With Activision recently putting the kibosh on the Guitar Hero franchise, and really, the Rhythm genre as a whole, I got to wondering if this console generation will see the collapse of any more genres. With escalating development costs, publishers are more eager than ever to turn their properties into annual tent-pole releases in the pursuit of short-term profits. The Rhythm genre, which many argued to be a fad in the first place, saw this gross mismanagement go to an extreme with literally dozens of games released within a five year period. And despite all of the lost jobs, lost investments, and lost opportunities, Activision doesn’t seem to have learned their lesson.

The mega-publisher is devoting more and more developers to its wildly successful Call of Duty franchise. An annual release is the norm now, and multiple DLC map packs are practically a requirement for each title. There are rumors of a CoD MMO. Pretty much, Activision is milking this once innovative franchise for everything it’s worth. And because it makes so much money right now, other publishers like EA and THQ are amping up their Modern-Military Shooter efforts. It’s getting to the point where it can be difficult to differentiate all of the AAA FPSs released each year. So isn’t a collapse inevitable with all of this over-saturation?

Yes and no. No, because the FPS is a more established genre than Rock-Rhythm games and it’s had hardcore fans supporting it for just about twenty years now. But yes, because the past four or so years have seen such an influx of casual players–the kind of fickle consumers who bought into the Rock-Rhythm craze–that they’re bound to do what casual players do and grow tired of their latest hobby. Now when I say casual, that doesn’t mean that CoD fans don’t play video games religiously–if anything, then probably play more hours a week than I do–but I do mean that they probably only buy three games a year and that those games aren’t what we would call diverse.

So if we have consumers who keep buying the same thing, and publishers who keep putting out the same product with a different name on it every year, I simply don’t see how this system can sustain itself. One day, these players are going to look at the four completely identical online Shooter experiences they have and realize that there’s no point in buying a fifth. They might also wise up and realize that there are better ways to spend one’s time than earning arbitrary medals that may as well announce to the world that you don’t have much of a social life. If we look to the Rock-Rhythm genre as an example, the collapse of an over-saturated genre takes roughly five to six years. If those numbers hold true for the FPS (and that’s a big “if” considering how different the genres are), then the latest hot genre will soon be seeing a massive decline in sales.

Now, as I said before, I think that the FPS has a strong base of core gamers that buy the games for more than a fleeting social experience, and for that reason I don’t think the genre will ever disappear, or even cease to be a core genre, but I do believe there’s a very real possibility that it could fall from its throne of most popular/profitable genre.

Which leads to the next obvious question: what genre replaces the FPS at the top of the mountain? Sports games have a broad appeal, but I can’t envision a scenario in which there’s a sudden surge of interest in them. Action-Adventures like Uncharted have proven to be successful with non-traditional markets, but games like that aren’t truly that different from the reigning FPSs. I think the genre with the best chance of stepping into the spotlight is perhaps the nerdiest of all–the RPG.

Mass Effect 2 showed that by streamlining an RPG and offering a more action oriented package, the genre can sell just as well as anything else. And what sets Action-RPGs apart from Action-Adventures is the depth of narrative. No genre can suck a player into its world as well as the RPG. The ease with which RPGs can get players invested in their stories and universes means major DLC and sequel opportunities. We’ve already seen how RPGs can put the numbers behind the scenes and adapt to the visceral action Shooter fans have come to expect, and we’ve seen how the richness inherent to the genre’s narratives is a natural source of value to the consumer that will keep them invested in a franchise. The only thing that needs to occur for this shift in power to take place is for casual gamers to get hooked on a concept that only RPGs can offer.

For Rock-Rhythm games, it was the idea of playing an “instrument.” For modern FPSs, it’s the online experience. For RPGs, I believe that the time has finally come for story to shine in video games. There’s a much larger market of potential gamers who are interested in engaging characters and thrilling story arcs than either of the aforementioned hooks; all that needs to happen is for the FPS to fall from power, creating a vacuum for the RPG to fill. Publishers have proven that anything with enough marketing can sell well (Heavy Rain), and somebody will make the RPG with an angle that appeals to the masses. And hopefully, given the genre’s focus on writing, its success won’t lead to derivative copy-cats and over-saturation, but a new era of story-driven gaming that solidifies video games’ place as an artistic medium.

