By Nelson Schneider - 11/20/11 at 05:03 PM CT
Videogames are a perpetually evolving form of media. While literature and film have largely passed through their respective coming-of-age periods and have settled into a series of well-defined pigeonholes, videogames are still a bit more ambiguous. In all other forms of media, the genre describes the basic setting in which the characters and plot are revealed. While ‘genre’ is considered a dirty word among certain uppity English professors who think Literary Fiction is the only kind of writing worth reading, ‘Literary’ has itself become a genre (and one of the worst, at that).
Scanning the shelves at a bookstore will reveal: Literary, Science Fiction, Fantasy, Horror, Steampunk, Post-Modern, and a variety of other setting-based descriptions that give the potential reader a hint of what lies between the covers. Movies likewise cram their pegs into these same holes, despite the fact that the fit isn’t quite right. In film there’s also the style in which the narrative reveals the plot and characters. Action, Drama, Documentary: These genres are simply added to the list in place of Literary.
But videogames? No, videogames are categorized almost exclusively by their gameplay mechanics. Action/Adventure titles, one of the most common and most universally popular genres of videogames, get lumped together, regardless of whether they feature characters with swords fighting evil wizards, characters with rayguns fighting evil aliens, or characters with ordinary guns doing ordinary things. This tradition of setting-free genre classification has lead to major snafus occasionally, such as the fact (which I will harp on forever due to its absurdity) that numerous gamers and even some websites classify “The Legend of Zelda” as an RPG instead of an Action/Adventure due to the fact that the Fantasy genre is so closely associated with RPGs due to the influence of “Dungeons & Dragons.”
Why do videogames ignore setting? Why, as a Fantasy and Science Fiction fan, might I be recommended a game with a detestable Post-Modern setting due to the fact that they are the ‘same’ genre? It boils down to the fact that early videogames were both too primitive to cleave faithfully to an established setting and simultaneously too weird to fit into an established setting. Sure, “Space Invaders” is Science Fiction… but there’s not a whole lot of ‘fiction’ happening in a game with no narrative. “Super Mario Bros.” might be Fantasy, but the overall weirdness makes it too surreal to fit into the standard model (Gandalf did not eat mushrooms and become a giant in order to stomp on the Balrog’s head.). For many of these older games, the only setting that can stick to them is ‘videogamey.’
As videogames have become more complex, new sub-genres have been added. However, only one of these newer sub-genres, Survival-Horror, does anything to describe the setting. Stealth? It could be anything from Post-Modern tactical espionage with Solid Snake to 16th century assassinations with Ezio Auditore da Firenze. Sandbox? Players could be killing goblins in “The Elder Scrolls” or prostitutes in “Grand Theft Auto.”
Why are games classified by gameplay rather than content? It seems obvious: Gameplay trumps content in videogame classification because it is unique to videogames. Gameplay defines the game. People play games for the gameplay, so knowing about that facet of the game pre-purchase is far more important than knowing about the setting. However, completely ignoring setting-based genres holds its own perils.
Personally, I think it would be a big step forward if all videogame websites paid a bit more attention to setting-based genre and added it as an additional variable to their databases (HINT, HINT, Nick!). Despite the fact that gameplay is a primary motivator for interest in games, I’ve been surprised enough times by games in genres I like that happen to have settings I hate (“Persona,” I’m looking at you!) that I think the traditional, non-game genre definitions should be embraced rather than discarded.
