Talk:Computer and video game genres/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Spamming

User Mihirviveka has been spamming many genre-related pages with advertisments for the game Democracy Game, an article suggested for deletion. On the List of computer and video games by genre page he invented the genre "Political Strategy" solely for his(?) game. In this article he inserted it as the first speciment in both the turn-based and educational game example lists. Wikipedia is not a place for advertisment, and I suggest we watch this user closely. Mikademus 09:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


What are the genres?

Changed the "Most strategy titles tend to be wargames. These games can usually be divided into turn-based, real-time strategy (RTS) and real-time tactical (RTT) games" into "Most strategy titles tend to be wargames, usually turn-based or real-time games. Real-time wargames are generally of real-time strategy (RTS) or real-time tactical (RTT) game types", which is hopefully a less confrontational phrasing *sigh* Mikademus 08:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think "shooters" is too vague when there are already FPS, third-person and side-scrolling shooters already listed Richard cocks 01:01, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

I'm at a loss how to describe Berzerk then, it doesn't really fit any of those. - Hephaestos|§ 01:06, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Nostalgic Pacman-like Simple Shooters... ugen64 02:33, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
It might be worth having a "retro" subsection under which those simple shooters go.
"Retro" is certainly more descriptive; I like it. - Hephaestos|§ 03:02, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I've been struggling to resolve the difference between 'retro' shooters and 'real' shoot-em-ups too. Obviously, Berserk is identifiably a 'retro shooter', along with Robotron, Galaga, Star Castle, Asteroids, and any number of simple games from the early 80s, but these games are not usually listed as shoot 'em ups. Some magazines simply referred to them and their remakes as 'Arcade games', but that's ambiguous. 80.225.12.77 20:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I like "Retro". But perhaps "non-scrolling shooters" would be even more descriptive. Then all shoot-em-ups are classified under (requiring progressively more hardware, and hence historically appearing in this order): "non-scrolling shooters", "Shoot 'em up"/"Scrolling shooters", "First-person shooters", and "Third person shooters". ... Or I suppose you could call it a "side-scrolling shooter that doesn't scroll" (allusion to the video-game-centered movie "The Last Starfighter"). -- DavidCary 05:34, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Where's any mention of massively multiplayer online games? And their precursors MUDs? Also, where are text based adventures? MShonle 22:39, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Text adventures are mentioned under Adventure games. However, I have to wonder: do they count as 'video' games? I don't know, and personally I always eschew the term because it's kind of redundant. Computer games is nice and precise.
Very true, should the old VHS cross board game nightmare be a video game? It's not what most people think of as one. I'd support moving this page to Computer game genre (or maybe even list of computer game genres)
Apparently the argument about computer games vs video games has been had before, as evidenced on Video game and the talk page for that article. But I second that the page should be moved. 'Computer games' is the broader definition, and I have yet to see any convincing description of the difference.
Page moved, to bring it in line with list of computer and video games etc. Should have thought of naming it as such when I made the article! -Sean 02:43, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is "Prince of Persia" notable enough to list under "Platform" games ?

What ? flight simulators aren't "serious" ? Are you serious ? :-) Perhaps the "serious" section should say "... except for simulators". -- DavidCary 05:34, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think real flight sim fans would consider them to not be games rather than not being serious. Richard cocks 05:42, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
To MShonle, MMORPG are a type of computer role-playing game. Also MMORTS is a type of RTS. MUDs are a type of text-based adventure game. You have to dig to find 'em all. :-) —Frecklefoot 17:10, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What is being touched on, in this discussion, is a part of the larger controversy surrounding game genres. Frankly, people are free to invent genres at will, and do so, irrespective of any real philology or coherent theory. So I think listing and describing genres here is not objectionable but it's going to be very difficult to propose compelling arguments that one set of genres is properly identified (or hierarchically ordered) as this-or-that while another is not because there simply no definitive set. These are subjective classifications and too much argument about them is borish. I propose listing all genres at the same level (e.g. MMORPG and computer role-playing game) to indicate that this is just a list of genre's and not waste time trying to create one's own ideal hierarchy. If you feel RTS games are a subset of Strategy games, note that in the definition. It is a POV issue we should steer clear of. PilotPrecise 20:11, 11 March 2004 (UTC)

"Survey simulators"

A new category was added by anon editor 64.174.34.252, "survey games", which apparently are "Simulators which simulate more than one type of vehicle in a shared simulated world". Examples are Dangerous Waters and Battleground Europe. I have never heard of this genre denomination. A quick googling provided me with two links only even resembling the suggested usage and a number of astronomical usages. Is it a limited trade term? In any way I have never seen it used in the games industry. Mikademus 16:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It is questionable, I think I've heard it used but very rarely. It's probably not notable enough to include here. --SevereTireDamage 22:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-arranging the page

I think the alphabetical mode of listing isn't the best. FPS and TPS should be listed together in category "individual combat". "Adventure" and "Roleplaying" should be listed together under "individual action" (or somesuch.) I.E.

