Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
Redefining Genre
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
arrowPress Releases
April 24, 2014
PR Newswire
View All
View All     Submit Event





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM TechWeb sites:


 
Redefining Genre
by Craig Ellsworth on 02/27/12 11:23:00 am   Featured Blogs

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.
The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.

 

What separates games from other media is their interactivity.  So to some degree, it makes a fair amount of sense that our genres would be divided by various types of interaction.

Games which require quick-thinking and reflexes are typically labeled Action games; games that require you to control multiple units in battle simulations are called Strategy games; games that require you to micromanage individuals, either singularly or in groups of up to around five or so, and pay attention to intricate statistics, are often called RPGs; and so on.

Such genre divisions help because certain types of mechanics appeal to certain target audiences, and the consumer wants to know what kinds of mechanics to expect ahead of time.

We also see genres mixing and matching these days, with Action-Adventures, and more recently FPS-RPGs, despite how far apart such demographics are traditionally thought to be.

We've also split our genres down with fine granularity.  I can't name too many games that fall under the genre Vehicular Combat, but we have it to differentiate them from Racing games, which look similar at a glance.  Action games were some of the first games to emerge, and perhaps have the most sub-genres and cross-genres there than anywhere.

But such distinctions only help to a point.  After awhile, we began adding games by subject matter, rather than mechanics, such as Sports -- simulations of the real life activities, which can have a wide variety of mechanics.

Next came games based on emotions, and we only have one: Survival-Horror.  The term "Survival" suggests certain mechanical aspects of the genre, but "Horror" clearly states what you are expected to feel.

Now I want to jump back for a moment and discuss movies, our closest relative.  Movies divide genres by two things:  the setting (Sci-Fi, Western) and the emotion (Comedy, Romance, Horror).  We also have Action and Adventure movies, but these both indicate you are intended to have a feeling of awe while watching a spectacle, so they can be grouped with the emotive genres.

When movies first came out, there wasn't much in the way of genre.  There were motion pictures.  Soon, the talkies appeared.  Then color came in.  Movies were separated by technology for a short time, before finally reclassifying into the genres we know.  Eventually, all movies had sound, and most movies were in color.

Now we're slightly bringing back the technological idea with 3D, since it is largely a gimmick (certainly in the 50's and 80's, but we won't know if it stays a gimmick in these 2010's).  However, this makes a fair amount of sense, as it serves as a warning to viewers who get sick from watching 3D movies.

In some ways, the same can be said for games.  My father gets sick playing FPSs, but is fine playing Top-Down Strategy games.  But with movies, however, the technology is not the main thrust of the experience.

Now if we take a look at fiction literature, we see a similar grouping to movies:  setting (Sci-Fi, Fantasy) and emotion (Humor, Horror, Romance), and occasionally plot (Detective, Courtroom Drama).

Now, the stage, believe it or not, is the closest to a games-style classification system.  The stage has plays, musicals, operas, and ballet.  These are conventions of the stage which appeal to certain people.  I get bored of ballet, but I love a good musical or opera.  These conventions of stage are analogous to mechanics in games.  Below those genres, stage productions can be divided further into dramas or comedies.  Games' only subgenre of that type, again, is Survival-Horror.

It is important to note these classification models to see how we can improve ours.  Stage productions in the first place focus on a smaller segment of the population (compare the number of Americans who have seen a play in the last year versus a movie).  So following their model is not a key to popularity, surely.

With movies, people quickly got over the technology of it, and so even though Clerks is in black and white, we don't seem to care.  But never did the conventions of movie-making ever become a class of genres.  We don't watch Cloverfield because it's a shaky-cam movie.  No movie is advertised as having establishing shots, pans, zooms, jump-cuts, fade-outs, or any other camera or post-production trick that makes movie-making a separate art form from others.  The cinematography of a movie is analogous to game mechanics.  And cinematography is something that goes unseen when the audience is busy paying attention to the story.

Similarly, a novelist's style (his or her mechanics) fades away if done well, because a reader gets so sunk into the book that they don't even realize they're reading anymore.

When a novelist has a bad style, you get sucked out.  When a movie has bad cinematography, you get sucked out.  The best of these book and movie mechanics go unnoticed.

Similarly, we should be thinking about how to make game mechanics so intuitive that they fade away altogether and we forget we are playing games.  Players who are deep into a game genre do this simply by getting used to the mechanics enough to grok them, but new players find a barrier of entry.

I think games, in general, ought to find ways to accommodate all players so that the mechanics are no longer an issue.  This is not to say we shouldn't have hardcore games, of course, but hardcore games will fade away in the long run if we don't make them more accessible.

One way of doing this is to make games with hardcore genre mechanics for children, so they grow into the mechanics.  But I think there are better options.

Feeding mechanics into games a bit at a time is a better way.  I can imagine an FPS where you don't fire a gun in the first few levels, because you're busy learning so many other important FPS mechanics first, like basic navigation, which is complex to a non-gamer.

Once we get a sort of standard into game tutorials, then any genre, even yet-uninvented genres, will come easily to everyone, ending the barrier of entry that prevents games from being as popular with everyone as movies.

