The Game Stash: A Question of Genre

[Stabby Joe]

RPG is the worst example of a definitive genre.

The main issue is what fulls under the category of "role playing" since in the case "JRPGs" have next to no character creation, but then again the same can be said for most games... games that aren't RPGs.

Then there's the "RPG elements" given to such titles like BioShock yet this involves purchasing and upgrading, something common it, lets say strategy games. JRPGs could be turn-based or adventure games with "RPG elements". These so called elements are found in many genres, thus it's a redundant phrase.

Also welcome.

And what about Mass Effect, where no matter what you make your character look like you're still playing Commander Sheppard and the story still unfolds the same, regardless to your choices.

Or Oblivion, where you have complete authority over what your character looks like, fights with and works for, yet you're still closing Oblivion gates and crowning Martin Septum king of the land.

We can even take this into the realm of the tabletop. You can create any character you want, but once you pick your alignment you're stuck playing the game a certain way. A lawful good character won't steal bread for a starving family because the law is absolute.

There's no such thing as absolute freedom in an RPG, and people need to stop looking for it. Unbridled freedom, especially in a videogame, leads to an unfocused narrative and waters down the entire experience.

In the case of Mass Effect and Oblivion, they're more non linear than most JRPGs. Less so for Mass Effect but you can tackle most missions in any order and of course the dialogue system really shakes things up. Oblivion is a prime example however since you can play for hundreds of hours and not even begin the main quest. JRPGs require progression much more and have even less customization.

I don't think either are bad design, just that in regards to W/JRPGs, the latter is more akin to an adventure game... I mean some Zelda games have more freedom. Granted I've heard the new Dragon Quest has more freedom however, which sounds interesting to say the least.

 

[TheRocketeer]

This is a very good article, and each and every paragraph contains something I have, with varying degrees of success, expressed to my friends before, usually kicked off by how infuriatingly meaningless the term 'role-playing game' is.

Now that someone with such a glorious 'stache has expressed them, though, maybe more people will listen. Keep up the good work, and I hope to read more of you in the future.

 

[Harshael]

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

Thanks for that.

 

[V8 Ninja]

Welcome to the Escapist and nice first article Steve! =)

As for my thoughts on the article, I think you basically hit the mark. We should use genres as just explaining the bare-bones of a game and NOT basing the entire notion of a game into one genre.

 

[Jezixo]

Excellent article, especially great considering it's your first. You have succeeded in writing about something I honestly had not given much thought to, and proposing something I'd never considered, and for that you win a donkey, sir, a donkey.

Welcome to The Escapist!

 

[veloper]

Heresy. Game genres like RTS and FPS are most useful.

If you can enjoy RTS in a fantasy setting, you can also enjoy a sci-fi RTS.
Gameplay mechanics define the game, not the story. Story is secondary or even absent.

The only genre that can be confusing is the RPG genre and the contention here is mainly about gameplay mechanics and structure.

 

[Doug]

The Game Stash: A Question of Genre

Gaming genres are the worst thing that ever happened.

Read Full Article

Whilst I agree with the statement, the problem is their are fundamental differences between other media, like books and movies, that make games a harder case for breaking away from the concept of genres of game mechanics.

Firstly, they are, at their base level, pieces of software, which means engineering them to work is a frequently uphill battle with trying to keep the notion of design in their heads of the programmers. Requirements documents and peer-reviews of code are not, as far as I'm aware, standard practice in the games industry because creative works meant for 'fun' or other emotional states are impossible to imperialically define as the amount of 'fun' in a game design can not be mathematically calculated, unlike most other pieces of software. Genres, however, let designers use a selection of mechanics that are known to work together and at the same time give them a solid set of 'requirements' to aim for. Not ideal at all, but understandable.

As for the example of Star Wars / MMOGs in general, the problem isn't necessarily on the designer's side of the fence. As Richard Bartle (inventor of the MUD, the forerunner to the MMO) said, people's first MMO's colour their expectations of what an MMO 'should' be. Players automatically want the features their first MMO had, and if a new one lacks those features, or even a few of them, they tend to abandon ship rapidly. Hence, the designers here are hampered by the market's expectations, especially in the MMO market where WoW sits like a whirlpool, sucking in and destroying all passing ships.

Anywho, welcome to the Escapist, sorry to begin with an counter-point

 

[Steve Butts]

Don't apologize at all, Doug. The counter-points are reasonable. But what I rail against in the system you so accurately described is that it forces designers to adhere too closely to established successes purely because that's what gamers expect and what publishers know already sold last year. There are obviously some practical problems in getting out of this cycle, but I think it's worth outlining the deficiencies of the current system.

 

[likalaruku]

When I saw the image with this title, a childish thought popped into my head: "Ga Mestash." I blame Captain N.

