Talk:Video game genres

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Video game genres article.
Article policies
Peer review Video game genres has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of Top priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
Archive

Archives
1. (March 2004 - July 2006)

Contents

[edit] platformer: major genre?

I think the Platformer genre should be classified as a major genre, even if there are not a lot of sub-genres to be identified. Certainly it was a major genre prior to the widespread era of three-dimensional games, even if nowadays there are fewer platformer games being made. Opinions? --Leperflesh 00:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Platform Games were really a major genre in the late 80s early 90s. There are several subtypes to be defined, such as 3D, 2D, Run & Gun (now listed seperately in action games). I'm thinking of rewriting this entire article to make it more neat, tidy and organized. It has improved some in the last year or so, but it's still a mess. I'd love to see it become more like this: film genre. 88.159.164.158 (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Currently popular?

Some of today's most popular FPS series are Half-Life, Doom, Unreal, Quake, Far Cry, Counter-Strike, Halo, Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, and Battlefield.

Why are currently popular titles listed instead of notable titles like with other genres? Some of these listed I haven't even seen played, while the absence of Duke Nukem, for example, is notable.Krum Stanoev 19:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've heard of all of them, though I've only played a subset of them. Though you are right, the wording should be changed to "notable" instead of "popular." — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advergaming

This has most recently become a popular genre due to the Burger King games, but ”Advergames” like the 7up Spot and the Dominoes Noid game were around much earlier. This is sort of a highbred genre but it is certainly worth mention if some ones got the time. --GamesGuru 09:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok I've gone ahead and added what I could on this genre if you have any more info please add it.

[edit] Online Puzzles

What about Online puzzles like Notpr0n? do they count as video games? 24.218.139.94 19:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MMO

Just to let everyone know, I am moving the MMO section to it's own section as opposed to a sub-section of RPG. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 00:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New genre: Cockpit games

Just want to mention, I added a new genre, Category:Cockpit games, for these games which are played from the vantage of a cockpit, but are not simulators, though they may have features which resemble simulators. Hope you find this useful. please feel free to add to this category. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 15:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Do we really need this game genre? I hardly can bring myself to call it a "genre." It is a vantage point, that's all. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I see you added it to the article. With the overabundance of genres as it is, I can't with good conscience let another be added without discussion. So, I removed it per this discussion (it's still in the logs if we decide to restore it). Does anyone else think this is a valid genre or just a vantage point, not worthy of a genre unto itself? — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand your concerns. I do feel that cockpit games mark a significant game-playing category. If you look at notable such games, like Wing Commander, Star Raiders, etc, you will see that there was no category for denoting these types of games before. And most people would admit that these games, and others like them, created a significant new idea. Obviously, they cannot be simulators, so this seemed like the best viable option. --Steve, Sm8900 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Wing Commander is a space fighting game (with some simulation included). Yes, the perspective if from a cockpit, but I think it'd be erroneous to refer the game as a "cockpit" game. Many games put the player in the perspective of a cockpit, but that description does nothing to convey what type of game it is. Battlezone has the player commanding a tank. The Halley Project (obscure game, but still valid) has the player commanding an exploratory space ship. And in Wing Commander, the player is flying a space fighter.
However, Wikipedia is a democracy and my opinion doesn't count for more than anyone else's. If no one else cares about this and chimes in within the next few days, you can put your edit back in. I'd say wait until at least Thursday. — Frecklefoot | Talk 11:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that sounds good. Appreciate your openness to consensus. Thanks. See you. --Sm8900 13:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Um. I'm having a problem here. Wing Commander isn't a simulator? Why not? Sure, it's simulating a fictional craft, but big deal. You have a performance envelope, and the game sticks to it. The difference between Wing Commander and Aces of the Pacific is setting/genre, not game type. --Rindis 16:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I kind of agree with what Rindis is trying to say here. All these games are simulators, in that they are simulating an actual vehicle environment regardless if they are fictional. As Frecklefoot is also alluding to, it really needs a different and more inclusive genre name that covers "1st person vehicle themed" environments. Space (Wing Commander, Star Raiders, Star Fire, Star Wars..), Military (Sea Wolf, Battelzone, etc. onwards), Driving (Night Driver on to the latest racing game), all function by putting you in a first person perspective within the vehicle as the main part of the game play. In fact, I think some reworking of the phrase "1st person vehicle" better suits the genre name than "cockpit". --Marty Goldberg 17:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps "defies classification" should be given at least a passing mention

i.e. Katamari Damacy or Blast Corps 71.178.246.229 01:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RPG section criticism

"These frequently separate into two distinct styles: those where your character is completely of your own creation (as in Neverwinter Nights), and those where you take control of an existing character, defining only limited aspects of a character (like in Final Fantasy). These styles are sometimes referred to as Western and Japanese Role-Playing Games respectively, although there are numerous exceptions to these descriptors."

I think this difference is over-emphasized. There are more things that distinguish Western RPGs from Eastern than just this. SharkD 21:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The linear/non-linear distinction is usually given far greater importance, as is the greater emphasis on narrative in Eastern RPGs...--Jae Armstrong 81.86.57.6 13:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tactical RPG & Turn-based tactics

The genre article have been merged. But, are they in fact the same? Are there differences? Opinions please. SharkD 21:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be a Tactical RPG, the game would have to involve RPG elements. Well, obviously, yes? To be specific, I'd argue that the player's units would have to show some form of progression over the course of the game- growing more powerful, gaining new functions etc. That's what I understand by the label, and I'm willing to bet that that's a common interpretation. I'd hesitate to label progression in the player's army as a whole as "RPGish", as that could quickly lead to labelling Civ and the like under RPG, and as a general rule, they're not labelled as such. From a certain like the difference is arbitrary, but most of these genres are arbitrary anyway. And fuzzily defined, to boot. You could add other restraints, such as units persisting between battles, but I don't think it's necessary. Ergo, the question of whether the two should be merged becomes a question of whether there are any tactical, turn-based games that do not have RPG elements. I can't actually think of any off of the top of my head, but I'm sure there's one. I suppose it'd also count if such a game was or is in production.
Ah. Re-reading the question, I gather you're talking about something different. Balls. Well, yes, they are different, as I was saying above, but it could easily be argued that TRPGs are a special case of turn based tactics, and I'm not certain the mechanical differences warrant anything more than a section on the TBT page.
And closer inspection reveals that both pages are still extant. Well, that was a waste of time. Jae Armstrong 81.86.57.6 13:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date Sims

There a type of sim... also theres rape sims... you forgot those..... User:Sakaguchi 23:28, 7 April 2007

Ignoring the second type mentioned >.> I agree - where do dating sims fit in? Visual novels are also not mentioned here. And where would The Sims fit in?Lijakaca 18:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, what about animal sims, such as Nintendogs, or Catz, Dogz, Hamsterz etc.? Are they a category of their own, or shouldn't they at least be mentioned under the sim section? (Probably more like god sims I suppose) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.120.166 (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katamari Damacy

What genre is Katamari Damacy? If none of the currently listed genre, it will need to become it's own. It's probably similar to the third-person pinball type games, but... then again, not. "Third-person roll and collect genre"?

