Game Genres

[TornadoCreator]

Video game genres are screwed up, even mainstream publications agree with this now... I think I however, have a solution.

 

Most agree the main problem is that genres don't fit. Call Of Duty, Fallout 3, Portal, Bioshock, Doom 3 and Halo are not all the same genre; yet they're all "First Person Shooters". We know this doesn't fit but what's the alternative? Doing what music fans do and inventing a million bullshit sub-genres that no-one agrees on. I mean seriously, I'm a metal music fan but even I can't tell the difference between 'death metal', 'black metal', 'gothic metal', 'doom metal', 'industrial metal', and god only knows what other crap '[adjective] metal' genres they'll come up with next. Seriously, what the hell is 'viking metal'? Worse still, some people combine them so we end up with 'viking death metal'. It's bullshit. I don't want that pretentious crap for gaming... so how do we avoid that?

 

Well here's my solution; we expand descriptors. 'Shooter' and 'Platformer' aren't genres, they're mechanics. 'Horror', 'Comedy', 'Action', 'Drama'... these are genres. We also seem to categorise by perspective; 'First Person', 'Third Person', '3D', 'Side-Scrolling' and 'Isometric' are all examples of this. Hell, my method is already being used unofficially because it makes sense. All games should be described as follows [Perspective][Genre][Mechanic]. Hyphens can be used for games that have multiple core mechanics, a split focus genre, or variable perspectives; but this should be avoided.

 

Under this system the following games that where all just 'First Person Shooters' would now be...

Call Of Duty - First Person Military Shooter

Fallout 3 - First Person Post Apocalyptic RPG

Portal - First Person Sci-Fi Puzzle

Bioshock - First Person Steampunk Shooter

Doom 3 - First Person Horror Shooter

Halo - First Person Sci-Fi Shooter

 

As you can see, this is a far better system and I think I could do this for every game I own. Admittedly, some conventions would be changed; for example Silent Hill would chang from 'Survival Horror' to 'Third Person Horror Survival' which may seem counter-intuitive but keeping the [Perspective][Genre][Mechanic] system consistent is, I feel, important for reasonable understanding in discussion. By knowing it's always this way we don't have people wondering what the classification system means, like I do with 'viking death metal'. It seems people just added what they consider vaguely "cool" sounding words... after all,  what's "death" about this music?

 

So yeah, that's my suggestion. What do people think? Here are some more examples to help people decide based on what springs to mind.

 

Vanquish - Third Person Sci-Fi Shooter

Alice: Madness Returns - Third Person Horror Platformer

Baldur's Gate - Isometric Fantasy RPG

Hitman: Blood Money - Third Person Action Stealth

GTA IV - Third Person Action Sandbox

Final Fantasy VII - Turn Based Cyberpunk RPG

Civilization IV - Turn Based Alternative History Strategy

DmC: Devil May Cry - Third Person Action Brawler

Super Mario 3D World - Third Person Cartoon Platformer

Deus Ex: Human Revolution - First/Third Person Cyberpunk RPG

Rayman Origins - Side-Scrolling Cartoon Platformer

Zelda: A Link Between Worlds - Top Down Adventure Puzzle

Diablo 2: LOD - Isometric Fantasy Hack 'n Slash

 

 (I decided "turn based" made sense as a 'perspective' descriptor, because that's the perspective you take in the main gameplay sections of the games, although the actual words 'turn based' are perhaps not ideal they'll do for now).

 

So there's more than a dozen examples. Hopefully the range is enough to give a good idea of what I'm thinking. What do you guys think?

Edited July 14, 2014 by TornadoCreator

[Eleven]

It does tell you more about a game if you use that classification however isn't it too narrow?

 

I was thinking Halo, should it be FPS Sci Fi or FPS Military? Or Killzone or maybe Resistance? Aren't those military shooters but are also sci-fi shooters?

 

In movies/TV, when you say it's a horrow show, does it really matter if it's a horror show in a cyberpunk setting, or a contemporary setting, or even one set in ancient egypt?

 

It would create dozens and dozens of sub categories. Like if I make a third person shooter set in ancient feudal Japan using bows and arrows and crossbows, would if be a TPS Historical? But what about 1942 shooters? Aren't those historical too? If the soldier I was controlling in ancient Japan was part of an army, with a clear chain-of-command, isn't it then a military shooter?

[TheRevanchist]

I agree with 001011. The number of sub-genres doesn't really matter as much, as long as the game is classified enough to tell the end user what the game play is like.

 

I like turn-based combat, especially in D&D style games. Not everyone does. So, saying a mystical turn-based game is appropriate enough to capture my interest.

 

You know who benefits from the genre argument? Writers. It has nothing to do with the games. But, publications and websites get more reader interest by creating these debates. And that is where The Man has tried to keep us down.

