Why I'm a Game Genre Purist (Kinda)

October 31, 2023 - Published

You visit a restaurant, and the menu is rather long. Not in the mood to make a choice, you just tell the waiter: "Give me any soup, your recommendation."

After waiting a good bit, the waiter finally comes back and sets down your bowl. It's a bowl of cereal. Fruity Pebbles, to be exact.

"Um, excuse me, I asked for soup."

"This is soup. It's liquid food with pieces of solid food."

"Isn't soup supposed to be hot?"

"There can be cold soup. Haven't you had gazpacho?"

"Doesn't soup usually have meat or vegetables?"

"Would you like me to ask the chef to add meat to your cereal?"

It is at this point that any reasonable person would ask for a refund.

Why do we have genres?

There are many reasons why having game categories can come in handy. However, for the point of this article, I'll be referring to the most common reason I see: being able to recommend and describe similar games based on existing ones. Whether it's for recommending games to friends, or searching through a store like Steam, it's very helpful to be able to find games you want to play by using genres.

That is, if we're able to AGREE on those genres.

I've had many conversations with friends, and I have some OPINIONS to talk about, though as always, we begin with some disclaimers. First of all, I know genres aren't black and white. Genres tend to blend into each other and mix together, and sometimes a game will pop out that creates an entire genre on its own. Second, I will admit that to a degree, genres can be very subjective. That is the main reason I'm labeling this as an opinion article and don't consider myself a pure genre purist.

However, that will NOT stop me from making my points.

The RPG Debate

Let's start with a very straightforward example. RPG stands for Role-Playing Game, and for people unfamiliar with video games, they might find that to be a particularly vague term. Do RPGs just include any game where you're not playing as yourself, and just happen to be playing a role?

The answer is no. RPGs refer to a very specific genre of games that include a set of specific mechanics -- usually an EXP/leveling system, item/inventory system, fantasy setting, skill point upgrades, and a longer narrative-based story. It's named after tabletop role-playing games (TTRPGs), likely to set it apart from role-playing games. While one could argue that you are "playing a role" in a game like Chess, where you are the commander of an army, that isn't the essence of the game. 

Chess is a strategy game because the entire game is centered on strategy; meanwhile, TTRPGs are centered around the idea that you are role-playing as a specific character during the entirety of the game -- one that has specific strengths, weaknesses, goals, personality traits, etc. Chess would not be the game it is without strategy in the same way that TTRPGs would be nothing without role-playing. Chess could have "role-playing," but removing that would still have it be Chess, so Chess is not a TTRPG by any definition.

To me, this is an open-and-shut case, and not many people would seriously argue for something like Yoshi's Island being an RPG. However, it brings up some important points that we can bring into our next genre.

The Fighting Game Debate

Based on RPGs, we know that game genres are not based on the title alone -- they need context. Fighting games are not just games that have fighting in it, and certainly not just games that feature any type of combat. I have heard stories of real actual people who were confused by the term and assumed a game like Overwatch qualified as a fighting game, even though 90% of the characters' primary action is to shoot a gun.

The fighting game that 90% of modern fighting games are based on is Street Fighter 2, and it defines much of the genre's features. It's a 1-on-1 game with a unique selection of characters who have different movesets, where they have a wide array of attacks accessible through a combination of button presses and directional inputs. They are generally designed for player VS player gameplay, where both players' goal is to deplete the opponent's health bar first.

This is why there was so much controversy over the nomination of Sifu during The Game Awards 2022 -- while it's tempting to refer to a game that primarily features hand-to-hand combat as "a fighting game," that isn't what the game is. It isn't 1v1, nor is PvP possible; it's solely a singleplayer game where you fight large mobs of opponents, which defines it as a beat 'em up. This distinction might seem arbitrary, but it's important for the reasons I've mentioned before: despite being a huge fighting game fan, I actually rarely like playing beat 'em ups. 

I love fighting games specifically because fighting other players makes it interesting to me! Beat 'em ups remove that aspect, which makes it a different genre with different goals and gameplay patterns. Similarly, that's why some games that might not seem like fighting games are categorized as such. Lethal League is a game that might look like a sports game at first since it's about hitting a ball back and forth, but it's undeniably considered a fighting game by both Wikipedia and Steam. This is because it still contains all the gameplay patterns and features of fighting games: you're playing a 1v1 PvP game with multiple unique characters that are trying to KO each other from inside an enclosed arena -- it's just that the method of doing so is unique.

If there were many more games like Lethal League, that might cause it to be categorized as a subgenre due to its differences. Just like... Smash Bros. But that's probably a conversation for a different time. Instead, let's talk about the actual reason I made this article.

The Platformer Debate

The popularity of the platformer genre seems to have declined over the years, and as a result, I'm honestly a little unnerved by how uncommon the understanding of the genre is. The quintessential platformer, of course, is the original Super Mario Bros. for the NES. For those that haven't played it, there's a few notable aspects to mention. First of all, unless you have a fire flower, the ONLY two mechanics for the player is running and jumping. Run speed can be modified by pressing the run button, and walking/running ramps up in a fully analog way. This means that unlike other games which tend to snap between a walking and running speed, Mario has to build up momentum, and the amount of momentum affects his jump distance. 

Jumping affects almost everything in the game. Blocks must be jumped under, and enemies have to be jumped on top of. Horizontal projectiles must be jumped over, and arcing projectiles usually have to be run under. While the game does give you access to a fire flower, which lets you shoot enemies, the entire game can be completed without one -- it's solely an extra powerup that isn't necessary for the game.

If this defines the platforming genre, then it explains why so many platformers are technically hybrid genres. The original Castlevania is referred to as an action-platformer, for example, since it has platforming elements but focuses more on action. However, since so many games feature running and jumping, it does muddy the waters by a good bit. For example, DOOM (2016) features sections where you have to line up jumps and use 3D movement options to get to places you need to go. Does that make it a 3D platformer? Most people would say no, because that is not an integral part to the enjoyment of the game. Similarly, Super Mario Bros. isn't a 2D shooter just because you can shoot fireballs.

Future platforming titles make the distinction clearer to me. Games like Celeste allow you to dash in the air or ground, which can be combined with other movement options to make traveling through screens feel buttery smooth, and the game never introduces any mechanic that isn't also related to platforming. Meanwhile, while Hollow Knight can technically be classified as a platformer, it's always referred first as a Metroidvania since platforming is only meant to serve the other Metroidvania elements (combat, locks, etc.), and almost never for the enjoyment of itself.

This last point is important, and the main reason for platformer spinoffs. The majority of Metroidvanias could be said to have spun off of platformers (see the genre of the original Castlevania), as do side-scrolling run-and-gun games like Cuphead, and they're rarely referred to as platformer subgenres anymore. In a different case, Maplestory has platforming mini-games that are referred to as "jump quests," probably because there is 0 appeal in the act of platforming itself -- they're just quests where you happen to jump from platform to platform for the sole purpose of getting a form of reward at the end. Technically, yes, you could call it a platformer, but I would never recommend a Maplestory jump quest to someone because they're a Mario fan -- not because they stink (they do), but because they are categorically different.

While I can agree that I can be pedantic at times, things like these can absolutely matter in certain situations, especially for game developers. Super Meat Boy Forever was a very controversial sequel to Super Meat Boy, possibly because the creators didn't understand the categorical differences between auto-runners and platformers. It is technically a platformer, but in a way that was immensely disliked by the core Super Meat Boy community due to its differences in gameplay -- you cannot replicate the feel of a tight platformer with hand-crafted levels by creating an auto-runner with randomly generated levels.

• Vecderg