===Individual Combat===
====FPS====
====TPS====

That way, related genres can be grouped together and their differences and similarities explored and explained. Elde 00:25, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that particular taxonomy really works. Crossreferencing is a better idea, since there are plenty of games that get categorized in one genre that have next to nothing in common with games of "related" genres (should Diablo really be in the same category as Zork?). -Sean 01:17, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

When you reduce them both to their essential core, why should they not be categorized together? In both you are solving a series of puzzles and combating a number of monsters while moving across a map in order to complete the game. Thus they belong to same top level category (let's call it Quest for discussion's sake), while within the category Quest are the sub-categories Adventure and Role-Playing. Thus it's easy to see at a glance that while they are related, they are different.

Not every genre will be a sub-category however, Puzzles and Simulation would be both a top level category and a genre for example. (Though Simulation has a sub category God Games.) Elde 06:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

At some point we have to stop excercising personal preferences here. (See my previous note.) It is not the job of Wikipedians to express POV or explore differences. ("Individual Combat"? Are we just making stuff up now?) If this is to be a list of genres, let it be that. Any hierarchically ordered list is POV. Those of us here working in game development have a stake: Don't misrepresent our field with your idiosyncrasies! PilotPrecise 07:43, 12 March 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't really have anything to do with POV, but a novel classification system is "original research" and thus undesirable. Instead, pick a reputable book and use its classification system. If you have a "better" system, publish a book on it and we can use it then. Stan 07:52, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Stan, I just worry that selecting one from those that have been proposed in books (some more "reputable" than others) is still an excercise of preference. Below is the structure proposed by Laramee in Game Design Perspectives (&copy 2002 CRM) and begun with his own quote:

Any taxonomy of games is bound to be incomplete, controversial, and at least partially ambiguous... - F.D. Laramee
  • Action Games
    • Responsiveness
    • Pacing
    • Sensory immersion
    • Hand-eye coordination
      • Arcade classics
      • Fighting games
      • Arcade racing games
      • FPS
      • Sports games other than those focusing on team management
        • Ex: Tekken, NBA Live!, Asteroids!, Pole Position, Quake
  • Management Games
    • Scope
    • Time constraints
    • Complexity
      • Turn-based strategy
      • God games
      • Virtual lab experiments
      • Sports franchise management games
        • Ex: Sim City, Populous, Panzer General, Sim Earth, Championship Manager, Harpoon
  • Fast Strategy Games
    • Simplified world
    • Coarse-grained management
      • RTS
      • Time-oriented coarse simulations
        • Ex: Dune II, Railroad Tycoon, Age of Empires, Warcraft, Zoo Tycoon
  • Story-Driven Games
    • Linearity
    • Characters
      • Adventure games
      • Interactive fiction
      • RPGs
      • Online serials
        • Ex: King's Quest, Diablo, Final Fantasy, Kiss:Immortals, Monkey Island
  • Simulators
    • Mimic [RL] experience in detail
    • Accuracy
    • Controls, real-life mappings
    • Tendency to overspecialization
      • Fligh sims
      • Racing sims
        • Ex: MS Flight Sim,IL2 Sturmovik, F1, Superbike 2000, MS Train Simulator
  • Abstract Games
    • Players manipulate symbols...real-life situations without realism
    • Technological neutrality
    • Simplicity/casual
      • Adaptions of classic games
      • Puzzle games
      • Social games
      • Playing-card games
      • Interactive gambling
      • Solitaire
      • Slower-paced arcade classics
        • Ex: Chess, checkers, Tetris, Monopoly, Magic the Gathering,
  • Platform Games
    • Strong characters
    • Environment exploration
    • Dexterity puzzles
      • Side-scrollers
      • 3D exploration games
        • Ex: Donkey Kong, Super Mario Bros., Crash Bandicoot, Prince of Persia, Flashback
  • Edutainment
    • Combines playful activities with learning
        • Ex: Where...is Carmen Sandiego? (series), Oregon Trail, Putt-Putt (series), Math Blaster!
  • Persistent Game Worlds
    • Game world persists whether specific user is logged in or not
    • Social dynamics
      • Massively multiplayer role-playing
      • Special purpose (multiplayer) communities such as Air Warrior or Paintball.NET
        • Ex:Ultima Online, Air Warrior, Everquest, DAoC, WWII Online

So that's one, and one in a good book to boot. But is that superior to the top-level genres of Moby Games?:

  • Action
  • Adventure
  • Educational
  • Racing / Driving
  • Role-Playing (RPG)
  • Simulation
  • Sports
  • Strategy

