Genre Classification System

[MZ per X]

Let's use this thread for discussion about Oregami's genre classification system (GCS).

First, I want to talk about the basics.

1) Oregami should be able to support more than one GCS, simply because every approach to genre classification has highs and lows, and there may be use cases where only a combination of them will suit the needs.

2) Having said that, I suggest that our first GCS shall be that of TheLegacy (TL).

As you all know, we're approaching a data import from this long-standing German project, and based on our communication with its owners I don't see serious obstacles for this data import to happen.

So, as I see some sort of basic genre classification as mandatory for game entries at Oregami, I think we are well advised to import this from TL with the games itself.

TL uses a system similar to Mobygames, and I encourage you all to take a look using the following steps (There is no separate URL to reach the English version.):

1) Click the link above.
2) Click on the Union Jack.
3) Click on XXL-Search in the upper-right corner of the screen.
4) Voila!

As you can see there, the genre tags are split into basic genres, presentation tags, themes (which are a mix of real themes and sub-genres), and sports.

IMHO we can live with that for a start. We'd just need to think about which tag group would be mandatory at game level (basic genres!), and which would not, using Indra's criteria from the other thread.

3) Going further, we should create our own, new system that shall become Oregami's standard system in the long run. As I said in the game groups thread, I have a rather crazy proposal for this which I will put to discussion soon.

[Ultyzarus]

The first question is: at which level will the GCS be? G level or RG level? If the latter, theLegacy system works, but not if it is as G level since the Presentation (especially 2D - 3D) may change from one RG to another...

[Ultyzarus]

I also have an issue with some of the choices made from vedder's list (http://wiki.oregami.org/pages/viewpage. ... eId=688149).

Some subgenres, such as Hack and Slash, are noted as "not to be used". With this specific example, I agree that the title itself is Jargon, but the definition really does set it apart from Action-RPG.

An action-RPG would be first and foremost a RPG that uses reflex in some aspects such as its battle system. I would see Crisis Core: FFVII as such a game.

A "Hack and Slash" game, as vedder defined it, would not be a RPG first, but have RPG elements, such as a level system. I believe this would apply to games like Dynasty Warriors / Samurai Warriors / Warriors Orochi. These would be Action / Brawler games with a leveling-up system, which makes it akin to RPG. However, classifying it as an Action-RPG would be wrong.

[MZ per X]

The first question is: at which level will the GCS be? G level or RG level? If the latter, theLegacy system works, but not if it is as G level since the Presentation (especially 2D - 3D) may change from one RG to another...

Yes, my suggestion would be linking TL's basic genres at G level, thus making them mandatory, and linking everything else at RG level.

[Rola]

Just like in the film world we often have cases of mislabeling (e.g: one movie was called "sentimental comedy" on its poster, while the critics would categorize it as "psychological drama"). Without going into endless debates, we need to somehow categorize games...


I'm well aware that computer RPGs are a bastardization of live RPG sessions. Early computers were best at calculating statistics, that's how "here comes a monster with 60HP" was born.
"Is Diablo a RPG?" I'd go even farther and say that even the classic titles like Eye of Beholder or Betrayal at Krondor (my favorite!) aren't true to the RPG experience! "Blasphemy!" some people will cry...
I say only games like Fallout or Planescape:Torment are true cRPGs. Why? Because apart from killing monsters, increasing statistics and skills of your party and hoarding items, they allow you to make choices that can change the plot (different ending), as you can be a savior or a menace. You may save the village... or pillage it... or burn it! You may buy the items... or steal them... or kill the shopkeeper! See the difference?


But that would leave only a handful of games with RPG genre...


Sometimes it's too late to fix the global consensus, even if it's stupid. Polish common word for "automobile" is "samochód" (self-walker), while it should be "samojazd" (self-rider), but can I change its usage after 100 years solely on the grounds that we have robotic walkers now?


That's why I say: leave RPG for Diablo. But add gameplay theme "real-time hack-and-slash" to differentiate it from more serious RPG.


========================================================================


Basic genres are needed. But that doesn't mean they're a solution to all our problems.

"Survival horror" or "Tower defense" aren't new genres, but types of gameplay. "Tower defense" is a "real-time" "strategy" ("puzzle") game in which you build towers to stop enemy advance... what was already possible in old "RTS" games!

