The Game Stash: A Question of Genre

[The Cheezy One]

your facial hair is sexy
OT: this is a major issue thats hard to explain in a few paragraphs, but you pulled it off
many developers decide they are making a shooter, rather then making a game that becomes a shooter
this can work in terms of pure game mechanics, such as call of duty 4, but most of the time, it just limits the game. not just in mechanics, but in background, if you see what i mean
basically, shooters will be near-future army, afghanistan, or world war 2. occasionally a game like darkest of days or metro 2033 changes this, but these games a few or far between.
also, rpgs. if a developer says "lets make an rpg" the concept artist automatically says "yeah im good at drawing castles"
mass effect, which you also noticed, is a game that was designed on premise first, before it fell into a genre. which makes it a very tight, surprising and inspired game

A tool I deem acceptable. I'd gladly mix Dragon Age and Mass Effect into the same Genre as they both have something in common; a RPG.... But of late, the "Role Playing Game" part has started to wither away as you're not really role-playing. They've become more of a "Group Combat SIM"

i get what you mean. group combat sim... GCS. i actually like the sound of that. id like to see that on a larger scale, but without just becoming a rts. something along the lines of brothers in arms, but in a little more of an imaginative setting. medieval age, etc.
however, this may be because the more in depth an rpg is, see DA:O, ME, F3 (which i all like), the more bored i get. its hard to explain, but the deeper the conversations go, the less i care about what my decisions impact, because theres no way to predict how someone will react to what without a walkthrough

 

[Harshael]

All this talk of his facial hair, and no one made the obvious connection.

It's a "Game 'Stache."

 

[12th_milkshake]

Nice discussions going on there, so i thought'd i'd jump in. I'm very much on broad with blind chance and just to add to it from 'why' i think genres exist and what they are for.

Your genre is you elevator pitch plain and simple. This is what i've always been taught in business. Say your walk on to an elevator and George Lucas is standing there. You have the time you step on that lift till it hits the bottom floor to explain your idea and gain a sit down.

It is this what genre is for. It's a marketing tool to create buzz words to connect with our very small attention span in a crowded market.

Looking at this now from a design point of view is that your trying to break the fundamental rule by saying mechanics aren't the major factor in a game. But 'Form Follows Function'. ALWAYS! this is as golden a rule. You cannot break it.

Stop for a minute and ask. What i'm i doing. Answer your making a game. What is a game? Answer it's an interaction of element used for immersion. 'interaction' is key here or all your creating is a story aka a film in whatever media this is.

Mechanics are the lynch pin reasons that games are played. Without putting that 'fun' element first you have already failed in making a game. And the point is that if you change or play with these mechanics you create a new genre much like finding a new element on the periodic table. After which everyone and their mother will try to play with that new element.

The most recent new ones are sandbox and MMO. These are this generations genres much in the way wolfenstein 3d was my generations new element.


Now to look at your agreement of asking what it's about. rather than what is it?

If i say it's about a boy who creates a potion in his garden shed after spilling his evil grandmother meds.

Ok sounds interesting? but what will I be doing? you ask.

Oh it's a platformmer i say

'Ah' you say instantly understanding the game in it's form.

So at the end of the day the 'game' part has to win out - plots are excellent driving powers to give reason to the mechanics and shouldn't be ignored, and you should always produce a story within the best genre to tell it. But if the game we were talking about was tennis or football this wouldn't even be an issue.

 

[kingmob]

I strongly disagree with this article. Just because other forms of media use genres differently and just because non-gamers don't get the genres does not mean they are wrong.
Even more obvious, the genre definition you seem to be aiming for already exists for books and movies. Genres in games define gameplay, not storyline, it's that simple. If you want to define the story, you use story genres, if the gameplay is a crossover or unique, you can tell the audience it is a crossover (RTS/RPG) or unique (Heavy Rain). But in the end, a game is about gameplay, that is what makes a game a game and not a movie or cartoon. Therefore it makes sense to categorize games by their defining aspect.

The rest of the article appears to be running on the assumption that defining a gameplay genre somehow leads to ignoring the story aspect, which is a great non-sequitur I think. You are implying that gameplay and story are intertwined somehow. It is silly to assume a designer first picks a genre and then somehow is helpless to stray from the gameplay elements it contains.
Another Fallacy you use is:

The best games blur the lines between distinct genre divisions.

This is an opinion, not a fact and one I disagree with. Good crossover games are fun, but to me they are never the ultimate game. For me the best games ever are the pure FPS, the pure RPG. It is of course a matter of taste, but that is an argument for genre distinctions.