 

[RaphaelsRedemption]

I don't agree. Talking about games in the way as we talk about movies is artificial. Movies are mostly about story, so naturally we divide them into genres based on their story type. For games, the primary characteristic is their gameplay. Yes, we should talk about game genres as being about mechanics.

Sure, we don't judge a book by its cover, but of course we should judge a game by its gameplay! Not primarily the story, but the gameplay is the substance of a game.

Including story, graphics and user interface, there are tons of factors that go into categorizing and judging games. But we should never forget the one which makes the game a game - gameplay mechanics. This is what is of primary importance to games. Everything else is incidental, and you could do it in a movie instead.

Good point, but...
But...

Gameplay, while being a simple choice for describing games, is not always served best by artificially dividing it into genres. Because that then limits the gameplay mechanics that can co-exist, as well as pre-determining how a "proper" game of that genre ought to play out.

Genres can help us find our way through the forests of games out there, but I'd prefer to see actual gameplay mechanics listed, rather than a big old "genre" label slapped on every new game. Like: "Bioshock: RPG", "Call of Duty: FPS", "Supreme Commander: RTS". There's more to each game than that. Even Call of Duty. Sure, you fire from a first person perspective, but you do that in Borderlands or System Shock 2 as well. And they're very different games to Call of Duty. A better description of Call of Duty would include a mention of the art style, the setting and other gameplay aspects such as the invitation to and neccessity of teamwork.

So while I can see how genres can help us find games, it can also limit us. I remember not wanting to play some games because of it's so-called genre. (I'm thinking SS2, because I was told how it was a horror shooter, which didn't appeal to me at all initially). I'm glad I did anyway, because my gaming experience has been the richer for it.

Anyway, thanks for the article. I really enjoyed it... and the picture of your moustache. Does it have a name? Or would that be limiting it's potential?

 

[12th_milkshake]

OK cat among pigeons. Team Fortress 2 - NO plot not even a hint of one other than 2 warring factions set in a world styled on JC Leyendecker. Arguably the better FPS on the block and will be for a long long time. It's all mechanics and gibbs.

Bioshock - Excellent story - rehashed dumbed down system shock even has the follow the leader bit with the big reveal plot point - auto respawn rubbish. Doom 3 did it better.


I'm sure we do talk about the plots, System Shock 2 is a good example - buddy road trip from hell and it pushed me to finish this insanely difficult game.

 

[Rack]

It's rather bold to do a first article on a gaming website proclaiming your utter disdain for gaming in general, perhaps even more so to directly contradict a piece Shigeru Miyamoto wrote in the same week. For people who like games games are divided along genre lines which define their principle interest i.e. gameplay. It's the same way that music is divided into genres along the musical styles rather than the plot.

In games, the story should always support the gameplay, not the other way around. The idea that genres are leading to checklist desing is an interesting one, but it should ever be a question of "what does loot add to the MMO experience and could this be implemented a different way" rather than "Superheroes don't need loot it should be taken out".

 

[Ravek]

Gameplay, while being a simple choice for describing games, is not always served best by artificially dividing it into genres. Because that then limits the gameplay mechanics that can co-exist, as well as pre-determining how a "proper" game of that genre ought to play out.

I agree. Genre should always be descriptive, not prescriptive. Choosing genre first and fitting everything else to that is bizarre. First it should be decided what can and should be made, then later someone might stamp a genre label on it.

That goes for games, as well as every other medium, I suppose.

 

[Loonerinoes]

OK cat among pigeons. Team Fortress 2 - NO plot not even a hint of one other than 2 warring factions set in a world styled on JC Leyendecker. Arguably the better FPS on the block and will be for a long long time. It's all mechanics and gibbs.

Bioshock - Excellent story - rehashed dumbed down system shock even has the follow the leader bit with the big reveal plot point - auto respawn rubbish. Doom 3 did it better.


I'm sure we do talk about the plots, System Shock 2 is a good example - buddy road trip from hell and it pushed me to finish this insanely difficult game.

It's not just about story and the plots. The word that was used was the 'context' of the game. You mentioned Team Fortress 2 for example - it doesn't have a coherent plot or a story, sure! But the context of it all is still great. Cartoony violence limited to several wonderfully hilarious archetypes. Sure, you play them for the mechanics, but why do you think that Valve did all of the 'meet the Scout/Heavy/Soldier/ect.' videos? So that they could give the audience a great *context* and attract them to the mythos of the game, no matter how silly or cartoony it might've been. I know for a fact that it was still one of the prime things that made me initially think "Wow...this game looks to be something neat!"

You could show me a youtube clip of TF2 multiplayer in action showing off the mechanics and you could show me a youtube clip of TF2 'meet the ...' videos. If I watched only the first I'd think 'Yeah, looks pretty fun game, I'm sure it could be a good timesink and something that'll keep me busy for awhile.' But if I watched only the latter I'd be 'Woah! What's this game about? This...I gotta at least try!' See the difference? The first one is made with a more rational thought process, but without any genuine enthusiasm, while the second one is made without critical appraisal, but with utter wonder at what a memorable videogame this could turn out to be if I gave it a chance.