Well, I'd say that it's an all-new subgenre, but that it fits well in the overall general "action" category. (As it's defined here, which is my understanding of the term. The definition at action game is much more limited.) --Rindis 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems more like a puzzle game, to me... =David(talk)(contribs) 01:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I'd say it's more of an action game. There's no puzzle elements to it; nothing to figure out, no logic involved (except figuring out how big you have to be to roll up certain items). Could it go under a heading something like "Other Action Games"? Theris Faan 03:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe "Strategy?" =David(talk)(contribs) 04:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest one of the existing genres be chosen according to how reviewers are describing it, either action or strategy. Genres are created when multiple games of the same style are available, that isn't the case here, so until a genre actually emerges (there's no guarantee one will) let the gameplay section of the article walk the walk.Someone another 11:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's clearly an action game. I don't know that it fits into any sub-genre under action though. Wolfpup7 (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more appropriately referred to as a puzzle action game... but it would defenently be hard to define it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.174.149 (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adventure games

In my opinion, adventure games should be placed under the Major category rather than the Notable genres category. Sure, it's not as popular as it once was, but it definitely deserves to be under the Major category --ZFGokuSSJ1 19:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to put this complaint, but I take issue with a LOT of the genres listed here and the way they're listed. Primary genres should include probably Action, Adventure, and RPG (and probably others I'm not thinking of now). What's being referred to here as "adventure" should be put in a sub-genre. Something we used to call "PC-style adventure games"...except that the style has gotten fairly popular on the DS. The term "Adventure" has been used to describe (accurately, I believe) games like Zelda and Metroid (at least the earlier ones) since at least the mid-80s. There's no reason the "PC-style" adventure's use of that name is somehow more valid. At any rate, these need to be moved under an adventure genre as sub genres. Wolfpup7 (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fighting Games

Moved scrolling fighters/brawlers to be a sub genre of fighting (with one on one/versus as the other major sub genre I'm aware of). Wolfpup7 (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Zelda may be described as an "adventure" game but I feel that it incorporates the content of one of the first RPG's. You start out controlling a single figure and he gets more powerful as you progress in the game. I believe that the "Adventure" genre should be left alone.

Also, the "Fighting" genre describes one-on-one combat. If we combine the "Beat-em-up" and the "One-on-one" genres we might as well stick all of the "action" sub-genres into it because I feel they all fit into it. We should really change the name of the "Fighting" genre to something more specific.Doomrider15 (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the "Fighting" genre to "Competetive Fighting". I feel because it is more specific and will avoid any further disputes. If you have any problems with it tell me so I can check it out.Doomrider15 (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

RPG character progression typically has stats and levels, which are lacking from Zelda and Metroid and games of that ilk. The distinction is perhaps somewhat subtle, but adventure games like those tend to require certain abilities or items at certain points, whereas action/RPGs focus more on stats and levels, though there's a lot of cross bleeding between those genres.

Fighting does *NOT* only describe one-on-one combat. Fighting games actually referred to what would now be known as scrolling fighters or brawlers or the like BEFORE one on one fighters were popularized. They're both quite clearly part of a fighting game genre. There's a huge distinction between a game that involves (typically) throwing punches and kicks, doing close quarters combat, doing fairly involved input sequences, etc., and the rest of the action genre. It's even common for one-on-one fighting games to include scrolling fighters as an option, and vice versa. (Just off the top of my head, many Tekken games do this, as did the first console release of Double Dragon, Golden Axe, and many, many others. Wolfpup7 (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: It also occurred to me that it's common for fighting game series to have entries in both the side-scrolling and versus sub genres as separate games (beyond different modes in the same game). Off the top of my head Dynasty Warriors (although it's gameplay in the latter games is pretty shallow for a scrolling fighter), Double Dragon, Goldenaxe, TMNT, Tekken, etc.

Looks like someone renamed it again, and then split them into two separate genres. I've corrected that, but didn't really update the name. Like you said, competitive fighting might be a good genre name (I think I just left it as "versus/one-on-one" or whatever. Maybe it could be "competitive/one-on-one/versus" or something like that? Wolfpup7 (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just realized "wrestling" needs to be added to this list. I'm thinking it probably needs to be a third sub-genre. I'm not very familiar with the genre, so I'd prefer if someone else added it. Wolfpup7 (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pac-man.png

Image:Pac-man.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strategy Games

First of all, wording similar to "Real-Time tactical games may include: the Close Combat series..." is completely illogical. It also suggests that "Real-Time tactical games may NOT include: the Close Combat series...". Well, IS IT or IS IT NOT a game a game as described?

Secondly, 4x games are not an "obscure genre". It isn't a genre at all - rather a sub-genre of strategy game. Just because you personally may not be familiar with such games is not indicitive of their reknown. The Civilization series alone is one of the most popular and influential series ever made. Civilization I has been voted best game of ALL TIME. I'd say that hardly makes it "obscure". Bulbous 00:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok I will agree with you on this, just don't use any bad grammar. ;) WinterSpw 03:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep fighting the good fight! Bulbous 04:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've played multiple strategy games (both turn-based and RTS -- which really should be RTT (real-time tactics)), and I assure you that they about as much similarity as RPGs and FPSes. -- DragonAtma 69.122.82.29 00:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Might it be too large

I notice that this article has many subsections that could be integrated and it is quite long. Perhaps if we shorten it, we could remove that cleanup tag. Who agrees? GreaterWikiholic 01:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I highly recommend that we use the format used in the "Strategy" section of this article to help rewrite the other sections. WinterSpw 14:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pac-man.png

Image:Pac-man.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Histories within the article

While working on formatting the entire article, I've noticed that most sections include a short (or long, in the case of a few) history of the genre. Is that really necessary in this article, or can that be relegated to the main article for each genre? I think a couple of lines of history wouldn't be too bad, but some include a couple of paragraphs. It definitely needs to be cut down, or at least made consistent throughout the article. Theris Faan 04:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency is rife not only in this article but in the individual genre articles as well. The whole thing is in a bit of a state. Hopefully interested parties can not only bring consistency to this article but place all the genre articles in a meaningful hierarchy. Including histories here seems pointless - if a genre actually has a traceable history then it should have an article of its own with the history there.Someone another 18:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, each genre shouldn't have an in depth history. Instead, we should work more on the dscription so that everyone reading the article knows what we are describing. There were some parts where I got so lost in the history I wasn't sure what we were talking about.Doomrider15 (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turn-based Strategy Edit

Advance Wars is a poor example, having been a limited release on a single platform, while Civilization is quoted in the main Turn-based article as "probably the best known turn-based game". Seems like a slam dunk to me - even if it is mentioned in the 4x section. Bulbous 17:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Advance Wars is part of a larger series of games, but even excluding that larger series, Advance Wars and its immediate successors exists on the Game Boy Advance, Nintendo DS, and GameCube. I'm not certain I'd call that a single platform. The mention of Civ in the turn-based article is unsourced, so here, I don't see that as a slam-dunk by any stretch, but rather the inclination of some past editor. It would be nice to see some balance to the turn-based section beyond "computer" games, to the extent that I don't grasp the urgency to push out a console example or to further promote Civ which is adequately subclassed as a 4X example and given lead mention within the Strategy section as a whole on top of that. Why add a third mention? D. Brodale 17:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Advance Wars is obscure, that's why it doesn't belong there. When giving examples, it is best to mention something that readers will have a good chance of knowing. It doesn't matter that Civ is mentioned earlier--we're not keeping score here. If it is illustrative for a certain point, it can and should be mentioned. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks like it is two against one here. If no one else chimes in over the next few days, it should be reverted to the Civ revision. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Since when does a headcount supplant rationale? Your declaration that Advance Wars is obscure doesn't make it so, though it does point to your unfamiliarity with the title or its series. If we're not keeping score here, I don't grasp the 2-vs-1 remark, nor do I understand how it stands to reason that Civ requires mention in both the Strategy section lede and two subcategorizations. I have nothing against Civ, nor am I seeking to promote Advance Wars unduly, but is it too much to ask to: (1) offer examples apart from Civ when it already seems well-represented, and (2) offer some representation of "console" games apart from "computer" games? If only to meet your criterion of offering "something that reads will have a good chance of knowing"? I don't mean to sound irate, but broadening the scope of examples to illustrate a genre does not mean conflating every categorization to a specific title. D. Brodale 17:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Even if Advance Wars has been released on multiple Nintendo-based consoles, it still doesn't enjoy the broad-based recognition that the other listed games do. Civ is a better example, but I wouldn't object to it being changed to something similar considering that Civ has been mentioned multiple times.... but it should be something of comparable reknown. Also, this leads in to the overall problems with this rather poorly written article. Is 4x a sub-genre of Strategy? Does that mean that a 4x game cannot be a "turn-based strategy" game? Or should 4x be a sub-genre of "Turn-based strategy"? The whole article is plagued with contradictions like this. Bulbous 17:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The article is plagued with issues. Let me point out another which is relevant to this particular subsection and its examples: Jagged Alliance is tactical, not strategic, and doesn't really belong on the revised list of examples at all. I understand that Civ may be better known than Advance Wars (and any of the other titles offered herein), but that doesn't mean that Advance Wars in and of itself is obscure. A franchise that runs from the Famicom through to the Nintendo DS (and soon Wii, in a form, as Battalion Wars 2), often with multiple releases per platform, backed by Nintendo itself, does not an obscure series make. As I stated above, I'm not promoting one over the other -- heck, I didn't even add Advance Wars in the first place -- but I would like to see the examples broaden prospective reconition in favor of resorting to Civ as a catch-all. It would also be nice for an example or two from a realm outside that of "computer" gaming. Advance Wars fits both bills, though I'm still puzzling over the "obscure" labeling, as it certainly was a top-selling title for the DS (sure, it lagged Nintendogs, but what didn't) and already has a(nother) sequel yet to hit American shores. Perhaps there's another pure strategy game series for consoles with greater sales, but I haven't heard any suggestions. D. Brodale 18:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm adding Advance Wars in under the turn based strategy section, as it is indeed odd to have every game on there be from a single platform (even if that platform does dominate the genre). Advance Wars is anything but obscure, and I'd guess it's far more well known than some (possibly all) of the other examples listed. My guess is the user referring to it as obscure just isn't familiar with the platforms it's appeared on. Wolfpup7 (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we shouldn't even be discussing this. Maybe we should concentrating on eliminating this paragraph and working it into the opening paragraph. Real-time and turn-based are not really genres or sub-genres, they are game modes. Some games can operate in either mode. And the Nintendo Wars series features games of both modes. Bulbous 21:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
That may be, but I would hazard a guess that many gamers view RTS and TBS as distinct genres, rather than modes, with features intrinsic to each. There are cross-overs, but I'm not sure that such conjoint gameplay points to a weak line drawn between RTS adn TBS as a whole. Thoughts? D. Brodale 21:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The most basic form of turn based strategy is one of the best known: chess. 4x games are a specific form of strategy (turn based and real time). 64.231.195.228 22:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Table of Contents

