Although I admit I haven't given too much thought to your statement quite yet, I would personally consider the different phases your creature/civilization ends up going through as different genres in and of themselves.Jabberwock xeno said:
283: Introducing The Escapist's Genre Wheel
- Thread starter Russ Pitts
- Start date
I don't see the issue with Action RPGs. Action RPGs are hybrids of Action-Adventure Games and RPGs and would logically sit in between the two, in the middle of the circle. Yes, that means they include Action, Strategy, Conflict, and Exploration. But is that not true? They are among the deepest types of games made.
It's no different than how Neutral sits in the middle of the Alignment wheel because it has elements of all other alignments. >
It's no different than how Neutral sits in the middle of the Alignment wheel because it has elements of all other alignments. >
Hmm. That does seem like an effective form of classification - dual axis classifications, like the classic good/evil lawful/chaotic axes, are always very flexible, and almost anything can be divided relatively easily into the two sets of opposing characteristics like that.
The biggest problem, as has been discussed above, is the "Action RPG". You can easily see the issue just by looking at the wheel - action is on the opposite side from RPG. I see your point in that most of the time you can tell whether it's more action or more strategy by whether it is stat or skill based, but there's one problem with that - it only takes into account the conflict portion. What about the exploration portion? In all of these games, exploration, of the story and the world itself, is strategy based, not action based like a platformer.
In short, in the RPG you have the conflict, easily divided through mechanics into action or strategy, but you also have the exploration, which is almost always strategy.
Thus, the typical action RPG, like Bethesda's open worlds or Mass Effect, ends up evenly balanced again.
The biggest problem, as has been discussed above, is the "Action RPG". You can easily see the issue just by looking at the wheel - action is on the opposite side from RPG. I see your point in that most of the time you can tell whether it's more action or more strategy by whether it is stat or skill based, but there's one problem with that - it only takes into account the conflict portion. What about the exploration portion? In all of these games, exploration, of the story and the world itself, is strategy based, not action based like a platformer.
In short, in the RPG you have the conflict, easily divided through mechanics into action or strategy, but you also have the exploration, which is almost always strategy.
Thus, the typical action RPG, like Bethesda's open worlds or Mass Effect, ends up evenly balanced again.
This seems big, like, " Honey, do you know what a 'Toaster' is? Well they just invented it and I bought one. Now you don't have to put the bread in a frying pan to make TOAST!!!"
If you've ever spent 3 months making toast out of your frying pan than my analogy might hit you harder.
Anyway, I think this wheel is genius! Russ, Butts, you guys better get a copywrite on this pretty quick. This might end up on the cover of every game in the future just so pll purchasing games can make an informed decision, it might be the next PMRC....except this is a much more positive thing and wouldnt apply to music.
If you've ever spent 3 months making toast out of your frying pan than my analogy might hit you harder.
Anyway, I think this wheel is genius! Russ, Butts, you guys better get a copywrite on this pretty quick. This might end up on the cover of every game in the future just so pll purchasing games can make an informed decision, it might be the next PMRC....except this is a much more positive thing and wouldnt apply to music.
To tactics and strategy I would add logistics (management of resources), but overall it's a very thought-provoking list.
I wonder if someone could explain how racing/driving games fit into this chart. A racing game is certainly tactical, not very strategic, not very logistical. Does it have anything to do with exploration or conflict? Make a racing game abstract, and it's about optimizing performance to reach a goal before your opponent. Direct conflict is optional, exploration is optional. Do we need another category for racing games?
I wonder if someone could explain how racing/driving games fit into this chart. A racing game is certainly tactical, not very strategic, not very logistical. Does it have anything to do with exploration or conflict? Make a racing game abstract, and it's about optimizing performance to reach a goal before your opponent. Direct conflict is optional, exploration is optional. Do we need another category for racing games?
