![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
User Mihirviveka has been spamming many genre-related pages with advertisments for the game Democracy Game, an article suggested for deletion. On the List of computer and video games by genre page he invented the genre "Political Strategy" solely for his(?) game. In this article he inserted it as the first speciment in both the turn-based and educational game example lists. Wikipedia is not a place for advertisment, and I suggest we watch this user closely. Mikademus 09:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Changed the "Most strategy titles tend to be wargames. These games can usually be divided into turn-based, real-time strategy (RTS) and real-time tactical (RTT) games" into "Most strategy titles tend to be wargames, usually turn-based or real-time games. Real-time wargames are generally of real-time strategy (RTS) or real-time tactical (RTT) game types", which is hopefully a less confrontational phrasing *sigh* Mikademus 08:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I think "shooters" is too vague when there are already FPS, third-person and side-scrolling shooters already listed Richard cocks 01:01, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
Where's any mention of massively multiplayer online games? And their precursors MUDs? Also, where are text based adventures? MShonle 22:39, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Is " Prince of Persia" notable enough to list under "Platform" games ?
What ? flight simulators aren't "serious" ? Are you serious ? :-) Perhaps the "serious" section should say "... except for simulators". -- DavidCary 05:34, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What is being touched on, in this discussion, is a part of the larger controversy surrounding game genres. Frankly, people are free to invent genres at will, and do so, irrespective of any real philology or coherent theory. So I think listing and describing genres here is not objectionable but it's going to be very difficult to propose compelling arguments that one set of genres is properly identified (or hierarchically ordered) as this-or-that while another is not because there simply no definitive set. These are subjective classifications and too much argument about them is borish. I propose listing all genres at the same level (e.g. MMORPG and computer role-playing game) to indicate that this is just a list of genre's and not waste time trying to create one's own ideal hierarchy. If you feel RTS games are a subset of Strategy games, note that in the definition. It is a POV issue we should steer clear of. PilotPrecise 20:11, 11 March 2004 (UTC)
A new category was added by anon editor 64.174.34.252, "survey games", which apparently are "Simulators which simulate more than one type of vehicle in a shared simulated world". Examples are Dangerous Waters and Battleground Europe. I have never heard of this genre denomination. A quick googling provided me with two links only even resembling the suggested usage and a number of astronomical usages. Is it a limited trade term? In any way I have never seen it used in the games industry. Mikademus 16:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the alphabetical mode of listing isn't the best. FPS and TPS should be listed together in category "individual combat". "Adventure" and "Roleplaying" should be listed together under "individual action" (or somesuch.) I.E.
===Individual Combat===
====FPS====
====TPS====
That way, related genres can be grouped together and their differences and similarities explored and explained. Elde 00:25, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
When you reduce them both to their essential core, why should they not be categorized together? In both you are solving a series of puzzles and combating a number of monsters while moving across a map in order to complete the game. Thus they belong to same top level category (let's call it Quest for discussion's sake), while within the category Quest are the sub-categories Adventure and Role-Playing. Thus it's easy to see at a glance that while they are related, they are different.
Not every genre will be a sub-category however, Puzzles and Simulation would be both a top level category and a genre for example. (Though Simulation has a sub category God Games.) Elde 06:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
Doesn't really have anything to do with POV, but a novel classification system is "original research" and thus undesirable. Instead, pick a reputable book and use its classification system. If you have a "better" system, publish a book on it and we can use it then. Stan 07:52, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Stan, I just worry that selecting one from those that have been proposed in books (some more "reputable" than others) is still an excercise of preference. Below is the structure proposed by Laramee in Game Design Perspectives (© 2002 CRM) and begun with his own quote:
So that's one, and one in a good book to boot. But is that superior to the top-level genres of Moby Games?:
It really does become a matter of preference, which itself is a manifestation of POV. PilotPrecise 09:58, 12 March 2004 (UTC)
My only point in proposing an organization other than alphabetical is place similiar genres adjacent to each other. Right now they are scattered across the page and providing a misleading idea of the total number of and relationships between genres. Sean's idea of cross-referencing seems cumbersome when all the entries are on one page as they are. (And they don't really belong on more than one page.) Leaving them all as 'top-level' but abandoning alpabetical arrangement might serve both purposes. Elde 18:00, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm confused about the classification of Asteroids as a Shoot 'em up, or, as the article seems to imply, a scrolling shooter. Asteroids is not a scrolling shooter. It doesn't scroll. I'd class it as a fixed shooter. The same probably goes for Spacewar!. 80.225.5.23 02:01, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
I object to the revert of my changes to an older version. Information about the effect of FPS on 3D technology is not mentioned in the FPS article. However I will place it in that article instead of here. DB0 08:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Most game genres are so mixed up together that they effectively create a new genre all by themselves. However all of us recognise that there are some standard archetypes that are a perfect example of a type of game. What I propose is to name those archetypes and then create a secondary hybrid category where games are assigned two archetypes.