Then, we can start to rethink genres, because thinking by mechanics will become unnecessary, and people will buy games because of the emotional content in it.  They will by a Horror game, whether it's an FPS or an Adventure game, without caring so much, just wanting a good fright.  Housewives will by Romance RPGs, and teens will buy Comedy Puzzle games.  We will then drop the notion of "RPG" and "Puzzle," and games will reach the status of movies in our culture.

More articles, reviews, development logs, and more at http://scattergamed.blogspot.com/ 


Related Jobs

SG North
SG North — Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[04.23.14]

Director of Live Production
Turbine Inc.
Turbine Inc. — Needham, Massachusetts, United States
[04.23.14]

Director, Analytics Platform Development
Linden Lab
Linden Lab — San Francisco, California, United States
[04.23.14]

Sr. Front-end Web Developer
Linden Lab
Linden Lab — San Francisco, California, United States
[04.23.14]

Sr. Software Engineer, Back-end






Comments


Enrique Dryere
profile image
While I agree that a category of games in the future will likely pride themselves on their accessibility, I don't think it's the future of all games. If we're looking for a glimpse into the future of video games, we should at least take a look at analog games and sports.

There are activities meant to be fun, non-competitive, and experiential, while other sports and games can be fiercely competitive. Then there's a lot of gray area in between, such as a game of Monopoly that starts all fun and games and ends up being chucked at a wall when you land on your brother's Boardwalk hotel.

What prevents some games from being popular with certain demographics is, like you mentioned, that they didn't grow up with them. This is a shrinking sector of the market for obvious reasons, and I believe that "video game skills," such as twitch skills or strategic/analytical thinking, are at least partially transferable from genre to genre.

In the future I think we're going to see the emergence of two super-categories, not genres: experiential games and challenging (which is different than competitive) games.

The experiential games will be more similar to movies and books. Their goal is to give the player an experience.

Challenging games will be just that: a challenge. It's not a matter of casual or hardcore, it's a matter of whether the goal of the game is to challenge the player. In other words, your Call of Duties and FIFAs would be under this umbrella, but so would Dance-Dance revolution and Tetris.

The best games would offer a blend of these two elements, easily separated by different game modes.

Enrique Dryere
profile image
While I agree that a category of games in the future will likely pride themselves on their accessibility, I don't think it's the future of all games. If we're looking for a glimpse into the future of video games, we should at least take a look at analog games and sports.

There are activities meant to be fun, non-competitive, and experiential, while other sports and games can be fiercely competitive. Then there's a lot of gray area in between, such as a game of Monopoly that starts all fun and games and ends up being chucked at a wall when you land on your brother's Boardwalk hotel.

What prevents some games from being popular with certain demographics is, like you mentioned, that they didn't grow up with them. This is a shrinking sector of the market for obvious reasons, and I believe that "video game skills," such as twitch skills or strategic/analytical thinking, are at least partially transferable from genre to genre.

In the future I think we're going to see the emergence of two super-categories, not genres: experiential games and challenging (which is different than competitive) games.

The experiential games will be more similar to movies and books. Their goal is to give the player an experience.

Challenging games will be just that: a challenge. It's not a matter of casual or hardcore, it's a matter of whether the goal of the game is to challenge the player. In other words, your Call of Duties and FIFAs would be under this umbrella, but so would Dance-Dance revolution and Tetris.

The best games would offer a blend of these two elements, easily separated by different game modes.

Joshua Darlington
profile image
Genre can be defined by designers, marketers and/or the audience. Ultimately it will be $ that decides.

Most major film studio releases are adaptations of some kind. Most stories come from books, so it's appropriate look to that lineage for genre cues as well as toys, tabletop games, and sports which all have their own categories (shelves, aisles and specialty stores).

One major difference between computational entertainment and feature films is the rapid advance of digital technology including near future platforms like: AR HUD Goggle videogames, AR HUD windshield videogames (for autonomous vehicles), holographic AR games for ubiquitous OS, drone based AR videogames, NRS/NLU AI and etc which are all going to redefine the language of videogames. The introduction of sound, color, TV, home video and faux 3D (2.5D) were all introduced decades apart.

Bart Stewart
profile image
I like this a lot. It's a Good Thing to step back, to set aside preconceptions and question assumptions. That's how progress gets made.

That said, aren't mechanics a required aspect of interactivity?

With passive entertainment like books and films (and music), you're only absorbing an experience pre-defined for you by its creator. That makes them relatively easy to classify by the aspects of setting/genre.

But the interactivity that defines games as an entertainment form would seem to require an additional aspect: the primary mechanic of play. That gets called "genre," but maybe instead of trying to minimize it away we should be trying to find ways to emphasize it, to expand the number and variety of high-level mechanics... though maybe we should call it something other than "genre," which could be left to describe story-specific elements.

This is why, in addition to Action and Strategy and RPGs as examples of top-level categories, I believe it's important to include Sandbox games. That should be part of any discussion of forms of computer games because it emphasizes the interactivity of games as an entertainment form unlike any other.

Titi Naburu
profile image
"What separates games from other media is their interactivity."

Exactly. Then why stop classifying games on type of gameplay / mechanics? The point of having different mechanics is that they provide essencially different games.

Driving games, shooters, battle games will always be that. If someone dislikes some of those mechanics, then it doesn't matter the setting or emotion, they will dislike those games.


none
 
Comment: