Slashdot Mirror
Game Genres — Descriptive Or Restrictive?
An opinion piece at Rock, Paper, Shotgun questions whether the way we classify video games limits creativity and innovation in game development. "If the next Modern Warfare introduced dramatically different themes, there would be uproar. Sure, set it on the moon, but make sure I’m a grunt following the NPCs who get to play the game, or I’ll swear at you on the internet." The author suggests that the rise of casual games may in part be attributable to their creators' willingness to break with established themes and blend together different types of play. "There's huge risk to blurring. It makes the game more difficult to market, it defies customers’ expectations, and it requires educating the public. It’s safe to make yet another COD clone, because we all know them and what they do. And they're what we want! But like the child who's never tried a new food, refusing to eat it because it's different leads to a very limited and dull palate."
Then perhaps it shouldn't be another damn Modern Warfare game. How about--gasp--a brand new game. I get that not making sequels each year requires creativity and risk, but think of the reward.
I like my dull palate, thank you very much! (for food at least, not so much for games)
But seriously, the real clamp on creativity is business. Publishers don't want to take risks developing increasingly expensive games only to see them not sell. They want a pretty good feel that they will make a profit and the best way to do that is to ape an existing, successful game. It's not right, it's not good for the long-term health of gaming (or even the publishers themselves), but from a purely capitalist POV, it makes sense.
I noticed this a lot when Civ V came out. Everybody kept complaining that "x was included in Civ IV, but not in Civ V." If you want to play Civ IV, go play Civ IV. Why would I want to spend $50 to buy Civ V if it's just Civ IV with updated graphics?
People dont like new right aways so companies loose in sales, thus people dont make them all that often. if you want new games vote with you wallets and dont buy remakes. to bad that is never going to happen. you almost have to trick people into liking new things by making gradual changes from the old stuff.
Yeah, if the next Call of Duty game was a third-person platformer or something there would be an uproar ... BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T BE CALL OF DUTY. It would be some other game with the name slapped on. That has nothing at all to do with genres limiting games. If you make a different game, call it a different name. That way names are actually useful information, y'know? Remember how language is for conveying meaning? Jeez.
Well, sure if the next Modern Warfare veered drastically from the pattern set up by previous games in the series, people would complain. But I think you could break any rules about FPSs that you wanted if starting a game unconnected with existing series.
One reason why these "genre-blurring" games are not so popular could be that they're really hard to advertise. If you make a new FPS for example, it's easy to list out things which makes your FPS better than others. But if you make a totally new kind of game, there's nothing to compare it to. These games may become huge successes, but it usually takes time (like Minecraft - under 20k sales in the first year, 100 times that in the second), and companies rarely seem to think about the future - they want profit NOW.
Besides, if a game costs 50$, gamers rarely buy it if they have no idea of what they're going to get. Cheap casual games are much easier to sell.
COD may be what you want, but it sure isn't what I want. I would love something new and fresh, or even an update of OLD titles that were great but weren't from the same 4 or 5 different type of game. FPS games are not that much different from each other in the grand scheme of things.
Creator Strategy #1: Give people more of what they have demonstrated they want. Reality TV Show Model 7B, Over-Loud Snarky-Catch-Phraseful Hero Summer Popcorn Movie 6A, or the latest Honor Harrington book. It amuses me, you make it, I buy it, you get paid and feed your family. Repeat. It's called "The Entertainment Business," and Joss Whedon is secretly laughing at all of you who are writing deep existential doctoral theses about Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Creator Strategy #2: Come up with something Entirely Brand New That Has Never Been Tried, convince a studio or publisher to invest millions into it, and hope to God someone besides you wants it. It's called "Art," it requires those dicey things "Risk" and "Vision," and lots of perfectly lovely and talented people who practice it are eating their one daily meal of ramen noodles as I write this. If they're lucky, their art catches on, it gets assimilated into The Entertainment Business, and the creator can kick back in preparation for becoming rich and laughing at the nerds earnestly considering writing deep existential doctoral theses about their game/movie/book/new Pez flavor.
We've classified games into genres almost forever. The modern complete lack of innovation is a more recent phenomenon, probably brought about by the graphics arms race and the greater budgets which have resulted; the more money you're spending, the more corporates and committees need to be convinced it's going to bring in a return.
I think it started happening at about the same time that it started to become common for games to have multiple sequels. I remember once observing that you never saw fourth versions of things. See them all the time now.
If EA releases Tiger Woods Gold 2012 there would be complaints if it was actually a NASCAR simulator?
If the next Modern Warfare was a turn based role playing game there'd be complaints?
No shit, sherlock.
But if the new game isn't given the same damn name and put in the same damn franchise then it can be completely different. If you want it to be "blurring" but within the same main gameplay then give it a name that indicates that and no one (well there will always be someone) will complain
I try new genres every year and can never actually enjoy them all but it is important to try new things. It brought me to Shadows of the Colossus (the most amazing game). You should play it.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle. ~ Plato
I feel LA Noire should be mentioned here. Combining a sandbox game with elements from classic adventure games, and releasing it as a pure single player only game in 2011 sure is bold!
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
It can be condensed to this. Try something new and it might bomb because it's either not delivering what it promised (Spore) or because it simply ain't what users are used to. Also, let's not forget 60 bucks is quite an investment for the average gamer. He is kinda shy to dump that on a game he doesn't know whether he'll enjoy or not. He has no problem sending those 60 bucks the way of Whatevergameheliked II. He liked the first, so he'll buy the second.
Of course, the sequel MUST NOT diverge from the original, or our gamer will be pissed, even if the game is halfway decent but simply not a "true" sequel (Supreme Commander 2), or he will be completely disappointed and your franchise tarnished forever if you managed to pull a complete dud (Perimeter 2).
So the formula for sequels is to keep the original "taste" but add some "flavor". And that's pretty much what is done in most (successful) sequels. They reiterate the gameplay of the prequel and add a facet to it. Be it more options (Mass Effect), a different setting (Battlefield, CoD) or simply a continuation of the story and a few goodies thrown in (Halo).
Rather than a big studio trying something completely new, you'll first see something like this emerge from an indie studio on a 10 bucks bargain bin game, and if the formula fits a studio will pick up the idea. Unfortunately, this does not really lead to "epic" games, unless they just wrap the new gameplay style in some "epic" story element. Which often doesn't really work THAT well...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
When I was beta testing DC Universe Online, every new batch of testers to be allowed in had a hand full of people who would invariably complain: "If you don't add X, Y, and Z, you'll never be able to beat WoW!" or "Clicking in your own combo moves is ANNOYING! Where's the auto-attack?"
While DCUO labeled itself as an Action MMO (heavier on the action), that MMO(rpg) label still carried with it some pretty hefty preconceived notions regarding game mechanics and even story progression. It was the basis of a massive amount of discussion which, in my opinion, would have been better used as testing the beta instead of arm-chair developing.
An opinion piece at Rock, Paper, Shotgun questions whether the way we classify music limits creativity and innovation in the music industry. "If the next Britney Spears album introduced dramatically different themes, there would be uproar. Sure, set it on the moon, but make sure I never need to hear something that sounds different, or I’ll swear at you on the internet." The author suggests that the creators' willingness to break with established themes and blend together different music genres may in part be attributable to new distribution channels. "There's huge risk to blurring. It makes the music more difficult to market, it defies customers’ expectations, and it requires educating the public. It’s safe to make yet another Lady Gaga clone, because we all know them and what they do. And they're what we want! But like the child who's never tried a new food, refusing to eat it because it's different leads to a very limited and dull palate."
This is why Portal was packaged in the Orange Box - as a genre-breaking game it was too risky to release on its own (beside being too short). Interesting to have this discussion on the eve of the release of Portal 2 as a mainstream game.
I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
ANY kind of labeling is restrictive. When you move away from the particulars (shooting, powerups, multiplayer, first person) and create an abstraction like a label ("FPS"), you're at best trying to pick and choose particulars to build your label. Unfortunately, something will always be left out. If you want unbounded creativity, eschew labels.
I try new genres every year and can never actually enjoy them all but it is important to try new things. This is why Portal was packaged in the Orange Box - as a genre-breaking game it was too risky to release on its own (beside being too short).
Today i would like to tell you about new free ip changer on http://ipchanger.tk where yo
Why are genres restrictive? Adventure, first-person shooter, role-playing, platforming... Those are all extremely broad. They're as broad as genres in movies or novels might be. Just because Hollywood as chosen to restrict sci-fi to alien invasions the last few years doesn't mean the genre itself is limiting. What's limiting is the creativity of the developer.
But then the real problem is that those tired old themes evidently sell. We can harp on how derivative games have become but the fact is that as with Hollywood blockbusters, they sell. It's no secret developers and publishers are risk averse. These games cost a fortune to produce, with their bloated production values, but they're guaranteed to sell. And every couple of years someone takes the plunge and does try something different which turns out to be a big success. And that's inevitably followed by everyone else jumping on the bandwagon. However, the fact is that different and creative isn't always better, especially in gaming where gameplay should always be the core focus.