For example:
Just like colors have 3 basics that are combined to produce all the others, games have some basics that can be combined to produce any other type that does not fit into one specific genre. Even games that could fit in do many genres could be classified without problem. For example, say a new GTA came out that had RPG elements as well; where would it fit?
What do you think? DB0 10:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
PS: Generally, it is very hard to categorize games because there are many categorizing groups that overlap and are not always exclusive of each other. For example, games could be categorized as
All these combined create a game, and games can use many of these (mainly gameplay types) to create something unique. Grand theft auto for example would be a Real Time - Action - Third Person game. More specificaly it would be a Real Time - Driving/Shooting - Behind View game with strategy elements.
What I think we need to do is trim down the list to the basest genres and then crease the hybrids (not all of them, mind you, maybe just the most influencing) DB0 12:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For consistency with a recent move from rhythm video game to music video game (which I proposed), I've renamed the "Rhythm" section to "Music." However, the category is still named Category:Rhythm computer games; this inconsistency should be addressed soon. -- LostLeviathan 02:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am pretty confused about the inclusion of the genre "serious". I do not think you can use that name as a distinct genre. It should be more correct to include the notion of "serious" games in the video games overview page under a header "recent evolutions" - although this is just a suggestion.
Further proof that "serious" games are not a genre, but an evolution is that all the games mentioned under the genre are easily re-categorisable. I.e. the Wallmart game would fit nicely under "Simulation", while "America's Army" and "Full Spectrum Warrior" clearly are first-person shooters...
edit: signed in. ;) -- Brains 08:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Right, I've held off long enough. :)
Could we please clarify this ' Fixed shooter' thing? I have never heard any game referred to as a fixed shooter. I've never even heard of the genre. And I'm a big shoot 'em up fan. Therefore, to have it as a main genre doesn't make sense to me.
Secondly - the classification of scrolling shooters as a subgenre of fixed shooters seems absurd to me. This is like classifying every tennis game as a subclass of Pong.
My solution is just to class all these shooters under the single genre of shoot 'em up. It is the traditional name for this kind of game, and has been since at least the early nineties.
I would have done this, but I didn't want to mess up the system already in use. Spottedowl 17:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't really like how this page is organized, for many of the same reasons previously posted. I think it would be good to get a collection of genres together, argue over which ones are worth including or not, and then find a good way to group the genres. Here's my proposal: Slike2 04:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Popular: (or "need to be mentioned")
Notable:
Historical:
Unless there's disagreement, I'll begin re-arrangement/rewrite shortly. Slike2 04:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
1) Every FPS or TPS is an action game. I added this section for structure.
2) Technically speaking Adventure is usually a part of Action hench "Action-Adventure". I moved it out and seperated it to allow it be it's own section because there is a pretty big difference between games like Contra and Zelda and not every adventure game is considered action (see what we have under Adventure presently for ex). Under adventure we would explain this a little better.
3) Not really sure about this. Go with whatever.
4) How do you define retro in the present day? I understand what someone was going for here, but games like Pac-Man are arcade games. Games like these are still being made today (although not as much) for systems like Game Boy. Snood is arcade. Under our present structure there is no place to add this game.
I do not agree with what is notable and what is a major genre. I think a structure like that is borderline POV and really hard to maintain as some would disagree with what is notable or major and move sections around. I'm open to suggestions on this proposal. Perhaps I missed a genre.
(I've dropped down out of the five indents, for easier replies) New genres don't come up often, and the ones that are there aren't really going away. The biggist change that I've seen recently is the large amount of puzzle, cheap rpg, etc. games that are available via the internet. Action as a junk genre... I agree, though not completely. Hmmm... I go off into a relevant deviation:
Action, adventure, and strategy are the main "goal oriented" genres I believe. Each one is very distinct too, I think. Action would be fps, most arcade (music games being among these), anything fast paced - things that directly mess with the moreso aggressive emotions. The rush is the driving force here. Adventure is about going through a storyline, and arguably, gaining things: rpgs, the text adventures, etc. There are two aspects, collection and accumulation (stats, items, etc), and discovery. They are different, of course, but for these purposes they more or less go hand in hand. Strategy games are the ones that force you to think - obviously tbs and rts, puzzle games, etc.
