It's probably time to talk about game genres again.

[darthbator]

Genres, in anything really, are sort of reductive to the thing they are "explaining" in their use. However they do serve a good purpose of giving people comparative ground for things they haven't experienced. Saying something is a "rougelike" or an "adventure game" communicates a kind of broad expectation about what you're getting into. I think the desire of some people for ENDLESSLY granular classification has kind of ruined it for most people but it's got a use for sure.

[Merus]

I look forward to when people say things are 'not a game' because I really want to know what the deal is with their definition of 'game'. Like, is it that there isn't any lose condition? Because then adventure games aren't games and they basically were the game industry. Is it that there isn't any win condition? Then Tetris isn't a game. Is it that there isn't any pressure? No challenge? That the world doesn't appear to respond to their actions? Because I can think of 'games' that share those attributes.

 

As for genres, I think they're mostly harmless because we're essentially trying to describe what kind of experience one will have and some of the interactions one might expect. People want that, and for anything that doesn't really fit into a tidy genre label, we just add a new label like how the written word has 'literature'. Anything that is 'literature' may be sci-fi, or a zombie story, or a mystery, but more importantly it expects you to work a bit to fully appreciate it. I believe the kind of people constrained by genre labels aren't the kind of people who'd engage in a more complex taxonomy.

[Tanukitsune]

Yeah, there are many games we don't play to "win" so I find this whole "not a game" genre amusing, special when people try on purpose to make a "not a game".

[elmuerte]

"what is game" has never been more appropriate

[Reyturner]

"Games" is as broad a category as "transportation" and, as such, I beleive more granular sub categories are necessary. Is genre even the right word? Is "car" a genre of transportation? I don't accept a definition of "games" that can't accommodate Dota, Dear Esther and Euro Truck Driver.

Dividing games by mechanics makes to the most sense too me, even if the terms that end up getting used are dumb (see Lords Management, rogue-like, indie). Narrative content is almost meaningless. Knowing Jamestown is a top down shooter tells me a lot more about what it than knowing it is historic fantasy set in the Elizabethan era in which the New World is Mars.

That being said, the way in which narrative is presented, its tone and whether or not there is a ghost can be meaningful. I think you could call Dear Esther a "non-linear impressionistic natrative" for example.

It also, to me anyways, makes sense to call out platform, business model (to a certain extent) and the necessity of online connectivity. However, I don't think AAA is very useful as it is typically used dismissively, like "Hollywood" is in film.

"Free to play, offline endless runner" is a useful description of Jetpack Joyride; I don't think you could leave any of those adjectives out.

"AAA historical scifi epic", while accurate, doesn't tell you a whole lot about what Assassin's Creed is and could also be applied to Civ 5, The Bureau or Eternal Champions.

[dartmonkey]

Genres are fine for quickly defining something, but become infinitesimally less useful by the syllable. I just had a coffee that was a roguelikelike.

[Tanukitsune]

"Games" is as broad a category as "transportation" and, as such, I beleive more granular sub categories are necessary. Is genre even the right word? Is "car" a genre of transportation? I don't accept a definition of "games" that can't accommodate Dota, Dear Esther and Euro Truck Driver.

Dividing games by mechanics makes to the most sense too me, even if the terms that end up getting used are dumb (see Lords Management, rogue-like, indie). Narrative content is almost meaningless. Knowing Jamestown is a top down shooter tells me a lot more about what it than knowing it is historic fantasy set in the Elizabethan era in which the New World is Mars.

That being said, the way in which narrative is presented, its tone and whether or not there is a ghost can be meaningful. I think you could call Dear Esther a "non-linear impressionistic natrative" for example.

It also, to me anyways, makes sense to call out platform, business model (to a certain extent) and the necessity of online connectivity. However, I don't think AAA is very useful as it is typically used dismissively, like "Hollywood" is in film.

"Free to play, offline endless runner" is a useful description of Jetpack Joyride; I don't think you could leave any of those adjectives out.

"AAA historical scifi epic", while accurate, doesn't tell you a whole lot about what Assassin's Creed is and could also be applied to Civ 5, The Bureau or Eternal Champions.

"AAA historical scifi epic" isn't even a game "genre", "AAA historical scifi epic action game" doesn't tell you much more about AC, but at least it can no longer be applied to Civ V, The Bureau or Eternal Champions.

 

Genres are fine for quickly defining something, but become infinitesimally less useful by the syllable. I just had a coffee that was a roguelikelike.

 

And yet the coffee comparison is apt. Some people are just happy with a strong black coffee in the same way some people just want an action game, while some people want a mocchafrappachinolatte with hazelnut, chocolate syrup.

 

To me the extra granular stuff can mean the world of difference, like whether the game is turned based or not, the reason we have to differentiate between a scrolling shmup and a bullet hell is because some people would rather play one instead of the other, even though some can't really see the difference.

 

We know use the term "cover based shooter" because the simple act of adding cover changed the game play mechanic and it's usually slower than a faster paced FPS like Doom or Serious Sam, and people will want to know that because maybe they prefer one over the other. 

[BadHat]

Genres are fine for quickly defining something, but become infinitesimally less useful by the syllable. I just had a coffee that was a roguelikelike.

 

Yeah, after a certain point it just becomes pointless navel-gazing. Like people who get really up in arms about defining their pet genre in music. For instance, try having a conversation with someone who's really adamant that most modern post-rock isn't "really" post-rock.*

 

* Don't, though.

[sclpls]

I don't think of genre as a problem at all. To quote Idle Thumbs podcast network operator Nels Anderson:

 

"So why should we care about genre? Because it's a way for creators to communally explore an idea and a shorthand for the audience to help make sense of those new ideas. It's something that stretches across all matter of art forms, from impressionism in painting, to art deco in architecture to neoclassicism in sculpture. Simply, genre is one way design can explore and evolve ideas/styles rapidly. I'm certainly not going to prescribe that it's the only way, but it can be a tremendously effective one"

 

Genre fiction can be derivative and dull, but so can non-genre fiction.