Rute
Posts: 6
Joined: Jul.-9th-2007
Status: offline
|
The new classification system for games
There has been lots of discussion lately about whether there should be a brand new way of classifying games, largely because of the fast development and growth of diversity of games.
However, the most popular terms used to clarify the situation, "hardcore game" and "casual game", imply that the classification of games should be based on the types of people who play a chosen game. Some major inconsistencies emerge when that fact isn't reflected on the actual division of games. For example, a significant proportion if not the majority of the future GTA IV ('hardcore game') gamers, for example, will probably be casual gamers; that is, people who don't play games nearly as often as the hardcore (devoted) gamers do. Then there are games like Portal, which are played mostly by hardcore gamers, but which differ significantly from most so called hardcore games form wise.
Calling every piece of interactive entertainment a game doesn't solve the mess. It just makes things even more muddled. The thing is, calling very distinctive pieces of electronic entertainment like GTA IV and Wii Fit both simply games, makes the parents who are conserned about the contents of games confused and angered and the resulting bashing is then directed to the hardcore gamer community and the gaming industry, who have to explain over and over again that yes, GTA IV (or some other Lime) is a game, but it's not an obstacle course or a giggle generator, but a type of entertainment suitable for adults.
This mess of a situation arises partly from the way the term game was used in the past. Couple of decades ago games were largely board games such as monopoly and suitable for the whole family. When interactive electronic entertainment was popularized by pieces such as Pong, everyone could agree that the term electronic game, which was used to describe the electronic entertainment, was just fine.
We're living the 21st century and things are far more complex than back in the 70s and 80s. The analogy between GTA IV and Monopoly is weak. The content and form of Wii Fit isn't anything like that of Half-Life 2. Steel Panthers resembles Super Mario Galaxy as much as much as chess resembles parkour. I could go on about this for pages, but there's no need for that. I think you get the picture.
In my opinion games, or preferably electronic entertainment, should be divided to at least three main categories. The categories I propose:
1. Game. Game (or electronic game) is a piece of electronic entertainment where the focus is on the physical actions of the entity/entities which are controlled by the player. Examples include Gran Turismo, Super Mario Galaxy, Tetris, The Legend of Zelda, Pong and Portal.
2. Lime (Life mimicking entertainment). Lime is a form of electronic entertainment which has emphasis on storytelling in single player mode and diverse types of interaction between players in multiplayer mode. The relationships between complexly behaving entities are continuous and reciprocal. Most importantly, the decisions a gamer has to make in Lime, are not restricted to mechanistic use of logic, but include also moral choices of various magnitude that affect the way how the story unfolds and the characters develop. Examples of Limes include Mass Effect, GTA, Bioshock, The Sims, World of Warcraft and Second Life. This category overlaps with the first one to some degree, but that doesn't mean that the separation is artificial or useless. It just means that one must use fuzzy logic instead of classical predicate logic in the classification.
3. Mame (Mobility and agility requiring game). Mames have emphasis on physical movement and dexterity of the player. Most Mames are games which are commonly labeled as casual games. Examples of Mames include Guitar Hero, Wii Fit, Wii Sports and Dance Dance Revolution.
What do you think of this classification? I'm open to suggestions, so if you disagree with me and make logical arguments, I'm willing to make changes and additions to the categories. If you agree with me on that this type of classification system is needed, then it would be wise to use these terms and/or arguments when you are discussing about the classification with someone unfamiliar with this approach. Spread the word!
< Message edited by Rute -- May-2th-2008 7:17:40 >
|
Printable Version
© Copyright 2008 
The new classification system for games - 
RE: The new classification system for games - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread