Contents
The Designer's Notebook: Sorting Out the Genre Muddle
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest News
spacer View All spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Video Game Watchdog National Institute On Media And The Family Shutting Down [11]
 
Modern Warfare 2 Infinity Ward's 'Most Successful PC Version' Yet [12]
 
New Tech, Design Details Of Project Natal To Emerge At Gamefest In February
spacer
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Trion Redwood City
Sr. Evnironment Modeler
 
Trion Redwood City
Sr. Environment Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
3D Environment Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Network Programmer
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Character Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Texture Artist
 
Monolith Productions
Sr. Software Engineer, Engine - Monolith Productions - #113767
 
Sony Online Entertainment
Brand Manager
spacer
Latest Features
spacer View All spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
arrow Upping The Craft: Susan O'Connor On Games Writing [6]
 
arrow Small Developers: Minimizing Risks in Large Productions - Part II [7]
 
arrow iPhone Piracy: The Inside Story [48]
 
arrow And Yet It Grows: Analyzing the Size and Growth of the European Game Market [5]
 
arrow NPD: Behind the Numbers, October 2009 [13]
 
arrow Reflecting On Uncharted 2: How They Did It [5]
 
arrow Sponsored Feature: Rasterization on Larrabee -- Adaptive Rasterization Helps Boost Efficiency
 
arrow Postmortem: Wadjet Eye's The Blackwell Convergence [2]
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Time Fcuk
 
Accepting the Inherent Value of Games
 
Planckogenesis, Part II: Song Structure & Gravy Train [1]
spacer
About
spacer News Director:
Leigh Alexander
Features Director:
Christian Nutt
Editor At Large:
Chris Remo
Advertising:
John 'Malik' Watson
Recruitment/Education:
Gina Gross
 
Features
  The Designer's Notebook: Sorting Out the Genre Muddle
by Ernest Adams
10 comments
Share RSS
 
 
July 9, 2009 Article Start Previous Page 4 of 4
 

Purpose

I've decided to call the last dimension that I'm going to address in this column purpose.  This refers to the reason the developers made the game in the first place, and what they hope to achieve with it. Purpose is just as independent of genre as theme, setting, or audience are.

One purpose is entertainment. Entertainment games are generally made for one or two reasons: to entertain the player and (in most cases) to make money.

Advertisement

Some (actually, a surprising number of) noble-spirited souls make games for entertainment without any hope of gain at all. A few misguided creatures also make games purely for money without regard for whether it entertains the player or not -- this purpose produces shovelware.

Serious games are, in Ben Sawyer's useful formulation, games to solve problems. This doesn't preclude entertainment; solving problems is simply an additional purpose of the game. There are many subcategories of serious game: games for education, healthcare, advertising, political propaganda, evangelism, and so on.

(A Christian-themed game that tries to persuade players to become Christians is also a serious game; but most Christian-themes games are entertainment for players who are already Christians.)

The designers of serious games occasionally have to compromise the quality of their entertainment in order to achieve their serious aim. For example, truly hardcore war games, as played by the military, aren't necessarily fun. But the better serious video games manage to accomplish their serious goal -- training, investigation, advertising, etc. -- and to be enjoyable as well.

Then there are games as works of art. Because art expresses the vision of an artist, a "game" (and yet again we see the limitations of that word) designed to be a work of art may, like a serious game, compromise entertainment for another goal.

Any video game must strike a balance between the designer's vision and the players' desires (see my column, "The Tao of Game Design" for more on that), and in my opinion any commercial designer needs to put the player first and himself second.

But art games, I recognize, are different. Again, it's a continuum, and the individual designer must choose for himself where he wants his game to fall along it.

These aren't the only purposes for which games can be made; they're just a few major ones. Super Columbine Massacre RPG is a satire; I don't know if it qualifies as an art game or not, but it obviously wasn't intended to make money or solve a problem, and perhaps not even to entertain. Satire may be another purpose in its own right.

Conclusion

So there you have a few of the myriad dimensions along which games may be measured: genre, setting, audience, theme, and purpose. I've chosen to address only those because those are the ones that resolve the problem of how to discuss games with Old West or contemporary urban settings, games for girls, Christian games, and serious games.

What's my authority for making all these pronouncements? Nothing, really, apart from common sense and 20 years of observation. If you're an old-timer like me, this all may seem obvious. But clearly it isn't, if some people are still struggling to understand it. I hope I've helped a little.

