[game_preservation] Descriptive terms for Video Games

[Jim Leonard]

On 6/15/2011 7:55 AM, Jan Baart wrote:

> - Action-Adventure might stick out as a hybrid between often used terms

> Action and Adventure. You might notice we have no Action main genre as

> we think it is entirely useless label. Almost every game contains action

> elements and there's absolutely no way to properly define what

> constitutes an "Action game". E.g. the "Action" definition at MobyGames

> fits sports games perfectly as well. As a rough definition for

> Action-Adventure you might consider something like this:

> "Action-Adventures are all games mixing adventure game elements like

> exploration, story and puzzles with the physical challenges of an action

> game without either type dominating". That definition has its problems

> for sure, but it still gives you a good idea of what it encompasses.

> - Arcade might be controversial too but I don't think going into detail

> here helps, let us just say it encompasses, among others, ball & paddle

> games and maze games.


I'm going to abstain from the majority of this conversation because I 
think you're falling into a comfort trap that will not serve you well in 
the long run.  I would like to point out, though, that your statement 
"Almost every game contains action elements" is illustrative of why your 
system is disingenuous -- simply because most games *you have been 
exposed to* have action elements doesn't mean you should assume the only 
ones worth categorizing do.  To illustrate this, how would your system 
classify Tetris?  As Puzzle and nothing else?  If so, how would I use 
your system to look up puzzle games that specifically do not have 
realtime/action elements, such as traditional checkers?  If not, how 
would I use your system to look up Tetris?


> *Jim Leonard

> *> In other words, I blame the MobyGames framework for not being

> fully-featured enough, but I still think the concept is sound and true. *

> *

> Jim, please note that I did not mean to critisize the system itself, but

> rather the implementation. I love having a well thought of multi-layered

> approach to classifying a game in place and your work in that regard was

> certainly pioneering (as was MobyGames as a whole).


No offense taken -- I was blaming the implementation as well, I was 
confirming your thoughts.  I'm allowed to point out my own failures :-)

 > I just think there
 > is a need for a traditional genre taxonomy on top of that.

I disagree, so that's where I'll leave that.  I can voice dissension, 
but I can't change your mind.


> And I maintain the stance that you can classify every single game

> into one of them, with two exceptions:


Whoa, stop right there.  Read what you just wrote.  Do you not see a 
flaw in a classification system that allows exceptions?


> - Games that feature distinct levels with completely different gameplay.

> You had a lot of these on the old computer platforms. You know, three

> levels, one a racing level, the next a platforming one and a puzzle in

> between. You can never place those in a taxonomy other than giving these

> mixes their own "genre". C'est la vie.


Taxonomies are fine-grained, but not by overloading the top order of the 
classification -- you'd have 500 classifications, which removes your 
ability to put things in related groups.  For example, check out the 
Wombat:  It's an animal, but that's not enough.  It's a mammal, but 
that's not enough.  Go further, and it's a marsupial, but still not 
enough.  The scientific classification has the order Diprotodontia and 
suborder Vombatiformes, and now we finally have an idea of where it 
belongs (with koalas).

By forcing a single arbitrary "social" classification onto a game, you 
will always have exceptions that don't fit a single classification.


> - Games that do actually define their own granular genre but that no one

> followed up on, resulting in a genre with so few entries that it is

> probably not worth having its own granular genre. These do indeed end up

> in catch-all kind of classifiers, but where's the problem with that really?


I believe every game is worth describing correctly, regardless of how 
few peers it has.


> I can only speak for myself but this is not the reason why I try to have

> a "single label" system. My reason is usability of the database itself.

> I want to provide users an easy way to find similar games. Be it because

> they liked the initial game or because they are researching a certain

> type of game. For this purpose, it IS the best way, in my humble opinion

> of course. Again, I'm all for a multi-layer and tag based approach, but

> I think it should be an alternative method, not the only one.


Ah, then let me divulge what MobyGames "Game Groups" were SUPPOSED to 
be:  They were supposed to be groups of attributes, not simple lists of 
arbitrary games.  Meaning, an "Ultima-like games" game group was 
SUPPOSED to be a group of 
adventure+roleplaying+top-down+turn-based+medieval fantasy, so that 
every game like Ultima would pop up automatically, generated by the 
database, even as new games were added (or removed!) over the years. 
For reasons I won't go into in a public forum, we did not implement it 
that way, but that was the original idea.

My point is to design the system properly and then deal with the 
implementation and usage later.  Don't cripple the classification system 
just to meet an arbitrary user interface goal.


> They might not make

> sense objectively, but they're there and established, we have to live

> with that.


I disagree, which is what I was trying to prove with MobyGames.

For an example of the slippery slope this leads to:  There was a game 
site that tried to compete with gamespot and mobygames in the early 
2000s called www.pcgame.com which was eventually merged into 
gamedex.com.  Through the magic of archive.org, you can check what their 
"cats" page looked like:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030605150611/http://www.gamedex.com/cats/

I sincerely hope this isn't what you're aiming for.
-- 
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org)            http://www.oldskool.org/
Check out some trippy MindCandy at        http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars:  http://trixter.oldskool.org/