A lot of this article seems to be a combination of gut feelings and webpages. The most reliable piece of research is from 1983. That's not anyone's fault -- it's hard to deal with subjects like video games that change rapidly. But I found a great resource on game genres that I think would help improve this main article (as well as the associated template).

From Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game Design, here is a recent and reliable breakdown of video game genres:

  • Action games
    • Shooters
    • "Non-shooters" -- seems synonymous with platform games
    • (and spends some time separately focused on fighting games, in its talk about shooters, strangely enough)
  • Strategy games
    • Turn Based
    • Real Time
  • Role-playing games
  • Sports games
  • Vehicle simulations (including flight simulations and tank sims)
  • Construction and management simulations (from SimCity to Tycoon games)
  • Adventure games
  • Artificial life
  • Puzzle Games
  • "Other genres"
  • Online games
    • Persistent worlds (seems synonymous with MMOs)

This would drastically improve the organization of the article, IMO. It would get rid of weird things like Flight Simulators being grouped in with Sim City, and the large number of subgenres floating around in "other notable genres". 64.231.195.228 23:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So what happens to genres that didn't exist in 1983, like stealth game and survival horror? (My gut feeling tells me Action, but that's just what it is, a gut feeling.) Otherwise, it doesn't seem to be very different except for splitting up "Simulations". It'll still have weird things like Adult video game, Educational game, and Music game all lumped into the "other" category, but what can you do? Should work fine for this page, but the template will need to be redone, due to the glut of Action (and Shooter) sub-pages and a relative lack of others.

I've been waiting for someone to merge all the different sub-types of "shooter" into "Action game", but I'm not sure how to go about it. Having four basic "genres" of strategy game is also a bit troubling. SubStandardDeviation 00:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify. The Chris Crawford chapter that the article currently relies upon is from 1983. This new source is much more recent. But yeah, the main issue would be rethinking the simulations category, and pulling out a few other special instances like vehicle simulations. It would also mean putting shooters in as a subcategory of action games. I'm willing to put in some work, but we'll need help. You and me... anyone else want to try to bring this article up to date with the latest reliable research? 64.231.195.228 02:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Well there is an 'other genre' section for those, though if we're talking about getting this genre article ship-shape then each of the genres themselves should be brought up to scratch, well-cited and demonstrably genres in their own right.Someone another 13:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this article is the best place to start, IMO. It's not so much that there are too many non-notable genres. It's more that the genres aren't really well-organized in major groups. If the organization were improved, then the template could be improved, and then the individual genre articles and game articles themselves. What do you think? 64.231.195.228 16:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's reliable then certainly a more modern basis for the article would be good, if this is indeed based on 1983 perspective with additions then it's hardly up to date. Having fewer, larger genres would also benefit in cases where genre is not clean-cut, so long as it can be called 'something' for the infobox, any further details on the game could then be cited or shown to be original research.Someone another 11:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Check the current references. There's a lot to be desired.
I'm not saying we should delete anything these articles mention. But I think the breakdown I pulled from that book would be more reliable. And it would result in a more clean-cut classification in the template and in game infoboxes.
I'm willing to get my hands dirty if you are. 64.231.195.228 16:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd be very interested in helping out, but since this is such an important (though run-down) article for the project, wider discussion would be extremely desirable. Also, shouldn't this article be 'List of video game genres'? Something else for the project..Someone another 19:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested layout: (we should also cut down descriptions to no more than a para each and rename this a list, IMO) I'm going to keep hammering away and taking suggestions, so here goes..

Notes/Omissions

There are several perfectly valid terms used as descriptors which do not correspond to genre, and are best left as categories and descriptors within the article, rather than as genres in the infobox. These include: Advergame, Adult video game and Educational game.

Maze-game seems fine except there's not enough material floating around to create an article, it's probably in books which certainly exist. The necessity of having an article on them and using the term as the genre in the infobox is not clear in my view. The genre 'Action' covers the job nicely, and a small section within that article would cover it until such a point as someone can actually write an in-depth article, assuming someone ever does.

Arcade, as a genre, is obsolete. It's used as a format rather than a descriptor of gameplay. Most arcade games can easily fit into the existing genres or, if all else fails, be labeled as action games.

Since Console role playing games and Computer role playing games were, up till recently, separated in terms of western and eastern developers, this format of labeling was helpful. However, in modern times with games like Oblivion and Two Worlds appearing on both console and PC, this form of classification is becoming redundant. Likewise, while PC gaming is still less important in Japan than it is here in the west, console-style games are increasingly finding their way onto windows PCs. I think we need to look at ways of splitting the genres up outside of the realm of format.

Shoot-em-ups are chaotically divided, with further sub-genres and terms all over the place. There has got to be a clearer way of presenting this information. Well there's a start.Someone another 07:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(I fixed some wikilinks in your outline, BTW)

