Action-Adventure... isn't

[TornadoCreator]

I always considered a dungeon crawler to be something like double dungeons or shining in the darkness. That, or roguelikes such as Pokemon Mystery Dungeon, Shiren the Wanderer and Fatal Labyrinth. I don't really think of a game like diablo as a dungeon crawler at all. My idea of it would definitely be an RPG subgenre.

OK, I haven't played any of the games you mentioned there, so I'll give them a look and see what you mean by dungeon crawler before I can really say much more.

I'm not saying there are no differences between Diablo 2 and Zelda (particularly A Link To The Past which I'm playing now, but even the 3D ones are much the same, just in 3D). After all, there's a lot of difference between Mario Kart and Gran Turismo but they're both racing games... I personally can't see how they could be classified as anything without them both being in the same genre, reguardless of what we call that genre. We can focus on the difference (stats vs. no stats, levels vs. no levels, exploration vs. no exploration.... although I'm not sure I agree that Diablo 2 doesn't involve as much exploration), but I think it'd detract from the similarities.

[J T]

"Point & Click Adventure" ... but I don't think they're really worth mentioning as games rarely come out in these genres or are extremely niché.

o_O

This genre is a major chunk of the history of PC games and is still active today with games like the Monkey Island remakes, anything Tell Tale releases, and many other smaller scale releases. I don't know how you can just write it off.

But whatever, genre classifications are stifling anyway. I like "action-adventure" as a genre because it is a loose definition. It doesn't force a specific form of gameplay in its description and therefore is good for classifying a wider range of games. I've often thought it is strange that we so often define videogame genres by gameplay instead of by feeling or thematic content like they do in other media formats (romance, horror, thriller, etc.) I think games should have a dual genre classification- one that describes the feeling/thematic content and another that describes the gameplay. Videogames are often both a game and a story wrapped into one, so we should be able to categorize in both ways. This way we could describe genres with terms like like action-adventure FPS, romance RPG, thriller point & click adventure, or action-adventure 2D platformer.

[alienjesus]

"Point & Click Adventure" ... but I don't think they're really worth mentioning as games rarely come out in these genres or are extremely niché.

o_O

This genre is a major chunk of the history of PC games and is still active today with games like the Monkey Island remakes, anything Tell Tale releases, and many other smaller scale releases. I don't know how you can just write it off.

But whatever, genre classifications are stifling anyway. I like "action-adventure" as a genre because it is a loose definition. It doesn't force a specific form of gameplay in its description and therefore is good for classifying a wider range of games. I've often thought it is strange that we so often define videogame genres by gameplay instead of by feeling or thematic content like they do in other media formats (romance, horror, thriller, etc.) I think games should have a dual genre classification- one that describes the feeling/thematic content and another that describes the gameplay. Videogames are often both a game and a story wrapped into one, so we should be able to categorize in both ways. This way we could describe genres with terms like like action-adventure FPS, romance RPG, thriller point & click adventure, or action-adventure 2D platformer.

The problem with defining games by genres used for other media is that they aren't films or books, they're games. How do you define tetris? It's an abstract game, more like a sport than a film.

Now you might say that's an unfair example, so lets go for a game which isn't PURELY abstract - like, oh.....Super Mario Bros? What genre is that? It has a narrative, however loose, but you'd be hard pressed to call it romance, even if you are saving the princess.

The problem with defining games with genres used for films is that not all games have a story that can be easily categorized. One thing all games DO have is gameplay, and so that's why that's what is used to group the games, and why that's what is used to describe them.



I also agree that point n click games shouldnt be disregarded as a genre. Lots of classic games fit into that category, and it's not like no games come out in the genre anymore - tales of monkey island, sam and max seasons 1-3, zack and wiki, another code & another code R, hotel dusk and last window, the ace attorney series, and to a lesser extent the hidden object games which are so popular lately, such as Case Files: Millionheir.

[J T]

The problem with defining games by genres used for other media is that they aren't films or books, they're games. How do you define tetris? It's an abstract game, more like a sport than a film.

Now you might say that's an unfair example, so lets go for a game which isn't PURELY abstract - like, oh.....Super Mario Bros? What genre is that? It has a narrative, however loose, but you'd be hard pressed to call it romance, even if you are saving the princess.

