The Problems With Genre
Put simply, genre is just a means of classifying various forms of entertainment. Of which, video games, being entertainment, are characterized by those genre and sub-genre which make simple definition of a game type possible and easily accessible without providing a lot of detail as to the specifics of a game. Traditionally, genres are not defined and then games created in that vein. The games are created and then the genre to classify follows. Often you will see game genres come and go based on consumer demand of a product type rather than based on the ingenuity of the game developer. As such, we don't see many text based adventures any more. However, it seems that genre is an easy means by which to create and market games by game developers. Genre is a means for game developers to keep the process of game development safe and for the marketing and sale of the subsequent game to fit in to a number of predefined categories to appeal to a specific market. Unfortunatetly, we don't see a whole lot of thinking outside the box when it comes to genre based game development. A First Person Shooter (or Shooter) is just that. While there are some games which attempt to add to the genre and combine more than one type of gameplay (such as Shooter and Role Play) the majority of games conform to the genre.
You have to look hard to find games which mix genres and generally you don't see them in Shooters. The mix of First Person Shooter and Roleplay has become a sub-genre just as Real Time Strategy with elements of world building or Roleplay are becoming pretty much standard. The problem that I have is that many of these games are becoming much of a muchness. Most shooters are pretty much the same. It becomes difficult to push yourself through another shooter because there really are not many differences between them. Further to the genre classification is the use of gaming franchises to produce sequel upon sequel. One of the long term shooter franchises has been Rainbow Six. In the beginning it mixed a "realistic" type shooter experience with strategy and team management elements to produce a game which satisfied a number of gamers for different reasons. The strategy or team planning element was so complicated that you could spend hours planning your missions before actually playing them. However, Ubisoft, in their infinite wisdom this year decided to abandon the one element which seperated this franchise from other games in the genre and completely dropped the mission planning phase of the game. What they produced was a shooter which was dumbed down for the masses. The PC version was nothing more than a console type shooter. This move effectively hurt Ubisoft because the game didn't sell well and the die hard fans of the game didn't buy it. Ubisoft deserted the group of gamers which had supported, maintained and built the franchise. A franchise which doesn't really add anything to its given genre would be the Medal Of Honour series. The things which differ these games are the setting and an improvement to the graphics (excluding Rising Sun which for some reason was a step back in graphics). While Pacific Assault added an arcade type flying experience to the game and also a very basic form of squad management (which didn't work very well) it didn't add anything to the gameplay. The game is a generic world war 2 shooter.
One of the things that we are seeing develop in shooters is squad management. The ability to actually have some control over the NPCs who are fighting with you. This was released in a very limited way in Half Life 2 and has been better explored by games like Brothers In Arms. However, these changes have not really contributed anything further to the genre itself. They have just provided more characters on screen and the possibility of fire and flank.
What more is there for the shooter to do? How can they possibly give this genre a new lease on life? The genre itself has been around for a good fifteen years since the creation of Wolfenstein, however, the changes to the style of game play have been very subtle to say the least. Half Life changed the shooter from being a purely kill everything experience to a narrative. Half Life removed the score from the game and made the process of playing a matter of survival while telling a very tight story. System Shock took the notion of narrative based game play and combined it with basic role play elements and limited open type gameplay. Dues Ex refined and perfected the basis of System Shock and created a compelling gaming experience. However, it seems that those games which have attempted to push beyond the boundaries of the genre which tried to contain them are relatively limited. Very few have tried to expand on the basic elements of the genre and forge their own path.
Unfortunately, there are limitations placed on game developers when they attempt to create games and, more often than not, they are forced through economic pressures to conform to a style which is tried and tested rather than risk their own money to experiment. This means that a lot of the experimentation is left to the modding community who invest their own time and money in to developing mods for existing games. Then, what you see, is the game developers riding on the back of success of individuals who have had to experiment in their own time and with their own resources.
What is the use of having a free system of commerce if their is no inclination for experimentation because market forces punish those who attempt to be unique or creative? It is a catch 22 for which there are no real answers. Game developers cannot afford to take risks without the possibility of a return on their investment.
You have to look hard to find games which mix genres and generally you don't see them in Shooters. The mix of First Person Shooter and Roleplay has become a sub-genre just as Real Time Strategy with elements of world building or Roleplay are becoming pretty much standard. The problem that I have is that many of these games are becoming much of a muchness. Most shooters are pretty much the same. It becomes difficult to push yourself through another shooter because there really are not many differences between them. Further to the genre classification is the use of gaming franchises to produce sequel upon sequel. One of the long term shooter franchises has been Rainbow Six. In the beginning it mixed a "realistic" type shooter experience with strategy and team management elements to produce a game which satisfied a number of gamers for different reasons. The strategy or team planning element was so complicated that you could spend hours planning your missions before actually playing them. However, Ubisoft, in their infinite wisdom this year decided to abandon the one element which seperated this franchise from other games in the genre and completely dropped the mission planning phase of the game. What they produced was a shooter which was dumbed down for the masses. The PC version was nothing more than a console type shooter. This move effectively hurt Ubisoft because the game didn't sell well and the die hard fans of the game didn't buy it. Ubisoft deserted the group of gamers which had supported, maintained and built the franchise. A franchise which doesn't really add anything to its given genre would be the Medal Of Honour series. The things which differ these games are the setting and an improvement to the graphics (excluding Rising Sun which for some reason was a step back in graphics). While Pacific Assault added an arcade type flying experience to the game and also a very basic form of squad management (which didn't work very well) it didn't add anything to the gameplay. The game is a generic world war 2 shooter.
One of the things that we are seeing develop in shooters is squad management. The ability to actually have some control over the NPCs who are fighting with you. This was released in a very limited way in Half Life 2 and has been better explored by games like Brothers In Arms. However, these changes have not really contributed anything further to the genre itself. They have just provided more characters on screen and the possibility of fire and flank.
What more is there for the shooter to do? How can they possibly give this genre a new lease on life? The genre itself has been around for a good fifteen years since the creation of Wolfenstein, however, the changes to the style of game play have been very subtle to say the least. Half Life changed the shooter from being a purely kill everything experience to a narrative. Half Life removed the score from the game and made the process of playing a matter of survival while telling a very tight story. System Shock took the notion of narrative based game play and combined it with basic role play elements and limited open type gameplay. Dues Ex refined and perfected the basis of System Shock and created a compelling gaming experience. However, it seems that those games which have attempted to push beyond the boundaries of the genre which tried to contain them are relatively limited. Very few have tried to expand on the basic elements of the genre and forge their own path.
Unfortunately, there are limitations placed on game developers when they attempt to create games and, more often than not, they are forced through economic pressures to conform to a style which is tried and tested rather than risk their own money to experiment. This means that a lot of the experimentation is left to the modding community who invest their own time and money in to developing mods for existing games. Then, what you see, is the game developers riding on the back of success of individuals who have had to experiment in their own time and with their own resources.
What is the use of having a free system of commerce if their is no inclination for experimentation because market forces punish those who attempt to be unique or creative? It is a catch 22 for which there are no real answers. Game developers cannot afford to take risks without the possibility of a return on their investment.
posted by thecynicalgamer @ 1:33 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home