Suggestions--

  • Why change the page title? Seems like a hassle.
  • Relocate Action-Adventure to the Action section. Yes, I realize that this makes it even more bloated, but AAs are generally saturated with real-time combat, which Adventures have little to none of. Furthermore, the "Adventure" elements of AAs, like puzzle solving and item collecting, have also made their way into other genres like RPG, which aren't called 'adventure'.
  • 3PS should be noted as the opposite of FPS, but doesn't have enough of its own gameplay features to warrant its own section--as noted on its wikipage, 3PS is a general genre that includes all shooters that aren't something else. Tactical shooter and Stealth game are also growing in popularity, and though their wikipages aren't that great, deserve maybe a mention. Should merge all shmup subcategories into a single section.
  • The four subtypes of strategy game should each have their own section if there is enough info to explain how their gameplay is distinct from the other three (especially RTT, which I've never played). Otherwise it'd be easier to explain the difference between RT and TB, and S and T, and list the genres.
  • Interactive movie is also an obsolete genre. Maybe keep the "superseded genres" section?
  • Educational games generally don't share gameplay features either.
  • Artificial life game (Life simulation game+Pet-raising simulation) should go into the list proper with the other sim games.
  • Massively multiplayer online first-person shooter does exist, though it's just a list of said games. MMORTS also exists. "MMOHNS" seems to be limited to message boards. SubStandardDeviation 03:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
TY :) I'll try to answer your Q's. The page should be renamed as a list because that's what it is, rather than treating video game genres as a subject (when did they start being used, how are they created, why are they used etc), it lists the actual genres and talks about those instead. In the very first edit it was described as a list. Naming it a list would hopefully reinforce the fact that the subjects should be covered briefly as the whole purpose of the article is to funnel readers to the relevant page.
Action adventure moved, MMOGs filled out with the three existing subgenre articles, artificial life moved into the main area. The whole strategy/tactics thing is a bit up in the air, I've not checked the articles and there's lots of them, I'll be updating that section. Removed educational games, I was undecided, but after thinking about it most overtly educational games are either typing tutors (a different type of software anyway) or puzzle games, you're right.
The problem with the superseded genres is that there really aren't any, with the exception of IMs, since genres tend to broaden or evolve. The only other genre present was maze game which has no article due to lack of sources - most 'maze games' are just pac man clones (IE action games) and some coverage in Action game would do. Labeling genres as defunct could also mean future arguments/work - originally light gun games were counted as defunct, due to the term being tied to the technology. However, since that term is used for modern games, the genre was moved. If this list had been given a good clean-up I think that section would have been long gone. I'd suggest leaving IMs at the bottom of the other genres covers all the bases without more complicated issues turning up.Someone another 10:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Oops, missed a couple. The two genres I'd left out was due to me posting this list before it was half finished - I'm still a long way from done. They're both in now, there will be several others I've missed. I take your points on TPS, but I'd like to leave it up there for now so I can investigate the article itself and check to see whether it's genuinely used as a separate genre. I don't mean a quick look either, I'd like to investigate the individual genres as well, the whole thing needs squaring up if we're to have any consistency and not confuse the hell out of our readers.Someone another 10:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Points taken on "list" and "superseded." Like you said before, "Arcade" is more a format--rather, a platform--nowadays than a "genre", so Ikaruga is a shmup and Bust-a-Move is a puzzle game, for example. As for light guns, none of the games on the list are current generation (unless you count the Wii Zapper or arcade ports). Still, I suppose they're not obsolete.
Also, is Racing game a subgenre of sports game or vehicle sim?
I've never seen anyone categorize a game as "turn-based RPG", which seems to be the default assumption. Furthermore, "Action RPG", though it's used plenty on VG websites, seems to be a vague, subjective concept that falls somewhere between "any RPG with a real-time battle system" and "clickfest/button masher with exp/stats." Even Wikipedia is inconsistent on this--Secret of Mana and Dungeon Siege are apparently ARPGs, but Baldur's Gate II and Tales of Symphonia are not. Also, Tactical role-playing game (or Strategy RPG). Tactical is the correct term for the vast majority of TRPGs, but what to do about Heroes of Mana... (but I digress.) SubStandardDeviation 08:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd file all racing under sports - the object of the exercise is to place first regardless of whether it involves cars, bikes, running or shopping trolleys. Someone another 21:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding action vs. turn-based role-playing: I'd rather say that the dichotomy lies between Action and Tactical games. An argument is made for this in this article, except in the context of strategy games. For instance, Roguelikes lie somewhere in between. They're neither actiony nor tactical, yet are still turn-based. SharkD 00:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding console vs. computer RPGs: a lot of early CRPGs appeared on the consoles as well. For instance, some Gold Box games, parts of the Wizardry series, parts of the Ultima series, as well as many MSX games. I first encountered the term 'console RPG' here at Wikipedia. At the time, I thought it was a neologism invented here. I still think a distinction is noteworthy; however, I'm not sure whether it should be console vs. computer or East vs. West or something else. SharkD 00:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
If I'm going to instigate any movement regarding RPGs I'm going to have to do some serious research first and back it up with sources, points taken.Someone another 00:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The most glaring problem is that the simulation games have nothing in common. It's a bad category. All games simulate something. I would rely on the research from Ernest Rollins that separates SimCity from flying around. One is economic. The other is about driving. They couldn't be further apart, and there's no reliable research that says they're in the same category. I think the vehicle category is key -- it ties together a lot of genres that really shouldn't be separate (racing versus tank sim versus flight sim). On a separate note, I agree that a lot more genres are basically sub-categories of the "action" genre, and there's research to support what you've done there. 64.231.195.228 05:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
A good point, the the term is used far too broadly since videogames are all, to a certain extent, simulators. I've moved most genres out, but left government in - this is probably the sort of simulation that should be grouped together as a recognized type of game.Someone another 00:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I think a great first step would be the build the actual Construction and Management Simulations (CMS) article. If you got it started, I would help you edit it. You can see a preview of the chapter from Rollings book here: http://safari.adobepress.com/1592730019/ch14 ... once again, this is a very reliable source, especially compared to a lot of the stuff we have at the moment. 64.231.195.228 02:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(< indent) ATM I'm struggling to find time to do anything on WP at all. The sheer size of these tasks is daunting and seems to be increasing every time I try to nail something down. The task needs splitting down into manageable chunks and I need to get a copy of that book and as many others as possible - until I actually have access to the sources there's nothing I can do with regards to article writing.

What I'd suggest is that we:

  • Keep chipping away at this list here until we're satisfied that it's as tight and representative of the info out there as we can get. That's a major project in itself.
  • Then ask for input from the video-gaming wikiproject - gain consensus for the new layout.
  • Start with action games, tightening up the text, employing the new layout on this list and the genre templates. The action game genres are looking to be the least problematic, at this stage.

Even while that's happening I'll be gradually working on the individual articles and looking for sources. Those sources in turn give us more information as to how this list should look and what articles should be in it. Merges, new articles and massive rewrites are not an immediate priority - they're some of the more complicated work and without a lot of sources between us it's going to be difficult to start. The simulation games are going to be a lot of trouble, RPGs look like they're going to be tricky too. Someone another 22:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Noticed that the racing games had been put with vehicle sims - to this end I've added sim racing to the vehicle sims instead and put racing back under sports. The racing game article includes board games and is very broad - it covers all forms of racing including those without vehicles. Since racing sim actually covers games/programs which strive for realism in auto-racing, that seems a much better partner for the vehicle sims. For 'construction and management sims' I've tied them both up under 'management sims' - even in construction/city building sims, the player is still acting as manager and balancing the books. I've left 'simulation game' as the main heading because I think it could actually be a useful umbrella article - on the same scope as 'action game'. The current wording is both too small and too broad, but I've got a sneaking suspicion that simulation games on the whole could be a citable article. However, until that's proven I've left vehicle sims etc separate. More work XD Someone another 23:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. We should keep tweaking this list, and factor in more reliable research. Getting input from the video-gaming wikiproject is a good idea, but in the long term we might need a spinoff Ludology wikiproject that is concerned with video game theory rather than individual games. This is a large project and requires kind of its own focus.
However, can I make two requests for the short term?
Both of those articles are supported by the research from Rollings. And, as it stands now, both are desperately needed. Right now, Vehicle Simulations with cars are scattered between action, sports, and simulations -- which is pretty silly. And Construction and Management Simulations are lumped in with flight simulators and dating sims, as if Sim City has anything to do with either of those. I'd simply throw in the Rollings research into each of these categories. This is all I need to get started (I prefer to stay anonymous.) Please and thank you. 64.231.195.228 19:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course, your interest in contributing is most appreciated. I've created Construction and management simulation games for a start. I'll start the vehicle article over this weekend, but I'd like to make a few edits to this one so it isn't immediate delete-bait. I'm surprised to learn that one of the sub-articles is already at GA, this bodes well. Someone another 00:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for starting it. I'll try to give it some strong edits this week. Definitely don't want it to get deleted, or get sidetracked with too much original research. I think if I can back this up with some reliable sources, it can help to frame a lot of the other subgenres in the simulation category. That can ultimately come back to improving this main genre article, and the template. 64.231.195.228 05:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I think genres like "combat sports" and "vs fighters" are getting into overcategorization. I also think that sports games are distinct enough from action games (e.g.: baseball is nothing like Doom) that they are a genre unto themselves. I doubt you will find any research that refers to "Madden" or "Golden Tee" as an action game. I also still have a problem with the simulation genre, as I think it cuts across too many other genres. The article itself refers to real time strategy, flight sims, combat simulations (action), and vehicle simulations. I think it should be pulled to the side, with other super genres like advergames and arcade games. Just as any form of game can be put in an arcade, or merged with an advertisement, almost any genre can be made more life-like to become a simulation. PS: maybe this discussion could use a version 2, with another subtitle below? 64.231.195.228 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The simulation article's current scope is out-there, rounding up almost every genre under the sun. The author of this book classifies simulations as being either vehicle sim or management sim, which is why I've suggested putting both these articles under 'sim games'. I don't support the current article's statements as they seem to be far too broad, but I think it can be editted and improved. Take your point about over-categorization, though the fighting game thing's a bit complicated since there's a list of fighting games which lumps everything together in that way. Someone another 03:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
There's two approaches for the simulation games article. The first approach is to drastically cut it down, and basically make it into a glorified disambiguation page. "There are two main categories of simulation games. Vehicle simulations and management simulations." The second approach is to turn it into a supre-genre page, something that cuts across all genres. It would become synonymous with "realistic games". The difference between America's Army and Doom. The difference between Dungeon Keeper and SimCity. I think both approaches would have their problems, but far fewer problems than the article currently has. The first approach would be pretty clean, but I think a lot of future editors would inevitably expand it. The second approach is kind of dirty, but at least it's likely to work in the long term. What do you think?
As for fighting games, I think the best answer is to clean up the article itself, rather than trying to carve it up into multiple articles. I'll give it a look right now, even. Better idea. Fighting games and Beat Em Ups are separate genres. Come to think of it, this makes a lot more sense. Beat em ups came BEFORE fighting games. How can Beat Em Ups be a sub-genre of fighting game? Beat em ups are just action games without weapons and with minimal platform jumping. I would recommend cleaning up the Beat Em Up genre to reflect this. Thoughts? 64.231.195.228 04:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super-genres / Meta-genres / Non-genres?