The problem with defining games with genres used for films is that not all games have a story that can be easily categorized. One thing all games DO have is gameplay, and so that's why that's what is used to group the games, and why that's what is used to describe them.

Video games are sometimes more game than video, and sometimes more video than game. On the other side of the spectrum from your examples, modern Final Fantasy games have so many cut scenes they are basically just soap operas, only with grinding where the commercials should be. A game like Tetris is purely game and should have a genre classification based on gameplay (Puzzle, or more precisely Block Drop Puzzle). But if we're talking about something with a heavier emphasis on story, like Heavy Rain or Call of Duty: Modern Warfare #, then I think it should have both a gameplay genre classification and a movie-style genre classification.

[TornadoCreator]

"Point & Click Adventure" ... but I don't think they're really worth mentioning as games rarely come out in these genres or are extremely niché.

o_O

This genre is a major chunk of the history of PC games and is still active today with games like the Monkey Island remakes, anything Tell Tale releases, and many other smaller scale releases. I don't know how you can just write it off.

Because I'm talking about genre classification issues with online and RL stores, and chances are you're not likely to buy these games anymore unless your at a specialist site so they're not really part of the problem. I'm not denying that they're important or influencial, just that they'll probably not end up on the shelves of HMV, GAME or Blockbuster any time soon, they lack modern relevence for the sake of this discussion, that's all.

But whatever, genre classifications are stifling anyway. I like "action-adventure" as a genre because it is a loose definition. It doesn't force a specific form of gameplay in its description and therefore is good for classifying a wider range of games. I've often thought it is strange that we so often define videogame genres by gameplay instead of by feeling or thematic content like they do in other media formats (romance, horror, thriller, etc.) I think games should have a dual genre classification- one that describes the feeling/thematic content and another that describes the gameplay. Videogames are often both a game and a story wrapped into one, so we should be able to categorize in both ways. This way we could describe genres with terms like like action-adventure FPS, romance RPG, thriller point & click adventure, or action-adventure 2D platformer.

Actually that's a very good point, and I'd definately agree that we really need a "gameplay genre" and a "thematic genre" in order to properly classify games. It would make things more complex sure but it'd be much easier and would help to differentiate the RPG's people felt didn't quite work...

Mass Effect - Action RPG/Sci-Fi
Neverwinter Nights - Action RPG/Fantasy

It would make classifications much more complicated but I think there's a good argument for it. I still however feel "action-adventure" is far to broard so much so as to make it useless especially when companies with throw RPGs, FPSs and Platfomers under the genre where they clearly don't fit.

[alienjesus]

The problem with defining games by genres used for other media is that they aren't films or books, they're games. How do you define tetris? It's an abstract game, more like a sport than a film.

Now you might say that's an unfair example, so lets go for a game which isn't PURELY abstract - like, oh.....Super Mario Bros? What genre is that? It has a narrative, however loose, but you'd be hard pressed to call it romance, even if you are saving the princess.

The problem with defining games with genres used for films is that not all games have a story that can be easily categorized. One thing all games DO have is gameplay, and so that's why that's what is used to group the games, and why that's what is used to describe them.

Video games are sometimes more game than video, and sometimes more video than game. On the other side of the spectrum, modern Final Fantasy games have so many cut scenes they are basically just soap operas, only with grinding where the commercials should be. A game like Tetris is purely game and should have a genre classification based on gameplay (Puzzle, or more precisely Block Drop Puzzle). But if we're talking about something with a heavier emphasis on story, like Heavy Rain or Call of Duty: Modern Warfare #, then I think it should have both a gameplay genre classification and a movie-style genre classification.

I see where you're coming from, but I was more responding to you saying that you find it strange that we don't use the genre of the story to describe them. Perhaps that will change soon, seeing as we're getting to a point where narrative driven games are becoming the norm. I guess the main reason we don't use it is because when game genres were first being decided, story narrative was too limited to be a deciding factor. People just use what they're used to.

I guess the issue with using narrative genres is that often people won't enjoy two games even with the same theme if the gameplay is the wrong type. Splatterhouse and silent hill are both horror, but they wont necessarily have the same audience. Of course, you can use both genres to define it, but then things can get awkwardly niche - you mention you like action adventure being so open, but adding two genres means you end up with people categorising both the story and the gameplay withing restrictive genre boundaries.

