283: Introducing The Escapist's Genre Wheel

[Russ Pitts]

> I think that your wheel, though it includes "RPG," actually acts to move us away from the use of RPG as a genre. And I don't think that's a bad thing at all.

I'd personally be happier if it wasn't there. People don't tend to think and just take stuff as gospel. Sad but true.

Well, as the article itself states, the primary intent behind this chart wasn't to outline a comprehensive philosophy of video game classification; it's to serve as an aid for evaluating and buying the games you like. So they're sticking with the genre definitions that have been codified by the culture, the developers, the journalists and most importantly, the marketers and retailers. This wouldn't be a useful purchasing aid if they came up with a more accurate term for "RPG" but marketers still slap the term RPG all over the box.

From a philosophical perspective, though, I'd probably agree with you guys.

Indeed. That is exactly why we went with established genres like RPG rather than defining entirely new (perhaps more accurate) labels ourselves. There is a time and a place for innovation and contrarianism, to be sure. We did debate the issue internally and decided, however, that this was not one of them.

Although I suspect this argument will be lost on someone unwilling to conform to commonly-accepted forum styles and standards.

 

[Jaker the Baker]

Curse my color blindness!

 

[PlasticTree]

I'm too tired to make the detailed, content-based response that this idea deserves, but I wanted to let you guys know that I think it's a great initiave, even if there are quite some things about it that are probably wrong or at least open to discussion. Great job, this is the kind of stuff why I like this website. Keep up the good work.

 

[Steve Butts]

I like the idea overall. I do admit to having never heard of the term "Grand Strategy". Can someone provide me some examples? I am kind of assuming that is where a lot of the importing of board games to video games are going to wind up. IE Settlers of Catan, Carcasonne, and a lot of the German board games that focus primarily on strategy.

Grand Strategy is a term we stole from B.H. Liddel-Hart. It's basically a strategy game where players have access to more than just the military might of their faction. Games that include elements of economics, diplomacy, politics, and science are included here. The important thing is that the player is in charge of the policies of his or her side, which impact the potential for success.

Games like Civilization, Europa Universalis, Total War, etc. are considered Grand Strategy.

 

[copycatalyst]

Aha! There is a point to be made with regard to the way the "rest of the world" uses the word "genre." When I tell non-gamers I like war games, they think Call of Duty and Halo simply because those are games "about war." I think subject matter is too subjective to find a consistent taxonomy outside of "fiction vs. non-fiction" but it is an important consideration. Now that we've got this thing out, we may turn out attention to the question of genre as a way of talking about subject matter.

Yeah, this wheel idea made me recall your column on the matter. Games are not alone with this issue of using the same word to refer to a style classification and a subject classification. "War movies" could be lumped together as a genre, but of course an action movie set during a war, a drama set during a war, a comedy set during a war, and a war documentary are all offering very different things to the viewer.

 

[beefpelican]

This got me thinking, why don't you guys ever review any grand-strategy titles?

They did Civ 5 and the new Shogun. Were there other biggies you thought went unnoticed?

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

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.

Someone might say, "Well, this FPS has RPG elements, so where is it on your circle?" But we've got to make sure to differentiate "RPG elements" from "Plays like an RPG." Having a branching tree of selectable upgrades earned through experience doesn't change the fundamental mode of gameplay. It simply gives the game a miniscule shift around toward "strategy."

The game's mechanics aren't the primary concern. Genre should be (and, in your chart, is) defined by what is expected of the player. The ways the game provides for the player to interact with the world (action/strategy), and the reasons the player is asked to interact (indirect/direct conflict) set the principle genre. Other game mechanics (like these nebulous "rpg elements" or other bastardizations of terminology) are simply seasoning that lightly shifts the flavor of the entrée in one direction or another. Not defining features.

So, when faced with a "cross-genre" game, simply ask players to define the game in terms of what the player is expected to do the majority of the time. One will always rise to the surface as the clear winner.

Even if this isn't the case they're still good. Imagine a grand strategy game like Civilization that also turned into an RTS or even a brawler every time you attacked a city. A reviewer could very easily say that the game had portions that were Grand Strategy and portions that were RTS or brawler and still be very accurate, because the article never said they would try to sort a game into one and only one category.

On an unrelated note, I think I can now define Shadow of the Colossus as an Adventure-Sports game. I am strangely comfortable with this.

 

[Steve Butts]

Yeah, this wheel idea made me recall your column on the matter. Games are not alone with this issue of using the same word to refer to a style classification and a subject classification. "War movies" could be lumped together as a genre, but of course an action movie set during a war, a drama set during a war, a comedy set during a war, and a war documentary are all offering very different things to the viewer.

