The Game Stash: A Question of Genre
Gaming genres are the worst thing that ever happened.
Read Full Article
Gaming genres are the worst thing that ever happened.
Read Full Article
The Game Stash: A Question of Genre
- Thread starter Steve Butts
- Start date
Nice first article Steve, I'm an over-analytical thinker anyways so I love to wrap my mind around subjects like these.
One of the biggest considerations for genre problems are RTS games, single player on those make most people cringe with their over repetitive objective based gameplay. That is a case where RTS makers need to rethink how to implement their game ideas. It doesn't have to play the same way over and over just because it is an RTS. Dawn of War 2 was one of the best experiences I've had with a Story campaign on an RTS, mostly because of the RPG and choices between missions like equipping items.
The Story and voice work wasn't bad either so by the end of it I forgot that it was indeed an RTS, I just thought it was a really fun game.
One of the biggest considerations for genre problems are RTS games, single player on those make most people cringe with their over repetitive objective based gameplay. That is a case where RTS makers need to rethink how to implement their game ideas. It doesn't have to play the same way over and over just because it is an RTS. Dawn of War 2 was one of the best experiences I've had with a Story campaign on an RTS, mostly because of the RPG and choices between missions like equipping items.
The Story and voice work wasn't bad either so by the end of it I forgot that it was indeed an RTS, I just thought it was a really fun game.
Welcome Steve. I look forward to reading your next aticles.
I agree with this one by the way, having stuff like Halo and GTA in 'shooter' is kind of bad.
I agree with this one by the way, having stuff like Halo and GTA in 'shooter' is kind of bad.
Fantastic first article. I agree that the genre system needs some reform... but I think one of the problems is that even though there might be a war RTS and a war FPS, but filing them both under "war games" could be bad because the FPS player may not necessarily enjoy the mechanics of an RTS and vice-versa. It's important to remember that games are different from novels, film, and other forms of passive media.
Yeah, I'm not suggesting there's no place for a mechanics-based defintion genre, but that it's far too out in front of a content-based definition of genre.
Thanks for the kind words!
Thanks for the kind words!
I disagree with the assertion that halo and CoD dont belong in the same genre as each other because one has a sci-fi aesthetic and the other is "realistic". I dont think the theme/narrative/fiction has or should have anything to do with classifying a game type. On the other hand, i agree that the way we try to box an entire game experience into catch words like FPS and RTS is a very heavy handed and clumsy way of doing things. The reason halo and CoD shouldn't be considered similar in anyway is (imo) the fact that they play entirely differently in terms of their mechanics. The only thing they share in that regard is the fact that you play from the same camera perspective in both, and have a great big gun in the foreground.
But the differences in the type of mechanism each uses is enough to differentiate them already, without having to resort to looking at the individual fiction and narratives that each has. Again imo.
But the differences in the type of mechanism each uses is enough to differentiate them already, without having to resort to looking at the individual fiction and narratives that each has. Again imo.
You used the expression "beg the question" properly!
You, sir, have a regular reader!
(It helps that it was a really interesting article)
You, sir, have a regular reader!
(It helps that it was a really interesting article)
Wow, this was a great first article. It reminded me why I started coming to the Escapist in the first place: solid analysis not just of games but of the evolution of the medium. I hope this article can live up to the first outing. Good luck, Mr. Butts.
I don't agree. Talking about games in the way as we talk about movies is artificial. Movies are mostly about story, so naturally we divide them into genres based on their story type. For games, the primary characteristic is their gameplay. Yes, we should talk about game genres as being about mechanics.
Sure, we don't judge a book by its cover, but of course we should judge a game by its gameplay! Not primarily the story, but the gameplay is the substance of a game.
Including story, graphics and user interface, there are tons of factors that go into categorizing and judging games. But we should never forget the one which makes the game a game - gameplay mechanics. This is what is of primary importance to games. Everything else is incidental, and you could do it in a movie instead.
Sure, we don't judge a book by its cover, but of course we should judge a game by its gameplay! Not primarily the story, but the gameplay is the substance of a game.
Including story, graphics and user interface, there are tons of factors that go into categorizing and judging games. But we should never forget the one which makes the game a game - gameplay mechanics. This is what is of primary importance to games. Everything else is incidental, and you could do it in a movie instead.
RPG is the worst example of a definitive genre.
The main issue is what fulls under the category of "role playing" since in the case "JRPGs" have next to no character creation, but then again the same can be said for most games... games that aren't RPGs.