At least that’s my speculation. If you see a future of video games that doesn’t revolve around character-driven DLC and choice-driven trilogies I’d love to hear about it; just don’t tell me that Portal 2 is going to launch the great Puzzler craze of 2011-2016.

Share/Save

This guy's probably penetrated more genres than anybody else.

So I’ve been playing a lot of Assassin’s Creed II this past week, and as you might know, it’s got me thinking about game genres and what defines them. It seems that the lines between genres are becoming less and less defined these days, but there’s still a pretty stark difference despite the blending. So let’s start off by taking a look at what traditionally defines the major genres of today’s market.

“First-Person-Shooter” typically describes any shooting game that puts the player in the first-person perspective. The central goal of these games usually involves moving through a linear path and killing all enemies along the way. A strong competitive multiplayer component is generally part of the experience as well, and in some games, is a stronger focus than the single-player aspect. The FPS is a very inclusive genre that constitutes a large portion of the market, although there are a few cases of games that are first-person but don’t necessarily fit into this genre (Portal, Fallout 3, BioShock).

“Role-Playing-Games” have split into several distinct sub-genres, but all RPGs still share the same core attributes. The genre is most broadly exemplified by stat and skill progression, among other character upgrades. Japanese RPGs tend to be more linear than open-ended Western RPGs, but both are solitary experiences that are heavily story-driven. Massively-Multiplayer-Online RPGs are relatively new, and exchange the narrative of a single-player game for the social dynamics of an organic online community. There’s a pretty rigid consensus on what games fall under the category of RPG, even if sports titles like Madden follow the core stat-progression mechanic.

“Action-Adventure” games make up perhaps the largest genre of video games today because of just how broad the label is. These games are essentially any third-person titles that take the player through an “adventure” that involves plenty of conflict, or “action” throughout. So really, this genre almost seems like it was created to absorb any game that doesn’t neatly fit into the other, more specific genres. One could really take any survival-horror game, stealth game, sandbox game, or platformer and put it in this all-inclusive category. I’d say the core similarity is a third-person perspective–it’s really that broad.

Random chart about game genres!

Now obviously there are countless more genres, but those are really the big three in today’s market. And one could easily point to cross pollination between these supposedly distinct genres–Deus Ex may be an FPS, but the strong focus on story and stat building make it easy to confuse for an RPG. Not only does Madden feature the persistent stat progression found in RPGs, but the very act of calling a game makes it strikingly similar to Real-Time-Strategy games. And if we were to compare Grand Theft Auto IV with Shadow of the Colossus and Uncharted 2, I’m fairly confident that nobody would say they’re similar knock-offs of each other, yet they all fall under the “action-adventure” title. There’s so much blending between traditional genres these days that it’s becoming hard to peg a given game into one category.

I think it’s worth taking a different kind of look at how we define game genres for a moment. Mind you, this is going to be a rather broad examination with plenty of room to narrow categories into more specificity, but I think these polarized perspectives offer some good insight into the kinds of games we play.

One of the most interesting qualities to study in a game is whether it’s a solitary or social experience. A lot of people these days feel like the single-player game is a dying breed. Uncharted 2, New Super Mario Bros. Wii, and BioShock 2 are all seen as games that traditionally shouldn’t need multiplayer components, yet there they are. And it is a widely held fact that a significant portion of the people who buy games like Halo or Call of Duty never bother to finish the single-player campaign despite hundreds of hours spent in the online environment. It’s quite clear that people make a definite divide between solitary and social experiences. Most traditional RPG players aren’t particularly huge fans of MMOs, yet both sub-genres share the same core-mechanic.

I think the phenomenon of MMOs has had an interesting effect on the industry. If we look back far enough, single-player and multiplayer games were typically separated. Half-Life and Counter-Strike were separate products. Doom and Unreal Tournament occupied separate audiences. Super Mario 64 and Mario Kart 64 served different purposes. But as time went on, it became common practice for a single game to contain both aspects of gameplay. But recent titles like Warhawk, Left 4 Dead, and MAG may be spear-heading a revival of segregation. Developers are realizing that if the majority of their customers are only interested in one aspect or the other, then it only makes sense to save costs on the less-heralded portion of the game. It’ll be interesting to see where this movement goes, if it goes anywhere at all. But the point is that there’s a clear-cut divide between solitary and social games. The loners among us generally prefer a good RPG, while those who game for the socialization gravitate towards competitive shooters.

