Given just how many nodebuster-likes I have to look at each week, it's made me think a lot about that subgenre and how (sub)genres work. If you're reading this and at least vaguely aware of who I am, you're probably aware of my document on defining the incremental games genre. In that piece I use a method based off the Berlin interpretation for defining rogue-likes.
What's interesting to me, is that I don't think a Berlin interpretation is actually useful for nodebuster-likes, at least not yet. Nodebuster-likes are such a new subgenre (although I still argue they're spiritual successors of "upgrade games" from back in the flash days) that they haven't really had much time to branch out yet. They're all remarkably similar. They're nearly all a short minigame section that takes no more than a few minutes and is fairly skill based, with a short break between each session to buy upgrades, often in an upgrade tree. The tree typically unlocks new currencies that are gained in the minigame, and instead of a traditional prestige mechanic, the minigame often has "levels", each more difficult than the previous. If there aren't discrete levels, then the minigame simply ramps up in difficulty very quickly the longer you are in it. And, naturally, eventually the game ends as either the last level is beaten or all the upgrades are purchased.
I suppose eventually those could be made to be a list of high and low value factors a la the Berlin interpretation, but currently I think the games are all so similar that really any game that doesn't nearly perfectly match that description is simply unlikely to be a nodebuster-like. And, to be honest, I'd much rather we see that expansion of the genre sooner rather than later. But I'd love to hear y'all's thoughts: which mechanics have you also noticed being near ubiquitous? Any that you think were unfair? And which mechanics do you hope to see retain their ubiquity as the subgenre spreads out?