I'm flattered you remembered that one.

As I said in that article, there are some other forms of media where the "how" takes precedence over the "what" in terms of categorization. The video store, for instance, has shelves for animation and documentary, while the book store has shelves for biography and reference. None of these say anything about the subject matter, but we still feel they're compelling ways to differentiate content.

 

[Mullahgrrl]

This got me thinking, why don't you guys ever review any grand-strategy titles?

They did Civ 5 and the new Shogun. Were there other biggies you thought went unnoticed?

Yeah, all the paradox titles.

Civ and total war are grand strategy posers (gsp) in comparison.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

I wanna see Yahtzee's opinion on this wheel.
OT: That is a very good and comprehensive system, even though many games will still fall straight through the cracks (spokes?) of that thing (I'm looking at Mass Effect, btw)

one slight gripe though: since when do driving games have exploration OR conflict? i mean a few of them DO have open worlds; but those are little more than excuses to muck about in freedom. And few racing games have any real "conflict" (and those are called Vehicular action games, like twisted metal, which aren't "racers" par's e).

Instead (arcade/sim) driving games seem, to me, 'pure' action games. And for this reason, i think you guys should include two more categories, inside, the 'action' and 'strategy' boxes respectively.

Pure action games: Racing games and (many) Platformers (that have no E/C like "Doodle jump or simple platformers like that)

Pure Strategy: (many) Puzzle games (like Bejeweled or Angry birds)

(optional) All in the Bag/Deluxe Combo Pack: Right in the centre of the wheel (ACSE) just because I'm a hard core Mass Effect fan.

 

[Dastardly]

Even if this isn't the case they're still good. Imagine a grand strategy game like Civilization that also turned into an RTS or even a brawler every time you attacked a city. A reviewer could very easily say that the game had portions that were Grand Strategy and portions that were RTS or brawler and still be very accurate, because the article never said they would try to sort a game into one and only one category.

On an unrelated note, I think I can now define Shadow of the Colossus as an Adventure-Sports game. I am strangely comfortable with this.

But if it did, would that really make Civ a "brawler"? Would the "brawler elements" be worth assigning the label to the game? See, the question we're getting into here isn't whether or not you could assign a particular label to part of a game, but rather whether or not you should.

One of the topics covered in the "Breaking the Genre Contract" article deals with the expectations that come with what you put on a product's label. If you deem the "brawler elements" enough to mention it in the marketing, you're telling potential players that these elements constitute a significant part of the game--so much so that fans of brawlers would have enough reason to buy, play, and enjoy this game.

It would be one thing to mention the inclusion of subgames on the box. It would be another thing to behave as though the game is cross-genre. That's the distinction that I think is important, because I think too many of us are too willing to assign that label to our personal favorites. Look through this thread, and find how many people think games like Fallout 3 or WoW represent all styles of gameplay, when it's obvious that one or two styles dominate the landscape.

Genre headings aren't trophies. A game isn't necessarily "better" the more genre headings it can collect. And there are plenty of games that grow beyond the normal confines of their own genre, but those games don't necessarily branch into other genres. We sometimes behave as though we can claim our favored game is better by attributing other genre headings to it like badges or ribbons, but it's just not the case. Mislabeling a game with extra genre tags is apt to lead to unrealistic (and thus unmet) expectations.

When assigning a genre heading/label to a game, the priority isn't whether or not a particular label is possible, but rather it is useful in providing clear information to potential players.

Decide if the game is truly laid across multiple genres, or if the "extras" are just side items... or even just seasoning.

 

[742]

so if your using two axis of whatsit (i would add a Z axis for narrative/atmospheric VS social but then it would be kinda incomprehensible until viewing webpages in 3D becomes standard) why use a wheel instead of a more traditional grid and a shape instead of a single point and possibly distance from the middle indicating depth*? it seems like it would be more informative and more shiny for games designed to work with multiple playstyles taking up more graph space. possibly with only the axis defined without including any numbers so it isnt taken as a qualitative judgement. people could come to the same sort of conclusion, but more defined "i tend to like games taking up at least this general area". it would also be a great excuse for you to draw all day instead of writing reviews no matter how poor your art skills, which you may or may not consider a good thing depending on exactly how managerial your role is. sorry for language failure but late.