And while both processes are important within a game in the long run, I still remember the games that succeeded in presenting only the latter very well moreso than I remember the games that presented only the former very well. It doesn't require someone to be 'pro story', but rather 'pro context' - that you stand up for the mythos presented within the game. TF2's mythos is simply awesome, in spite of the fact that it has no coherent story or plot - nor should it have, since it was designed primarily as a multiplayer game. And because its mythos (or context, as mentioned by Steve) is so memorable I will definately remember it fondly in the years to come. Moreso fondly than almost all RTSes I've played in my life (save for the ones made by Blizzard), who have always engaged me very well mechanics-wise but whose context just felt bland and uninteresting to me at the end of the day.

 

[12th_milkshake]

It's not just about story and the plots. The word that was used was the 'context' of the game. You mentioned Team Fortress 2 for example - it doesn't have a coherent plot or a story, sure! But the context of it all is still great. Cartoony violence limited to several wonderfully hilarious archetypes. Sure, you play them for the mechanics, but why do you think that Valve did all of the 'meet the Scout/Heavy/Soldier/ect.' videos? So that they could give the audience a great *context* and attract them to the mythos of the game, no matter how silly or cartoony it might've been. I know for a fact that it was still one of the prime things that made me initially think "Wow...this game looks to be something neat!"

You could show me a youtube clip of TF2 multiplayer in action showing off the mechanics and you could show me a youtube clip of TF2 'meet the ...' videos. If I watched only the first I'd think 'Yeah, looks pretty fun game, I'm sure it could be a good timesink and something that'll keep me busy for awhile.' But if I watched only the latter I'd be 'Woah! What's this game about? This...I gotta at least try!' See the difference? The first one is made with a more rational thought process, but without any genuine enthusiasm, while the second one is made without critical appraisal, but with utter wonder at what a memorable videogame this could turn out to be if I gave it a chance.

And while both processes are important within a game in the long run, I still remember the games that succeeded in presenting only the latter very well moreso than I remember the games that presented only the former very well. It doesn't require someone to be 'pro story', but rather 'pro context' - that you stand up for the mythos presented within the game. TF2's mythos is simply awesome, in spite of the fact that it has no coherent story or plot - nor should it have, since it was designed primarily as a multiplayer game. And because its mythos (or context, as mentioned by Steve) is so memorable I will definately remember it fondly in the years to come. Moreso fondly than almost all RTSes I've played in my life (save for the ones made by Blizzard), who have always engaged me very well mechanics-wise but whose context just felt bland and uninteresting to me at the end of the day.

OK fair enough the 'meet the' vids are good and pose against my point a little but i'd call them character studies, they provide no plot. Still think the reason you keep playing is the well balanced fun game. The characters in it are excellent but it's all about the style over substance, Look at Street Fighter as well - ok now it has a massive plot granted but it started as a very simple fighting game with fun outrageous characters. But it's the balanced game play that has built into tournaments that give it the fan base, Blizzard too they excel in doing everything just that bit better. But it's the balance of Starcraft and the innovation of the races that people still play it for - (i play it still and was in the beta for 2. Starcraft even began as a Games Workshop game until the plug was pulled - plot and new id was screwed on. Mario is the same - started life as a popeye merchandise idea. The replay ability is in the mechanics the 'fun' part is in the Mechanics. Everything else is window dressing. Because if you screw that up it doesn't matter about plot as no one will play it.

Portal is a really good example of this - they found a new way to use the physics within source engine and came up with the portal mechanic. Guess what then the plot followed, It's form follows function still. Yes the the story drives it and it's very well written - buts it's a really simple plot. Test rat fights back. quirky CPU. The New portal 2 trailers show new mechanics over the plot... Value get it.


And again RTS are do have a harder time connecting with the players due to the units being quiet static - blizzard aside. But C&C has a huge massive ridiculous epic plot and it's still dull.


(and too escapist - you active roll over APB trailer is really really annoying...)

 

[Caliostro]

From one manly stache to another: Welcome Steve.

As for the article, I think there are 2 different points in there that are being mixed unfairly.

One is the constriction of gameplay elements to genre conventions. I agree with you, that's always bad. A good example that comes to mind is DICE's Mirror's Edge, where a lot of the forced fighting and "secondary" gunplay elements seemed shoehorned in just for the sake of justifying the expectation we've came to develop regarding first person games. "It's first person, there are guns involved, therefore we must shoot or fight people at some point!". In reality those moments were, by and large, the worse parts of the game, as they felt awkward and counter intuitive to a game that mostly had running (usually away) as it's mantra.

