Well, actually, y'know what?. If you pick Civ apart, you'll see it bears a lot of resemblance to a turn based RPG, albeit a slightly special one. You start with a small character(city), and you must make decisions on how to build up that character. You can add new characters to your party, and you'll have to manage the synergy between your characters. You'll meet other parties too, and you must either crush them in battle or forge alliances with them, and win through other means, like attaining a specific level first, or constructing a specific artifact.JEBWrench said:Fans of Civilization are now wondering why their favourite game is now an RPG according to yonder wheel.
Very well designed. Kudos to you all.Russ Pitts said:Introducing The Escapist's Genre Wheel
The Escapist breaks games down to their basics and devises a genre classification system that covers all (ok, almost all) of the bases.
Read Full Article
Yes, the idea is not that games only exist on the outer edge of the wheel. That's just where the distinctions are most easily quantified. It's true that there are shades of difference in the various hybrids, but the AS axis isn't necessarily meant to be more meaningful, but it does address the "how" of games, while the CE axis merely addresses the "what." I considered the usefulness of an ASCE category, but ultimately, I felt it was a cop-out. If the point is to say games trend towards one of the four points of compass here (either A,S,C, or E), then saying that a game is a perfect blend of them all makes the whole point of classification moot.coolguy5678 said:The issue with forcing games to occupy points on the edge of a circle is that in order to make the A/S distinction more extreme, you are forced to make the E/C distinction less so, and vice versa. For example, this makes the Action RPG impossible to classify. Allowing games to occupy any point on a "genre plane" would make the system more expressive (albeit more complicated). Perhaps a simpler alternative would be to keep the 8 categories, but also add "ASCE" which resides in the centre of the wheel.
(I'm also not sure why you put music games where you did. Take Guitar Hero - ignoring Star Power, it's entirely devoid of strategy. The game literally tells you what the optimum set of input is.)
That said, I definitely agree that classifying games based on external form is far too simplistic and not particularly useful.
Also, I foresee a lot of resistance from people that see games as being "cross-genre" examples. Again, it's going to come back to a differing belief in what defines genre.Russ Pitts said:Introducing The Escapist's Genre Wheel
The Escapist breaks games down to their basics and devises a genre classification system that covers all (ok, almost all) of the bases.
Read Full Article
I think this kind of problem demands that we be very specific about what we mean by "RPG elements." If we simply mean playing the role of a character in a story, that's hardly a major change in how the character engages the gameplay. The story, sure, but not the gameplay itself.Steve Butts said:Yes, the idea is not that games only exist on the outer edge of the wheel. That's just where the distinctions are most easily quantified. It's true that there are shades of difference in the various hybrids, but the AS axis isn't necessarily meant to be more meaningful, but it does address the "how" of games, while the CE axis merely addresses the "what." I considered the usefulness of an ASCE category, but ultimately, I felt it was a cop-out. If the point is to say games trend towards one of the four points of compass here (either A,S,C, or E), then saying that a game is a perfect blend of them all makes the whole point of classification moot.coolguy5678 said:The issue with forcing games to occupy points on the edge of a circle is that in order to make the A/S distinction more extreme, you are forced to make the E/C distinction less so, and vice versa. For example, this makes the Action RPG impossible to classify. Allowing games to occupy any point on a "genre plane" would make the system more expressive (albeit more complicated). Perhaps a simpler alternative would be to keep the 8 categories, but also add "ASCE" which resides in the centre of the wheel.
(I'm also not sure why you put music games where you did. Take Guitar Hero - ignoring Star Power, it's entirely devoid of strategy. The game literally tells you what the optimum set of input is.)
That said, I definitely agree that classifying games based on external form is far too simplistic and not particularly useful.
To your point about action-RPGs, that was one of the trickier genres to incorporate. We eventually just decided that, while those games exist along the seam between conflict and exploration, you could clearly tell in nearly every case whether a game was action (reflex-based) or strategy (stat-based). For instance, Diablo and Fallout 3 seem more like RPGs to me, while Borderlands and BioShock are more like shooters. Again, this is not to say shooters and RPGs aren't mixing together in interesting ways, but I think it's usually clear whether a game is a shooter with RPG elements or an RPG with shooter elements.
As far as music games go, I think you must have just misread things. The wheel classes them as action/exploration. In this case, the exploration is not the dimension of space, but the dimension of time.
The scheme we've got here is neutral with regard to the presentation elements you mentioned. Story and setting provide important context but are not, by definition, types of gameplay, which is what this chart hopes to define.dastardly said:I think this kind of problem demands that we be very specific about what we mean by "RPG elements." If we simply mean playing the role of a character in a story, that's hardly a major change in how the character engages the gameplay. The story, sure, but not the gameplay itself.