Many a game developer, in their quest for the Next Big Thing, once thought: what if I imagined a new genre? In the game folklore, the most respected game makers are indeed credited with the invention of genres, such as Molyneux, Carmack, Miyamoto. Not surprisingly, publishers also jumped on the bandwagon and routinely claim that their latest game is the first of an exciting new genre.
But what are genres anyway? they are a way to categorize games. According to what criteria? When developers think of a new concept, quite often, they do not design in terms of genre - this comes later. They imagine what can be done, how the game will be played, that kind of things - with all constraints removed. However, retailers or journalists, which are at the very end of the chain, certainly think in terms of genre, because games have to fit in categories. It’s also fair to say that players, which are even further downstream, also think like this, and associate genres with a set of expectations (we’ll cover this more in depth in a future article).
So genres is about how a game is perceived, not designed. I conclude from that that it is useless for developers to innovate in genres proper.
To illustrate this further, let’s imagine what a player actually does in games that have apparently nothing to do with each other.
Metal Gear Solid vs Super Mario Sunshine
What could they have in common?
Well, in both games, the gameplay pattern in the same. The player pauses in a safe place to observe a dangerous, moving environment. Then, they move quickly by thrusting the joypad wildly in one direction, then chain up moves, either by pressing a button with the right timing (for instance, to hit an enemy from behind in MGS, or to jump in SMS) or by moving the joypad radically in another direction, until they reach another safe place. Repeat ad lib. Conclusion: infiltration and platform are not that different.
Wipeout fusion vs Half-Life 2
Again, those titles look very different...
But in racing games and FPS, the player had to quickly move a cursor to a precise location, and perform an action at the right time - either by moving the crosshair on enemies and pressing the shoot button, or by guiding the vehicle through an optimal trajectory and braking when needed. FPS enemies and "accidents" (like turns) in a race track are of the same nature: they must trigger a quick but accurate reaction from the player.
So racing games and FPS, too, are strangely similar...
Street Fighter II vs Starcraft
Now what? a 2D, arcade fighting game compared to a PC RTS?
Everyone who has spent over a quarter in a Street Fighter II machine (and who hasn’t?) knows that the game certainly doesn’t lack depth. Indeed, in order to master SFII, the player must not only know the rules of the game and the moves of their character, but also tactics for every combination of characters: which attacks work best, what combos are possible, how to counter them...
Does Starcraft needs such an introduction? Knowing enough Starcraft to beat the solo game will get you close to nowhere in multi-player battles, where lighting-fast gosu players can build a complete base quicker than you can say "protoss". How do they do that? with a thorough understanding of the game inner mechanics.
In that sense, SFII and StarCraft are similar: both games are about executing quick manipulations based on an intimate knowledge of an extensive body of rules and to a limited extent, on the anticipated strategy of the opponent. Both are games based on reflex, and the ability to decide in a split second what the best course of action is. And both are games of strategy, where only a chain of coordinated actions will grant a player a dominant position then victory. In both games, manipulations are tricky to do right: pulling out a 15-hit combo in Street Fighter requires concentration and timing, just like optimally managing a large number of Starcraft units. It requires coordination in order to do the current action right, and anticipation in order to seamlessly chain it with the next action.
Modern fighting games and RTS are the heirs of SFII and Starcraft, so it goes without saying that the same reasoning applies to the whole "genre". Despite the appearances, fighting games and RTS are not two worlds apart.
Genre parallelism
At a low level, two games can be highly similar, yet belong to two different genres. However, this opens possibility for a new type of game innovation: instead of creating new genres, game developers can target the level below, and invent new ways to translate genres in gameplay. This will be covered shortly in another article.