[toxicitizen]

In movies/TV, when you say it's a horrow show, does it really matter if it's a horror show in a cyberpunk setting, or a contemporary setting, or even one set in ancient egypt?

Bingo. It's the core of the experience that you need to describe. In the case of games, that core is a set of mechanics. Alien is a horror film, Portal is a puzzle game, Civilization is a turn-based strategy game. The what and when of their narratives belong in the plot summary on the back of the box, not tacked onto the genre label.

 

Even perspective is often irrelevant. Spec Ops isn't all that different from Call of Duty from a purely mechanical standpoint. Sub-genres can be useful but few of them provide info you really need to know. Civ plays differently enough from XCOM to specify that it's a 4X. But much like Alien could take place in the present, on a submarine and with a more generic monster and still essentially be the same film, Halo without the sci-fi would be, well, pretty much Call of Duty, come to think of it.

Edited July 14, 2014 by FLD

[TornadoCreator]

It does tell you more about a game if you use that classification however isn't it too narrow?

 

I was thinking Halo, should it be FPS Sci Fi or FPS Military? Or Killzone or maybe Resistance? Aren't those military shooters but are also sci-fi shooters?

 

In movies/TV, when you say it's a horrow show, does it really matter if it's a horror show in a cyberpunk setting, or a contemporary setting, or even one set in ancient egypt?

 

It would create dozens and dozens of sub categories. Like if I make a third person shooter set in ancient feudal Japan using bows and arrows and crossbows, would if be a TPS Historical? But what about 1942 shooters? Aren't those historical too? If the soldier I was controlling in ancient Japan was part of an army, with a clear chain-of-command, isn't it then a military shooter?

 

It is admittedly broad terms, but fine-tuning the focus too much and you end up with genres that are too specific and that games only fit into some of the time.

 

Yes, Halo has a military theme but I feel it's primary theme is sci-fi. Admittedly it's a judgement call, but thats how I see it. Likewise Killzone and Resistance both feel more Military than Sci-Fi but I'd not object to either label. Using this system you could call Killzone a 'First Person Sci-Fi/Military Shooter' and that could work, maybe even being a good compromise if you feel the genre is equal parts Sci-Fi and Military.

 

You ask if setting matters in a TV show... less so, because the interactive nature of video games though there are multiple aesthetic approaches. You can't judge a TV show by gameplay, or control method. That said, a horror film set in space for example; Event Horizon, can reasonable be called a Horror/Sci-Fi, and as above with Killzone that can work for games. Personally though I think most shows, films, and games have a fundamental genre/theme. For example 'Shawn Of The Dead' is a comedy, sure it's a zombie film and technically a horror, but comedy is it's primary focus so I'd simply call it a comedy.

 

For your last examples, I'd label everything there Third Person Alternative History Shooter. Remember categories are meant to be broad, if they're so specialised to only contain one game you may as well just use the game title. It's only meant to facilitate discussion and while the system isn't perfect; it's certainly better than the current system where Portal is a First Person Shooter and more than 50% of games are put in the "I couldn't give a fuck" genre 'Action-Adventure', which tells you precisely nothing about the game.

 

Thanks for the critique though, it's good to fix any holes in the system.

[Eleven]

The judgment calls would pose a problem, and then different publishers would label the game however they want to, with the only common thing being it's a First Person Shooter (or Action Game).

 

Think of it this way: In film, you want to browse the Genre (Horror), and then maybe to further search for what you want, you filter by tags (Zombies!). In games, you browse by Mechanics (FPS), because mechanics matter more than... uh... "genre" as it's an interactive medium. Then filter by tags (Post-Apocalyptic. Sci-Fi, Military).

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is what FLD said. For the Genre, you want the broadest category (not sure if it's the right word) that still makes distinct differences to describe the core of the experience. For games, you want to define the genre by the mechanics alone. Then introduce sub-filters to focus on specific "genres" like Post-Apocalyptic. For films, you focus on the next step down (from mechanics), since mechanics don't exist. Or you could step up to 3D / Non-3D, followed by film genre.

 

Games have different narrative and styles like movies do, but ultimately, games are games. Ultimately, it's the mechanics that really define it. No matter how much I love games and films set in the 1940s-50s, I wouldn't play a strategy game set in the 1950s.

 

And think of the sub-menus we would need to browse if genres were too specific!

 

EDIT: I have a feeling we're arguing semantics here. "Genre" probably means something different than "Genre" for films. With your suggestions, you kinda want to blend the two meanings. At least that's how I see it. "Genre" is basically mechanics for games (type of game). "Genre" for film is genre (type of film). I hope I got that across right...

 

Oh and music genres suck. I'm trying to set genres in iTunes to make use of smart playlists, so I look them up on Wikipedia. It's crazy how two indie rock bands belong to different genres, and each band belongs to multiple genres. Nobody listens to only one of those genres specifically.

Edited July 14, 2014 by eleven

[TornadoCreator]

I think the problem here is there's a big assumption... that mechanics are most important, and that's simply not true. I will pass over entire games just because they're first person, I have one friend who specifically dislikes Fantasy so didn't like Skyrim or Dragon Age, despite Fallout 3 and Mass Effect being amongst his favourite games. Perspective can make a strong difference to play style. I love Isometric Platformers, but it seems the rest of the world lacks spacial awareness because they're notoriously unpopular and I'm forever hearing people complain that they can't tell where they're jumping.

 

As for publishers claiming their games are in special genres... they do that now, so what.

 

Honestly, I'm sure there's a better system than what I'm suggesting but no-ones putting it forward, and mines certainly better than the non-system crapshoot we use now.

 

PS: Music genres are just needless pretension to encourage exclusion, it's sad. I may have strict guides on who I consider a gamer, but at least it's not me purposly being obtuse just to exclude people.

[TheMightyEthan]

Wouldn't Civilization be a Top-Down Alternate History Turn-Based Strategy?  Turn-based is a mechanic.

 

I get what you're saying but I don't think it needs to be as formalized as you're making it.  You're basically just adding some more descriptors onto the mechanics description, which people already do anyway.  I also think that while mechanics may not be the most important factor for you, I believe they are for most people.  The mechanics are the primary way of interacting with the game, and if a person doesn't like the mechanics they're just not going to be able to get into the game.  I do agree that traditional genres are also important, I'm getting just as sick of the modern military setting as everyone else, but I think it's secondary to the mechanics.

[toxicitizen]

I think the problem here is there's a big assumption... that mechanics are most important, and that's simply not true.

 

 

The current system isn't perfect but there's a reason why it is the way it is. Games are mechanics before anything else. Why do you think so many games had shit stories for the longest time? Because their developers made the game part first and only brought in a writer at the last minute, almost as an afterthought. That writer had no involvement or effect on development whatsoever. That situation has been changing for the best but I still think that says a lot.

 

If mechanics aren't the most important, then how do you explain a game like Minecraft being such a massive hit? It has no story and its aesthetics aren't particularly appealing. It's nothing but a set of mechanics to play with. And the same is true for a lot of games. SimCity is basically a toy box and most 4X games have no story, just a set of rules and systems to play with. There was a time when games didn't even have stories. What's the most important part of Space Invaders and Pac-Man if not the mechanics? Or are they not real games, for some reason?

[TCP]

Saw this topic title, thought it said Game Genies, got really excited, and saw it was a bunch of TL;DR, got disappointed.

[TornadoCreator]

 

I think the problem here is there's a big assumption... that mechanics are most important, and that's simply not true.

 

The current system isn't perfect but there's a reason why it is the way it is. Games are mechanics before anything else. Why do you think so many games had shit stories for the longest time? Because their developers made the game part first and only brought in a writer at the last minute, almost as an afterthought. That writer had no involvement or effect on development whatsoever. That situation has been changing for the best but I still think that says a lot.

If mechanics aren't the most important, then how do you explain a game like Minecraft being such a massive hit? It has no story and its aesthetics aren't particularly appealing. It's nothing but a set of mechanics to play with. And the same is true for a lot of games. SimCity is basically a toy box and most 4X games have no story, just a set of rules and systems to play with. There was a time when games didn't even have stories. What's the most important part of Space Invaders and Pac-Man if not the mechanics? Or are they not real games, for some reason?

 

And because you think about games in terms of mechanics, naturally they're most important and you look for confirmation bias examples. What about Beyond: Two Souls, Heavy Rain, Metal Gear Solid 4, Lost Odyssey, The Walking Dead, Gone Home, Alice: Madness Returns, or Spec Ops: The Line... all games from the generation we've just concluded that clearly put there story and theme over their gameplay. Entire sections of the industry, like JRPGs for example, are almost entirely focused on the story with everything being there just to break it up and keep the pacing.

 

You claim there was a time when games didn't even have a story... no there wasn't. 'Adventure' 1979 on Atari 2600, 'Akalabeth' 1979, 'Ultima' 1981, and 'Wizardry' 1981 all on the Apple Ii Computer, later ported to the Commodore 64. 'Zork' 1980 on Commodore 64. As soon as computers even came close to being able to be used for interactive narratives they where. Hell, this hardly stopped, 'Ultima' and 'Wizardry' became big franchises. Games like 'Baldur's Gate', 'Fallout', 'Icewind Dale', 'Planescape: Torment', and so many more littered the 90s. On consoles we had the 'Final Fantasy' series make a mark, and games like 'Shadowrun', 'Terranigma', and 'Chrono Trigger' all hit the consoles shortly after...

