Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[miauw62]

Sounds legit, lets bug valve about it!

[scriver]

In my mind, there are "true" genres, and there are supportive element "genres". What a genre aims to do is simply group things together in a way that explains what they are about; with games that would be the mechanics of the game - which means there has to be a large enough number of games with similar mechanics for it to be a genre in the first place. Things like strategy, action, adventure, shooters, exist in such numbers.

Then we have the "supportive elements" part of the genre name. These explain how a game in particular differentiates itself from the others - open world/sandbox, realtime (it turn based or RTwP), first person (or third or "isometric"), RPG (I count it here since I believe true roleplaying is so rare with today's tech), and so on. They help explain in more detail how the game works.

Of course, it gets a bit more complicated once hybrids and such start popping up. the point I want to make, however, is that there simply isn't a "true" genre for many of the above games, because not enough games similar to them exist yet. They must be described as individual cases to get a decent idea of what they are about. Basically making their "genre" what would otherwise be their "supportive elements" if you want to keep it short.

I was a bit sarcastic when I just said "indie games", but also serious. They define their own genre.

"Indie" is a business structure, not a genre. It applies to game studios and developers, not the games themselves.

[Singularity125]

Genre isn't really applicable anymore.  Used to be games were rather clearly defined.  Quake is FPS, clearly.  Age of Empires is RTS, clearly.  But a lot of newer games pick and choose things from different genres.  The term "Genre" generally defines an archetype of game, something that you've played before but this game has a different flavor.  White bread and Rye.  Both the bread genre, just made different.

More accurate now would be "facet" instead.  You can have games like Halo or Minecraft (roughly compared), white bread and a cheese pastry.  Both have bread (you play via first person) but one is different because it's also a builder.  Yeah my food analogy is failing now.  Either way, the majority of indie-type games cross genres and mix and match for some very fun gameplay.  It's mainly the big companies that keep to old single-style games.  Observe: Starcraft 2, all of Halo, Assassin's Creed, World of Warcraft...  All the big name games are pretty strict on one genre.  Smaller company games tend to cross more, but that's a whole other argument.  Point being, more and more games are blurring genre lines, and that means it's probably time to start categorizing them differently.

If we're using a food analogy, then my favorite type of games are stews that blend everything together deliciously

I don't have much to add, except that labels just don't fit many games these days. Generally instead of hearing genres thrown out, I hear "Like xxx but..." Many of the thread titles in this forum are proof of that. I remember when the Minecraft thread title was "Like Infiniminer but..." And then there are games like A Valley Without Wind that just seem impossible to define, and their formula is being tweaked heavily, even post-release.

[DJ]

I don't think we should be inventing new genre names, look at what happened to metal.

[Delta Foxtrot]

I don't think we should be inventing new genre names, look at what happened to metal.

I have a feeling you wouldn't appreciate a DF themed garage band doing ÜBER MAGMA METÄL?

[miauw62]

Girlinhat is not inventing new genre names, she's inventing a new GENRE SYSTEM!
Wich would be about 20 times as awesome, if my calcualtions are correct.

[fenrif]

Genre isn't really applicable anymore.  Used to be games were rather clearly defined.  Quake is FPS, clearly.  Age of Empires is RTS, clearly.  But a lot of newer games pick and choose things from different genres.  The term "Genre" generally defines an archetype of game, something that you've played before but this game has a different flavor.  White bread and Rye.  Both the bread genre, just made different.

More accurate now would be "facet" instead.  You can have games like Halo or Minecraft (roughly compared), white bread and a cheese pastry.  Both have bread (you play via first person) but one is different because it's also a builder.  Yeah my food analogy is failing now.  Either way, the majority of indie-type games cross genres and mix and match for some very fun gameplay.  It's mainly the big companies that keep to old single-style games.  Observe: Starcraft 2, all of Halo, Assassin's Creed, World of Warcraft...  All the big name games are pretty strict on one genre.  Smaller company games tend to cross more, but that's a whole other argument.  Point being, more and more games are blurring genre lines, and that means it's probably time to start categorizing them differently.

Genre is always applicable, but it's never a rigid unbreakable set of rules. Genres change over time. Compare the comedy genre of the 1920s with the comedy genre today. Genre's simply a tool for identifying something.

Also games from way back were just as diverse as games today, it's just that there are much more games now. Sure the big companies had their rigidly-defined genre games like quake, but then there were still games like Dungeon Keeper (another game for this thread's new genre?) and X-com which straddled genres left right and centre.

I don't have much to add, except that labels just don't fit many games these days. Generally instead of hearing genres thrown out, I hear "Like xxx but..." Many of the thread titles in this forum are proof of that. I remember when the Minecraft thread title was "Like Infiniminer but..." And then there are games like A Valley Without Wind that just seem impossible to define, and their formula is being tweaked heavily, even post-release.