Can you imagine this guy in a Call of Duty pre-game lobby?

Another really distinct way to label games is with a “first-person” or “third-person” tag. Rainbow Six and SOCOM are pretty much the same style of game to a tee, yet they feel completely different and cater to different crowds. Mirror’s Edge and Assassin’s Creed both rely on free-running parkour as the core gameplay, but they’re seen in very different lights. The Elder Scrolls franchise and Final Fantasy franchise are both single-player fantasy RPGs, but they’re never spoken of in the same sentence. As we can see, perspective really make a big difference when we’re playing a game.

Drawing on my own personal experience, my library of games is pretty heavy on first-person titles, Shooters, RPGs, Puzzlers, Survival-horror, and so on. For me, the first-person perspective is just so much more immersive than its third-person counter-part. It feels less like I’m watching something and more like I’m experiencing something when I see the game-world through the eyes of my character. Conversely, I tend to grow more attached to characters I play as from the third-person view. That’s not to say I enjoy the story more, but I am more invested in the characters. The surrounding world and NPCs can paint a beautiful picture in first-person games, but they can never replicate the empathy I feel for Snake in the microwave tunnel of Metal Gear Solid 4. And when I think of Fallout 3, I think of what I did in the world, as opposed to Mass Effect, where I ponder Shephard’s story and motivations.

A game’s point-of-view seems to have severe implications on its story and characters. One offers up a blank-slate for the player to occupy and drive through their own personal story, while the other calls on a player’s emotions with a more traditional character-driven story. Both have their pros and cons, but there’s no denying the drastic difference between the two macro-genres.

"Who am I again? Oh, God, explosions!"

But the previous two classifications really can’t substitute for this one. A recent blog I read divided games into two experiences–short, high-intensity games and long, low-intensity games. The first category is sort of like the sparks of a fire–it’s a tight, fast-paced, and heart-pounding experience full of set-pieces that stick with us long after the credits roll. The second category is more of a simmer–there may never be individual moments that send adrenaline coursing through our bodies, but the overall experience lasts longer and ultimately gives satisfaction through a sense of progression. Another good way to look at it is that the sparks cater to our primal and animalistic desires, much like sports do, while the simmer nurtures our more cerebral, conceptual half, sort of like literature.

If we look at things in this light, it becomes much easier to classify games and determine whether or not they’re for you. Let’s go back to the games that just don’t fit and see where they line up. Fallout 3, BioShock, Deus Ex, and Half-Life may reside in the realm of a traditionally intense genre, but they’re really geared more towards an intellectual experience. And not only in the sense of story, but stat progression too. Progression is a sort of gratification for hard work. It’s not an impulsive thing to think, “If I do this now then I’ll be rewarded down the line.” None of these games really “live in the moment.” Portal is a little harder to classify, as its puzzling mechanics typically give a less intense feel than shooters, but I feel like the humor that drives the plot is geared towards a simplistic desire to laugh. It is a game that is very “in the moment”, despite its brain-teasing puzzles. Madden and other sports titles fall clearly into the less-intense, longer-lasting genre when played alone, but when put in a competitive environment, they become intense battles of primal superiority. MMOs deal with the basic desire to socialize while the satisfaction of traditional RPGs is found later in the game through major plot events or steady stat progression (which, of course is also found in MMOs, but is really just something to do while players talk amongst themselves). And in spite of the difference in perspective, Mirror’s Edge probably shares more in common with Uncharted 2 than Assassin’s Creed II.

"Let's just pause and think about this for a minute, guys."

I could go on and on, but I think I’ve made my point. There are games that live in the moment and those that delay satisfaction for a later date. Neither one is better than the other, they’re just different. And there’s some cross-pollination to be found in these polar-opposites as well, although I’d argue less so than with traditional game genres. But it’s very apparent that there are two major game experiences, those that excite our more primitive side with jaw-dropping set-pieces and non-stop action, and those that take us along at a more leisurely pace, slowly building the tension until it culminates in a deeply satisfying finale. Which one do you prefer? Do you see a disparity in value? Do you plan to tear this article apart with an equally unthought-out post?

Share/Save