinds of weapon you can purchase.
and single-use power-ups - What single-use power-ups you can find in the game?
and Super Mario Bros., the latter which was his inspiration for Super Meat Boy. - I don't think this one is necessary. It is something for the main SMB article instead.
encourage players to experiment to learn how things work within Isaac, mirroring how he had done with the original Zelda game - How he encourage people to learn how things work in Zelda?
[Optional] If I were you, I would move the part about the limitations of Flash to the part about the expansion.
The part about Rebirth needs to be supported by more sources as well.
The reception section can be significantly expanded. The critical reception part is basically about the game's being imaginative, not much else.
Here are some sources I found. These may contain new information, or can be used to support the existing content.
The Binding of Isaac, Cave Story 3D, and crying at poop: an interview with composer Danny B
How a killer Christian shmup roguelike came to Steam
Binding of Isaac creator: Nintendo rejection shows internal divisions over company’s image
The Binding of Isaac: Interview with Team Meat’s Edmund McMillen
New Details On Team Meat Designers' New Game
The Binding of Isaac’s Biggest Secret Nearly Broke The Guy Who Made it
App stores rejected it as well
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Overall it is a well-written article, but sourcing seems to be inadequate. The reception section needs some more work, but overall the article is in a relatively good shape. I will left the article on hold for a week. When all the issues are addressed it will be good to go!  AdrianGamer (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I will try to get to these over the next few days but a few points:
I have no idea why that Wired article speaks of different classes because that never existed in the game.
Keep in mind that The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth is considered a separate game with its own article. While I will source that paragraph more, this is important as some of the added sources you put are for Rebirth and not this game and don't give new info on this game.  To that same end, the DLC for this game should be quoted as "Wrath of the Lamb" rather than italized as if a new game. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@AdrianGamer: I still need to see about trying to expand the reception but if you want to take a look, I have done pretty much everything else on the list. I did figure out what the Wired article was going on with the classes so fixed that up, and incorporated a few of the additional sources. --MASEM (t) 00:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@AdrianGamer: Just an FYI, I got caught up in other life stuff and will likely not be able to get to expanding the reception out a bit until early next week. I still plan to do this, just that can't do a fair job over the next few days. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
No worries, take your time. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@AdrianGamer: I've gotten the reception section expanded out now, that should be it. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The game was also nominated for an award.[1] I also found another source about the game's music. It may have some valuable information.[2] There is a retail edition as well.[3] Would be great if you can add these information into the article as well. AdrianGamer (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I've added all three pieces as well as bit from the ArsTech source above. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
As all the issues were fixed, the article is good to go! The Binding of Isaac is now a . Congratulations! AdrianGamer (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Soetermans: @172.14.45.33: I have to agree with Soetermans, the statement about beating Isaac's mom in the lead seems weird an out of place, since she is not the final boss (as 172.14.45.33 claimed). Although it is interesting to note from a game story perspective, it is certainly not necessary in a brief overview of gameplay. Other thoughts? GiovanniSidwell (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The part about his mom is to continue the brief plot aspect - that (in a successful run) Isaac does come back to face his mom that put in that situation. She may not be the final boss but she should be mentioned as a boss character. It might be how the phrasing and comma use make it stick out as awkward or an addendum thought. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the article about cross-dressing. Looking around the web, I think this must have something to do with the "Maggie" character, which best I can tell is Isaac in a wig (and maybe dress? the video I saw was just a baby in a wig, sorry, I've never played the game so if I got the details wrong, forgive me). In any case, It looks to me like someone removed important information from the article. 70.190.181.241 (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I've removed that category. It's definitely not a defining element of the game just because some of the powerups may have specific gendered clothes. --Masem (t) 23:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Issac is now in a fighting game called Blade Strangers  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayamaya7 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 

I think we should remove the characters section. All it is just listing playable characters and telling the reader what they are based off. The only source backing up the characters section is a YouTube video uploaded by Game Theory, which is an unreliable source as YouTube is user-generated and Game Theory's runner, MatPat, is not a subject-matter expert who has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Lazman321 (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessary rule out Game Theory as a possible reliable source, but I fully agree the section is undue for this article and have removed it. --Masem (t) 15:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Mostly for @Dimentio132:, I've watched the relevant section of the interview here, around the 15-16 minute mark, and I don't think what McMillan says now conflicts with what he wrote previously (Gamasutra piece) about the game's origins. They came off SMB, they knew they wanted to work on Mew-Genics next but Tommy went on a bit of a break, so Ed looked for something low stress and minimal expectations, which happened to be inspired by roguelikes at the time, seeing that proc gen would be a useful thing to have in Mew-Genics. I don't see the combination of the interview and past writing to say that Binding was specifically developed to support Mew-Genics, but served as a good learning step towards what Edward saw for the game. I have included elements of that interview in the article becuase I think it helps to set the stage for that better, but it doesn't conflict that the game cam out of a game jam, and not developed specifically for Mew-Genics. --Masem (t) 16:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Good point, I just saw the interview and thought that it clashed with it spawning from a game jam. Sorry if I was a nuisance, thanks Dimentio132 (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It's good that you pointed it out as it adds a bit more context that I've included. Between that and what else we have, Binding wasn't set out to be pre-amble work for MewGenics,but that when they came onto using roguelike princples, saw that would be helpful towards MewGenics. So it's connected to that game, just not as purposefully. --Masem (t) 22:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I would like to recommend an addition to add the history of the "BibleThump" emoji on Twitch, as it is important to the game's history and has also strung up recent controversy. Split76 (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

It can be at least mentioned using this rs [4] — Masem (t) 22:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)