As we refine the layout based on research, we can really see some dividing lines. The distinction between action games and adventure games is clear -- one relied on reflexes, the other on unlocking a situational puzzle. Strategy games are distinct in requiring the management of multiple units, rather confining your experience to a specific avatar.

However, there are some genres that simply do not obey any distinguishing lines. I believe these constitute super-genres (if genres at all). Advergame, Adult video game, Educational game, Arcade game and Simulation games all contain numerous examples from the major genres. An adult video game can be an adventure game or an action game or even just strip poker. Arcade games come in all forms as well, and have NOTHING in common except for being in an arcade. Simulation games can simulate a sport, a car race, a strategic battle, a city, or someone's life -- and these games would have NOTHING in common except that they're not a fantasy. For this reason, I suggest putting these all in a "Super Genre" category, after all the other normal genres and subgenres. e.g.:

... Along with an explanation of how different genres (like Action or RPG) would fit under these supergenres (e.g.: arcade puzzle versus arcade action, adult adventure versus adult action, management sim versus flight sim versus dating sim). 64.231.195.228 20:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Super-genres"? Unless you have a source, it's already been stated that these are not genres because they don't have any effect on gameplay. An arcade game ported to consoles is the same game with a different interface, and a dating sim can be or not be a hentai game depending solely on graphics and dialogue. I'd say simulations are closer to MMOs in that they represent 1) a significant change in gameplay that is 2) common to all games in this "genre" (Earth-like environmental models). The new solution you've proposed, dividing Simulation game into Management simulation game and Vehicle simulation game, sounds like a better idea, since sim games themselves are divided into very specific sub-genres. I'd also add Artificial life game and God game to the "management" category. And per your "sports =? action" argument, I've yet to see a golf game that falls under "action". (EDIT: I've noticed "pinball" is on the list of genres. Should it be added to "action game"?) SubStandardDeviation 06:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't find evidence that simulations are a 'super genre', although the simulation article itself calls it a 'super-genre'. What I can find evidence on is "simulation" being used in reference to dozens of game types, including a fantasy text adventure[1]. If that can be called a simulation game, then anything can be called a simulation game, and the article may as well embrace that. "Simulation" would then become an article about game realism/verisimilitude, essentially. Unfortunately, there's no evidence that artificial life games qualify as management games.
Arcade games, adult games, advergames, and educational games behave in the same way. An arcade game can be Puzzle Bobble, Street Fighter II, Space Invaders, Time Crisis, or Final Fight -- it cuts across all genres.
The comment about sports =/= action was on another topic completely. There was some discussion about whether sports games qualify as action games. They don't, obviously. 65.95.157.129 (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested layout, continued

(break)

I like what we have so far, and just wanted to make another copy to allow further discussion. The construction and management simulation article has come along, and allowed some better organization there. We could use that Vehicle simulation game article., but I think that will be another powerful organizational tool. Simulation game is a point of contention still. I personally think we should embrace it as a super-genre (see above). The same should be done with Arcade game, Adult video games, Advergames and Educational games since they can all be action, strategy, or even sports games.
There's a lot of other genres that are homeless. Artillery games, Music video games, Light Gun games, Party games, Scrolling Shooters, Interactive Movies, and Maze games. I think adaptations of more traditional games like Pinball, Board games and Card games could be part of a single genre, but I have no research to back that up.
Let's do any further edits here, just for organizational sake.65.95.157.129 (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Source (mentioned above) categorizes board, card, and gambling games as "Casual games". Could include pinball. (I have not actually read the book, so I cannot say whether it mentions artificial life games, but the original poster said it "classifies simulations as being either vehicle sim or management sim".) Among the games linked to Artillery game, most are classified as a strategy game (GunBound uses the term "ballistics simulation") so it could be a strategy game subgenre. Light gun game doesn't actually exist, and Light gun focuses more on the hardware, so a mention of light guns in the shooting games section would be enough. Scrolling shooter is a subgenre of shmup. Music video games are essentially a string of timed button (or similar) presses; the two genres that fit best are Puzzle and Action. SubStandardDeviation (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

      • I've created User:Someone another/Genres suggested layout this userpage with the list on, for easy access and manipulation. Putting sports under 'action' was my idea, at the time something was nagging me that it wasn't right, it's back out as a separate genre. If a genre doesn't easily fit within action games or whatever, I'd suggest leaving it to stand alone - so long as we're calling a genre a genre there's not much to go wrong. Rather than classifying umbrella terms like educational game as a 'super genre' or an 'anything genre', I'd leave them as a type of video game - that way they can have a separate list and categories. Likewise there seems to be a lot of video game themes tucked into the genre categories - a separate category at the very least is needed (if one doesn't already exist). Take a look at the list and see what you think.Someone another (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there some particular reason pinball and music/rhythm-action games aren't listed under "acton"? I'm not aware of music games that aren't action games. I suppose "party" games might fall into different genres, though typically they'd be action or triva. And for that matter, where would a trivia game fall? I've moved scrolling fighters under fighting as a sub-genre, since that's what they are. They were routinely calling "fighting games" prior to the popularization of one on one fighters-which is just a sub genre of fighters. "Action-adventure" should at the least be moved under Adventure, and some of those adventure sub-genres should be reworked as sub-sub genres under "PC style adventure". And do Laserdisc games qualify as "adventure" games? I'd think they'd usually be better under action, although I know there are some "laserdisc style" games that function more like PC-style adventure games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfpup7 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simplifying genres in infoboxes

One of the many aspects of video game articles which seems to be a regular bone of contention, source of much (often unnecessary) discussion is the labeling of genre. After mulling it over I've come to a few conclusions and have some suggestions regarding standardizing the way we label videogames.

[edit] Suggestions

1. The genre section of infoboxes is there to provide the core gameplay classification by comparison, assuming that one exists. If core gameplay cannot be summarized with a genre then direct comparison is significantly less useful. Adding multiple genres just confuses matters and tries to replace an accurate description with a pile of links - the reader would still have to check each one and then read the gameplay description in order to get an accurate description. That defeats the object.

2. In infoboxes, there should only be one genre listed unless the game contains distinct play sections from different genres and they are fairly evenly represented within the game.

3. Where classification is difficult due to original gameplay style, the genre used should be cut right back to the base level of action, adventure or strategy etc. In the vast majority of cases, the reliable sources used to demonstrate notability should contain one of these terms. If there is no direct comparison then there is no point in trying to apply a label, applying a genre serves the reader, the reader doesn't serve the creation of genres. Katamari Damacy is a good example, there's nothing to compare it to apart from other Katamari games, so one of the top tier genres does as much as can be done.