My fundamental problem with a lot of American gaming is the over-the-top machismo, guy with gun trope. I think it's this obnoxious ego-fueled culture which has inhibited real creativity. Although, Nintendo has been a nice balance to all that. However, I'm convinced that in Japan you'll find far more creative gaming because culturally they're not so fixated on ego. And it's certainly not restricted to gaming, look at popular music.
That said, there is a massive amount of variety out there, probably more than we've ever had before. We do get a lot of gaming from Japan. And indie gaming has dramatically expanded our gaming options.
Music Genres, Descriptive or Restrictive?
Movie Genres, Descriptive or Restritive?
We all know that human beings try to fit everything into different categories as a way of discerning and understanding. This process can be positive for many things such as science, but negative in other aspects such as social (leading to racism or discrimnation). Artistic genres exist so people will watch, play or listen to something they understand, something they are most comfortable or familiarized with, or simply, that it has elements that they know they like.
It's the same as with most youngs today, they will rather listen to Justin Bieber than Led Zeppelin, it's not so much about "quality" as an objective measure, but what they are familiar and comfortable with.
The rise of casual games, I believe has more to do with games being more available in general (most people will definitely not pay $50 to play a game genre they never played). The same phenomena can be observed with music, movies and tv series thanks to piracy, which allows viewers to check out and explore new content with little effort (not waiting for a specific broadcast time, or paying for a dvd/br release), while still being able to follow trends and socialize about it.
In short, make content more accesible, and people will be more prone to leave their comfort zone..
Mass Effect - what is it? RPG? FPS? Adventure? It didn't matter - it was awesome. However, taking CoD and turning it into a Mass Effect type genre would be a disaster only because people expect a certain genre from the CoD series. Example - Sim Societies. If you want to create something new, make sure it is good and has an original title. So yes, Modern Warfare shouldn't be taken in a new direction, but naming it XYZ, from the creators of Modern Warfare, might do extremely well if its a good game.
I will bend like a reed in the wind.
Genre templates are merely a symptom of the larger disease. Turning any creative endeavor into a business ultimately leaches the creative qualities from it.
Trying fresh, new ideas is risky. Business is risk-averse.
Any classification system, whether its writing, movies or games is inherently limiting. There have been constant attempts, even by big companies to blend genres. The 'action -rpg' which has more or less replaced the pure RPG of years ago. All of the first person shooter technology folding into action/rpg games. Then there's the whole notions of strategy, grand strategy and so on. Even older games like X-com blended economics, tactical games and a strategic overview (sort of a crappy RTS) with city building. Star wars galaxies glues space shooter onto whatever you want to call the ground combat side of things. Those are more combined genres, it is both A and B just in different places. But something like dawn of war is half RPG half RTS at the same time (Warcraft III did this as well, and to a lesser extent WC2).
None of these classifications in gaming are particularly firm. One could also envision different (presumably better) classification systems. But changing how you define games comes with a huge consumer cost. I think you see more genre innovation in the casual space because 95% of them can fail. If you do that with call of duty, you take a big risk. Consumers have come to expect a particular type of experience, that's why they bought your product, don't mislead them into something else. And creating new IP is both hard and risky.
I'm not sure it's quite as dogmatic as the RPS article makes it.
"Genre" descriptions are just that, generalizations that give you SOME idea of what you can expect in the package. If someone designs, say, a "racing" game, then yes, it's going to follow some of the genre tropes of racing. If it doesn't, then it self-evidently wouldn't be called a 'racing' game, no matter how much you wanted it to be so.
If you design a racing game that's in a persistent world, where you level up your toon by participating in races, and you get more abilities the more experience your character gained, that would be a 'racing mmo'. If the 'racing' bit was taken out - and you just raced by clicking into a race event and it was resolved for you - then it would simply be a 'race-themed mmo'.
To suggest that describing a game by genre is somehow lazy is just silly. It's one of the essential characteristics of things and humans' approach to identifying them that they are classified in sets, general to specific. No, not every game is unique, many (if not most) share gameplay elements with other earlier games, and this is useful to a consumer who is looking to drop $50 on a new title. Ooh, I hated the way Game X handled combat, if this is described as like game X or genre X, I don't waste my time on it. Did I give the game a fair shake? No, but my resources (including time) are finite, and one has to draw the line somewhere.
