Monday, October 26, 2009

Genre

While it is important to recognize a game for what it offers to the player, sometimes the act of tossing games into uber-specific categories can get a little out of hand. It is true that games require some sort of label in order to notify the consumer of what they're getting themselves into. However, the art of video games is so dynamic that attempting to form-fit every game to a certain pre-set genre is both impossible and ridiculous. In fact, the same scenario rings true with most forms of art, especially music. The term "metal" just can't serve as the same ballpark for two bands like, say, Led Zeppelin and The Dillinger Escape Plan. Conversely, getting too deep with nomenclature can be just as troublesome, as one can ultimately come up with as many genre classes as there are games to fill them.

The "casual-for-hardcore" article by James Portnow touched on an interesting subject- the creation of casual games intended for a hardcore audience. According to his ideas, there needs to be a new range of reduced-pace games made available to the hardcore gaming community, as the current slew of casual games are unappealing to this group. To me, this seems to draw too many senselessly-fine lines. How does one determine what is too casual or not casual enough for a range of audiences? "Now introducing new, improved, plus-sized mediocrity!" There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of "casual" games for hardcore gamers to burn time with, ranging from the mind-numbing to the slightly entrancing (remember, it's casual games we're discussing- nothing too rough). The creation of another subset of casual games would only serve to complicate an area where complexity certainly isn't needed or wanted.

In short, genres themselves should be used in a casual sense when referring to games, or any art form . Over-use with the intent to distinguish one group of games is senseless, but without a system of classification, nobody would know what they were getting in to when they purchased games. One solution would be to devise a new system of genre-labeling that used a more descriptive form, such as a sentence instead of one or two words. This would allow for much greater flexibility; however, many folks would feel the resistance of losing their rudimentary system. Until something new comes by, games will continue to be forced into poorly-fitting genre classes or singled out in obscurely-created subgroups.

2 comments:

  1. I don't know if they're trying to create a new class of games, or if they're asking for us to consider a new outlook on games. Most games on the handheld are geared towards casual play but there are a lot that are for already established gamers. Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy, and a number of other long standing games are available on handhelds that are geared towards playing when you can where you can.
    The trouble they're finding is that anything labeled as 'casual' is usually overlooked and tossed aside by supposed 'hard core gamers'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I can't remember where I read it, but there was a discussion about the Portnow piece and someone mentioned how, even though it appears to be a casual game, Peggle is hardcore. One need only look at the XBLA achievement list for evidence of this. The devotion necessary to pull off some of the achievements as well as particular shots could only come from a hardcore player of the game. I'd be curious about Portnow's insights on where Peggle fits in this casual-hardcore continuum.

    ReplyDelete