*so something close to the middle would indicate a game anyone could pick up and play without thinking; something like tetris, a game that looks like a spike heading towards the middle would be a game with some more complex mechanics that grow on you over time but is still pretty accessible like SSB:melee and a game with a blip near the edge might indicate the need for at least a specialized degree to be even the slightest bit comprehensible like a late 80s/early 90s RPG or superhuman reflexes like most NES games.

also it should have a cat on it; no wheel or rating system is complete without a cat.

 

[twm1709]

This is a bold attempt at game genre defining but there will always be some counter-example to crack it.
Case in point, Demon's souls. It's mostly action oriented but anyone who has played knows the great deal of planning ahead and strategy it involves, especially in boss battles. It's extremely heavy on RPG elements. In fact, the only non-rpg thing about it is the combat, so you might as well use the old label "action RPG" to classify it.
How about games like Bejeweled? It's a family-puzzle game yet it doesn't involve exploration at all.
This chart offers a too Black and white approach I'm not sure I agree with.

 

[econael]

So I need to disagree with some of your placements. I can't see how Plants vs Zombies has any real exploration elements. I could see how someone might consider the zombies to be "surviving the environment" but is that really exploration or is it simply just conflict?

PvZ should be even more to the left of the chart!
You're seldom actively in conflict with the zombies, mostly you're focusing on placing the plants, battling with lack of space, fog, barren terrain and the *type* of zombies, but rarely single zombies. They're mostly stacked up on each other and you don't pay much attention to them, except if it's a giant and you have to place bombs to kill him, that would be a direct conflict part.

Also I contest your placement of Diablo 2. We call it an action-RPG because back in the day, it was one of the first RPGs to let you walk around and hit things in real time but if you analyze the gameplay, It is mostly all your stats. You move and you click a lot, occasionally hitting other buttons to fire off different more complicated abilities. In otherwirds you have a mostly indirect influence on what is happening on the screen. Diablo is also all about looking around enviroments and finding loot. Classic exploration. Conflict is where things are a little iffy in my opinion. For the most part all the creatures you find in diablo aren't really in anyway similar to you. They're all "trash" mobs that are pretty much apart of the background and environment. Only a few of the bosses, Diablo in particular, stand out as something that you go toe to toe against, which is why I say it straddles the SE/SCE line. Which would ironically place it more as Adventure or RPG than the ususal "Action-RPG" we call it.

Are you kidding/trolling me?

Not having enough real conflict is what most of the Diablo2 clones do wrong.
In D2, you can escape the trajectory of missiles, so can the enemies. Position is imperative. Flash-like reflexes are also.

Trash mobs... Have you been in hell? Hardcore + hell?
Of course when you're 99 and all geared up, most mobs are trash, but on the way to there, there are enough things which can easily kill you in a second or two if you're not paying attention.

Btw, since when do enemies need to be as strong as you? Then you wouldn't be able to kill hordes of them, now where's the fun in that =)

Bosses being toe-to-toe with you? Wtf? They are insanely imba (Duriel) or can 2 hit you (Mephisto, Diablo) if you're not careful and cheese them.

Don't take it personal if it's not true, but you sound like you haven't played much of D2.

Do you know what an Adventure is? Monkey Island. That's an Adventure. Not D2.

 

[Thespian]

Do you know what an Adventure is? Monkey Island. That's an Adventure. Not D2.

That's true, he's right here. People seem to confuse it with "Action/Adventure"

 

[Zamn]

Trying to come up with a better way to categorise games is a noble endeavor (I think I just love categorising things). I'm not sure if you've quite pulled it off though. It fails the intuition test for me. Some genres that are meant to go together (like music and platforming) don't really feel similar to me even though I can see at an intellectual level what they have in common.

The genre wheel suggests I should like survival horror because I like music games and platformers, but I don't because I don't like horror in general. I also like shooters but not fighters for reasons I can't quite put my finger on. I have friends who love action adventure but hate driving. I'm not sure if the categories really feel right on close examination.

I think for a lot of games like music games or horror games, to ignore the content is to miss the point. I think this objection generalises to some extent to almost all games. I'm not sure that categorising games by their fundamental mechanics rather than their content really is a better way of doing it. Even if it were, I don't think you've quite managed to create a convincing system for categorising games that way.

Good effort, well worth doing, but no dice for me I'm afraid.

 

[GeorgW]

I really like this wheel. Sure, with continually blending genres it needs a centre option with ACSE, but I understand your explanation for excusing it. Also, where do bejeweled and other such simple games place here? Seems like it would be S only, or maybe even SA, neither of which exist on your wheel.

 

[beefpelican]

But if it did, would that really make Civ a "brawler"? Would the "brawler elements" be worth assigning the label to the game? See, the question we're getting into here isn't whether or not you could assign a particular label to part of a game, but rather whether or not you should.

One of the topics covered in the "Breaking the Genre Contract" article deals with the expectations that come with what you put on a product's label. If you deem the "brawler elements" enough to mention it in the marketing, you're telling potential players that these elements constitute a significant part of the game--so much so that fans of brawlers would have enough reason to buy, play, and enjoy this game.

It would be one thing to mention the inclusion of subgames on the box. It would be another thing to behave as though the game is cross-genre. That's the distinction that I think is important, because I think too many of us are too willing to assign that label to our personal favorites. Look through this thread, and find how many people think games like Fallout 3 or WoW represent all styles of gameplay, when it's obvious that one or two styles dominate the landscape.

Genre headings aren't trophies. A game isn't necessarily "better" the more genre headings it can collect. And there are plenty of games that grow beyond the normal confines of their own genre, but those games don't necessarily branch into other genres. We sometimes behave as though we can claim our favored game is better by attributing other genre headings to it like badges or ribbons, but it's just not the case. Mislabeling a game with extra genre tags is apt to lead to unrealistic (and thus unmet) expectations.

When assigning a genre heading/label to a game, the priority isn't whether or not a particular label is possible, but rather it is useful in providing clear information to potential players.

Decide if the game is truly laid across multiple genres, or if the "extras" are just side items... or even just seasoning.

I agree that people (including myself) tend to see the games they like as truly well rounded and multidimensional, but in that case, what constitutes a cross genre game? I mean that in terms of both the characteristics of such a game and actual examples of cross genre games. Or do they not exist?

 

[Dastardly]

I agree that people (including myself) tend to see the games they like as truly well rounded and multidimensional, but in that case, what constitutes a cross genre game? I mean that in terms of both the characteristics of such a game and actual examples of cross genre games. Or do they not exist?

I really think in order to be a true cross-genre game, in terms of this wheel, you just need to decide whether each particular style represents a significant portion of the game. This is as opposed to games with supposed "rpg elements," which usually just means a menu of skills that provide slight bonuses.

It's hard to pull off because each of the dimensions of this wheel are composed of two essentially opposite styles of play. That means it's harder to work in two styles that are truly on different sides of the wheel. I mean, if the two genres were similar enough to be on the same side, it would simply just be a separate genre in between the two.

Action/Strategy: This has to do with whether the gameplay is immediate (in terms of timing and proximity to your character) or more distant (giving you more time to think, or less direct ties to your character). It's hard to have both types of gameplay in the same game, because splitting a game between the two of these 50/50 would make the game feel all-over-the-map.

Conflict/Environment: Whether the opposition is direct (in the form of enemies) or indirect (in the form of competition or the environment). It's easier to blur boundaries along this axis, but even then, including the "conflict" side at all will tend to dominate the player's perception of the opposition. Enemies are more threatening than holes in the ground.

Looking into it, I think the proper question is so much whether it's possible to have a cross-genre game, but rather whether it's worth the effort to create on that doesn't feel like one shoe and one glove, rather than a pair of either.

 

[bolastristes]

Who the hell buys a game for It´s genre!? : fanboys and casual gamers.

Personally, don´t give a damn about genres, for me It´s just good games and bad games.

I honestly don´t see a real point of this article.

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?
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!

Gee, I don´t know, really, I read all kind of books, I watch all kind of movies, I play all kind of games and I listen to all kind of music. I love Buñuel, I love John Woo, I love Hitchcock and I love Leone, I love Iron Maiden, I love Ella Fitzgerald, I love Public Enemy and I love Johnny Cash, I love Borges, I love Bolaño, I love Neruda and I love H.P Lovecraft, I love Silent Hill, I love Final fantasy, I love The King of the fighters and I love Zelda... I can see WHY there are genres, I know genres, I know how to identify them. Of course that we prefer some genres over others, but that´s got nothing to do with the genre itself.
I just didn´t liked the approach of the article.

¨And yet, when it comes right down to it, our brand of games journalism is largely aimed at helping you decide how to spend your hard-earned money. Our approach to reviews is, after all, not based on some self-indulgent "games are art" philosophy; it's based on helping you decide what to buy.¨

What´s this?, for me, this is offensive, what am I?, a kid?, I mean, at first I thought this was supposed to be funny, I was expecting a punchline, but Mr Pitts was actually serious.

Anyway, ¨sorry to post my personal opinion¨.