No, it’s rogue-lite. Not -like. Rogue-lite games have randomized runs, permadeath, and (often tons of) meta-progression involving spending stat points, or unlocking new skills or weapons. In many games, the difficulty decreases by unlocking new skills and adding stats. Sometimes the games increase their enemy difficulty as you earn victories in order to balance the difficulty with all the new choices and skills you have. And sometimes entire game mechanics get added to more you play: new zones and new things to do.

Example rogue-lite games: Binding of Isaac, Undermine, Enter the Gungeon. Even games that have a real sense of story and progression might have tight gameplay loops that can cause people to call them rogue-lites, or say they have “rogue-lite mechanics”. Example: Dave the Diver.

Rogue-likes, on the other hand, are turn-based dungeon crawlers that have very little or no meta progression. They may have training wheels like being forced to start with a simple class and unlocking additional ones doing simple things in-game. They do this to avoid overwhelming new players with character choices, and not to make the game easier as you play. You get better by learning the game, and not by unlocking more things or adding to stats.

Examples: Shattered Pixel Dungeon, Brogue, Caves of Qud.

These days when people say roguelike they just mean a game that divides its gameplay into short, disconnected runs instead of one long, continuous save. It unfortunately has nothing to do with whether a game is anything like Rogue.

The definition of roguelike has been stretched to the point of near-uselessness, lol. Nowadays, any game with permadeath and “runs” is classified as a roguelike.

Personally, I’d prefer it if we stuck a little closer to the Berlin Interpretation definition.