First person shooters (like CS) are generally action, but strategy emerges as a second driving force "later on". Diablo 2 is an action adventure. Tetris is a strategy-action. Nethack is strategy-adventure (action emerges if you care enough about your character). The Sims is a slight strategy, discovery-adventure, heavily collection/accumulation. And so on.
"Universe type" genres come next I think, where you group similar universes. First person shooters (fp, holding a gun, intent to shoot), turn based/realtime strategy (looking down at a landscape), arcade (very abstract universes), fighters (two people fighting), third person shooters (holding a gun..), third person platformers, side view platformers, scrolling shooters... if there were enough popular games that took up the whole pac man thing, there'd be "pac-maners".
"Setting" is the last one. This refers to fantasy, science-fiction (like space games), alternate apocalyptic universe games (current "time", but things are drastically different), realistic games (ranging from normal person up to 'superspy'). These can of course each be divided up further based on setting, and they can be mixed (chrono trigger, for example). For the games like arcade and puzzle this doesn't apply as much.
Based on these three criterea, You can then break games up into the elements that they have (listed here are "universe types", combinations are more than possible, and then examples as goals would apply to them):
...where was I before I started with this? Right, I have no idea anymore. We were mostly arranging things based on universe type I think? Slike2 09:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the below text confuses the "adventure" section, so I've moved it here: Slike2 06:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"It should be noted that all who are intrested in this subdivision pay close attention to the new MMORTS in development, Earth 2160: Online as it shows great promise." This Doesn't seem to be NPOV to me, more like shameless advertising. But I'm new here and to shy to just remove it at this moment.
I'm not sure about that "retro" genre and I'm even MORE unsure that if it is a genre, that it's been superceded. Basically while companies continue to rerelease old games (usually in packs but not necessarily) can the retro genre ever be classed as obsolete or no longer in use?
If the above sounds funny and metaphysical it wasn't meant to be that way. I'm serious - the "retro" genre will surely keep being used regularly...
Who moved this article and why? This is not a list of computer and video games by genre. That would imply that it's a big list of video games, separated by genre. It's not: it's a list of video game genres, with examples from each genre. I elect to move it back to "Computer and video game genres". Any objections? — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, There are so many Tycoons out there, they're neither City-Building nor Godlike Games. The description of Simulations doesn't fit either. So I'd like to propose a new Genre for all of these:
...and so on. What do you think? -- Trickstar 20:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
This matter overlaps #Hybrids (a bit up), but my question is a more specific. Basically, should Action-adventure game be added to the list of genres? To me it seems that it took the place of platform games, to a smaller degree adventure games, and probably some others, or at least aspects of them. A lot of modern games (especially on the consoles) qualify as "action-adventure". I'm thinking about games (series) like Tomb Raider, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, the later Metroid games, the later Rayman games, Spyro the Dragon (series), Jak and Daxter, Super Mario Sunshine, etc., etc.. That list is more or less random, I didn't play all of the games, maybe Mario fits the old "platform game" genre better for instance, but in general it seems the genre is a major one these days, unless I simply misunderstood what it means. Should it be added to the list? Retodon8 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
From here
Seems to be missing things like serious game, or the recent anti-advert games.
Someone should add this ever increasing in popularity genre. With games like Second Life and concepts like " Gary's Mod," I beleive that the Sandbox Game is worth note as a gaming genre. Please someone write this bad boy up. MCP 02:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, especially with games like The Movies and the upcoming Spore. -- Wiz9999 04:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Should there be a note on games that combine genres? Parasite Eve comes to mind as one; a combination of Survival Horror and RPG. Just a thought. -- Thaddius 14:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Does this really classify as a genre? I would think it's suffice to say that the examples listed(Pac Man/Mr. Do) under the maze genre are examples of action or arcade games. Thus, this item does not need to be here.
-- Mitaphane 22:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Is that large PNG bothering anyone else? It includes text as an image. This is evil - text should be text. If we need this table we should use an image.
