[game_preservation] Descriptive terms for Video Games

[Rowan Kaiser]

What we need is a Pandora for video games.


Rowan

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org> wrote:


> 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/

> _______________________________________________

> game_preservation mailing list

> game_preservation at igda.org

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/game_preservation

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/game_preservation/attachments/20110615/c3f538f1/attachment.htm>