I think in the end you mistake gaming for a passive form of entertainment, like watching an animated series - I know more than enough people who'd watch or read something just for the good graphics btw. In a similar regard, gameplay is a unique element of every game and it needs definition. You said it yourself, you like wargames. Why do you like wargames? You are clearly not talking about storyline or experience, you are talking about the gameplay mechanics that good wargames have in common. I have seen very good games that focus on gameplay and let the rest of the game's elements follow that lead.

Finally you say:

As the experience of playing has become secondary to the mechanics [...]

The mechanics are part of the experience, in games the most defining one even, I fail to see how you can arrive at this conclusion.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I don't disagree with you, but how do you convince developers than consumers aren't there to buy from a genre, they're there to buy a game?

I mean, I buy games based on if people tell me they contain this thing called "fun".
If it's a by-the-numbers affair, it's generally not fun, so I avoid it, because it has been designed from the ground up to be of the genre and that is pretty damn boring.

I think id are getting it right with RAGE "yeah, it's a shooter, RPG driving game... with crafting". That's blurring genre lines and that's what we need, stat.

Most games are bought because of gameplay genre so it would be a hard job to convince developers the opposite. It normally works the other way around in that their marketing people try to convince customers to buy the genre they are making.

Yeah, people are looking for games that build on experiences they like and despite all the cinematic dreams of game developers the gameplay is still at the top of the list of things that they remember from games they like.

 

[ThreeKneeNick]

I completely disagree. It was a nice read, but sorry, i'm not getting it.

Genres are rather vague in the gaming industry especially in the last few years with genres seeming to merge (shooters with rpg progression etc), but that's all the more reason not to take them TOO seriously. It's not the genre's fault some (uninformed) people expect RPGs to have elves. That's just idiotic. You used the wrong example to prove that point too, SWTOR needs to have all the genre conventions because deviating is a massive risk for a game that aims that high, and Champions just has lazy design all over it.

The point is, genres are a direction, not a definitive description. Much like in non gaming related media - an action thriller movie, what the hell does that mean? Well if i enjoy action and thrills, i'm probably going to enjoy it, but i still don't know anything about it. That's why i have to check with wikipedia.

 

[riotwraith]

"I'm drawn to an animated show because of Batman or Brendan Small or Brock Sampson, not because of the animation itself, which just happens to be the vehicle for the content"
You know you're allowed to like both right? It is possible to like the animation as more than a vehicle for the almighty story and, in fact, it's entirely possible to enjoy something based only on it's animation. The same goes for gameplay vs. Almighty Story

 

[Outright Villainy]

All this talk of his facial hair, and no one made the obvious connection.

It's a "Game 'Stache."

Um, because puns are glaringly obvious and don't need pointing out?

Ot: A fine first article, and I look forward to more articles like this in the future. I think there is a case to be made for noting genres too; I myself would run away very fast from any game with JRPG thrown in there for instance, because the style of play isn't appealing at all, and no matter the story, the machinations would detract from the experience. It's hard to care when I'm bored. Genres are a useful shorthand to tell people how they'll be playing their game; if it's a style they like. The problems, as you mentioned, are things like Fps or Rpg not really conveying the tone of the game at all. Plus, having games being designed to adhere to genres, rather than being applied afterward makes for very stagnant design.
I think that's why people love games like portal, because they don't follow any real genre principles. How many first person puzzle games can you think of?

 

[UnravThreads]

I don't think you should lock yourself into genres or claim that "Game X is crap because it's Genre Y", but I do think genres are important in their own right.

My reasoning is that genres allow you to find games (or other media) similar to ones you like. I won't bore you with examples, but categorisation and genres make it easy to find similar products easily. If you like futuristic shooters (e.g. Halo, Unreal), you may not necessarily like historical shooters (e.g. Darkest of Days) or even modern shooters (like CoD:MW). Aside from the setting, they often play in different ways.

RPGs are, as I believe was mentioned earlier, another prime example of the need for genres. You might like Oblivion, but that's no guarantee that you would like Torchlight or Might & Magic. If you like Final Fantasy, there's nothing to say you would like Dragon Age.

A lot of conflict comes from people having very rigid ideas of what a genre is, which leaves things like BioShock and, a great example, Hack'n'Slash games out in the cold. How do you define an RPG - is it the stats? The story? A variety of abilities? What is it?

 

[Aurgelmir]

The Game Stash: A Question of Genre

Gaming genres are the worst thing that ever happened.

Read Full Article

Steve you look like "Mexican Marshall" if you get the ref.

 

[Loonerinoes]

Ah! A new line begins and on a very good note too. I shall grace it with (hopefully) constructive feedback.