It really does become a matter of preference, which itself is a manifestation of POV. PilotPrecise 09:58, 12 March 2004 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding about "NPOV" - it means "neutral", not "no" point of view. Most everybody understands that genres are not hard and fast, and there is a point where we have to use some of our own brainpower in deciding how to organize. Lots of subdivision is fine, just as long as each one is attested by an authoritative source, and if a subdivision is uncommon, NPOV just means we say "this subgenre is not commonly identified". Discussion of genres and genre-crossing games is good to include here, because WP is the perfect place to separate the avalanche of marketing hype from reality. Stan 17:31, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My only point in proposing an organization other than alphabetical is place similiar genres adjacent to each other. Right now they are scattered across the page and providing a misleading idea of the total number of and relationships between genres. Sean's idea of cross-referencing seems cumbersome when all the entries are on one page as they are. (And they don't really belong on more than one page.) Leaving them all as 'top-level' but abandoning alpabetical arrangement might serve both purposes. Elde 18:00, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But if we abandon alpha listing, how will they be listed then? If we list like genres together, that just prepetuates the problem. Alpha listing (with or without crossrefs) is the best way to do this IMHO. -Sean 08:32, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Asteroids not a Scrolling Shooter

I'm confused about the classification of Asteroids as a Shoot 'em up, or, as the article seems to imply, a scrolling shooter. Asteroids is not a scrolling shooter. It doesn't scroll. I'd class it as a fixed shooter. The same probably goes for Spacewar!. 80.225.5.23 02:01, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Classifying video games is often tricky. But if you look at the description for "scrolling shooter" you'll see that it says that the background scrolls. This is true for Asteroids—the asteroids keep moving around. This is what I beleive was meant by the "scrolling" part of "scrolling shooter." But it could also arguably be classified as a Shoot 'em up. This is true for many games—they just don't fit nicely into one genre (e.g. Diablo is both an action and RPG game). HTH —Frecklefoot 13:51, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
I'm aware of the description, because I wrote it. ;) I'm also familiar with the difficulty in classification, but my point still stands. The background in Asteroids doesn't scroll, because it has no background. The asteroids are foreground elements, and they don't scroll either, they just move around in random directions. Scrolling is a different thing; it's when the entire screen moves in a direction. (I believe the term derives from a paper scroll being wound round a roller.)
I could also complicate this further by adding that games like Galaga or Galaxian (which are similar to Space Invaders) are essentially fixed shooters, but the background scrolls. In those instances I would classify them as fixed shooters, since the scrolling is merely an aesthetic effect and doesn't affect the gameplay. :) 62.64.200.11 14:14, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Okay, now I'm confused. Are you also 80.225.5.23 who posted the original question? —Frecklefoot 19:54, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I don't have a static IP. And to further complicate matters, I've got myself a username now, but hopefully that should solve the problem. :) Spottedowl 01:08, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Great, that should help matters. :-) I'd say go ahead and change it to something else. There are plenty of other examples to choose from. :-) —Frecklefoot 14:12, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I've expanded on Shoot 'em ups a little; however, I'm not sure if I'm being POV or not. I'm a big shoot 'em up fan, so I know what people tend to regard as being a 'true shoot 'em up', but obviously that's a bias.
I think perhaps there needs to be a distinction between scrolling shoot 'em ups and continuously scrolling shoot 'em ups. In Defender, for example, the screen scrolls to follow the player, whereas in continuous scrollers (such as R-Type, etc. etc.), the screen scrolls in a direction and the player is moving along with it - ie. The player is being taken through the level by the game. It's the continuous scrollers that most people think of as shoot 'em ups. Spottedowl 18:29, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

FPS revert

I object to the revert of my changes to an older version. Information about the effect of FPS on 3D technology is not mentioned in the FPS article. However I will place it in that article instead of here. DB0 08:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hybrids

Most game genres are so mixed up together that they effectively create a new genre all by themselves. However all of us recognise that there are some standard archetypes that are a perfect example of a type of game. What I propose is to name those archetypes and then create a secondary hybrid category where games are assigned two archetypes.

For example:

Basic Genres
  • Adventure Archetypes: Monkey Island, King's Quest
  • RPG Archetypes: Eye of the Beholder, Baldur's Gate
  • TBS Archetypes: Civilization, Sim City
  • Puzzle Archetypes: 7th Guest
  • FPS: Doom, Quake, Unreal


Hybrids
  • Adventure-RPGs: Quest for Glory
  • TBS-RPGS: Fallout Tactics, Heroes of Might and Magic
  • Puzzle-Adventures: Myst, Riven
  • Puzzle-Platform: 3 Vikings
  • Puzzle-Platform-FPS: Tomb Raider

Just like colors have 3 basics that are combined to produce all the others, games have some basics that can be combined to produce any other type that does not fit into one specific genre. Even games that could fit in do many genres could be classified without problem. For example, say a new GTA came out that had RPG elements as well; where would it fit?

What do you think?DB0 10:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS: Generally, it is very hard to categorize games because there are many categorizing groups that overlap and are not always exclusive of each other. For example, games could be categorized as

  • By pacing: Real Time or Turn Based
  • By type of gameplay: Action (Platform, Shooting, Fighting), RPGs, Strategy (Tactics, Resource Management) , Sports (Although some would argue this is action), Simulators (Driving, Flight, Space Opera, Sci-Fi) etc
  • By View: First Person, Third Person (Top View, Behind view, Variant view) Scrolling, Static.

All these combined create a game, and games can use many of these (mainly gameplay types) to create something unique. Grand theft auto for example would be a Real Time - Action - Third Person game. More specificaly it would be a Real Time - Driving/Shooting - Behind View game with strategy elements.

What I think we need to do is trim down the list to the basest genres and then crease the hybrids (not all of them, mind you, maybe just the most influencing)DB0 12:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For consistency with a recent move from rhythm video game to music video game (which I proposed), I've renamed the "Rhythm" section to "Music." However, the category is still named Category:Rhythm computer games; this inconsistency should be addressed soon. --LostLeviathan 02:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Serious" games?

I am pretty confused about the inclusion of the genre "serious". I do not think you can use that name as a distinct genre. It should be more correct to include the notion of "serious" games in the video games overview page under a header "recent evolutions" - although this is just a suggestion.

Further proof that "serious" games are not a genre, but an evolution is that all the games mentioned under the genre are easily re-categorisable. I.e. the Wallmart game would fit nicely under "Simulation", while "America's Army" and "Full Spectrum Warrior" clearly are first-person shooters...

edit: signed in. ;) --Brains 08:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Serious games are a new genre of computer and video games. Not many people have heard of them because they are generally not released to the public at large (with notable exceptions, such as America's Army and Full Spectrum Warrior). If you were a video game professional, you would no doubt heard of this new genre, since for the third year in a row the Game Developers Conference will host the Serious Games Summit.
Games fitting into more than one genre is nothing new. For example, Diablo is an RPG and an action game. Pigeon-holing games into one genre is unnecessary and often inaccurate. Therefore, labeling America's Army as a FPS and a serious game is appropriate.
FWIW: I've had this discussion before. If you like, you can go read the dispute over America's Army on that article's talk page. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:33, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
hmm... I see what you mean and you are absolutely correct that the idea of Serious games should be mentioned on wikipedia. It is quite a good article too you have written. I do however think that it is not belonging in the list of video game genres. That list should remain as consice as possible, it should be a video game taxonomy - with indeed various games crossing over from one genre to the other and back to a third much like you mentioned.
Yet, your - and indeed correct - concept of serious game is more about the game's goal, its reason of existence and / or creation and not so much about their execution, method of interaction or their presentation which is what the genres are about.
In other words, "Video game genre" defines how a game is presented; which implies how the user interacts with the environment. While "serious" would more connect to why a game is created. swim? --Brains 21:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
ISWYM. :-) I don't oppose the removal of "serious game" as a genre. A serious game can be of any genre, but what a serious game tries to accomplish is what identifies it as such. An FPS or an RTS can both be a serious game, but the serious game classification has little impact on their genre. Go ahead and change if you wish. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:24, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
If this isn't beating a dead horse, I'll give my input before removing it. "Serious" is not a genre. It's meerly a description of how a game is used, or a silly title like "interactive media". If they found that missile command trained people for a certain strange interface to some defence system, would the label "Serious game" apply to it? Yes. Has the genre, way it's played, anything about the game, changed? No. Therefore, "Serious" is not a genre.
But what about the counterexample of educational games? Right. Well, if you can tell from gameplay alone that it's an educational game, then it's a genre. Can you play a game for a bit and say that it's an educational game? I'm sure you could. What about a "serious game"? Well, you'd either call it a simulator, or a "training game" - "educational game" in disguise. Slike2 04:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fixed shooters

Right, I've held off long enough. :)

Could we please clarify this 'Fixed shooter' thing? I have never heard any game referred to as a fixed shooter. I've never even heard of the genre. And I'm a big shoot 'em up fan. Therefore, to have it as a main genre doesn't make sense to me.

Secondly - the classification of scrolling shooters as a subgenre of fixed shooters seems absurd to me. This is like classifying every tennis game as a subclass of Pong.

My solution is just to class all these shooters under the single genre of shoot 'em up. It is the traditional name for this kind of game, and has been since at least the early nineties.

