Post by Muramasa on Apr 29, 2008 0:41:06 GMT -8
This actually started as the intro to my Battlezone 2 review. The problem was, it got so discursive that I couldn't keep it in, but there was so much of it that I didn't want to delete it. Anyways, here goes:
The idea of mixing genres is a attempt at gaming that is ever seldom done, but it is very seldom done correctly. The problem is most genres have a terrible tendency to lock themselves into "cliches". And these aren't necessarily gameplay context cliches like "all platformers allow you to jump", but more like extra gameplay and aesthetic values that don't define the genre tautologically but are usually included in the genre. For example, first person shooters have always have 4 major weapon archtypes: a weak starting weapon, usually a pistol; a in-close spread weapon; a long-ranged weapon; and a rapid fire weapon. Contemporary third person shooters have a cover system. Japanese RPGs have to be stats dominated and have spikey-haired men who look like women. Western Rpgs have to be set in Middle Earth, populated by women who look like men.
And before I go on, let's try to avoid confusion between a mixed genre game and a game that has elements of another genre. Devil May Cry 3 is a twitch-action game with RPG elements. It rewards players who play a single style by making it stronger with a level up system. Otherwise it's sole focus is combat. Seiken Densetsu 3 is an Action-RPG. It has elements stat development and a class system for characters, and large world to explore, with it's combat revolving around a simple but fun hack-and-slash system. It has cliches from both Hack-and-slash games as well as elements from RPGs. Halo is a FPS with driving elements in it. Urban Assault allows you to climb into a vehicle that you build to kick ass, or allows you to command your troops from the comfort of your host station. Given that "die-hard" gamers like certain consistent cliches as opposed to liking games, liking one genre usually precludes them from like another. Still, that hasn't stopped the adventurous developer from trying.
We've gotten a few that have mixed the genre. Natural Selection, Tabula Rasa, Savage, Universal Combat, Drakengard, Battlefield series, and any turned-based strategy game. Some attempts were pretty good, while others didn't turn out so well. Attempts at mixing genres usually lead to developers trying to please everyone, but ultimately please no one. And the aforementioned cliches come into play. A developer may make a twitch-action vehicle combat combat game. Just imagine a game where you're a Dante-type character moving around a city kicking ass. Then imagine as your Dante-type character climbs into a vehicle of some sort (I don't know, a cadillac or something) armed to the teeth, and then from that point on, you drive around, blowing stuff up, getting into car on car fights ala Twisted Metal. Sounds awesome doesn't it? It'd never happen though, because to add aspects both twitch-action and vehicular combat would require an immense amount of time and money for development. Mainly balance probably. Usually what happens is that one aspect is move developed than the other, leaving the other aspect broken or half-assed. Like, characters on ground can kick cars up into the air and combo them. And characters can easily dodge cars and missiles. It would make driving in vehicles pointless. On the flipside, if vehicle combat part is emphasized, there would be little reason to be outside the vehicle. Ultimately, it just wouldn't be fun. The people who worked on Team Fortress 2 struggled with this problem. The original design of the game had a commander system. They unfortunately couldn't figure out a way to make the game fun if the commander sucked or if the players sucked, so the idea was ultimately dropped.
It's a real shame when the idea doesn't work though, and I think the problem lies in the players themselves. It's not that they couldn't do it, but fans of a particular genre usually demand to much from the game. I think the problem is that we spend too much time bitching about what we sometimes forget to appreciate what's there. Well, there's always Grand Theft Auto?
The idea of mixing genres is a attempt at gaming that is ever seldom done, but it is very seldom done correctly. The problem is most genres have a terrible tendency to lock themselves into "cliches". And these aren't necessarily gameplay context cliches like "all platformers allow you to jump", but more like extra gameplay and aesthetic values that don't define the genre tautologically but are usually included in the genre. For example, first person shooters have always have 4 major weapon archtypes: a weak starting weapon, usually a pistol; a in-close spread weapon; a long-ranged weapon; and a rapid fire weapon. Contemporary third person shooters have a cover system. Japanese RPGs have to be stats dominated and have spikey-haired men who look like women. Western Rpgs have to be set in Middle Earth, populated by women who look like men.
And before I go on, let's try to avoid confusion between a mixed genre game and a game that has elements of another genre. Devil May Cry 3 is a twitch-action game with RPG elements. It rewards players who play a single style by making it stronger with a level up system. Otherwise it's sole focus is combat. Seiken Densetsu 3 is an Action-RPG. It has elements stat development and a class system for characters, and large world to explore, with it's combat revolving around a simple but fun hack-and-slash system. It has cliches from both Hack-and-slash games as well as elements from RPGs. Halo is a FPS with driving elements in it. Urban Assault allows you to climb into a vehicle that you build to kick ass, or allows you to command your troops from the comfort of your host station. Given that "die-hard" gamers like certain consistent cliches as opposed to liking games, liking one genre usually precludes them from like another. Still, that hasn't stopped the adventurous developer from trying.
We've gotten a few that have mixed the genre. Natural Selection, Tabula Rasa, Savage, Universal Combat, Drakengard, Battlefield series, and any turned-based strategy game. Some attempts were pretty good, while others didn't turn out so well. Attempts at mixing genres usually lead to developers trying to please everyone, but ultimately please no one. And the aforementioned cliches come into play. A developer may make a twitch-action vehicle combat combat game. Just imagine a game where you're a Dante-type character moving around a city kicking ass. Then imagine as your Dante-type character climbs into a vehicle of some sort (I don't know, a cadillac or something) armed to the teeth, and then from that point on, you drive around, blowing stuff up, getting into car on car fights ala Twisted Metal. Sounds awesome doesn't it? It'd never happen though, because to add aspects both twitch-action and vehicular combat would require an immense amount of time and money for development. Mainly balance probably. Usually what happens is that one aspect is move developed than the other, leaving the other aspect broken or half-assed. Like, characters on ground can kick cars up into the air and combo them. And characters can easily dodge cars and missiles. It would make driving in vehicles pointless. On the flipside, if vehicle combat part is emphasized, there would be little reason to be outside the vehicle. Ultimately, it just wouldn't be fun. The people who worked on Team Fortress 2 struggled with this problem. The original design of the game had a commander system. They unfortunately couldn't figure out a way to make the game fun if the commander sucked or if the players sucked, so the idea was ultimately dropped.
It's a real shame when the idea doesn't work though, and I think the problem lies in the players themselves. It's not that they couldn't do it, but fans of a particular genre usually demand to much from the game. I think the problem is that we spend too much time bitching about what we sometimes forget to appreciate what's there. Well, there's always Grand Theft Auto?