1) The moustache look is perfect - don't ever change it no matter what the doubters say, for it is what will visually distinguish your articles nicely and make them that much more memorable.

2) You mentioned SWTOR's press handling of assuring others, that it will have the standard things almost all other MMOs have. The context of this is critical. Bioware have stated many times before, that during last year's E3 a lot of interesting new ideas were introduced that left most of the audience wondering questions like "Will this be an MMO or just expanded Co-op mode game?" and "Will constant dialogue and story content mean the neglect of basic MMO mechanics relating to PVP and PVE?" these types of questions led to Bioware presenting SWTOR at this year's E3 moreso in the mainstream light of "Hey, don't worry - just because we're introducing this new stuff doesn't mean we want to do something completely experimental, hip and trendy that will brain itself on the floor upon birth. We will have several familiar concepts that you recognize in all MMOs too."

So...it has to be looked upon in that sort of context - as a response to many mainstream doubts over wether SWTOR could just wind up as yet another broken-launched MMO in the end. It's a bit more about politics and PR in the end than it is the 'whole slice of the pie.' Granted me writing this is also because I am a Bioware fan, but...eh. Make of that what you will I say.

3) A very insightful and well balanced article overall I must say. Mechanics should definately not be neglected indeed...but the primary reason anyone wants to experience anything is its content. And indeed classifying genres by content might be easier...perhaps an alternative classification system is in order to focus not on the vehicle but the content?

Either way I am reminded of one of Kreia's responses in KOTOR 2, on wether she was Jedi or Sith: "Does it matter? Of course it does. Such distinctions allow you to seperate the universe into parts, categorize it and properly label it. Perhaps I am neither and I merely see the Light and Dark side for what it is - two peices of a whole." Replace "the Force" with game", "Light side" with content and "Dark side" with vehicle and well...I guess the idea is clear. It's a bit silly to look at it seperately and even sillier to give too much emphasis to either side I think. Wether it's saying Farmville is "just a facebook game and nothing more" or wether it's saying that it is "about pretty farming, plants and animals"...both statements are rather narrowsighted in my view and do not express the whole of what Farmville actually is.

Hope any of this was helpful and hope to read more from you in the future.

 

[JEBWrench]

I quite enjoyed this article, AND the 'stache.

You used the expression "beg the question" properly!

Achievement unlocked!

Now, Mr. Butts, you better keep up the high quality. This is your one warning.

 

[craddoke]

An excellent first article - although I'm biased since it reaffirms my own beliefs about the relative importance of story design and game-play design. If the story is interesting enough, I don't care if it's a shooter, RPG, RTS, or some bastardization of those categories (actually, I kind of look forward to the bastards). While it's true that my first loves were RPGs and (point-and-click) adventures, that has more to do with those genres' emphasis on story than anything particular about their game-play mechanics except insofar as they support story-telling.

 

[Steve Butts]

Thanks so much for the lively discussion. I'm especially encouraged by the respectful and intelligent disagreements; you don't see that much on the internet and it challenges my opinions in a very good way. The greatest thing about games is that they allow for multiple meanings. It's nice to be part of a community that expresses that diversity in a thoughtful manner.

I agree that mechanics are important and genres are a convenient shorthand to communicate the ways we interact with games. I still think the overall evolution and level of innovation in this industry is hampered by a market-driven adherence to genres. There was a time when developers were more concerned with the wish fulfillment aspect of games -- being a pirate, running a city, flying a TIE Fighter, fighting MechaHitler -- and the game design is there to support those concepts. The extent to which those models succeeded inspired imitation, as a focus for both design and marketing. I still believe that the most memorable games are the ones where gameplay is built around the context.

Of course, the gameplay has to be interesting too, or else we probably won't care. I just think the scales are weighted too far toward mechanics these days and that mechanics are unfortunately restricted by the preconceptions of our current genre definitions.

 

[Fearzone]

I remember in the early days of arcades there were no genres. Every game had a unique and widely disparate gameplay mechanic. Probably the change toward convention began with Donkey Kong, which to my memory was the first platformer.

If you want to support games with good stories that defy convention, there's still hope. I urge you to buy Resonance of Fate. If you like things which are different it won't disappoint. If you still wonder within your own mind whether FFXIII was a good game or not, get Resonance of Fate to settle all doubt.