Also, doesn't it contain the same information as the rest of the article, and primarily the table of contents? And where it doesn't, how does it fare on the "no original research" scale? What are the published sources for this particular schematic? Shinobu 14:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
User Mihirviveka has been spamming many genre-related pages with advertisments for the game Democracy Game, an article suggested for deletion. On the List of computer and video games by genre page he invented the genre "Political Strategy" solely for his(?) game. In this article he inserted it as the first speciment in both the turn-based and educational game example lists. Wikipedia is not a place for advertisment, and I suggest we watch this user closely. Mikademus 09:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Changed the "Most strategy titles tend to be wargames. These games can usually be divided into turn-based, real-time strategy (RTS) and real-time tactical (RTT) games" into "Most strategy titles tend to be wargames, usually turn-based or real-time games. Real-time wargames are generally of real-time strategy (RTS) or real-time tactical (RTT) game types", which is hopefully a less confrontational phrasing *sigh* Mikademus 08:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I think "shooters" is too vague when there are already FPS, third-person and side-scrolling shooters already listed Richard cocks 01:01, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
Where's any mention of massively multiplayer online games? And their precursors MUDs? Also, where are text based adventures? MShonle 22:39, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Is " Prince of Persia" notable enough to list under "Platform" games ?
What ? flight simulators aren't "serious" ? Are you serious ? :-) Perhaps the "serious" section should say "... except for simulators". -- DavidCary 05:34, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What is being touched on, in this discussion, is a part of the larger controversy surrounding game genres. Frankly, people are free to invent genres at will, and do so, irrespective of any real philology or coherent theory. So I think listing and describing genres here is not objectionable but it's going to be very difficult to propose compelling arguments that one set of genres is properly identified (or hierarchically ordered) as this-or-that while another is not because there simply no definitive set. These are subjective classifications and too much argument about them is borish. I propose listing all genres at the same level (e.g. MMORPG and computer role-playing game) to indicate that this is just a list of genre's and not waste time trying to create one's own ideal hierarchy. If you feel RTS games are a subset of Strategy games, note that in the definition. It is a POV issue we should steer clear of. PilotPrecise 20:11, 11 March 2004 (UTC)
A new category was added by anon editor 64.174.34.252, "survey games", which apparently are "Simulators which simulate more than one type of vehicle in a shared simulated world". Examples are Dangerous Waters and Battleground Europe. I have never heard of this genre denomination. A quick googling provided me with two links only even resembling the suggested usage and a number of astronomical usages. Is it a limited trade term? In any way I have never seen it used in the games industry. Mikademus 16:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the alphabetical mode of listing isn't the best. FPS and TPS should be listed together in category "individual combat". "Adventure" and "Roleplaying" should be listed together under "individual action" (or somesuch.) I.E.
===Individual Combat===
====FPS====
====TPS====
That way, related genres can be grouped together and their differences and similarities explored and explained. Elde 00:25, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
When you reduce them both to their essential core, why should they not be categorized together? In both you are solving a series of puzzles and combating a number of monsters while moving across a map in order to complete the game. Thus they belong to same top level category (let's call it Quest for discussion's sake), while within the category Quest are the sub-categories Adventure and Role-Playing. Thus it's easy to see at a glance that while they are related, they are different.
Not every genre will be a sub-category however, Puzzles and Simulation would be both a top level category and a genre for example. (Though Simulation has a sub category God Games.) Elde 06:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
Doesn't really have anything to do with POV, but a novel classification system is "original research" and thus undesirable. Instead, pick a reputable book and use its classification system. If you have a "better" system, publish a book on it and we can use it then. Stan 07:52, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Stan, I just worry that selecting one from those that have been proposed in books (some more "reputable" than others) is still an excercise of preference. Below is the structure proposed by Laramee in Game Design Perspectives (© 2002 CRM) and begun with his own quote:
So that's one, and one in a good book to boot. But is that superior to the top-level genres of Moby Games?:
It really does become a matter of preference, which itself is a manifestation of POV. PilotPrecise 09:58, 12 March 2004 (UTC)
My only point in proposing an organization other than alphabetical is place similiar genres adjacent to each other. Right now they are scattered across the page and providing a misleading idea of the total number of and relationships between genres. Sean's idea of cross-referencing seems cumbersome when all the entries are on one page as they are. (And they don't really belong on more than one page.) Leaving them all as 'top-level' but abandoning alpabetical arrangement might serve both purposes. Elde 18:00, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm confused about the classification of Asteroids as a Shoot 'em up, or, as the article seems to imply, a scrolling shooter. Asteroids is not a scrolling shooter. It doesn't scroll. I'd class it as a fixed shooter. The same probably goes for Spacewar!. 80.225.5.23 02:01, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
I object to the revert of my changes to an older version. Information about the effect of FPS on 3D technology is not mentioned in the FPS article. However I will place it in that article instead of here. DB0 08:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Most game genres are so mixed up together that they effectively create a new genre all by themselves. However all of us recognise that there are some standard archetypes that are a perfect example of a type of game. What I propose is to name those archetypes and then create a secondary hybrid category where games are assigned two archetypes.