Well I think the biggest problem remains the same, that people perceive games differently so we're still going to get people who will claim that one game fits into one category and someone else another. I mean a game like the Sims... does it really belong in a category with a bunch of other games tharen't anything like it. Is Spore or Sims similar... because I don't think they are but what else is close to Sims... maybe something like Kudos yet Kudos doesn't play like Sims even if the subject matter is similar.aldowyn said:
Oh wow. The Escpapist doesn't half-ass anything, does it? I mean... holy shit. That's a college thesis right there.
I don't know how this will help review games at all, but it surely is damn interesting.
Looking at the chart it looks I like exploration a lot, only disliking it when it strays too far. I like all genres except for the ones in the rightmost edge.
Except music games. Weird huh?
I don't know how this will help review games at all, but it surely is damn interesting.
Looking at the chart it looks I like exploration a lot, only disliking it when it strays too far. I like all genres except for the ones in the rightmost edge.
Except music games. Weird huh?
> Oh wow. The Escpapist doesn't half-ass anything, does it? I mean... holy shit. That's a college thesis right there.
*yay* for encouraging more mind-forged manacles. :/
IMHO, the model is well-intended but informed by a particular observational stance (the overarching production domain of computer games, it would appear) and thus is skewed from the bigger picture.
In /that/ context the fundamental elements should not be action/strategy (continuum not binary) but physical/cultural. i.e. totally "crunch-neutral" until a production domain is applied, whether that be a particular computer game, pen-and-paper D&D, a particular LARP, or whatever.
02c, anyhow, but informed by RCT.
*yay* for encouraging more mind-forged manacles. :/
IMHO, the model is well-intended but informed by a particular observational stance (the overarching production domain of computer games, it would appear) and thus is skewed from the bigger picture.
In /that/ context the fundamental elements should not be action/strategy (continuum not binary) but physical/cultural. i.e. totally "crunch-neutral" until a production domain is applied, whether that be a particular computer game, pen-and-paper D&D, a particular LARP, or whatever.
02c, anyhow, but informed by RCT.
This seems to describe play experiences more than anything. A game can have both Strategy AND Action. And I don't mean like an RTS that has them melded together, but rather that they can be modal. For example Recettear that has a clear strategy game based around buying and selling, and then a second part that is all about action adventure through dungeons. Depending on which part of the game you are playing, it is on a different part of the wheel at different times in the game.Russ Pitts said:
Ultimately, also, a game can contain elements from even the most obviously opposite sides of your wheel. Left 4 Dead played with coop is much more about exploration gameplay, where you and your mates simply exist to survive. Played in Versus mode, it is a cut throat game about conflict.
I'm not saying you haven't done a good job identifying game styles, but I don't think Genre is really the right word for it.
Uh... no. Yes, there's good games and there's bad games. But genre matters. Some people just don't like certain types of genres(like Yahtzee with RTS games), and may just like other ones better. I'm more interested in platforming games than, say, simulation games, and more in music games, than, say fighters. Anyways, that statement's like saying, "Who the hell buys a book for it's genre?" or "Who the hell watches a movie for it's genre?". I could post a very long paragraph on that statement, explaining why that statement's false, but I don't really have the time because of finals and studying. But here's a question: If you felt tired, and depressed, what kind of music would you want to listen to?bolastristes said:
It's fine if you don't care about genres, but I'm willing to bet many other gamers out there do.
I like this wheel, but I agree with Dastardly about how 'Exploration' and 'Conflict' should be changed to 'Direct' and 'Indirect'. The example with racing games makes sense.
Also, I can see the point for a 'center' section, "ASCE", but that section might also get overused. On the other hand, it'd be great for hard-to-classify games. The way I see it, the concept is there, and it's solid. It just needs some tweaks. I'm not sure if this idea will catch on, but it'd be awesome if it does!
> Whoa... this is like Carl Jung's typology wheel... for video games.
Where in the article does it state that this is intended just for VIDEO/COMPUTER games? Apologies if I missed this, but I can't see any such statement...
The implication (by default unless explicitly stated otherwise within the article contents) is that this is intended to be all inclusive.
