In previous articles we have mentioned the existence of game genres. The main issue with genres is that a handful of game creators are reckognized as geniuses because they have invented a new genre. Ever since, it seems that every publisher either sticks to a definite genre or tries to persuade the world that their newest game is the first of a new kind.
This highlights the true nature of the game genres: while the boundaries between the existing categories don’t mean much to game developers, this is not the case for publishers, retailers and the general public. As such, they are more of a marketing tool than a useful classification of games. But such a classification is critical in order to discuss games. We need another set of criteria to categorize games. And this classification should be based upon the relationship with the player: what does a game require from the player? What does it deliver?
Criterion 1: synchronous versus asynchronous games?
- Dance Dance Revolution Universe, Xbox360, 2006
- In this music game, players must follow the beat. It is a completely synchronous game.
All games propose a challenge to the players. In turn, they should be able to know the rules of this challenge: how are they going to be judged? A fundamental distinction is therefore how the game uses time. A synchronous game ("in real time") expects the player to react to what happens on the screen. To a certain extent, it sollicits reflexes, coordination and dexterity. Players of these games accept that if they don’t enter the correct input [1] in the game at the right timing, they could be penalized. Conversely, asynchronous games wait for the input of the player when needed. The players have ample time to think of the best option. Implicitly, these players do not accept to be judged on criteria such as timing, and prefer to demonstrate their knowledge of the game mechanics ("rules") or game contents ("levels", "units", "maps"), or their general problem-solving aptitude.
- Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, GBA, 2003
- This tactical game features turn-by-turn (completely asynchronous) battles.
Traditionally, this distinction coincided with that between arcade and console games (synchronous): platformers, shooters and sport games; and computer games (asynchronous): text adventures, RPGs, turn-by-turn war games. Time has passed, and the difference is not as clean as it used to be. RTS games, which are authentic computer games, are definitely synchronous, while tactical RPGs, among others, which originates from consoles, are asynchronous. As games become more and more complex, there is no such thing as a dumb arcade game which doesn’t require the player to learn some specific rules in order to win, and most reflexion games run in real time (the best example being, again, the emergence of RTS games).
- Warhammer 40k Dawn of War, PC, 2004
- Real Time Strategy games such as this one expect from players coordination and reflexes in addition to strategic skills.
Most games are now somewhere in the middle. There is a group of games, though, which has no real time elements at all. Many other games happen in real-time, but this has little importance or can even be deactivated. For instance, many modern RPGs feature real-time fights, but a very agile player will not have a strong advantage over a slower one.
Criterion 2: Single-player vs multi-player games
- Chu Chu Rocket, Dreamcast, 2000
- Chu Chu Rocket, given away at the launch of the DreamCast online service, is one of the first MP-oriented console games.
With the recent development of online games, mobile games, massively-multiplayer games and so on, it seems that historically, games were "only" designed for a single player (1P), but that now, fortunately, technology enables games to evolve to multi-player modes (MP). This is not true: the very first games were MP, an artificial intelligence, that could replace a human opponent, came later, and games that were designed from the ground up for a single player, games that were something else than an electronic duel, were a further development.
- Final Fantasy X, PS2, 2001
- Final Fantasy X is the typical example of the single player game. Unlocking everything can occupy up to 200 hours of solitude.
MP games are not more advanced than 1P ones and vice versa, but are really of a different nature, which, again, can be demonstrating by analysing what a player expects from these games. In a nutshell, MP games offer a social experience that other games do not. The flipside is that a MP game player must deal with player-created content, even if this is reduced to that social interaction, or the mere behaviours of other players. By contrast, in a 1P game, all content is created by the game authors - this means a coherent and limited game universe, that a player can master. Succeeding in a 1P game is like solving a puzzle for which all elements of the solution are available - the 1P player must be good enough. In a MP game, this is not significant: the player must be better than the others, even if that means not being very good in absolute terms. That could also mean cheating to win, and therefore having to deal with cheaters, from which the 1P player is naturally protected.
Many games offer both modes. But these are not the same game! This is more lke two games that share the same look and feel bundled into one disc. An example of that is Return to Caslte Wolfenstein, where Grey Matter developed the 1P game and where Nerve Software handled the MP part of the game.
Criterion 3: time of sessions
- Mr Driller: Drill Spirits, DS, 2004
- One can have a completely satisfying game session of Mr Driller in one minute.
For any game, one can know almost immediately after picking it up at the shop where they stand in terms of the first two criteria. This one is less obvious yet just as important, as it is also based on the player expectations.
- Dark Age of Camelot, PC, 1992
- MMORPGs, such as DAoC, are notorious for their long game sessions. Gathering a large party, as shown here, is the longest and yet least intensive phase of gameplay.