For example:
Just like colors have 3 basics that are combined to produce all the others, games have some basics that can be combined to produce any other type that does not fit into one specific genre. Even games that could fit in do many genres could be classified without problem. For example, say a new GTA came out that had RPG elements as well; where would it fit?
What do you think? DB0 10:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
PS: Generally, it is very hard to categorize games because there are many categorizing groups that overlap and are not always exclusive of each other. For example, games could be categorized as
All these combined create a game, and games can use many of these (mainly gameplay types) to create something unique. Grand theft auto for example would be a Real Time - Action - Third Person game. More specificaly it would be a Real Time - Driving/Shooting - Behind View game with strategy elements.
What I think we need to do is trim down the list to the basest genres and then crease the hybrids (not all of them, mind you, maybe just the most influencing) DB0 12:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For consistency with a recent move from rhythm video game to music video game (which I proposed), I've renamed the "Rhythm" section to "Music." However, the category is still named Category:Rhythm computer games; this inconsistency should be addressed soon. -- LostLeviathan 02:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am pretty confused about the inclusion of the genre "serious". I do not think you can use that name as a distinct genre. It should be more correct to include the notion of "serious" games in the video games overview page under a header "recent evolutions" - although this is just a suggestion.
Further proof that "serious" games are not a genre, but an evolution is that all the games mentioned under the genre are easily re-categorisable. I.e. the Wallmart game would fit nicely under "Simulation", while "America's Army" and "Full Spectrum Warrior" clearly are first-person shooters...
edit: signed in. ;) -- Brains 08:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Right, I've held off long enough. :)
Could we please clarify this ' Fixed shooter' thing? I have never heard any game referred to as a fixed shooter. I've never even heard of the genre. And I'm a big shoot 'em up fan. Therefore, to have it as a main genre doesn't make sense to me.
Secondly - the classification of scrolling shooters as a subgenre of fixed shooters seems absurd to me. This is like classifying every tennis game as a subclass of Pong.
My solution is just to class all these shooters under the single genre of shoot 'em up. It is the traditional name for this kind of game, and has been since at least the early nineties.
I would have done this, but I didn't want to mess up the system already in use. Spottedowl 17:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't really like how this page is organized, for many of the same reasons previously posted. I think it would be good to get a collection of genres together, argue over which ones are worth including or not, and then find a good way to group the genres. Here's my proposal: Slike2 04:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Popular: (or "need to be mentioned")
Notable:
Historical:
Unless there's disagreement, I'll begin re-arrangement/rewrite shortly. Slike2 04:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
1) Every FPS or TPS is an action game. I added this section for structure.
2) Technically speaking Adventure is usually a part of Action hench "Action-Adventure". I moved it out and seperated it to allow it be it's own section because there is a pretty big difference between games like Contra and Zelda and not every adventure game is considered action (see what we have under Adventure presently for ex). Under adventure we would explain this a little better.
3) Not really sure about this. Go with whatever.
4) How do you define retro in the present day? I understand what someone was going for here, but games like Pac-Man are arcade games. Games like these are still being made today (although not as much) for systems like Game Boy. Snood is arcade. Under our present structure there is no place to add this game.
I do not agree with what is notable and what is a major genre. I think a structure like that is borderline POV and really hard to maintain as some would disagree with what is notable or major and move sections around. I'm open to suggestions on this proposal. Perhaps I missed a genre.
(I've dropped down out of the five indents, for easier replies) New genres don't come up often, and the ones that are there aren't really going away. The biggist change that I've seen recently is the large amount of puzzle, cheap rpg, etc. games that are available via the internet. Action as a junk genre... I agree, though not completely. Hmmm... I go off into a relevant deviation:
Action, adventure, and strategy are the main "goal oriented" genres I believe. Each one is very distinct too, I think. Action would be fps, most arcade (music games being among these), anything fast paced - things that directly mess with the moreso aggressive emotions. The rush is the driving force here. Adventure is about going through a storyline, and arguably, gaining things: rpgs, the text adventures, etc. There are two aspects, collection and accumulation (stats, items, etc), and discovery. They are different, of course, but for these purposes they more or less go hand in hand. Strategy games are the ones that force you to think - obviously tbs and rts, puzzle games, etc.