The actual location of each item on the wheel is presumably by an /averaging/ process for pre-conceived genres within a particular production domain (that of video games, it would appear) rather than a representation of innate content. A position on a wheel thus is /not/ genre, but an indication of "average" genre appearance.
Where in the article does it state that this is intended just for VIDEO/COMPUTER games? Apologies if I missed this, but I can't see any such statement...
The implication (by default unless explicitly stated otherwise within the article contents) is that this is intended to be all inclusive.
The actual location of each item on the wheel is presumably by an /averaging/ process for pre-conceived genres within a particular production domain (that of video games, it would appear) rather than a representation of innate content. A position on a wheel thus is /not/ genre, but an indication of "average" genre appearance.
Noticed you must be new to the forums. Welcome! Check out this page [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/markup_help.php] for forum markup tags and whatnot. If you use the "quote" tags, it will send a message to the person you're quoting and they'll be more likely to respond. Anyway, enjoy!irbyz said:
I like this. It seems like a great way to help organize our thoughts when talking about genre. It may not be perfect and there may be a lot of games out there that would float vaguely in the middle of this wheel, but it's a starting point, a point of reference. An anchor, y'know? I'll refer to this later and see how it sizes up.
> rsvp42 wrote:
> Noticed you must be new to the forums. Welcome!
*g* Nope, I joined before you did: just haven't posted as much. Many thanks for the welcome, nonetheless!
Genre requires rather more *fundamental* building blocks that those suggested here; which are also skewed/informed by a particular domain of games (computer-based, it would seem).
Where do "progression achievements" fall into this model, for example? i.e. "Playing" a driving simulation purely because it is a simulation is not the same as "playing" a game that has progression achievements (wherever and whatever those may be) that has a driving simulation "built into it".
> Noticed you must be new to the forums. Welcome!
*g* Nope, I joined before you did: just haven't posted as much. Many thanks for the welcome, nonetheless!
Genre requires rather more *fundamental* building blocks that those suggested here; which are also skewed/informed by a particular domain of games (computer-based, it would seem).
Where do "progression achievements" fall into this model, for example? i.e. "Playing" a driving simulation purely because it is a simulation is not the same as "playing" a game that has progression achievements (wherever and whatever those may be) that has a driving simulation "built into it".
I love this classification scheme not only because it makes sense, but because it allows me to easily classify one of my favorite games of this generation - Arkham Asylum! In my mind, AA is clearly an action game, and is equal parts conflict and exploration (I loved exploring and using new upgrades ro find more riddler trophies, etc). So I believe this game would sit right at the tippy top of the wheel. I suppose the argument could be made that the game is more combat than exploration, but now deciding the genre is a matter of thinking about the game rather than thinking about what labels we have best.
EDIT: This chart also confirms what I sort of already figured out about myself: I'm more of an action game fan. Most of the games I enjoy most - shooters, music games, ...Arkham Asylum all are in the same sphere. Sports is about as far out as I go towards strategy, with the exception of oldschool JRPGs which I enjoy once in a blue moon.
Very interesting, very well done. I hope you guys link to this article/chart in all your upcoming reviews.
EDIT: This chart also confirms what I sort of already figured out about myself: I'm more of an action game fan. Most of the games I enjoy most - shooters, music games, ...Arkham Asylum all are in the same sphere. Sports is about as far out as I go towards strategy, with the exception of oldschool JRPGs which I enjoy once in a blue moon.
Very interesting, very well done. I hope you guys link to this article/chart in all your upcoming reviews.
I still don't understand your objection. This is intended to be a taxonomy for computer games. To your complaint that it is skewed towards those games, I say, "Yes!"irbyz said:
As far as "progression achievements," the chart is not intended to answer the motivation for playing, but rather the method and format for playing. Since people play games for different reasons, achievements aren't relevant. Maybe I just misunderstand your point. Can you give me an example of a driving game that is more about progression achievement than it is about driving?