The other is genre definitions, or better yet, the specific method by which we've come to define genres in games. In that area, I can't really agree with you. Yes, most good games blur the line between genres, but doesn't the same apply to good movies, or books? Can you really pin a single category down on Alan Moore's Watchmen to encapsulate all of it's qualities? Can we really say The Shawshank Redemption is JUST a drama? Good media, of any kind, is genre defying, because it's complex and well constructed. But genres were never supposed to be a "content sum" of anything. When you go see a comedy movie you don't just go see pure comedy, otherwise you'd see stand-up. You expect MORE than just comedy, like, at least, a reasonable and enticing story that'll keep you interested through the laughs and giggles. What you do expect is for said movie to have more comedy than, say, action.

To my mind I think this is a misconception of what a "genre" should be. The idea behind "genres" is, as you said, essentially to help people find what they're looking for. If I want to see something that'll make me laugh, I'm likely looking for something in the "comedy" section, which is comprised of movies/boooks/whatever which have comedy as it's main element. In that sense, I don't think it would make sense to label games in any other fashion. You said it yourself, the distinguishing difference between games and other media is interaction. The reason we play a game instead of reading a book or seeing a movie is, exactly, the possibility of interaction (something which seems to completely befuddle Hideo Kojima, hurr durr). When I buy a book, I wanna read something. When I buy a game, I wanna play something. As you pointed out, if I don't know what Call of Duty is, the gameplay-defining "First person shooter" tells me a whole lot more about it than the theme-defining "war game". Which isn't to say that it's sufficient information of it's own, off course, but the same is valid for any other form of media isn't it? If you don't know Pixar's movie "Up", and you ask me for information on it, and I tell you "it's a comedy", I'm giving you about as much (or even less) relevant information about it than when you tell a new gamer "Call of Duty is a First Person Shooter".

I think your main point in the article, however, was right on: "genres" can't define the media. It's a subversion of their purpose entirely. A game (or movie, or book) needs to first be about a vision, or an idea, or a concept, or whatever it is completely free of pre-conceptions. You shouldn't start writing a book based on "I wanna write a thriller", and you shouldn't start building a game based on "I want an fps!". To make a good game, a good anything really, the whole thing has to come together with every element existing for a justifiable reason: If you're making it first person, it should be first person because that's the best mode to experience it, and not because you set out to make a first person game regardless. Genres are then tacked on after it's done in order to make it more convenient for you to find it.

While some genres are definitely misleading right now (every good game is a role playing game), I think the problem isn't how they're supposed to be used, or what they're describing, as much as how developers themselves are using them, which they shouldn't be, at all.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

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.

I don't think for a moment that id created Wolf3D the way they did so they could bring their dream of cyborg Hitler to live. Mind you, thinking about some of the things John Romero says there might be some truth in the that. I think it more likely came from thinking up content that would work with the new tech that Carmack came up with.

Thinking of some other big creative successes of the past ten years or so there are games like Portal and Sands of Time. Portal was clearly created from the gameplay concept and tech of Portals and the content was created to fit that. Sands of Time was likewise crafted around the time rewind idea, at least I would be surprised if that was one of the last things added. Creativity isn't something where a creator needs a blank canvas and and empty room and is crippled by having to conform to any sort of technique. Necessity is the mother of invention.

 

[Steve Butts]

Yes, but with both Wolfenstein and Portal, the gameplay itself is (or was at the time) highly original and not constrained by the usual genre conventions. They're also married to a context that is, in my opinion, more memorable than the basic mechanics. From "Mein Leben" and dogs to all the paranoia and cake jokes, it's the fiction of the world that makes it worth engaging with the gameplay. But again, these are exceptional examples. Measure that against the hundreds of shooters that are built on copycat designs without any regard for creating a compelling and believable fiction that makes us bother to care.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Well, sadly, according to sturgeon's second law most games are not going to be that exceptional even if developers are forced not to use copycat designs or copycat game content.

I would honestly find it a little depressing if the only reason why most people enjoyed Portal were the cake jokes and monologues. They went through all of that trouble making such a great new type of game and all that people care about are a few catchphrases? If anything is an argument for rigid genres then it would be that.

 

[Steve Butts]

It would indeed be sad if the humor and style were the only reasons to like Portal. But since people seem to want to focus on Portal as an example, what genre would you place it in? Is it an FPS? No, but it uses the elements of FPS games that make sense for the underlying concept. Is it a puzzle game? Not really, but it does have lots of interesting physics-oriented challenges. Is it a platformer? Well, no, but it does force players to move through a wide range of physical obstacles. Is it an action game? Not exactly, but the gameplay is very immediate and intense.

So what we have is a game where the fundamental gameplay isn't constrained by our definitions of genre and is fully integrated with a context that's memorable and appropriate for the mechanical considerations.

I don't think Portal is an argument in favor of rigid genres at all.