First person shooters (like CS) are generally action, but strategy emerges as a second driving force "later on". Diablo 2 is an action adventure. Tetris is a strategy-action. Nethack is strategy-adventure (action emerges if you care enough about your character). The Sims is a slight strategy, discovery-adventure, heavily collection/accumulation. And so on.
"Universe type" genres come next I think, where you group similar universes. First person shooters (fp, holding a gun, intent to shoot), turn based/realtime strategy (looking down at a landscape), arcade (very abstract universes), fighters (two people fighting), third person shooters (holding a gun..), third person platformers, side view platformers, scrolling shooters... if there were enough popular games that took up the whole pac man thing, there'd be "pac-maners".
"Setting" is the last one. This refers to fantasy, science-fiction (like space games), alternate apocalyptic universe games (current "time", but things are drastically different), realistic games (ranging from normal person up to 'superspy'). These can of course each be divided up further based on setting, and they can be mixed (chrono trigger, for example). For the games like arcade and puzzle this doesn't apply as much.
Based on these three criterea, You can then break games up into the elements that they have (listed here are "universe types", combinations are more than possible, and then examples as goals would apply to them):
...where was I before I started with this? Right, I have no idea anymore. We were mostly arranging things based on universe type I think? Slike2 09:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the below text confuses the "adventure" section, so I've moved it here: Slike2 06:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"It should be noted that all who are intrested in this subdivision pay close attention to the new MMORTS in development, Earth 2160: Online as it shows great promise." This Doesn't seem to be NPOV to me, more like shameless advertising. But I'm new here and to shy to just remove it at this moment.
I'm not sure about that "retro" genre and I'm even MORE unsure that if it is a genre, that it's been superceded. Basically while companies continue to rerelease old games (usually in packs but not necessarily) can the retro genre ever be classed as obsolete or no longer in use?
If the above sounds funny and metaphysical it wasn't meant to be that way. I'm serious - the "retro" genre will surely keep being used regularly...
Who moved this article and why? This is not a list of computer and video games by genre. That would imply that it's a big list of video games, separated by genre. It's not: it's a list of video game genres, with examples from each genre. I elect to move it back to "Computer and video game genres". Any objections? — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, There are so many Tycoons out there, they're neither City-Building nor Godlike Games. The description of Simulations doesn't fit either. So I'd like to propose a new Genre for all of these:
...and so on. What do you think? -- Trickstar 20:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
This matter overlaps #Hybrids (a bit up), but my question is a more specific. Basically, should Action-adventure game be added to the list of genres? To me it seems that it took the place of platform games, to a smaller degree adventure games, and probably some others, or at least aspects of them. A lot of modern games (especially on the consoles) qualify as "action-adventure". I'm thinking about games (series) like Tomb Raider, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, the later Metroid games, the later Rayman games, Spyro the Dragon (series), Jak and Daxter, Super Mario Sunshine, etc., etc.. That list is more or less random, I didn't play all of the games, maybe Mario fits the old "platform game" genre better for instance, but in general it seems the genre is a major one these days, unless I simply misunderstood what it means. Should it be added to the list? Retodon8 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
From here
Seems to be missing things like serious game, or the recent anti-advert games.
Someone should add this ever increasing in popularity genre. With games like Second Life and concepts like " Gary's Mod," I beleive that the Sandbox Game is worth note as a gaming genre. Please someone write this bad boy up. MCP 02:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, especially with games like The Movies and the upcoming Spore. -- Wiz9999 04:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Should there be a note on games that combine genres? Parasite Eve comes to mind as one; a combination of Survival Horror and RPG. Just a thought. -- Thaddius 14:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Does this really classify as a genre? I would think it's suffice to say that the examples listed(Pac Man/Mr. Do) under the maze genre are examples of action or arcade games. Thus, this item does not need to be here.
-- Mitaphane 22:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Is that large PNG bothering anyone else? It includes text as an image. This is evil - text should be text. If we need this table we should use an image.
Also, doesn't it contain the same information as the rest of the article, and primarily the table of contents? And where it doesn't, how does it fare on the "no original research" scale? What are the published sources for this particular schematic? Shinobu 14:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)