- Joined
- Mar 18, 2007
- Messages
- 3,669
A bit long. Skim over it at your leisure, or read the tl;dr if 6 short paragraphs is too much. Posted this at another forum; thought I might do the same here.
I'm loath to think that The Sims can be judged in the same light as, say, Starcraft. They're both considered "video games", but it's not just genre that's different. At the most fundamental level, these two games fulfill different purposes. Considering what makes a video game just that, I believe video games can be classified by the reasons a gamer would want to play them. The way I see it, there are essentially 3 reasons:
Competition. The most straightforward and common kind of game, this is essentially sports that aren't sports. The archetypical genre for this would probably be first-person shooters, but almost all video games have an element of this. Sports, racing, rts, etc. As long as there is an objective and obstacles to overcome, games can fit this mold.
Exploration. These aren't necessarily "games" as much as they are "toys". Video games like The Sims or Scribblenauts offer a system or a premise that can be explored. In this case, the archetypical genre would probably be simulation. Games with a sandbox also fit this description, or any games with a large overworld, for that matter.
Storytelling. Almost all games tell some kind of story. Perhaps the more apt phrase would be "Interactive Storytelling". The genre archetype is without a doubt, the visual novel, but since no one fucking plays visual novels (besides pathetic weeaboos like myself, of course), a more relatable archetype might be Bioware games like KotOR or Mass Effect, with their multitude of dialog boxes and the like.
I believe all games can be broken down into parts that fit each of these three categories. For example, Fallout 3's Competition aspect would be its combat, stealth, lockpick/hacking minigames, and anything else that you can call a "challenge". Its vast world and various collectable items and options for character interaction prompt for some kind of Exploration. Finally, it has a story, brought forth by its premise and things like dialog boxes.
Finally, this topic begs the question: What's the fucking point? Well, games have varying amounts of each of these three. This is a quality that transcends genre or various other factors. I believe that if you judge a game by these three factors, it would more consistent and reasoned than trying to break it down into things that are readily apparent, yet not that profound, like "graphics" or vague concepts like "gameplay". I personally think breaking things down into Competition, Exploration, and Storytelling is the most consistent way to judge or understand a game and recognize its qualities.
tl;dr: Games can be broken down into 3 equally profound factors (bolded above), and using them as a guideline to judge would be more useful than something vague like "gameplay" or something less profound like "graphics", and would transcend genre.
Obviously, ideas need work, so what do you think?
I'm loath to think that The Sims can be judged in the same light as, say, Starcraft. They're both considered "video games", but it's not just genre that's different. At the most fundamental level, these two games fulfill different purposes. Considering what makes a video game just that, I believe video games can be classified by the reasons a gamer would want to play them. The way I see it, there are essentially 3 reasons:
Competition. The most straightforward and common kind of game, this is essentially sports that aren't sports. The archetypical genre for this would probably be first-person shooters, but almost all video games have an element of this. Sports, racing, rts, etc. As long as there is an objective and obstacles to overcome, games can fit this mold.
Exploration. These aren't necessarily "games" as much as they are "toys". Video games like The Sims or Scribblenauts offer a system or a premise that can be explored. In this case, the archetypical genre would probably be simulation. Games with a sandbox also fit this description, or any games with a large overworld, for that matter.
Storytelling. Almost all games tell some kind of story. Perhaps the more apt phrase would be "Interactive Storytelling". The genre archetype is without a doubt, the visual novel, but since no one fucking plays visual novels (besides pathetic weeaboos like myself, of course), a more relatable archetype might be Bioware games like KotOR or Mass Effect, with their multitude of dialog boxes and the like.
I believe all games can be broken down into parts that fit each of these three categories. For example, Fallout 3's Competition aspect would be its combat, stealth, lockpick/hacking minigames, and anything else that you can call a "challenge". Its vast world and various collectable items and options for character interaction prompt for some kind of Exploration. Finally, it has a story, brought forth by its premise and things like dialog boxes.
Finally, this topic begs the question: What's the fucking point? Well, games have varying amounts of each of these three. This is a quality that transcends genre or various other factors. I believe that if you judge a game by these three factors, it would more consistent and reasoned than trying to break it down into things that are readily apparent, yet not that profound, like "graphics" or vague concepts like "gameplay". I personally think breaking things down into Competition, Exploration, and Storytelling is the most consistent way to judge or understand a game and recognize its qualities.
tl;dr: Games can be broken down into 3 equally profound factors (bolded above), and using them as a guideline to judge would be more useful than something vague like "gameplay" or something less profound like "graphics", and would transcend genre.
Obviously, ideas need work, so what do you think?