4. Descriptions of gameplay or setting should not be used as genres if they are not widely regarded as such. Hack and Slash may be a regularly used term, but its status as an actual genre is debatable. There are several other examples. If the terms are regularly used in reviews etc. then there's no reason that they shouldn't be covered in the article proper. Categories also serve this purpose.

[edit] Shell of nuts

If we keep the infobox genre simple, using only widely recognized genres, I believe a lot of disagreements could be avoided. It doesn't really matter if things like hack and slash are genres provided they're kept in the article body and not the infobox - if they're cited as such they can be put in the relevant categories and it's dealt with. What think you?Someone another 13:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right about the core problem -- too much emphasis on genres that people only talk about on message boards. We shouldn't delete these genres, since they are notable. But they should be framed in the context of widely recognized genres: see the above discussion. As another side note, I see a lot of people using "third person" or "first person" or "side scroller" to describe a game, but these aren't genres. The only real thing Mario 64, Baldur's Gate, and Splinter Cell have in common is the third person view. We need to deal with this too, but maybe not in genres. I sometimes think we need to expand this to "taxonomy of video games", so non-genre categories can be relevant too. I think separating the game view from the game genre might even make the main article/template/infoboxes simpler. That's a whole other story, though. 64.231.195.228 16:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The viewpoints are often stated in article leads or gameplay sections, which seems like the best place for them, unbound from the infobox. There are a couple of instances where the viewpoint has become part of a genre (namely first person shooters, possibly also third person shooters), but I agree that too much emphasis is placed on viewpoint and that often it's bundled as part of the genre when it isn't.
I'm certainly not trying to shove the various articles on gaming terminology away from WP, but prolonged discussions/arguments about what the games are classified as shouldn't be happening - there's a lowest common denominator for them somewhere and that should be in the box. Even in more difficult cases, it should be consensus-and-go, anyone wanting to add further terminology should back it up with references and do so in the article body. All too often the burden of proof is reversed, when it's the responsibility of those wanting to include their favourite terms.
Things like the standard image size and dating formats are fairly rigid in application, there's no reason that the genre should be anything different, once the genres themselves are brought up to scratch.Someone another 19:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Sorry my edits have caused everyone so much work. I was wrong on the beat'em up games. Sorry about that. -DevinCook (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:GBC Lemmings.png

Image:GBC Lemmings.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Madden06Screen.jpg

Image:Madden06Screen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] re cleanup

this is the first time i've read this article; i see from the talk page it's had extensive cleanup and restructuring since the cleanup tag was added. just thought i'd point out that i think the article is now pretty good, both in terms of content and structure. maybe the only slightly odd part structurally being flight/tank etc sims etc being grouped with 'sim'/'god' games (i'd have thought the latter was a strategy sub-genre, oh well). while some parts could perhaps do with either trimming or expanding, i'd say the content largely reflects critical consensus (at least the closest there is to one) on terms used to describe genres and the gameplay features that constitute those genres. Bridies (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


long explanation of a small edit i made...

I removed this from the beat em up section: ‘Critics have denounced this genre as being repetitive and boring.’ Though this statement was referenced, the sources in fact don’t support the statement. The first http://www.gameinformer.com/NR/exeres/39AB74BD-1E0E-4229-B6F3-4D6ED807D5E3.htm is a review of dynasty warriors 5. It complains that the series is ‘stagnant’ (hardly a surprise after the 5th instalment), although it still saw fit to give DW5 a score of 7 out of 10. While it calls the game ‘mindless, repetitive’ it also calls it ‘brain dead fun’; this dubious praise is at least at odds with ‘repetitive and boring’. The review only denounces the fact that dynasty warriors 5 has not progressed from earlier instalments, it is not representative of any critical derision of the wider genre, or even the game itself (7 out of 10…). The second http://www.gameinformer.com/NR/exeres/27728205-8B9C-4E09-98FA-002B2AD3104F.htm is a review of some teenage turtles game. While it criticises the game itself, the closest it comes to a ‘denouncement’ of the wider genre is to say it has ‘limitations’. Furthermore, the reviewer states that he is a ‘big fan’ of other turtles games in the genre; he also calls the genre ‘fast, fun and forgettable’ (here ‘forgettable’ does not equal ‘boring’). Thus the review to a large extent contradicts the statement it is supposed to support. Both sources are reviews of rather unimportant examples of the (‘scrolling’) beat em’ up genre; as such using them as a basis to say ‘critics have denounced this genre as being repetitive and boring’ gives the statement and reviews undue weight. Furthermore, the sentiments expressed in the reviews have been twisted (not that I’m assuming bad faith here; honest misinterpretation I’m sure) to suggest that they demonstrate a widespread critical derision of beat em’ ups when they do not. To turn what amounts to ‘this particular example of a beat em’ up is much the same as earlier instalments in its series. It’s repetitive but still fun, so I’ll give it 7 out of 10’ and ‘I don’t like this particular beat em up but I really like some others’ into ‘this genre is repetitive and boring’ is far too much of a stretch. Bridies (talk) 05:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that the first source doesn't amount to an analysis of the genre (though I don't see how "brain-dead fun" can be seen as having many positive connotations), the second source has a bit more to say than you intimate. The article starts out with, "This new TMNT adventure is a welcome throwback to the brawlers of old, but also retains all the flaws of the genre" and ends with "Although I’ve slammed this title on many fronts, I want to end things on a more positive note. This game is one of the better next-generation brawlers that there is, which simply demonstrates the limitations of the genre." This signifies that the criticisms found in between are more or less applicable to the genre as a whole. Finally, there is the following in the template: "Like its gaming ancestors, TMNT is fast, fun, and forgettable." That's a considerable amount of criticism for such a short review. While the statement does not support the widespreadness of the opinion, it does constitute evidence that it exists. As for the game's importance, it's the latest installment in an important franchise within the genre, and the reviewers are disappointed with its quality with respect to these other titles. The reviewers make it pretty clear that they were highly anticipating the title. Maybe the original text should be scaled back, but that doesn't mean it should be eliminated entirely. SharkD (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
As for the games not having as sophisticated fighting mechanics as other fighting games, that's kind of obvious, isn't it? I mean, you can't really compare Double Dragon with Virtua Fighter. SharkD (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
i deleted the part regarding the simplicity of the gameplay by accident, i've restored it now. as i said earlier, saying the genre has limitations and flaws, does not ammount to saying it is 'boring', especially when he claims to be a big fan of other games in the genre. again as i said, 'fast, fun and forgettable' at most can be taken as 'repetitive and fun', not 'repetitive and boring'; likewise with 'brain dead fun'. the game is a spiritual sequal at most, the earlier (acclaimed) games were two generations of consoles previous; if the review was deriding those games (it mostly praises them), or streets of rage, or even dynasty warriors 2 it might hold more water. i guess it could be acceptably changed to 'some critics view this genre as fun but repetitive' but i still think its giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint which isn't really being expressed in the sources... Bridies (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MMOHS

the 'MMOHS' section should be removed entirely IMO. aside from the fact it's clumsily written, non-NPOV and seemingly original research, a google search doesn't turn up any evidence that the term exists outside this (and its own seperate) article (very original research!). at most (according to some brief google browsings) 'hack n' slash' is used as an adjective to describe the gameplay of certain MMORPGs, much as it is used to describe the gameplay of beat em' ups that have weapons. the section here doesn't even contend that this is what elevates it to status as a seperate genre; that is apparently down to the lack of interaction with NPCs and other players. Bridies (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of MMOHS. SharkD (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
further google trawlings turn up a few instances of the term on gaming forums. it seems basically to be a term invented by a handful of world of warcraft detractors to try and claim it is not a proper MMORPG. indeed the main MMOHNS is, according to the main article on the genre, WOW (the biggest MMORPG in the world...). the others it lists as 'probably' being MMOHNS are korean games i've never heard of; but according to their main articles, they are MMORPGs. i think the consensus has to be that these supposed MMOHNSs aren't distinct (genre wise) from MMORPGs; and that the consesus is MMOHNS is not a genre? the only uses of the term seem to be very obscure and none of them come from viable sources (of course this is just from my search). nobody seems to have edited this section or its main article (and the creator hasn't editing anything else). any objections to just removing it (i also tagged the main article for deletion)? Bridies (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, esoteric, OR and non-notable. However, it represents a new and current distinction, and should be documented, so I removed section but made a brief mention (with article link) in the MMORPG section. That should take care of it. Miqademus (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
the deletion of MMOHNSs main article went ahead. as such, i have removed the remaining reference to it on this page. if anyone is adamant it's a valid distinction, there needs to be sources stating it's meaning and showing its prevalence. Bridies (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section for Flash games?