Then there's the "RPG elements" given to such titles like BioShock yet this involves purchasing and upgrading, something common it, lets say strategy games. JRPGs could be turn-based or adventure games with "RPG elements". These so called elements are found in many genres, thus it's a redundant phrase.
Also welcome.
The main issue is what fulls under the category of "role playing" since in the case "JRPGs" have next to no character creation, but then again the same can be said for most games... games that aren't RPGs.
Then there's the "RPG elements" given to such titles like BioShock yet this involves purchasing and upgrading, something common it, lets say strategy games. JRPGs could be turn-based or adventure games with "RPG elements". These so called elements are found in many genres, thus it's a redundant phrase.
Also welcome.
Hi Steve, welcome to The Escapist. Let me welcome you by utterly disagreeing with you.
We're friendly that way!
Genre is a problem, of course, but it's also a tool. It's worth noting that the problems you're describing with genre exist in other media too. Sure, it sucks that every MMOG brings in looting, but how often have you heard or read of a fantasy dwarf with a Scottish accent? Exact same issue: Convention becomes so strong it's hard to escape it. This is far from a unique problem with games, it's a problem with genre.
But you know what? We keep using genre. Why? Because it's a great tool for a number of reasons. On a marketing level, it creates a built-in fanbase. On a creative level it provides a useful starting point and creates limits that allow the creator to consider the creative space his work will employ. On an artistic level... OK, there? Genre kind of sucks. But even there, good genre works will find ways to either deconstruct or subvert the genre.
As an example, Far Cry 2 is as solidly a shooter as you'll ever find; but it won considerable creative acclaim (as well as a lot of critical distaste) because of the way it subverted the shooter genre; missions were designed in counterpoint to your story rather than to support it, thus leading to a logical conclusion when, while suffering hideously from malaria, you destroy whole stockpiles of the very medication that could save you. The message that war is irrational, violence meaningless was supported. This is solidly supported with The Escapist's experiential leanings, but it's not a lesser game because it exists wholly within one genre.
For another example, consider the works of Fumito Ueda. Ico was, at its heart, nothing but a puzzle platformer. But y'know what? It took that genre and broke it down to its pure core. Nothing extraneous. No HUD. A solid logic for the basic 'find a path' gameplay logic. It found its emotional core in the AI that created the relationship between Ico and Yorda. And it was magnificent. Shadow of the Colossus, while engaging in a bit more genre-bending, was similar; it really was at its heart an action-adventure game not dissimilar from Zelda. Sure, it stripped Zelda down a lot, and mixed it up with a light-puzzle boss fight mechanic, but it's hardly suis generis. And it was the absolute standout favorite example for people trying to defend the idea of "gaming as art" to Roger Ebert -- for a reason.
As an opposing example, my favorite whipping boy, Farenheit. (I suspect Heavy Rain will kick in when I finally play it.) It's genuinely suis generis, with few games really like it in any way, shape, or form. And y'know what? It's a goddamn mess. Instead of using well understood, appropriate and familiar mechanics to, say, have the player escape a parking lot unscathed during an assassination attempt, it shoe-horned in a whole new set of mechanics that undermined the player's authority and distanced them from the action. It was awful.
Genre is a tool. It's no wonder games have been saddled with a pair of them since, like it or not, "interactivity is the one element that most separates gaming from other forms of media". An RTS is not an FPS, and neither is an RPG. You could do a war tale in each one of them, but it still wouldn't be the same game or story no matter how hard you try. That's not a bad thing, but it's a good solid argument for coming up with your story, then chosing a genre.
We're friendly that way!
Genre is a problem, of course, but it's also a tool. It's worth noting that the problems you're describing with genre exist in other media too. Sure, it sucks that every MMOG brings in looting, but how often have you heard or read of a fantasy dwarf with a Scottish accent? Exact same issue: Convention becomes so strong it's hard to escape it. This is far from a unique problem with games, it's a problem with genre.
But you know what? We keep using genre. Why? Because it's a great tool for a number of reasons. On a marketing level, it creates a built-in fanbase. On a creative level it provides a useful starting point and creates limits that allow the creator to consider the creative space his work will employ. On an artistic level... OK, there? Genre kind of sucks. But even there, good genre works will find ways to either deconstruct or subvert the genre.
As an example, Far Cry 2 is as solidly a shooter as you'll ever find; but it won considerable creative acclaim (as well as a lot of critical distaste) because of the way it subverted the shooter genre; missions were designed in counterpoint to your story rather than to support it, thus leading to a logical conclusion when, while suffering hideously from malaria, you destroy whole stockpiles of the very medication that could save you. The message that war is irrational, violence meaningless was supported. This is solidly supported with The Escapist's experiential leanings, but it's not a lesser game because it exists wholly within one genre.