At one end of the spectre, some games can be played in sessions as short as one minute or less. The player can start or resume a game, play for one minute or less, and finish or save the game with the feeling of having accomplished something. At the other end, everyone who tried massively multiplayer games know that when they tell their significant other "I’m just logging in for a quick game", they are lying - unless they expect them to be aware that quick means somewhere between 2 and 4 hours. 4 solid hours which cannot be interrupted. And of course there are long games. When I was an MMO producer we had quite a few players who were logged on 20 hours a day everyday. That’s more disturbing than being logged on 24/7 - in that case the PC is always on. But in our cases, there was an activity during those 20 hours, and someone actually logged in and out every day.
How much time can one afford to spend playing is a very practical question. The answer is, what is the smallest amount of time one can meaningfully spend in a game?
Criterion 4: realistic or abstract games?
At first sight, the degree of realism in a game may seem as important as, say, its theme: while it gives the game a certain flavour, it doesn’t determine its nature. Or does it? you bet!
- Full Spectrum Warrior, PC, 2004
- FSW is about as realistic as you can get in a game.
In fact, whether a game chooses to be realistic or not implies a certain number of constraints and player expectations. In a realistic game, players will not tolerate, well, anything that cannot happen in the real world. They will expect environments to look as close to real life environments as possible, their characters to have (only) human capacities, non-player characters to act according to a sophisticated artificial intelligence, and the world to be regulated by the rules of physics they know - and if any of this is otherwise, the players will require a satisfying justification for that. The degree of realism will also have a very direct influence on representation. Characters, environments, animations, voices - everything should be like their real-life equivalent, or, better yet, modeled after that. In such games, players will have low expectations when it comes to conceptual gameplay innovation. But they will need to be able to control their character with as much precision and detail as possible. Players of realistic games hate being able to run, jump and swim while carrying ten large weapons in their backpack, or to be able to painlessly score a soccer goal from the other side of the field. But they do enjoy doing something great in a game, under the constraints of a realistic world. Because in real life soccer, such goals happen. Every ten years, but they do happen. Giving the possibility to try such a goal (if all the conditions are met, if the strike of the player is perfect) is one thing. Allowing any player to do that effortlessly with the tap of a button is something else.
- Advance Wars: Dual Strike, DS, 2005
- ... while Advance Wars DS treats war slightly differently!
Players of a non-realistic game have a completely different set of expectations. They do not care whether the universe is realistic. In fact, they probably prefer playing in a different world than the one they know. The only thing is that it’d rather be consistent, else, the illusion falls apart. They generally don’t enjoy suffering from constraints in the name of realism, if such constraints don’t add anything in terms of gameplay. Everyone knows (hopefully) that red homing turtle shells or turbo mushrooms are not part of the regular equipment of real-life kart racers. But they’re fun! what would Mario Kart be without them? Players of non-realistic games may not care about the realism of their game world, but they certainly do care about its uniqueness. The game has to express its own identity and define its own style. And it has to create a number of new gameplay concepts. The biggest FAQ document for Final Fantasy II in GameFaqs is 214kb long (and that was already a fairly complex game for the time). Well, if you look at Final Fantasy X, you’ll find a 2537kb FAQ document - that inflation is explained by the many new rules and ideas added in the game system since its beginnings.
Today, most games are neither hyper-realistic nor abstract. Such games take place in a universe that may or may not be real, but which has at least some degree of versimilitude, with consistent rules (physical or otherwise). When establishing those rules, game designers usually take into account the degree to which they could hinder the player and decide whether they are useful.
Criterion 5: repetitive versus progressive games
What is the difference between two game sessions? will the game itself be different, based on the player achievement? Or will it remain unchanged?
- Street Fighter II, SNES, 1992
- Nothing looks more like a game of SFII than another game of SFII.
In the last century, arcade games were, by nature, repetitive. From the moment the quarter was fed to the machine, every player who pressed the 1-player button was served with the exact same experience, no matter how long they had played, how many times they had beaten the game, etc. The only thing the game would remember was the name of the player with the highest score.
- Pokémon emerald, GBA, 2005
- Whereas the substance of Pokémon is to unlock more and more game content (in other terms, gather monsters)
Today, virtually every game takes into account the progression, or at least the dedication of the player in a way or another. As the game unfolds, the player usually has more and more game options available. Then, there are unlockables which can be obtained by fulfilling certain conditions, like beating the game once, or playing for a certain amount of time. Some games are still repetitive in nature: that’s the case of fighting games, sport games or racing games, and, more generally, of multi-player games, while some are inherently progressive, like action-adventure games or single-player RPGs.