 

I can quite conclusively show that storytelling has been an integral part of this industry from it's incarnation in the 70's... You claim games are mechanics before anything else; I disagree entirely and I have some of the best examples of the medium standing as evidence as to why.

[Vecha]

Lost Odyssey?

Definitely Turn Based RPG with a deep story. Rather than the other way around.

Hell. You give the wrong guy LO...and they'll be pissed.

Even if he loves fantasy games.

I dunno. I feel people's taste with games still depend on the mechanics first. But...this kind goes back to the whole "hardcore/dedicated gamer vs. the casual gamer.


ETA: I kinda agree with you that story IS integral! But feel mechanics are equal. 

Edited July 15, 2014 by Vecha

[TheMightyEthan]

Just because there are a few counterexamples doesn't change the fact that for the majority of games the narrative is secondary (at best) to the mechanics. I do think it's possible going forward that we might see a growing distinction between games as, well, "games", and games as interactive narrative entertainment, similar to the sports/movies distinction you made in another thread (which is not to say it will be quite that cut and dried, there can obviously be some crossover).

[toxicitizen]

And because you think about games in terms of mechanics, naturally they're most important and you look for confirmation bias examples. What about Beyond: Two Souls, Heavy Rain, Metal Gear Solid 4, Lost Odyssey, The Walking Dead, Gone Home, Alice: Madness Returns, or Spec Ops: The Line... all games from the generation we've just concluded that clearly put there story and theme over their gameplay. Entire sections of the industry, like JRPGs for example, are almost entirely focused on the story with everything being there just to break it up and keep the pacing.

I did say that the trend has been changing for the better. Those examples are all pretty recent. And I'm hardly the only one who feels this way about mechanics. Quantic Dream's games are often bashed for being little more than interactive movies, you know. TWD and Gone Home were similarly criticized. I personally loved them all but I can definitely see how someone might feel that they were lacking something. And the Metal Gear Solid series puts a heavy emphasis on narrative but the series still has very solid mechanics underneath it all. Have you never played MGS3? There's a lot of depth to that gameplay. If it was only about the story then that simply wouldn't be the case.

 

As for JRPGs, what are you going on about? The genre tends to be more narratively-driven than others but the mechanics are still as important as they would be anywhere else. People praise older Final Fantasy titles for things like the job system and the active-time battles. They bash Final Fantasy XIII for basically playing itself and lacking mechanical depth. A JRPG needs solid mechanics every bit as much as it needs a good story.

 

You claim there was a time when games didn't even have a story... no there wasn't. 'Adventure' 1979 on Atari 2600, 'Akalabeth' 1979, 'Ultima' 1981, and 'Wizardry' 1981 all on the Apple Ii Computer, later ported to the Commodore 64. 'Zork' 1980 on Commodore 64. As soon as computers even came close to being able to be used for interactive narratives they where. Hell, this hardly stopped, 'Ultima' and 'Wizardry' became big franchises. Games like 'Baldur's Gate', 'Fallout', 'Icewind Dale', 'Planescape: Torment', and so many more littered the 90s. On consoles we had the 'Final Fantasy' series make a mark, and games like 'Shadowrun', 'Terranigma', and 'Chrono Trigger' all hit the consoles shortly after...

First off, I consider those 90s titles to be fairly modern. So, it's not really the period I was talking about. And yeah, you can find examples of games that had stories even before then. I wasn't making an absolute statement by any means. I still fail to see how that contradicts anything I've said. A game having a story hardly says anything about how mechanically-driven it was or wasn't. I mean, most of your examples are RPGs, for fuck's sake. Do you seriously not realize that those games tend to be based on fairly complex systems and rules under the hood?

 

Besides, your pre-90s examples are a bit more obscure than Pac-Man and Space Invaders, both of which were pretty big hits in their times. And you accuse me of picking confirmation bias examples? Are you for real, man?

 

I can quite conclusively show that storytelling has been an integral part of this industry from it's incarnation in the 70's... You claim games are mechanics before anything else; I disagree entirely and I have some of the best examples of the medium standing as evidence as to why.

I never said that storytelling isn't an important part of games, I said that it's secondary to mechanics. Especially when it comes to categorizing them since a lot of them simply don't have stories. That's just a fact. A few cherry-picked examples of story-based games from the late 70s and early 80s doesn't contradict anything.

Edited July 15, 2014 by FLD

[Vecha]

Want to add...

Anyone play the Game Dev Tycoon?

Their forum is FULL of people trying to come up with different Genres.