The whole point of genre classifications is that instead of saying "it's like X" you say "it's X genre" and it tells you all you need to know. The problem I think is that video games don't have any real culture of critical thinking surrounding it. I mean it's there and people do it, this thread is an example of it, but the majority of coverage of video games is pretty much limited to parroting marketing press releases and reviewing games with a score out of ten. It's probobly the biggest problem with the whole gaming culture at the moment, and especially ironic when gaming 'journalists' are so desperate to prove games are art.

[Girlinhat]

The comparison of "It's like X" is just from people who don't know how to give descriptions - particularly bad with the developer does it.  There's very few games that are truly difficult to explain without comparing it to something else.

[kg333]

I understand what's ultimately being discussed here.  It's the idea of "The main purpose of the game is allowing you to reshape the terrain while also having some gameplay and some challenge involved."  Minecraft lets you build all you want - it also lets you explore caves and find resources.  Terraria lets you build all you want - it also has fun dungeons and encourages multiplayer.  Infiniminer I assume works the same as Minecraft - I haven't played.  The overall theme here is "free range construction with a side of gameplay."

Construction, Sandbox, or Builder seem valid to me.  But it's worth saying that these are facets more than they are genres.  A lot of (most?) games span multiple genres.  FPS+RTS, or FPS+RPG, or whatever.  You can have FPS+Builder easily, as Minecraft almost is (it's first person and includes fighting, at least).  Or Simulator + Builder, as Dwarf Fortress uses both.

I think that pretty much sums the OP's question, other genre discussions aside.  Personally, I'd probably describe them as Sandbox, since that implies building without assigned goals, unlike games such as Rollercoaster Tycoon. 

KG

[Neonivek]

Genre isn't really applicable anymore.  Used to be games were rather clearly defined

Not really. Even far back people were wondering what the differences between the genres were. I remember the Adventure game Vs. RPG debates of the 90s.

As for making Minecraft its own genre I should state that genres only come if there are a lot of games like it enough

Also Minecraft isn't RPG (due to one reason) it would be an Adventure game. First person Adventure.

[kg333]

Also Minecraft isn't RPG (due to one reason) it would be an Adventure game. First person Adventure.

Considering Adventure is already used for games along the lines of Myst, Monkey Island, or King's Quest, I wouldn't consider Minecraft to be even related to that genre.

KG

[miauw62]

Well, there ARE actually popping up alot games like minecraft lately...
I'll sum some up, some come before, some after minecraft.
King arthurs gold, terraria, infiniminer, ace of spades, fortresscraft, minecraft, total miner (number, forgot it )...
So yeah, its nearing its own genre, but i prefer using the system girlinhat said for defining games, seems like alot easier as most games dont really have a single 'genre' anymore.

[ductape]

genre pigeon-holing is getting harder these days because lots of game makers are mashing up elemenets from various genres to get new types of games.

BUT

I vote Sandbox Builder

[Neonivek]

Also I forgot that Minecraft not so recently added levels

It is a RPG again. Without such it would be a Adventure game.

Considering Adventure is already used for games along the lines of Myst, Monkey Island, or King's Quest, I wouldn't consider Minecraft to be even related to that genre

Those are point and click adventures. Games such as Zelda (the entire series) and I believe the original Tomb Raiders are Adventure as well.

The best way to tell the difference between an RPG and Adventure is numbers.

To the extent where if RPGs weren't more numberous then Adventure games I'd suggest you treat RPG as a Subgenre of Adventure.

I vote Sandbox Builder

Sandbox is more of a Element then a genre of itself (ignoring that how open and exploration involved a game is, is what determines if it is adventure or action).

Here are the genres that have the most bleeding:
-Action <-> Adventure
-RPG <-> Adventure
-Puzzle <-> Adventure (Only point and clicks are more commonly confused for puzzle)

I just realised that adventure... is basically the "Everything" genre just without numbers (the presence of numbers makes it a RPG)

[Microcline]

girlinhat summed it up pretty well in that it straddles an ill-defined border between a genre and a descriptive tag based on implementation.  The reason I asked about the name was that every time one of them comes out we have a thread about it, and I don't quite know what to call it.  Previously I was thinking "true sandbox" as these games fit the metaphor better than open-world games (what is currently known as "sandbox").  "Builder" works pretty well though, and it fits with a lot of existing genre naming.

Also I forgot that Minecraft not so recently added levels

It is a RPG again. Without such it would be a Adventure game.

Or, is an action-adventure with RPG-elements

Considering Adventure is already used for games along the lines of Myst, Monkey Island, or King's Quest, I wouldn't consider Minecraft to be even related to that genre

Those are point and click adventures. Games such as Zelda (the entire series) and I believe the original Tomb Raiders are Adventure as well.

The best way to tell the difference between an RPG and Adventure is numbers.

To the extent where if RPGs weren't more numberous then Adventure games I'd suggest you treat RPG as a Subgenre of Adventure.

Aren't Zelda and Tomb Raider action-adventure (mostly separate from the adventure supergenre which contains things like point-and-click adventures and text adventures)?  Isn't it possible to have an RPG with few or no numbers, such as Space Station 13?

I don't really mean to pick nits though, as arguing over something with no official classification (or something as pedantic as the genres of specific games) has no real purpose.