I would have done this, but I didn't want to mess up the system already in use. Spottedowl 17:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Re-arranging, again

I don't really like how this page is organized, for many of the same reasons previously posted. I think it would be good to get a collection of genres together, argue over which ones are worth including or not, and then find a good way to group the genres. Here's my proposal: Slike2 04:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Popular: (or "need to be mentioned")

  • Fighting
  • First-person shooter
  • Third-person
    • Third person shooter
    • 3D platform? (mario64, etc.)
  • MMOGs and MMORPGs
  • Role-playing
  • Sports (simulations of sports)
    • Racing
  • Simulation
  • Strategy
    • RTS
    • TBS

Notable:

  • Educational
    • Serious
  • Stealth
  • Survival horror
  • Scrolling shooters / Shoot 'em up
  • Music
  • Platform (I don't think this includes the 3d platform games.)
  • Puzzle
  • Traditional


Historical:

  • Adventure
    • Web based strategy games (these are exactly like those old bbs games)
  • Retro
    • Fixed shooter (I don't know what this is really...)
  • Interactive movies

Unless there's disagreement, I'll begin re-arrangement/rewrite shortly. Slike2 04:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think "Platform" is a major genre and DOES include 3D platform games such as Mario 64 etc. K1Bond007 07:32, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I definitely get what you're saying, but then what's the change from platform to 3rd person, or 'third person adventure'? There was a very drastic change from the 2D platform games into the third person non-shooters. Compare super mario on the snes to the mario that came out for nintendo 64 - they did try to keep the theme very much intact, but when you compare 2d sidescrolling games like mario (snes and under), metroid, and sonic to third person games like mario64, conkers, and zelda(64), there's a definite difference. I don't think they're the same genre at all, despite the fact that so many platform series' moved into this form of 3d game. I think that the article should mention that a lot of things like atmosphere, etc did not loose themselves as the transition was made (in terms of individual series), but it should clearly seperate the two. Slike2 08:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Theres grey lines everywhere, but I really don't see much of a difference like you obviously do. It's 3D. That's pretty much it. Mario 64 is considered a platformer by almost everyone. I propose this structure for page: (with notes)
  • Action (1)
    • Fighting
    • First-person shooter
    • Platformer
      • 2D
      • 3D
    • Shoot 'em up
    • Stealth
    • Survival horror
    • Third-person shooter
  • Adventure (2)
    • Interactive movies (3)
    • Third-person
  • Arcade (Replaces Retro - see below (4))
  • Educational
  • Music
  • Party
  • Puzzle
  • Racing
  • RPG
    • MMORPG
  • Serious
  • Sports
  • Strategy
    • Real-time strategy
    • Turn-based strategy
  • Traditional

1) Every FPS or TPS is an action game. I added this section for structure.

2) Technically speaking Adventure is usually a part of Action hench "Action-Adventure". I moved it out and seperated it to allow it be it's own section because there is a pretty big difference between games like Contra and Zelda and not every adventure game is considered action (see what we have under Adventure presently for ex). Under adventure we would explain this a little better.

3) Not really sure about this. Go with whatever.

4) How do you define retro in the present day? I understand what someone was going for here, but games like Pac-Man are arcade games. Games like these are still being made today (although not as much) for systems like Game Boy. Snood is arcade. Under our present structure there is no place to add this game.

I do not agree with what is notable and what is a major genre. I think a structure like that is borderline POV and really hard to maintain as some would disagree with what is notable or major and move sections around. I'm open to suggestions on this proposal. Perhaps I missed a genre.

Perhaps I'm using the wrong words. Major genres are what everyone is familiar with nowadays. Notable genres is a mix between games that are substantially dropping in popularity, have limited games of the genre, and genres that don't really exist on their own. All (except one) of the first level genres under "major" are not dropping in popularity, and are, well, major. The one that isn't is MMORPGs (should be under rpgs) and MMO (should be a secondary genre). As for the genres under notable, there are various reasons for them being there:
  • Limited releases into the genre: music, party
  • Fading releases into the genre: shootemup, platform(by my terminology), puzzle(though the internet has quite a few)
  • It's a secondary genre (explained later): edu, stealth, horror
Traditional games should be moved up.
Secondary genre means "an additional genre that a game may be". For example, it would be too much to state genres like "educational fps" (training game), educational strategy, educational ...(and so on). Educational, like horror or stealth, are atmospheric genres (for lack of better terminology).
For platformers, I don't mind either way, as long as the distinction is there between 2d and 3d.
I don't agree with the major sections of your classification - it adds action and adventure as ways to group other genres, but there's too much overlap, in my opinion. With that gone, it's relatively flat and unorganized. I think that having the "major" (best known) genres an the top and old and defunct genres at the bottom is good, as that's a rather concrete way to chop it. Secondary genres can be "any of the major genres", so they should be seperate. Genres that see limited popular release should be seperate as well - party games(too few), shootemups(fading), music(too few)... Slike2 22:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Theres overlap everwhere. The article specifically mentions this and gives the example of Zelda which is an Action-Adventure third person with RPG elements. Metroid Prime is a first-person shooter action-adventure game with similar RPG elements to Zelda. Tons and tons of games overlap now-a-days, but I feel that what I wrote is the best organized way of listing them. In addition to thinking that listing by notable and major is borderline POV (even though most have good cause, I agree somewhat) I don't see why it's necessary. Whats really the point other than to say that this genre isn't as popular as others, which some already mention in their description.
What do you mean by moving Traditional up? Their listed alphabetically and I don't see how card games etc really fit with another genre. K1Bond007 22:54, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
About the overlap, of course, and that's why I think splitting them as such will not work - specific examples of genres that are in the middle: stealth, platformers, horror. It splits games up based on how much of a storyline they have, or how much you think in them. Action is almost like a genre of it's own - fast reflexes and not much thought (jumping around, attacking, etc), while adventure is a game that has a rich storyline and less hostile play (defeating things vs playing through a story). I don't think they're sufficiently exclusive from each other to serve as ways to group games. On the other hand, "bygone" genres are easy to split out, as are "declining" genres (2d platformers, shootemups), and genres that don't really exist on their own (stealh, horror, for example, are atmospheric as opposed to goal/method-based).
I meant to say move traditional up to major genres. Considering the many sites that house them, they are in no way a small share of the market. Slike2 04:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm new to wiki, but am looking to get involved so let me throw my 2 cents into the fray about a couple of things:
  • I think arranging the genres by perceived popularity or relevance may be difficult to maintain over the long run. As new genres are invented and others fall by the wayside, the ordering would need to be in a constant state of flux. A neutral method (like alphabetical or by relationships) would probably be easier.
  • I've always thought that Action is a junk genre. It's not needed, as anything you would classify as Action can also be classified as something else anyway.
  • Adventure vs Action-Adventure vs RPG. The problem here is that there are really two types of Adventure: text adventures (Infocom) and their graphically enhanced descendents (Sierra adventures, etc.) and what Nintendo attempted to establish as a new kind of Adventure (Zelda, Metroid, Kid Icarus, etc.). This new kind of adventure (action-adventure if we need a different name) is marked by exploration, puzzles, and key items just like text adventures, but also puts the player in complete control of the characters actions unlike the limited choices that text adventures offer. Viewed in this perspective, a lot of horror and stealth games actually fall into this category. What's the difference between exploring a creepy mansion with your shotgun (Resident Evil) and exploring Hyrule with your sword (Legend of Zelda)? To me, RPGs are strictly games with things like char levels, stats up the wazoo, and hundreds of items. I don't see how games like Zelda really come close to fitting in this category.
  • Retro vs Arcade. I like the term Arcade for the reasons listed above in note #4. It's fairly easy to classify any game where the action takes place primarily on one non-scrolling screen at a time as an arcade game. Brideck 03:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I almost forgot... shouldn't there be a light gun genre? These are completely different from FPSs, TPSs, and shmups if for no other reason then the input device. Duck Hunt, Area 51, and those fire fighting arcade games would be prime examples of this. I guess technically you could call these FPSs as it's really the ultimate in first person shooting, but most people don't think about them in the same way. Brideck 04:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(I've dropped down out of the five indents, for easier replies) New genres don't come up often, and the ones that are there aren't really going away. The biggist change that I've seen recently is the large amount of puzzle, cheap rpg, etc. games that are available via the internet. Action as a junk genre... I agree, though not completely. Hmmm... I go off into a relevant deviation:

Action, adventure, and strategy are the main "goal oriented" genres I believe. Each one is very distinct too, I think. Action would be fps, most arcade (music games being among these), anything fast paced - things that directly mess with the moreso aggressive emotions. The rush is the driving force here. Adventure is about going through a storyline, and arguably, gaining things: rpgs, the text adventures, etc. There are two aspects, collection and accumulation (stats, items, etc), and discovery. They are different, of course, but for these purposes they more or less go hand in hand. Strategy games are the ones that force you to think - obviously tbs and rts, puzzle games, etc.

First person shooters (like CS) are generally action, but strategy emerges as a second driving force "later on". Diablo 2 is an action adventure. Tetris is a strategy-action. Nethack is strategy-adventure (action emerges if you care enough about your character). The Sims is a slight strategy, discovery-adventure, heavily collection/accumulation. And so on.

"Universe type" genres come next I think, where you group similar universes. First person shooters (fp, holding a gun, intent to shoot), turn based/realtime strategy (looking down at a landscape), arcade (very abstract universes), fighters (two people fighting), third person shooters (holding a gun..), third person platformers, side view platformers, scrolling shooters... if there were enough popular games that took up the whole pac man thing, there'd be "pac-maners".

"Setting" is the last one. This refers to fantasy, science-fiction (like space games), alternate apocalyptic universe games (current "time", but things are drastically different), realistic games (ranging from normal person up to 'superspy'). These can of course each be divided up further based on setting, and they can be mixed (chrono trigger, for example). For the games like arcade and puzzle this doesn't apply as much.

Based on these three criterea, You can then break games up into the elements that they have (listed here are "universe types", combinations are more than possible, and then examples as goals would apply to them):

  • first person
    • fps are towards action
    • sneakers are towards action of a different sort, and adventure
  • third person
    • zelda, tomb raider - moreso adventure
    • grand theft auto, diablo 2 - action/adventure
    • max payne (I think) - moreso action
  • for 'person' games, do you have intent to kill, or is it more abstract?
    • fps and tps are kill, moreso action
    • 3d platformers aren't, moreso adventure
  • top down onto landscape, and unit management
    • the sims - moreso accumulation/adventure
    • starcraft - action strategy
  • abstract games
    • mostly strategy/thought.

...where was I before I started with this? Right, I have no idea anymore. We were mostly arranging things based on universe type I think? Slike2 09:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shortly after I posted here, I realized that a page like this might not even really be necessary as it's really just a list of genres. After a little exploration, I think I like the idea of using Categories like this one [Category:Computer and video game genres] to organize and subdivide all of this information. The blurbs that are written on this page for each genre could then be used on the page for each individual genre. It would also make classifying hybrid games easier because you could just make it a member of more than one genre Category, or you could make a Category for hybrid genres that is a sub-Category of both of its parent genres. Either way, it's going to be next to impossible to come up with a consensus on a lot of this stuff because there are so many cooks... Brideck 21:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, this is more of a list, because there really isn't much to say about "cvg genres" apart from the small intro. Most of the understanding though lies in the descriptions. The main point of this page is to not make the user jump through all the genre pages. Makes it easier to absorb the information.Slike2 00:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moved text

I think the below text confuses the "adventure" section, so I've moved it here: Slike2 06:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the terminology of console video games, adventure games are games which involve exploration of, and interaction with, the environment as a main facet of gameplay. The term "adventure" here refers to Adventure on the Atari 2600 instead of Colossal Cave Adventure.
Notable console adventure games include the Legend of Zelda series, the Tomb Raider series and the Grand Theft Auto series. A more precise term for this genre is action adventure.

NPOV

"It should be noted that all who are intrested in this subdivision pay close attention to the new MMORTS in development, Earth 2160: Online as it shows great promise." This Doesn't seem to be NPOV to me, more like shameless advertising. But I'm new here and to shy to just remove it at this moment.

I wonder how that slipped by. I've removed it. Slike2 01:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can the "Retro" genre ever be superceded?

I'm not sure about that "retro" genre and I'm even MORE unsure that if it is a genre, that it's been superceded. Basically while companies continue to rerelease old games (usually in packs but not necessarily) can the retro genre ever be classed as obsolete or no longer in use?

If the above sounds funny and metaphysical it wasn't meant to be that way. I'm serious - the "retro" genre will surely keep being used regularly...

Who moved this article?

Who moved this article and why? This is not a list of computer and video games by genre. That would imply that it's a big list of video games, separated by genre. It's not: it's a list of video game genres, with examples from each genre. I elect to move it back to "Computer and video game genres". Any objections? — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Pretty soon here I'm going to assume that they're aren't any objections and move it back... — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I totally agree, move it back. --Trickstar 20:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I took care of it. There is already a List of computer and video games by genre, so the name made no sense. K1Bond007 02:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Tycoons as Genre?

Hi, There are so many Tycoons out there, they're neither City-Building nor Godlike Games. The description of Simulations doesn't fit either. So I'd like to propose a new Genre for all of these:

  • Theme Park
  • Transport Tycoon
  • School Tycoon
  • Railroad Tycoon
  • Cruise Ship Tycoon
  • Rollercoaster Tycoon
  • Skateboard Park Tycoon
  • Pizza Tycoon
  • Airline Tycoon
  • Airport Tycoon
  • Business Tycoon
  • Cruise Line Tycoon
  • Fast Food Tycoon
  • Hotel Giant
  • Mall Tycoon
  • Railroad Tycoon
  • Zoo Tycoon

...and so on. What do you think? --Trickstar 20:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. "Tycoon" games are a combination of strategy, resource management and RTS games. I don't think they deserve a separate category. Just my $.02... — Frecklefoot | Talk

Add Action-adventure game?

This matter overlaps #Hybrids (a bit up), but my question is a more specific. Basically, should Action-adventure game be added to the list of genres? To me it seems that it took the place of platform games, to a smaller degree adventure games, and probably some others, or at least aspects of them. A lot of modern games (especially on the consoles) qualify as "action-adventure". I'm thinking about games (series) like Tomb Raider, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, the later Metroid games, the later Rayman games, Spyro the Dragon (series), Jak and Daxter, Super Mario Sunshine, etc., etc.. That list is more or less random, I didn't play all of the games, maybe Mario fits the old "platform game" genre better for instance, but in general it seems the genre is a major one these days, unless I simply misunderstood what it means. Should it be added to the list? Retodon8 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What about Zelda? That's considered to be "adventure", but it certainly doesn't fall into the desciption we have now.

Some ideas

From here

Seems to be missing things like serious game, or the recent anti-advert games.

Sandbox Games

Someone should add this ever increasing in popularity genre. With games like Second Life and concepts like "Gary's Mod," I beleive that the Sandbox Game is worth note as a gaming genre. Please someone write this bad boy up.MCP 02:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, especially with games like The Movies and the upcoming Spore. --Wiz9999 04:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Genre Combining?

Should there be a note on games that combine genres? Parasite Eve comes to mind as one; a combination of Survival Horror and RPG. Just a thought. --Thaddius 14:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Maze Game?

Does this really classify as a genre? I would think it's suffice to say that the examples listed(Pac Man/Mr. Do) under the maze genre are examples of action or arcade games. Thus, this item does not need to be here.

--Mitaphane 22:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Arcade game" is not a genre. Action is a general term, to which Pac Man really does not apply. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 15:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm just trying to be consistent as far as the article is concerned. Action is a general term. And arcade game is a description of a game that does not neccesarily mean its a genre(e.g. a fighting game is an arcade game). But as far as the article is phrased, action( "...the most basic of gaming genres, and certainly one of the broadest...characterized by gameplay with emphasis on actions that the player must perform reflexively...") and arcade("traditionally the coin-operated video games found in arcades during the 1970s and 1980s...characterized as quick play action games that had an addictive quality...easy to learn, yet difficult to master") fit both the examples listed in the Maze genre. Moreover, the genre is specific enough to where I would say it only covers Pac Man, associated knock offs, and Mr. Do, a game which really doesn't have mazes in the same way Pac Man does.--Mitaphane 04:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Table

Is that large PNG bothering anyone else? It includes text as an image. This is evil - text should be text. If we need this table we should use an image.

Also, doesn't it contain the same information as the rest of the article, and primarily the table of contents? And where it doesn't, how does it fare on the "no original research" scale? What are the published sources for this particular schematic? Shinobu 14:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. It also breaks my page layout at 1024x768 resolution. And I'm not even sure the table really makes sense at all, considering there are in fact Sports RPGs, Strategy RPGs, Flight sim adventure games, abstract video pinball games, etc. It would take the most convoluted Venn diagram to even try to make sense of that theory. As you said, such overlapping genre interrelation is definitely original research. I'm removing it. --SevereTireDamage 08:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The table is not original research, it is simply a compilation of the genres discussed in the related Wikipedia pages (thus not an attempt to promote a theory of video game classifications) and added to raise peer feedback. I argue that a tabulation provides information at a glance that an article-o-lists on stereoids does not, especially given the messy and haphazard state of the article at present (not to mention the state of many if the "meta-genre" (and some "genre") articles). The table of contents is in fact just as much original research as the tabulation: the tabulation just collected together what is said on other wikipediua pages while the table of contents makes own claims about the relations of genres, claims in fact not always consistent with what the specific pages say(!). Further, as the article states, genre-crossovers etc cannot be treated; even the wikipedia pages are generally only about the at least somewhat recognised major divisions. If that would be touched it would take a multidimensional venn and a staff of schizophrenic reseachers to do something of it. Anyway, the tabulation was an early version and some entries in it were less than satisfactory. I will make a new version later. Mikademus 17:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Given the highly subjective state of video game genre classificiation as it is, and the lack of formal studies to cite, I would simply prefer not to have a table at all to be on the safe side. I do agree that the article itself is somewhat disorganized as it is. (Heck, I would think that platformers and puzzle games belong in the Major genres category - it probably isn't due to the slight computer game bias on WP.) That said, other genre pages, such as the main one, cinematic genre, and (admittedly undeveloped) literary genre pages are doing fine without charts. --SevereTireDamage 00:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Heh, the reason I made the first version was in fact because I needed it to help me make heads or tails of the WP game genre jungle as it is. We'll see what you think of the next version, later, and if/when included in the article it can be positioned in a much less intrusive (page-widening) way. Oh, when on a good discussion subject, though a bit of a tangent, platform games is generally recognised as as sub-genre of "arcade" games for traditional reasons and as such a division that wouldn't fulfil other scientific requirements than those of descriptive history. If genres had been thought out in advance --and especially had been given better names!-- then we wouldn't have the absurd overlaps and confusion that plague and befuddle the topic, if it can be called that, today. Mikademus 07:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)