I think we should at least have a mention of the fastest growing web gaming genre and how some designers started with flash--Matterfoot (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Flash games aren't a genre any more than Console games, PC games, or Mobile games are a genre. They can be any genre, like platform games, shooter games, puzzle games, or adventure games. Currently, Flash game redirects to Browser game -- which is already in the "see also" of this page. Going further than that would be outside the focus of this article. 67.71.2.153 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Zork screenshot.png

Image:Zork screenshot.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page for Zork already features a different screen shot, with a rationale included.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Zork_I_computer_game.png

It might be easiest simply to use the image that already has the rationale. Dennis G. Jerz (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where was the discussion for moving this article?

Someone moved this article from video game genres to list of video game genres. I'm not sure there was any discussion about it. I don't see the rationale, either. I'm tempted to move it back, but I'd like to see what other people have to say first. Randomran (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of moving the page back. Feel free to discuss any move proposals here. Randomran (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Why Vehicle simulation is the separate section and not a sub-section under Simulation section?


Also, I believe Construction and management simulation sub-section should be moved to Strategy section, as they are as much strategic as simulation. Netrat_msk (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the CMS article, and the research backing it up... CMSs are distinct from strategy games because you're just building something up, not so much competing against a dynamic opponent. You're right though -- the article also says that strategy games can incorporate aspects of CMSs into their gameplay. I guess it's important to remember that lots of games belong to more than one genre. 65.95.142.28 (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd support refactoring this article into something resembling a list and removing these images. It doesn't prevent a lead section discussing the nature of game genres, or other headings within the article, but would help in reducing the problems on the page. Considering most entries here have their own articles, it seems unnecessary to devote so much text to repeating what should be in the articles themselves. A short description (like a couple of sentences) and two well-picked examples for each genre would serve the same purpose, but give us a fighting chance to actually get it up to scratch. A similar article/list for discussing related terminology (IE genres by purpose as opposed to gameplay) could run alongside. Take a look at Film genre, why can't we have something manageable like that? :( I've not looked at this article for yonks, but it's clear that everyone contributing has really improved it, so thanks and well done. Can we move the article further towards being sleek and functional? Someoneanother 22:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References and Notes sections are redundant

I am doing my best to integrate all the references into the article. The Chris Crawford and Thomas Apperley articles both fit well with the overview in the lead. Other articles referred to specific genres. Within a few days I hope to have a single section with proper wikified references. But if anyone would like help out I would appreciate it. 130.63.182.254 (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free images

THe problem with the images here is defined in WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. The way to think about it is for each image, to say "if I removed this image, would the reader suddenly not be able to understand the article"? and if the answer is "Yes", then to say "could I replace that deleted image with text, or does it have to be the image"? Black Kite 17:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Of the 18 images on the article, only 6 of them violate any kind of copyright. I still think this constitutes fair use. The remaining images are highly necessary, since the remaining genre concepts would seem abstract and hard to define. The text would not be enough, since many of the genres are very close together in their description. Actual shots of gameplay are necessary.
Of the remaining 6 copyrighted images from copyrighted games, can you point to any one in particular that you think can or should be removed? Randomran (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Apologies - I was not aware of Ubisoft's copyright dismissal. I will look at this one a bit more closely. Black Kite 18:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. More detailed concerns would be more helpful. Obviously, none of us want this article to break any laws or get wikipedia in trouble. If there's anything questionable, point it out and we'll see what we can do about it. Randomran (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FPS

Am I incorrect in thinking that the correct plural of "FPS" is "FPS's" and not "FPSs" (note the apostrophe)? --kaoskastle (Talk) 22:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Good question. You add 's to something to say that it owns something. (e.g.: my dad's car. the movie's story.) See: Saxon genitive. Plural never uses the apostrophe. Randomran (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Aye, but I remember from English class that one would write out "look at the 0's" or "I got all A's"; I guess the same doesn't apply with FPS? --kaoskastle (Talk) 19:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, good point. I always thought you did that for single characters, but not for acronyms. But you've got even me confused. I'm not so sure anymore. Randomran (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It's FPS's. otherwise it adds another letter to the acronym. Any confusion between the plural and possesive forms must be decided out of context.Doomrider15 (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The plural of FPS (First Person Shooters) is still FPS. Tacking on an apostrophe is simply incorrect. Tacking on a little 's' is ungrammatical. The best way to deal with this is to avoid this kind of usage. Replace it with the phrase "FPS games" or otherwise rephrase the sentence. Examples:
  • Many FPSs have rocket launchers.
    • Change to: Many FPS games have rocket launchers.
  • FPS's are very popular.
    • Change to: The FPS genre is very popular.

Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tower Defense Addition

I was just noticing that Tower Defense is not desribed in the article but it is in the list of strategy game genres at the bottom. I'll add it, give it a short desciption, and I encourage you all to add to it and help clean it up. I'll also need examples and citations.Doomrider15 (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beat em ups

Beat em ups have much more in common with hack and slash and shoot em ups than they do with other fighting games. Beat em ups are, at the core, side scrolling action games with two button gameplay, just like hack and slash or shoot em ups. Competitive fighting games play nothing like this. Genres here are organized by gameplay. If we started grouping together all the genres that involve fighting, then we might as well rename "Action Games" into "Fighting Games" and call First Person Shooters a form of fighting game. I'll be reverting this article back to its previous form. Randomran (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be decided by secondary sources. Though I'm inclined to agree with you, wolfpup could make a decent case based on the apparent interchangability of the two terms (furthermore, I and probably others in the UK know what is described here as 'fighting games' as 'beat em ups' and here 'beat em ups' as 'scrolling beat em ups'). However, that doesn't mean they are the same genre. I can't be bothered spend ages going through loads of sources at the moment, but here (http://uk.gamespot.com/features/vgs/sat/segafight/) is an. interesting article that treats the two as seperate genres. Some quotes:

When most people think of "Sega" and "fighting games," they think of the Virtua Fighter and Eternal Champions games, yet the first one-on-one fighting games for Sega's home and arcade units were neither of those titles. After Street Fighter II rocked the world in 1991, Sega's development teams set out to make the company a player in the new genre of video gaming (...) Arcade game companies in the mid- to late-1980s were making three major sorts of titles: beat-em-ups (it mentions altered beast and golden axe further down), shooters, and simulations (...) With the success of Street Fighter II beginning in March 1991, Capcom alone created demand for software of a largely new genre - the one-on-one fighting game

Bridies (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I took the time to incorporate a couple of references. Hopefully this will prevent further edit wars. I've been busy lately. Randomran (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wolfpup7, kindly stop removing verified content (including the citations themselves) and replacing it with original research, particularly since you have ignored this discussion. Bridies (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to the referenced version, rather than the incorrect version that violates WP:OR. Randomran (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brick Busters

What genre would you use for Brick Busting games like Breakout, Arkanoid and others. I would guess somewhere in the Action super-genre, but is there enough of a precedent here to justify its own sub-genre? I personally don't feel it classifies as a Puzzle, but that's about the best I can come up with: Action/Puzzler. Dawynn (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping into wikipedia full force. Some games really don't fit into any of the special subgenres that have emerged. There are lots of generic RPGs or generic action-adventures. This is probably a generic action game. Use of reflexes and hand-eye coordination and so on. But the best thing to do would be to google it and look to see what genre it is. (I don't think "breakout clone" is a genre.) Randomran (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Side-Scrolling? As a sub-genre?!?