 

[Loonerinoes]

I agree that mechanics are important and genres are a convenient shorthand to communicate the ways we interact with games. I still think the overall evolution and level of innovation in this industry is hampered by a market-driven adherence to genres. There was a time when developers were more concerned with the wish fulfillment aspect of games -- being a pirate, running a city, flying a TIE Fighter, fighting MechaHitler -- and the game design is there to support those concepts. The extent to which those models succeeded inspired imitation, as a focus for both design and marketing. I still believe that the most memorable games are the ones where gameplay is built around the context.

Oh hell yes! Now this is something I have to agree with 100%.

I grew up during the 90s, just when PC gaming was evolving and the internet was not quite as popular yet and thus I was free to form my own opinion without the influence of any other media. Granted...my opinion was that of a pre-pubescent and later an early teenager...but still, twas an opinion regardless and it was mine so...*shrug*

Mechanics-wise I can remember RTSes being really fun and engaging for me. But of all the different RTSes that I played...I can't say any of them hold a special place in my heart from the 90s timeperiod really and even though I still regard Dune 2 to be a pretty damn awesome game...it just doesn't inspire me with joy, more like fascination. However, that's why games like Star Control 2, the Crusader series, UFO: Enemy Unknown (a.k.a. X-Com) and the Little Big Adventure series wound up as my most cherished memories of gaming from those times. And really...if you look at mechanics genres they couldn't be more different! Star Control 2 - a space exploration sim perhaps? The Crusader series - top-down action shooter as opposed to a 1st person shooter! UFO: Enemy Unknown - turn-based strategy! And Little Big Adventure...well...a top-down adventure game, emphasising action a bit moreso as opposed to the adventure elements of games like Monkey Island.

And indeed all of these games inspire me with joy exactly because they were unconcerned with their genre and were, as you say, about the context moreso than just the gameplay. And in retrospect I think I enjoyed the subtitle of Origin (a now gone developer) the most 'We create worlds'. It was probably one of the first subconscious drills into my cranium, that videogames don't have to be 'just games' or 'just limited to their mechanics', but that they can transcend that through the imaginary context in which they take place.

 

[Crimson_Dragoon]

True, the current genre system for video games ignores important aspects of the games, but it does help categorize the games (an necessary evil with thousands of titles out there) and most players tend to identify with certain genres.

 

[grammarye]

This article actually prompted me to sign up to these forums, so hello, and be gentle, it's my first day! I'll resist welcoming the author to the forums as it'd sound really silly, but hello!

I couldn't agree more that genres alone do not define a game; they can be useful indicators, but the moment they become the driving force instead of merely a convenient pigeon-hole, something has gone terribly wrong. I absolutely loved your MMO references. It drives me up the wall when people argue over what does and doesn't make an MMO, as though it matters in the slightest to whether a given game is any good. Surely 'I had fun playing this' is more important than 'it MUST have crafting'?

As a polite reparte to those arguing that gameplay (which they are equating with genre) defines a game - does it really? Sure, a given game might well drop neatly into a 'shooter' category, but gameplay alone doesn't make a game's appeal. Take the following contrived example:

If I were a gamer driven solely by gameplay, I'd never buy games again. I already have a great FPS (several actually) that is exceptionally well balanced and fulfills my need to inflict ranged death on pixels. So why buy any other shooter? The answer can't be the gameplay, unless we're into the extremely subjective 'that game's gameplay is better' territory.

Is every game purchase a search for gameplay nirvana, where you critique the game on its features and think 'if only they'd done that bit differently, I'd have my perfect shooter and I'd never need to buy another'? I doubt this very much, and I say this as a person who still considers Starcraft, more than ten years old, to be right up there as one of the defining members of the RTS genre. (Even as I agree that genres can be overused, here I am doing it)

Let me put this an alternative way - either the gameplay is so defining that we buy games based on gameplay and let games be forced into genres purely because we get bored and want the identical game experience over and over, with new textures & sounds for variety (in which case the games industry should be able to make a killing recycling their games - oh wait, football games already do this), or people actually do care about something more than just the gameplay, even if it's subconscious.

So in summary, sure, good & appealing gameplay is extremely important (both good & appealing being entirely subjective), but that doesn't make its genre a defining feature. It makes it a convenient way to describe that a given game might appeal to a given audience, nothing more. You'd still ultimately have to try it or read a review to find out.

As with so many things, I'd argue there's a happy medium between 'genres must have this or else!' which is silly, and 'games should have no genres because that forces them into given approaches' which is equally silly. It's about fun; why else part with your cash?

 

[Meemaimoh]

I remember trying to make the same point that this article makes. It was about a year ago. I was basically laughed off - for some reason, there are lots of gamers that put an inordinate amount of importance on "genre". I greatly dislike the restrictive quality of predefined genres and hope to see many, many innovative designs in the future.