Tom Carrick is another one of my British acquaintances who likes to grumble about everything. He’s too young to be a bona fide crank, but there you have it. He is also very good at MegaMek and very bad at Civ IV, at least in multiplayer. His contribution to the list of guest blogs is a reflection on genre confusion and why it gives him a headache.
———————————-

Are new genres even possible anymore? The newest genre I can think of just may be Grand Theft Auto’s steal-em-up-n-drive-em-up; but that isn’t a genre so much as a theme. I suppose the newest proper genre is probably the RTS. However, isn’t an RTS just a logical fork from turn-based strategy when technology is capable of it? Nobody ever talks about real time role-playing games - another logical fork from the turn-based RPGs.

But there’s a big difference. An RPG is still an RPG no matter the mechanics. The mechanics of turning a straegy game real-time meant they had to do away with visible hexes and tiles because they didn’t really matter anymore. They had to get rid of detailed stats because nobody had time to look at them.

Ramble aside, I really see no need for any new genres. I don’t really see any need for the word genre at all, except to explain just who a particular game is aimed at. Action, adventure, strategy, simulation, puzzle, roleplaying and casual are probably all we need. These six genres pretty much sum up every type of gamer I know, and every type of game I’ve played. Not that this doesn’t have its problems.

First, games like to mix and match so much between genres it’s hard to know what to put them in. Is Command & Conquer an action game or a strategy game? Is Pirates! an action game, an RPG, a pirate simulation, a strategy game, a grand freeform adventure, or what? I certainly don’t know.

A less annoying expample is simulation. Lots of games could be called a simulation. For example, Sim City 4 is a simulation of a city. Mount & Blade is a horseback fighting simulation. But of course they aren’t. There is a least some distinguishing features. Simulations should at least try to be realistic. This can be hard to judge, but if the game as made to be realistic, it should be a simulation. This is what makes Capitalism a business simulation, rather than a business game such as Mad TV. Silent Hunter III is a submarine simulation - Sea Rogue is a submarine/shipwreck hunting game.

Which brings us onto the last thing. Even if a game doesn’t try to mix it up with the genres, it could still fit into two. Should Capitalism be bundled into simulation or strategy? Probably whatever fits who the game is targetted at. In this case, strategy, I suppose. People who read through the simulations section of a magazine/website are usually after flight/etc. simulators, anyway.

There are really too many factors to be considered. Although most games are easy to stick a label on, there are always some annoying ones. And for those, if I was a magazine editor - or anyone else - who had to go through games putting labels on them I would have killed myself a long time ago with a little note saying “Life sucks, it’s too hard”.

——————————–

Interested in guest blogging? Send me a note and we can work something out.