OK -- I'm having trouble believing this one. Side-scrolling video game does not seem to me to really define a genre. Even the article has trouble deciding what really defines the genre other than the *format* of moving from side to side. They speak of platform, RPG, Beat-em-up, and shooter side-scrolling games, and everything that the article talks about already has a valid genre -- meaning that any "side-scrolling" games would be double-genre games. I don't see any mention of games outside of already established true genres.

I vote for revising the Side-scrolling video game article to remove any references to it being a genre, and also strip this sub-genre from the Video game genres article (currently under the Action super-genre). Any other opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawynn (talk • contribs) 17:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If you wanted to do it, I'd definitely back you up. But I should note: most side-scrolling games are action games. You don't have any side scrolling RPGs, Adventure games, Puzzle games, Strategy games, Vehicle sims, or Management sims. But honestly, if you wanted to fix the article you could make it more like turn-based game, text-based game, tile-based game or so on. (Not that any of these are great articles either.) If you decide to take this on, hit me up on my talk page to let me know how it goes. Randomran (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle for Wesnoth

Could we get a new picture of Battle for Wesnoth in there? The present picture is outdated, and hence, doesn't quite do the game justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.174.149 (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Two things: 1) I copied a newer image from the Battle for Wesnoth page. 2) I moved Tactical Role-Playing under Turn Based Tactics, and updated the caption. I would suggest Battle for Wesnoth falls under the Tactical Role-Playing genre, what with the story modes between battles, and characters levelling between scenarios. Dawynn (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Tactical role-playing and turn-based tactics are close, but it's probably better to keep them separate as that's how most sources talk about these two genres. Battle for Wesnoth is described as a turn-based strategy game because you have to manage the "economy" of summoning units and death is permanent. There's subtle distinctions that put it more firmly in the strategy category, but with some RPG elements. Even then, the sources call it a turn-based strategy game. Randomran (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone much more familiar with the distinction needs to get into this editing process, then. Because I edited out "Final Fantasy Tactics" being called a Turn-Based Tactics game (since I've seen that typically referred to as Tactical Role-Playing) and Tactical Role-Playing is listed as a sub-genre of Turn-Based Tactics. I haven't played enough of these games to realize the subtle differences here. Dawynn (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I try to keep my eye on most of the genre stuff. I can't claim to be an expert, but I know enough about each type of game to know when things have gotten off track. The best thing we can do is rely on good references. Wikipedia has made me brush up on my google skills. Randomran (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
If Nintendo Wars (and BFW) are TBS, why are the games therein (Advance Wars, etc) described as TBT?
I've seen RTS/RPG (Revenant Wings). I'm sure there's an RTT/RPG somewhere. SubStandardDeviation (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't tell you. The problem is a lot of people throw games into the category that they think makes sense, which is original research and leads to problems with errors and inconsistencies. It's possible that some of these articles haven't been properly researched, and therefore they haven't been properly categorized. Randomran (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Comp-bve-amoswolfe.jpg

The image Image:Comp-bve-amoswolfe.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gambling Games?

Is it worth it to have a section somewhere for Gambling games? I'm thinking here the slew of casino- and parlor-related games. There's a number of Pachinko games in Japan, along with a number of general casino, or even poker-specific games here in the states. I guess games trying to replicate the card game of Poker itself might fall under "Traditional", but I have trouble with such a classification for games that try to bring the "Video poker" experience to the home computer / console.

Perhaps under other notable genres? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawynn (talk • contribs) 16:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of adaptations of non-video games... card games, board games, pinball games, and yeah, casino games. Put it under other notable genres for now. There's an article that tries to group these together called traditional games, but I think it's mostly original research. Until we can find something that groups these together in a sensible way, it's best to deal with them separately. Randomran (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting articles/sources

I remember some work has been done on this article lately, and I stumbled across some Game Informer articles I thought would be of help—if they have not already been found.

Hope it helps some. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] 1st Person "3D" Square-Based RPG's?

Please help me come up with the proper terminology for the genre I'm thinking of.

I realize that this genre has all but died out with more recent, highly capable 3D graphics cards. But, back in the early days of RPG's, it was quite popular.

The user is presented with an interface that appears 3D. But this is just an illusion -- the player can only face the four primary compass directions -- N, S, E, W. In some games, the player can only move forward, while later games provided the ability to side-step. Generally, the user can only "see" about 3 squares ahead of him. Each key click forward is another square (tile, step) -- typically considered about 10 feet.

The entire game was easy to map out with graph paper. Later games of this genre would provide some sort of Auto-Map feature, but the early games required hand-drawn graph paper maps.

Wizardry I probably defined this genre. But it was used by Wizardry I - VII, Bard's Tale I - III, the non-battle portions of the AD&D gold-box games, the dungeon sections of early Ultima's (even Akalabeth), Lands of Lore, Might and Magic 1 - 5, Stonekeep, etc.

Or is this just a presentation mode, and not really a genre? With how much this presentation mode plays into the gameplay, and how similar such titles are in their playing styles, I would personally consider it a genre. Sure, its pretty much dead, but it did define the computer RPG world for a number of years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawynn (talk • contribs) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think these are just regular RPGs presented in a first-person viewpoint. The gameplay is still fundamentally the same as other overhead or even side-scrolling RPGs. Randomran (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Side-scrolling RPG's? Haven't played many of those.
Overhead RPG's typically allow you to see when your opponent is coming toward you, no matter what direction they're coming from. With the 3D square RPG's, opponents either sprang upon you (Bard's Tale I, early Wizardry's), or you could only see the one's directly in front of you (Lands of Lore). If I remember correctly, Might and Magic 4 and 5 were better about allowing you to see in more of a true 3D (including enemies not directly in front of you) -- but again you were restricted to facing the four primary compass directions.
So, where a Roguelike is known for being able to see enemies come at you from any direction -- and being able to move in 8 directions (and for the ASCII graphics), a 3D square RPG allows you to see enemies only from 1 direction, move only in four specific directions, and often only move in the direction you're facing. So, in cases where enemies can move with every "move" you make, this means that even turning around can let your enemies catch up with you. In a roguelike, even the concept of turning around is typically foreign, since you're not really "facing" any direction.
Action RPG's are known for needing a Pause function if you don't want enemies to keep coming at you. Pause functions were typically not needed in these 3D square games. Typically, you could not be attacked unless you moved (although there may be exceptions were enemies were allowed to move regardless of whether you do), and combat was typically turn-based. Although it may take the computer time to resolve a specific turn (the message scrawl on the Bard's Tale games, or the slow graphic depictions in Wizardry VII), when it was time to start a new turn, the computer would wait indefinitely for user input.
Unlike current 3D games, you could not find yourself stuck in a graphic glitch. Pretty much ever since game designers started creating true 3D RPG's, collision detection has been a problem that some games have conquered better than others. Since these 3D square games were not true 3D, and you only moved one whole square at a time, collision detection wasn't even needed. Actually, that's a big bonus in favor of these older games.
Where current games get by with defining area triggers (sometimes in a viewable fashion like Neverwinter Nights), the 3D square games might hide something on one particular square of the map. Did you see those 99 skeletons hiding in the corner of the room, even when you were standing 10' away? No! But step on the magic square and Boom! there they all are! Hope you have enough magic left! That's not something that can be easily hidden or dealt with in current 3D games. But with a couple of magic spells that hit *all* enemies, such things were easily dealt with in 1 to 2 rounds on the old 3D square games.
No, the square format definitely affected the gameplay, and there are tricks in the old games that just cannot be easily migrated up to today's true 3D game worlds. It isn't just a matter of viewpoint.
Dawynn (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it affected the gameplay the same way that RPGs had different combat systems, or that platform games had different health systems. I don't think this is a genre. But I can't say with 100% certainty that this isn't a genre. The real key is if someone can find reliable research that groups Wizardry, Bard's Tale, Might and Magic ... and calls it a genre. It doesn't even have to have a consistent name, but it does have to say there's a genre here, with certain conventions that make it sufficiently different from other RPGs. Randomran (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Visual Novels

Visual Novels shouldn't be a game genre. There are action visual novels, romance visual novels, adventure visual novels, goth horror visual novels, etc. If anything visual novels is its own medium that should be discussed seperately as much of them feature zero gameplay.

96.234.111.24 (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)