For another example, consider the works of Fumito Ueda. Ico was, at its heart, nothing but a puzzle platformer. But y'know what? It took that genre and broke it down to its pure core. Nothing extraneous. No HUD. A solid logic for the basic 'find a path' gameplay logic. It found its emotional core in the AI that created the relationship between Ico and Yorda. And it was magnificent. Shadow of the Colossus, while engaging in a bit more genre-bending, was similar; it really was at its heart an action-adventure game not dissimilar from Zelda. Sure, it stripped Zelda down a lot, and mixed it up with a light-puzzle boss fight mechanic, but it's hardly suis generis. And it was the absolute standout favorite example for people trying to defend the idea of "gaming as art" to Roger Ebert -- for a reason.
As an opposing example, my favorite whipping boy, Farenheit. (I suspect Heavy Rain will kick in when I finally play it.) It's genuinely suis generis, with few games really like it in any way, shape, or form. And y'know what? It's a goddamn mess. Instead of using well understood, appropriate and familiar mechanics to, say, have the player escape a parking lot unscathed during an assassination attempt, it shoe-horned in a whole new set of mechanics that undermined the player's authority and distanced them from the action. It was awful.
Genre is a tool. It's no wonder games have been saddled with a pair of them since, like it or not, "interactivity is the one element that most separates gaming from other forms of media". An RTS is not an FPS, and neither is an RPG. You could do a war tale in each one of them, but it still wouldn't be the same game or story no matter how hard you try. That's not a bad thing, but it's a good solid argument for coming up with your story, then chosing a genre.
I am inclined to agree with you Mr.Butts. For example, Bioshock's mechanics got in the way of the message for me. I couldn't stop thinking "How did everything get so horrible in Rapture when they have technology that can bestow superpowers and resurrect the dead?"
Nice analysis, Steve! Good opener for sure.
I might respond by suggesting that genre, as it has evolved in the game industry, is a hybrid of both "content" and "mechanics", such that when you give a genre, you are saying something in some way has enough touch points in both areas to qualify.
To use an analogy, to say that someone is a "gamer" says something about what he does for fun (play games) but carries with it other suggestions as well (not just any games, but particular types of games, played in certain ways, in the context of a certain lifestyle).
To say that a game is a "wargame", for instance, suggests that it is both a strategy game (a game that is largely decided by the thoughtful, strategic decisions of its player, rather than his reflexes, muscle memory, singing skill, etc.) and also a game about the experience or narrative of war. A strategy game about business (such as Capitalism Plus) is in the different "genre" of "simulation" even if the underlying game mechanics are identical to a wargame.
Unfortunately this results in the "checklist design" that you (rightly) complain about, because to fit into a particular genre you have to check off a list of content and mechanical decisions that really have nothing to do with each other.
I might respond by suggesting that genre, as it has evolved in the game industry, is a hybrid of both "content" and "mechanics", such that when you give a genre, you are saying something in some way has enough touch points in both areas to qualify.
To use an analogy, to say that someone is a "gamer" says something about what he does for fun (play games) but carries with it other suggestions as well (not just any games, but particular types of games, played in certain ways, in the context of a certain lifestyle).
To say that a game is a "wargame", for instance, suggests that it is both a strategy game (a game that is largely decided by the thoughtful, strategic decisions of its player, rather than his reflexes, muscle memory, singing skill, etc.) and also a game about the experience or narrative of war. A strategy game about business (such as Capitalism Plus) is in the different "genre" of "simulation" even if the underlying game mechanics are identical to a wargame.
Unfortunately this results in the "checklist design" that you (rightly) complain about, because to fit into a particular genre you have to check off a list of content and mechanical decisions that really have nothing to do with each other.
I agree with what you are saying mustachioed new gent but the big problem is we're not the ones who need to get this idea. Reviewers, developers and whoever else that slaps on the labels need to also justify time, or even apply several labels and explain why they are all on there.
Then again we could call this an extension (sort of) of the "What is Art?" question. What IS a game? Why isn't it a Real-time first person shooter?.. maybe it's not the labels but the number of labels without unified context.
Then again we could call this an extension (sort of) of the "What is Art?" question. What IS a game? Why isn't it a Real-time first person shooter?.. maybe it's not the labels but the number of labels without unified context.