Okay, so I had an idea for a new genre classification system, based on the Serious Game Classification. Please use this thread to discuss this proposal.
1) Basic classification
I think we all agree that the current base genres are highly subjective. You'll never reach agreement about what an "RPG" is between someone who grew up playing Rogue in the early 80s, and someone who grew up with Dragon Warrior on the NES. That's why there's so much fighting about these issues.
We need to classify games using more objective criteria. The Serious Game Classification uses gameplay bricks based on a simple question:
What does a player do in a game?
And the answer to this simple question is as objective as it gets, I think. The answer to that question is completely independent of year of game release, personal player preferences, or gameplay perspective.
Destroy, collect, improve, create, dodge, manage, explore, learn, hide, and so forth.
Naturally, we'd need to define all these player actions - new fighting about definitions galore.
But my strong hope is that these verbs are much easier to define than what an "RPG" is.
2) Main actions and secondary ones
Next thing is separating the main actions of the player from the secondary actions within a game. Some player doings are giving a game its substance, and some could be omitted without changing the core gameplay. It doesn't matter if a game is still fun without these secondary actions.
The main actions would be mandatory data for a game entry, the secondary actions would not.
3) Gameplay concepts
Despite the new action-based base classification, we IMHO still need to define sub-genres, or let's call it gameplay concepts. Because we love our Hidden Object, 3D shooter, or Tower Defense games, and because these gameplay concepts help the database users to quickly realize - or contribute - a game's core content.
But how? How to get from the above player actions to a gameplay concept?
I call the solution to this problem "Ingredients and Recipes". Like a chef in his kitchen uses a recipe to combine main and secondary ingredients, and kitchen devices to create the perfect meal, we will do so, too.
Our main and secondary ingredients are, of course, the player actions we defined at step one/two. Our kitchen devices are the gameplay perspective, maybe a special setting/theme, or a certain kind of technique. Combined, we will get a game recipe - or gameplay concept - which should be as objectively defined as it gets.
4) Easy example
Game: Doom
Main player actions:
Destroy, dodge, explore
Secondary actions:
Collect, solve
Additives:
First person perspective
====> Gameplay concept: "Early 3D shooter"
5) Closing remarks
Okay, this is quite esoteric, I admit. But maybe that's because we are used to the old system for over 30 years. So please give it some thought and tell me what you think.
1) Basic classification
I think we all agree that the current base genres are highly subjective. You'll never reach agreement about what an "RPG" is between someone who grew up playing Rogue in the early 80s, and someone who grew up with Dragon Warrior on the NES. That's why there's so much fighting about these issues.
We need to classify games using more objective criteria. The Serious Game Classification uses gameplay bricks based on a simple question:
What does a player do in a game?
And the answer to this simple question is as objective as it gets, I think. The answer to that question is completely independent of year of game release, personal player preferences, or gameplay perspective.
Destroy, collect, improve, create, dodge, manage, explore, learn, hide, and so forth.
Naturally, we'd need to define all these player actions - new fighting about definitions galore.
But my strong hope is that these verbs are much easier to define than what an "RPG" is.2) Main actions and secondary ones
Next thing is separating the main actions of the player from the secondary actions within a game. Some player doings are giving a game its substance, and some could be omitted without changing the core gameplay. It doesn't matter if a game is still fun without these secondary actions.
The main actions would be mandatory data for a game entry, the secondary actions would not.
3) Gameplay concepts
Despite the new action-based base classification, we IMHO still need to define sub-genres, or let's call it gameplay concepts. Because we love our Hidden Object, 3D shooter, or Tower Defense games, and because these gameplay concepts help the database users to quickly realize - or contribute - a game's core content.
But how? How to get from the above player actions to a gameplay concept?
I call the solution to this problem "Ingredients and Recipes". Like a chef in his kitchen uses a recipe to combine main and secondary ingredients, and kitchen devices to create the perfect meal, we will do so, too.
Our main and secondary ingredients are, of course, the player actions we defined at step one/two. Our kitchen devices are the gameplay perspective, maybe a special setting/theme, or a certain kind of technique. Combined, we will get a game recipe - or gameplay concept - which should be as objectively defined as it gets.
4) Easy example
Game: Doom
Main player actions:
Destroy, dodge, explore
Secondary actions:
Collect, solve
Additives:
First person perspective
====> Gameplay concept: "Early 3D shooter"
5) Closing remarks
Okay, this is quite esoteric, I admit. But maybe that's because we are used to the old system for over 30 years. So please give it some thought and tell me what you think.
But there is a difference between modelling a database, and designing a UI and workflow around it. The modelling is quite abstract and theoretical, but you will notice at many places that we try to implement a simpler way to do things besides the expert way. As regards genre systems, we will have a "usual" way of doing things (TheLegacy), and possibly something new and exciting for the users with a deeper, more scientific interest.
that, as it's often counterintuitive, especially for non-native speakers...