Are Video Game Genres Simply Restraints?
So I ask why do you confine a game to certain areas, why do you constrict and squeeze a game by giving it a name, right off the bat, under which it solidifies its place for gamers to judge upon instantaneously. If I tell you, Call of Duty is considered a First Person Shooter, and you’ve never played Call of Duty before in your life, you can still imagine what it’s all about and whether you would really enjoy that type of game or not. You can make an assumption on the game, just by the genre it’s placed in.
Do games really need this ‘tagging’, this floating name above their heads ensuring everyone knows what it is, without so much as a second playing the game? What does this achieve aside from letting the certain groups of gamers know that ‘this game is for you!’ I’d say not much. In fact, I’d say it is a bit of a burden, for developers, publishers and gamers alike.
You can look at it shallowly in two ways. Is an open-world sandbox environment your thing? Think Far Cry 2 or Infamous and Fallout 3. Or do you prefer the deeply linear, integral structure of a well-paced game such as Call of Duty: Modern Warfare or Halo 3? There have been multiple attempts more recently to amalgamate the two very different ways of playing a game. The recent Batman: Arkham Asylum gave you a lot more freedom than people had anticipated, letting gamers wonder around before realising you were going the wrong way. You could go nearly anywhere when released from the corridors of Arkham Islands’ very own, aforementioned asylum for Gotham City’s criminally insane. Albeit you couldn’t advance much further at all unless you complete the plot in the games intended order and thus received the rewards, i.e. explosive gel. It was still a brilliant little taste of freedom. Huge sandbox games ala the GTA or Battlefield series give you a set of orders, but not a way to go about doing it.
The most recent Grand Theft Auto did a great job in giving the player a simply massive illusion of freedom and choice. You got told where to go and that was it. But in the end, there is always progression in a game, you just have to go there and do that mission because if you don’t, you won’t carry on the plot. Not only that but the mission itself will be linear, or might as well be. You will drive to that place, stop and get out, shoot that guy in the leg, laugh a little, save your friend, get back in the car and drive away safely to a predetermined destination. It all makes you wonder, is it all worth the effort? GTA IV had a breathtaking city. It was a living city, showcasing amazing skyscrapers that shone in the murderous moonlight, pedestrians walked about their daily business as the police patrolled the highways looking for justice. Every car was going somewhere and there were hotdog stands and tramps with signs pleading for aid, there were women of the night, clubs and pubs, there was everything. Yet every player went through the same story, had the same problems and outcomes. Deep down, it is all just a farce.
Yet it is as far as we have come, and we have come far. Currently, Borderlands stands firm at its claim to creating a new genre, you’ve all seen it, the Role Playing Shooter. What does this mean, you ask? It means you will kill nigh infinite enemies with nigh infinite guns as lots and lots of nice looking numbers hover above your targets heads when you do in fact, shoot them in the face. All in all, Borderlands did a great job in merging two very popular genres. In doing so, you had people playing with each other online that shouldn’t necessarily ever meet each other. A hardcore Role Playing Gamer, teaming up with a hardcore Shooter? Surely that’s something to be proud of right?
Of course, some would argue that Fallout 3 did this first. Whilst combining rifles, grenades and levelling up via quests and experience, I’m not sure Gearbox software can state that they created the Role Playing Shooter; I would give that award to Bethesda. Gearbox just did the shooter bit much better and added numbers when things were shot.
It seems to me, the predicament most sandbox games get themselves into is one that Far Cry 2 did so obviously. There is such a thing as too much choice, as gamers playing GTA IV found themselves doing the same thing deep down, Far Cry 2 really did have a lot of open worldly structure, after the first level you were thrust into doing whatever the hell you like, which was good, at first. Constantly fixing your broken vehicle and/or waiting for a bus aside, the missions you accepted involved a target, yourself (armed to the teeth so much as to make Rambo feel naked) and that was it. Too much freedom and choice makes the players go ‘But whado I do? Please, tell me what to do!’ and you find yourself aimlessly wondering around a lot, stalking beautifully animated Zebra.
Seemingly it boils down to the limits the game restricts upon its player, and the player itself. Admittedly, I enjoy the more open game. A type of game filled to the rim with longevity and choice, real choices that provoke real consequences. I also like how the Call of Duty games infuse Hollywood-esque action set pieces and dramatic, memorable video game moments.