 
Article Start Previous Page 4 of 4
 
Comments

Dominic Arsenault
profile image
I appreciate your attempt at clearing up terminology, and I think you succeed. I don't have any hope that we'll ever make it out of the muddle however. The ESA document you cited contains "super-genres", but does not say anything about the genres (or sub-) they themselves contain, which makes any sense of hierarchy moot. It's difficult then to know what they mean by "Action" games; all we know is they're not Shooters, Fighting or Racing games, since those are also Super-Genres. And their criteria are as diverse as anyone's: next to Role-Playing, Strategy and Adventure, they feature "Arcade", "Children's Entertainment", "Family Entertainment" and "Other/Compilations". Two of those, as you pointed out, are intended audiences without any gameplay implications; one is relative to the number of games in the package and the fact they have been published before; and one is tied to a context of play (arcade VS home) rather than specific gameplay. That ought to convince anyone of the relevance of writing papers like this.

Film studies and literature have been struggling with what I call "genre leveling", that is, identifying the levels of criteria used to distinguish genres, for about 50 years and more than twenty centuries, respectively. I don't think we'll be out of the woods soon. But maybe if we strike the iron while it's hot, we can have a bit more ground on which to stand.

Gregory Kinneman
profile image
As always, Adams, you have a way of explaining things that anybody can understand. You bring up good points, and I think the brief nostalgia piece at the beginning set the mood nicely for what we can hope for in the future.

Tom Newman
profile image
Some great points! I really believe what defines a genre in gaming will absolutely change in the future. Games are becoming less genre-specific and becoming more virtual worlds for the player to explore. Content will eventually drive what genre is (horror, western, fantasy; etc.), and play-style will replace what we now typically call genre (FPS, 3rd person action; etc.).
Overall a very enjoyable, thought provoking read, and it will be interesting to revisit this topic in a few years.

Kris Ridley
profile image
I think what ultimately decides a genre is gameplay mechanics; what are you actually *doing*? In shooters you shoot, in platformers you jump on platforms, in rpg's you develop and level up your character(s), in racing games you race, etc... Obviously you can do much more than that within each game or genre, but what matters is the primary game mechanic, which is remarkably consistent between games in a genre. I think what causes confusion these days is that more and more games are coming up with unique and original gameplay mechanics, which is fantastic, but which makes it harder to fit into a genre.

juice uk
profile image
Interesting article, but I'm not sure why "games for girls" is not classed as a genre but "games for christians" are. They both feature heavily stylised gameplay and audio/visual design intended to target their specific demographic.

Ultimately, I think the "genre" term is outdated: games now feature so many influences and gameplay mechanisms that trying to boil them down to a single word is often impossible. For instance, how do you describe GTA:SA? It's a third person sandbox game featuring driving, shooting, flying, RPG elements, stealth antics - there's even a host of virtual arcade games to sit down and play!

Unfortunately, people tend to like simple, one-word labels...

Ernest Adams
profile image
Correction, Juice: Games for Christians is NOT classed as a genre. Read it again; it's classed as a THEME.

Greg Costikyan prefers the term "play style" over "genre." He has a point. And yes, the Grand Theft Auto games are hybrids.

juice uk
profile image
@Ernest: true, I should have paid a bit more attention - it was on a coffee break! That said, I think there's a lot of shades of grey inbetween "theme", "genre" and "purpose" - I'd even be tempted to throw "target audience" into the mix as well, though the games industry still seems to be working with very heavy brushstrokes in this area. Still, that's something for another coffee break...

Ernest Adams
profile image
And indeed "audience" is also there, on page 3. :-)

Noah Falstein
profile image
Good points here. The definition of serious games that I like is "games with a purpose beyond entertainment", and breaking down games not just by genre by by purpose and audience is a good idea. One consequence of that definition is that the same game can change classification depending on how it is used. DDR wasn't built for anything except entertainment, but if you use it to lose weight, it's a serious game. I use Advance Wars on the DS for that purpose (combined with a recumbent bike). It works for me, but of course the game wasn't designed as an exergame. Creating a 3D matrix with play genre, audience, and purpose as axes might be intriguing. Or not - I'm writing this at an airport after a red-eye so forgive me if I'm rambling!

Gregg Tavares
profile image
The Platformer genre (or play style) classification has always seemed loose to me. Mario and Sonic few will argue about, they are both platformers. What about Gunstar Hereos, Turrican, Contra? Are those shooters or platformers? They feel like they play nothing like Mario and Sonic. Their main gameplay is shooting and so most people call them shooters. Once they went 3d the problem got worse. Lots of people like to call the Jak series or Ratchet and Clank platformers but why? They are basically 3d versions of Turrican, not Mario because the #1 activity in those games is shooting. How is Ratchet and Clank at a very basic level any different from Tomb Raider or Uncharted other than Jak and R&C are cute? Yet, we find people want to classify by art style. I don't know what my point is except to there is no logic to what people will classify things as and that in any case classification is hard.


none
 
Comment:
 


Submit Comment