If things had been different, would things be different?

[random_bars]

This is something I was thinking about earlier: the game genres we have established. Although they may seem like the norm to us, it's pretty obvious if you think about it that they didn't have to develop and end up this way. It's all based on what games were made, what games became popular, and what mechanics they used that ended up getting repeated and reused so freqently that they were categorized into specific genres. So if different games had been made back in the day, with different mechanics that worked in different ways, and they'd become incredibly popular bestsellers instead, the game genres we have today would have been radically different.

For example, if Dune 2 hadn't been made, or hadn't had its mechanics designed in the way that they were, or hadn't become so popular and frequently emulated, the RTS genre wouldn't have developed into what it is today. I'm sure some kind of strategy genre would exist, but it's unlikely it would have the exact same concepts of buildings that can make unlimited amounts of units, click-and-drag unit highlighting to select groups, and so on. The genre would have developed differently and whichever game or games were most frequently emulated would have spawned the genre's conventions instead.

That's all just rambling, but my question basically is - how pervasive do you think the genres we have today are? That is to say, if things had been different as I've described above, how many of today's genres and conventions would be the same, and how many would be partially or completely different? What genres do you think we might not have, and what completely new genres could we have had instead?

 

[random_bars]

I doubt the human idea of fun will ever change. Neither that of the desire for innovation. One way or another we probably would have ended up with something like what we have today. Be it the same games, or totally different ones. Whether they'd be more or less advanced, someday, we'd get there.

Not to mention things like mario and even games before it were built from the most advanced technology available, and not much else could have been done (proof: almost every game way-back-when was a sidescroller), and doom was based off of something we do everyday: see in a first person perspective.

Interesting point about the tech thing, I hadn't thought of that. And yeah, first-person games were something I thought would have been made pretty much regardless. Just first-person shooters though, or could there have been a focus on a different mechanic?

 

[Neverhoodian]

Somewhere in a parallel universe, Minecraft: Block Ops is the poster child for the unstoppable juggernaut that is the "Sandbox Builder" genre, while indie publishers are starting to challenge the status quo with titles like "Luminous Ring" and "Duties that Need Calling." Also, the gaming world freaked out when they found out Mario was an unlockable character in Sonic Smash Bros. Brawl.

It can be intriguing to wonder what might have been. What if Nintendo hadn't been around to revive the industry after the video game crash of 1983? What if Duke Nukem Forever had been released in 1998 like originally planned? What if Halo hadn't been successful? What if the media had better things to do than vilify video games as the cause of society's ills? The mind boggles.

Then again, a part of me feels things wouldn't be that different. Many of the most popular video games and related characters appeal to classic archetypes embedded in our collective subconscious, so it's probably a fair bet to say that even if we didn't have Mario or the Master Chief running around, similar titles would probably be made with roughly analogous mascots.

 

[Light 086]

Yes they would be different... or would they?
Yes I believe it would... unless it's no =P

OT: I dunno, I imagine it would. If we didn't have dune there would be a difference right there.
Overall however, would be impossible to know for sure.