[J T]

I like the Action-Adventure thing as a catch-all kind of category for games that don't fit. I think there are games that clearly fit their genres though and they are well described by their genre labels.

I find genre labels restrictive mainly from a creative standpoint. I would like to see more games that take chances and really change the way games are played, and that do this to such a degree that the current gameplay genres don't neatly fit.

I think genre is useful as a consumer. It tells you a bit about what you are getting into. However, once those genre labels exist, then people start to work to make games that fit the genres. I think design decisions should be made based on what makes a good game and what gameplay works best in tandem with the narrative (if a narrative is present).

I don't like design decisions that are just based on trying to emualte whatever genre is popular now, like saying "let's make an FPS game" instead of "let's make a realistic military simulation that says something about modern politico-military turmoil". I think when designers set out to fit into a genre, they are stepping forward with the wrong foot in terms of creativity. The goal should be to create an experience that is either fun, intriguing, or works well for telling a certain type of story. The goal isn't to fit a pre-existing mold, even when pre-existing gameplay ideas are worth incorporating in service of the targeted gaming experience.

These are largely concerns about how genre labels affect the creative process, but as a consumer I want creative games, so I care about that side of it. Genre labels are usually there for the consumer to make an informed purchase decision, but they can also steer us away from the most creative new games, and therefore these labels are a double-edged sword. I have very mixed feelings about genre labels for this reason, which is probably why some of my ramblings seem a little contradictory, wanting genre specificity in some circumstances and open-ended definitions in others.

[fvgazi]

I like the Action-Adventure thing as a catch-all kind of category for games that don't fit. I think there are games that clearly fit their genres though and they are well described by their genre labels.

I find genre labels restrictive mainly from a creative standpoint. I would like to see more games that take chances and really change the way games are played, and that do this to such a degree that the current gameplay genres don't neatly fit.

I think genre is useful as a consumer. It tells you a bit about what you are getting into. However, once those genre labels exist, then people start to work to make games that fit the genres. I think design decisions should be made based on what makes a good game and what gameplay works best in tandem with the narrative (if a narrative is present).

I don't like design decisions that are just based on trying to emualte whatever genre is popular now, like saying "let's make an FPS game" instead of "let's make a realistic military simulation that says something about modern politico-military turmoil". I think when designers set out to fit into a genre, they are stepping forward with the wrong foot in terms of creativity. The goal should be to create an experience that is either fun, intriguing, or works well for telling a certain type of story. The goal isn't to fit a pre-existing mold, even when pre-existing gameplay ideas are worth incorporating in service of the targeted gaming experience.

These are largely concerns about how genre labels affect the creative process, but as a consumer I want creative games, so I care about that side of it. Genre labels are usually there for the consumer to make an informed purchase decision, but they can also steer us away from the most creative new games, and therefore these labels are a double-edged sword. I have very mixed feelings about genre labels for this reason, which is probably why some of my ramblings seem a little contradictory, wanting genre specificity in some circumstances and open-ended definitions in others.

One day I'm going to make a "point and click shmup" for you.

[J T]

One day I'm going to make a "point and click shmup" for you.

I eagerly await it.

I suggest you call it "The Secret of Monkeyruga"

[isiolia]

There's just a duality to it. Action-Adventure is a holdover genre from TV/film, where it's probably just as broadly defined or used.

If I were to use it to subdivide game genres, it'd be for games like described earlier. Things with both Adventure game aspects, but that had portions that required actual reflexes n' such, hence Action. The Adventure game genre lives on pretty well right now - ever stroll down the PC software isle at a department store? Dreamcatcher Interactive (and similar) pump them out like nobody's business. The DS (and to a lesser extent Wii) have some too...Heavy Rain, and so on.


That said, most genres are simply called that because that's what they're already labelled. I mean, to me, the majority of JRPGs shouldn't be called RPGs. To me, that label belongs to games that offer player choice - role play - and is not married to stat-heavy combat systems or leveling up. Those are just mechanics that were used originally to enforce player decisions - IE, you're an elf mage, therefore your strength stat is weak and you'll really have to roll well to do damage against that ogre.
There's just little point in trying to redefine things like that now though, since we're now decades into calling them that instead of some variety of strategy game.