-Styopa
Was Hitchcock restricted by always working in the same genre? Of course not. There's nothing inherit to genre work that prevents a producer from creating something good. Only the quality of the talent behind it matters.
Is a Tree a Tree, a Rock a Rock.
Sorry to get all philosophical on you, but that is basically how we identify stuff and communicate with each other. Pretty basic stuff.
The question if a good description is a good description is left up to the user.
And when did the Multi Massive Online term became a synonym of WoW-type gameplay (rpg with spells, cooldown, no physical contact)?? When will MMO regain their original hype that we could have ANYTHING massively online?
I found it amusing that the key example the author of article chose as a game that cannot change is the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare series. This is one of the recent success stories of mainstream genre blurring! The Call of Duty series was growing stale, then the Modern Warfare branch was created which introduced persistent RPG elements (leveling, etc.) into the FPS genre (peanut butter meet chocolate). Far from an uproar, there was wide acclaim and commercial success. This is why Modern Warfare and its successors have been so successful: they completely revitalized the genre by performing so called genre blurring. In terms of other triple A games, Mass Effect started off as an RPG with FPS elements and Mass Effect 2 was more of an FPS with RPG elements, both were great and widely acclaimed. I'm not saying that genre blending isn't risky and that once a formula is established there aren't plenty of imitators (especially amongst triple A titles), but acting like mainstream titles have not been successful at genre blending and that it doesn't happen is ludicrous.
Magic Carpet is, or was, a good example for a game that really was unique and would neither fit the FPS tag or the flight simulator tag or strategy tag.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
Just like music, classification of a style allows artists to peruse that style within a set of guidelines to refine and perfect that style. When blues was first introduced, it was very much flapping in the wind with little form. Over the years it has become very ridged and an perfected.
There is still plenty of room for experimentation and much like music there are indy artists trying to push the boundaries. Most sounds/plays like crap. But eventually something new and interesting will pop up... Which will again get defined as a style... perfected... it's all part of a cycle. Genres/Styles and independent work are all good and all part of the same process.
I use to find it hard to imagine the type of person who seriously gets excited about each and every single realistic first person shooter that comes out, thinking that it was just the game developers who were out of touch with reality, then more and more I found there was a huge overlapping audience of people who are basically just gun nuts. They get off on the realistic sounds and models based off real fire-arms in games, and that is seriously enough for them to want to play these games.
Speaking for the rest of us gamers, would all you gun nuts please do us a favor and kill yourself? Or stop playing games, you know, whatever.
Game genres do not restrict innovation in new games. If you are creating a new game, then the creators should create it as they want and not try and stuff it into a genre. If the developers and designers do not create new concepts and ideas in gaming, then it should not be blamed on the concept of genres. Instead it should just be taken as an instance in which the developers did not want to risk profit loss by straying from a proven concept.
I have a problem with your Modern Warfare example. If you create a new game in a series, then it is expected to follow the lead of its predecessors. Fans of a series became fans because they liked what the previous games offered. It is expected that they are going to criticize games when a new game is released, claiming to be part of a series, but strays from original concepts. That is common sense. This may limit innovation in a series... but this has nothing to do 'genres.' This has to do with the series.
I really don't give a crap about this. All I care is that PORTAL 2 IS AWESOME!!!one!!
If they wanted to change the motif, instead of calling it Modern Warfare X3, they could just call it, "World of Modern Warfare"
RPG hasn't meant RPG in..well..basically forever. Very few games that carry the RPG do so for any other reason than to try and lend credibility to their game. A very long time ago there was a great definition of RPG in a magazine, paraphrasing it went something like "An RPG is a game where you can make choices that have a meaningful and lasting impact on the game world"
Buying a chair doesn't count.
nor does picking whether your character uses a sword or a staff.
From TFA
This unfortunately is also not an RPG, but is what is passed off as one these days. Choosing to go down the left or right hallway isn't much in the way of roleplaying. Roleplaying has basically come to meant that you have stat points or a skill-tree. These unfortunately have nothing to actually do with roleplaying. They're a mechanic often used in a genuine roleplaying game, but roleplaying games exist without them, they don't make the game itself a roleplaying game.
So if we've blurred genres, it may be because we have no idea what they are. Some are a very simple definition "First person shooter", but what if we're not shooting? What if it was a first person melee game?
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with genre blurring or games belonging to more than one genre. I think genres often simply describe the main gameplay mechanic, except for RPG. RPG gets passed around like a party favour at a biker rally, and garners about as much respect from the game industry.