Open Registry of Game Information 

  • Towards a new genre classification

  • Talk about specific features of our upcoming online game database.
Talk about specific features of our upcoming online game database.

Moderators: MZ per X, gene

 #37540  by MZ per X
 19 Nov 2013, 18:02
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. :)
 #37543  by Rola
 19 Nov 2013, 19:26
The longer I stay here, the more I am convinced that you are getting closer to a doctorate in computer games rather than a working game database...

The more academic it goes, the more abstract it becomes... it's OK if you write a paper for an university, but are you certain that average people will understand it? Won't it scare away potential contributors?

I know that website (I was upset when I discovered my text there alongside other content copied verbatim from MobyGames without permission). Is it popular at all among gamers?

Better ask yourself: who uses game databases? Gamers driven by nostalgia, trying to find forgotten titles... collectors... fans of certain genre or theme... is that theoretical analytic approach of interest to general masses?

Please note I didn't say it's stupid. I just view it as too academic and not so practical.
 #37544  by MZ per X
 19 Nov 2013, 22:28
Rola wrote:The longer I stay here, the more I am convinced that you are getting closer to a doctorate in computer games rather than a working game database... The more academic it goes, the more abstract it becomes... it's OK if you write a paper for an university, but are you certain that average people will understand it? Won't it scare away potential contributors?
It's just a little German over-engineering. :D 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.

And later on, if the new system might be implemented, the average user will choose a game concept he is familiar with, and the underlying player actions and tags will be pre-defined. More experienced users can then add additional tags, or whatever.
Rola wrote:I know that website (I was upset when I discovered my text there alongside other content copied verbatim from MobyGames without permission). Is it popular at all among gamers?
I don't think so. Never heard of it before doing some research about genre systems.
 #37546  by Rola
 20 Nov 2013, 00:25
MZ per X wrote:possibly something new and exciting for the users with a deeper, more scientific interest
If it's in addition to the old&tried genres - I don't mind. I may even suggest a few not-so-common gameplay examples :)
 #37547  by Indra
 20 Nov 2013, 00:43
Hey, didn't I talk about this in game group thread? o_O

Well, this would actually be easier to analyze if we did create an academic concept framework (actually Rola, easier to discuss the complicated framework and then later adapt it into a more user friendly layout). So here's my version via Endonesian research proposal approach:

Background
To establish a genre classification system that serves as a framework for existing and possibly new sub-genres. Pre-existing genres within the gaming industry is problematic at best with no authoritative source, with its terms mostly community based by adolescents coming up with questionable terms that unfortunately have since become official. Little or no effort has been made to correct this situation due to the lack of authority and a target audience mainly consisting of individuals with underdeveloped brain capacity, who for the most part see no importance of such a framework. Many of the main genres have been borrowed from other entertainment industries, specifically movie or television genres.

It will be the purpose of this proposal to identify whether or not a completely new genre classification is needed or if the pre-exisitng convention-based genre system is realistically accurate to define for once what gamers are talking about when using genres to define a game.

Problem Identification
The following has been identified as some of the main issues that need to be resolved:
  • 1. What is the purpose of a genre classification system? Is this understanding generally known and accepted?
  • 2. Does the pre-existing genre classification system by convention and its individual genres accurate and effective in attaining that purpose?
  • 3. Under what circumstances do problems with the pre-existing genre classifications arise?
  • 4. What qualifications must a genre establish for it to be deemed a genre to be differed from a sub-genre, a game group, or a tag?
  • 5. What corrections need to be make to the pre-existing genre classification to make it more effective or if it needs a total rewrite?
[/list]

Goals
  • 1. To create a working definition that identifies the purposes of a genre classification system. This working definition shall be used to create a standard model to identify what the genre system will look like, which will identify a hierarchy based system and identifiable categories within that proposed system.
  • 2. To identify problematic existing genres, provide examples as to its use, and identify if a problematic genre needs to be corrected by title/definition or be completely removed.
  • 3. To identify a method which identifies how game is be reviewed to qualify for a particular genre.
  • 4. To create a standard for each hierarchy level within the genre classification system which determines if a proposed category should be listed as a genre, sub-genre, game group, tag, or something else entirely.
Yeah, this is what I do when I'm bored. :p
Tweak this up a bit and one could actually turn this into a grant proposal.
 #37552  by Ultyzarus
 20 Nov 2013, 14:06
One of the main goals should be to create a system that is both accurate AND intuitive. I shouldn't have to look at the genre description every time I add a new game to verify if it actually fits with the genre I'm checking...
 #37555  by Rola
 20 Nov 2013, 15:09
Writing about such theoretical things goes on and on, takes plenty of time, hurts my RSI fingers. Trust me, I could be just as verbose as Indra, but... this is just some rant on a forum, not even an article under my name that gets published... I simply hold myself back, trying not to spam the forum!

If you want to deconstruct games... start with what I linked in "what is a game" thread:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game#Chris_Crawford

Next, basic genre blocks?

Everything starts here: a game focuses either on reflex (action, motion) or thinking (strategy). Pong is all action, Chess is all strategy, but most titles are a mix of this.
 #37556  by Indra
 20 Nov 2013, 16:19
Ultyzarus wrote:I shouldn't have to look at the genre description every time I add a new game to verify if it actually fits with the genre I'm checking...
With genre names like 4X and beat'em up, good luck keeping up with all these gaming jargons.

Adventure games apparently are puzzle solving games (or to be more precise, item combination click everything on the screen puzzle solving). Puzzle solving games apparently are puzzle+action games. RPG games are about character development. Life simulation games and cockpit simulation games shouldn't go under the same simulation genre (the later being a simulator and the former sometimes doesn't even count as a strategy game).

Sometimes I think some of these basic genre names should just be scratched or just renamed as they offer more confusion than help gamers find what they're looking for. Oh, but gaming consensus. Yeah, shoot'em up. Good lord, where do these dimwits come up with these names?
 #37557  by Ultyzarus
 20 Nov 2013, 16:31
Indra wrote:Sometimes I think some of these basic genre names should just be scratched or just renamed as they offer more confusion than help gamers find what they're looking for. Oh, but gaming consensus. Yeah, shoot'em up. Good lord, where do these dimwits come up with these names?
Yeah, concensus... Is there actually one? I don't normally use most of these terms. Of course it may be because English is not my native language, but as I said, they most ofter sound counter-intuitive. What does 4x mean anyway? Why not have a 'One-man Army' genre, while we're at it? :P
 #37558  by Rola
 20 Nov 2013, 16:54
Indra wrote:Good lord, where do these dimwits come up with these names?
You haven't seen the worst 8)

20 years ago in Poland I've seen games described as "komnatówka" - rough translation would be "chamber (game)". Try to guess what it means!




Answer: a platformer/adventure like Dizzy, only flip-screen (because that was easier to code for 8-bit machines than smooth scrolling)... so every screen is a new room (or chamber in a castle).


Go to urbandictionary.com - not just gamers but people in general (especially young) love to make up slang... and I "love" :evil: that, as it's often counterintuitive, especially for non-native speakers...