If only, I plea, a game could have the epic sandbox environments of Grand Theft Auto, the outstanding detail of Bioshock, the choice of Mass Effect and longevity of World of Warcraft. If only we could have a game where sabres and submachine guns co-exist, where you level up and gain experience points, where cut scenes follow your every move and where your opinion matters. Where history and time is meaningless and obsolete, only then do we have a game that genres cannot tag and claim, only then do we have a real game that everyone can play.
Do games really need this ‘tagging’, this floating name above their heads ensuring everyone knows what it is, without so much as a second playing the game? What does this achieve aside from letting the certain groups of gamers know that ‘this game is for you!’ I’d say not much. In fact, I’d say it is a bit of a burden, for developers, publishers and gamers alike.
You can look at it shallowly in two ways. Is an open-world sandbox environment your thing? Think Far Cry 2 or Infamous and Fallout 3. Or do you prefer the deeply linear, integral structure of a well-paced game such as Call of Duty: Modern Warfare or Halo 3? There have been multiple attempts more recently to amalgamate the two very different ways of playing a game. The recent Batman: Arkham Asylum gave you a lot more freedom than people had anticipated, letting gamers wonder around before realising you were going the wrong way. You could go nearly anywhere when released from the corridors of Arkham Islands’ very own, aforementioned asylum for Gotham City’s criminally insane. Albeit you couldn’t advance much further at all unless you complete the plot in the games intended order and thus received the rewards, i.e. explosive gel. It was still a brilliant little taste of freedom. Huge sandbox games ala the GTA or Battlefield series give you a set of orders, but not a way to go about doing it.
The most recent Grand Theft Auto did a great job in giving the player a simply massive illusion of freedom and choice. You got told where to go and that was it. But in the end, there is always progression in a game, you just have to go there and do that mission because if you don’t, you won’t carry on the plot. Not only that but the mission itself will be linear, or might as well be. You will drive to that place, stop and get out, shoot that guy in the leg, laugh a little, save your friend, get back in the car and drive away safely to a predetermined destination. It all makes you wonder, is it all worth the effort? GTA IV had a breathtaking city. It was a living city, showcasing amazing skyscrapers that shone in the murderous moonlight, pedestrians walked about their daily business as the police patrolled the highways looking for justice. Every car was going somewhere and there were hotdog stands and tramps with signs pleading for aid, there were women of the night, clubs and pubs, there was everything. Yet every player went through the same story, had the same problems and outcomes. Deep down, it is all just a farce.
Yet it is as far as we have come, and we have come far. Currently, Borderlands stands firm at its claim to creating a new genre, you’ve all seen it, the Role Playing Shooter. What does this mean, you ask? It means you will kill nigh infinite enemies with nigh infinite guns as lots and lots of nice looking numbers hover above your targets heads when you do in fact, shoot them in the face. All in all, Borderlands did a great job in merging two very popular genres. In doing so, you had people playing with each other online that shouldn’t necessarily ever meet each other. A hardcore Role Playing Gamer, teaming up with a hardcore Shooter? Surely that’s something to be proud of right?
Of course, some would argue that Fallout 3 did this first. Whilst combining rifles, grenades and levelling up via quests and experience, I’m not sure Gearbox software can state that they created the Role Playing Shooter; I would give that award to Bethesda. Gearbox just did the shooter bit much better and added numbers when things were shot.
It seems to me, the predicament most sandbox games get themselves into is one that Far Cry 2 did so obviously. There is such a thing as too much choice, as gamers playing GTA IV found themselves doing the same thing deep down, Far Cry 2 really did have a lot of open worldly structure, after the first level you were thrust into doing whatever the hell you like, which was good, at first. Constantly fixing your broken vehicle and/or waiting for a bus aside, the missions you accepted involved a target, yourself (armed to the teeth so much as to make Rambo feel naked) and that was it. Too much freedom and choice makes the players go ‘But whado I do? Please, tell me what to do!’ and you find yourself aimlessly wondering around a lot, stalking beautifully animated Zebra.
Seemingly it boils down to the limits the game restricts upon its player, and the player itself. Admittedly, I enjoy the more open game. A type of game filled to the rim with longevity and choice, real choices that provoke real consequences. I also like how the Call of Duty games infuse Hollywood-esque action set pieces and dramatic, memorable video game moments.
If only, I plea, a game could have the epic sandbox environments of Grand Theft Auto, the outstanding detail of Bioshock, the choice of Mass Effect and longevity of World of Warcraft. If only we could have a game where sabres and submachine guns co-exist, where you level up and gain experience points, where cut scenes follow your every move and where your opinion matters. Where history and time is meaningless and obsolete, only then do we have a game that genres cannot tag and claim, only then do we have a real game that everyone can play.