Harpoon is a "strategy" game played in "real-time" in "top-down" view, but it's not a "RTS"! That's why gameplay theme "RTS" with Warcraft and Dune 2 would be useful.

However I don't see a problem in adding them as gameplay themes, as they work akin to "Pipe Mania variants" - they are a shortcut in finding games with similar gameplay.

[Ultyzarus]

Since the principal definition of what is called a RPG is the level system, maybe we could have something like (this goes in the tags thread though) Gameplay feature: leveling-up aka RPG?

[Indra]

True RPG? Use Rogue as the default. Every other RPG gamers use as a default are just confused adventure gamers. For years, I'm been pondering this question and have come to the conclusion that RPG gamers have no idea what they're talking about i.e. RPG elements? Whaddya mean RPG elements? CRPG elements have little to do with traditional pen and paper RPGs, which act more like role-playing games.

So, I made my own categorization. There are traditionally four mandatory requirements for a CRPG:

1. A controllable protagonist. This later expanded to accept a party of controllable characters. Not entirely sure if tactical RPGs are RPGs though.

2. Character development, or in Fred's terms, leveling up. Traditionally used experience+level to indicate advancement, preferably with statistical representation. Non-statistical representations make weak RPG candidates. Later adaptations have excluded such requirements (e.g. skill development). Though also note that although all RPGs MUST have some form of character development, not all games that HAVE character development can qualify as an RPG. Japanese strategy games are notorious for blurring these lines.

3. An inventory system. A remnant from earlier adventure games. Which is why many adventure games see RPGs as an adventure game (story, puzzle solving, inventory system)+combat. Also items in the inventory must be able to be dropped or sold (shopkeeper feature). Fixed items is a quality meant for action games.

4. Combat. No restrictions or additional requirements on how combat should be handled.

If one of these requirements are not fulfilled, not an RPG.

What is not required for a game to be a CRPG:
1. Actual role-playing elements. Adventure games are more qualified to be role-playing games by definition than computer role-playing games.
2. Story. This is a requirement and motivator for adventure games.

Basically whack monsters, loot stuff, level up. That's about it really. Everything else is hybrid element.

Blame early gamers for naming stuff with no brain power added when naming such genres.

[MZ per X]

3) Going further, we should create our own, new system that shall become Oregami's standard system in the long run. As I said in the game groups thread, I have a rather crazy proposal for this which I will put to discussion soon.

I wrote up something, go have a look.

[Ultyzarus]

I have an idea for keeping our genre and tags up-to-date for each game.
I think having something showing that new information has been added to a Game, especially screenshots and complete descriptions, would allow us to review the existing classification and check if it is in accordance with that new info.

[Indra]

Well, I can come up with descriptions easy-peasy, though admittedly my descriptions tend to be too detailed for the average browser, so someone may want to do a summary description as well.

Problem for game groups in my experience has always been hybrid features, though to make things easier, I would suspect that each game group as a template guideline to have:

1. A mandatory game used as an example. The game that first used the feature or most popularly known, preferably both.
2. Other example games where may pose as a hybrid feature to a pre-exisitng game group. Usually only needed when the game group has a lousy description, unclear limitations, or just plain wrong.

[Ultyzarus]

One thing that never seems to be part of game classification systems are the narrative aspect. There are at least three types of narration for games:

-Narrative - A Game with a plot that drives the gameplay at different levels (Mario, Zelda, etc.)
-Without Narrative - A game without any kind of plot (Tetris, Mario Party)
-Mostly non-narrative gameplay with some narrative elements - A game that has some kind of storyline show between levels (Puzzle Bubble Universe)

[jotaroraido]

Mario Party

Huh? The Mario Party games (at least the early ones, not sure about the later ones) definitely had stories. Inane and utterly pointless stories, but stories nonetheless.

Also, the "mostly" halfway-house you propose seems ripe for endless debate about where exactly the threshold is between "narrative" and "some narrative". I'd personally argue that any game where the story plays out almost entirely in overproduced, flashy cutscenes, and the player simply runs from point A to point B shooting dudes in the face in between, would only count as "some narrative". Too subjective for something aiming to be encyclopedic.

[Indra]

One thing that never seems to be part of game classification systems are the narrative aspect.

Probably because it's too vague to be categorized. You could categorize certain elements within the story however e.g. multiple endings, choice/consequence, etc.