Topic: Elements vs Genres

This isn't specifically about the Wii U, or even video games, but rather of gaming in general... but still mostly about video games. I used to sort all of gaming in my head by genre, the list being;
Platformer
Action Adventure
Shooter
Fighter
Racer
RPG
RTS
and everything else was sorted into an 'other' category because I tend to personally dislike games outside these genres, with some exceptions. Sports, for example, is one of those I'd put into the 'other' category, which I would still define as getting an object to an intended destination with a certain set of tools. Notice this doesn't necessarily mean video game, but any game in real life. I'm sure a sport is defined as something else entirely though...

But then I got to thinking about the RPG genre and how meaningless it is. Role Playing game is technically any game where you play a role if you define it how it's worded, which would make almost everything an RPG, including Mario and Halo. If you redefine this as 'stat building', then you get a more precise definition of what people typically call an RPG. Mass Effect, for example, is a Third Person Shooter with Stat Building (RPG) elements. I think people got Role Playing from Dungeons and Dragons back before video games were even really a thing, though instead of associating the playing of a role with Role Playing, they associated Stat Building, looting, grinding, and boss fights.

The second problem I ran into with this system is when I tried to define Action Adventure by the elements of gameplay. Technically, an action adventure game is anything that requires reflexive reaction and has a story, but I was thinking of it in terms of what games I classified under that genre. I typically don't like pure adventure games like Monkey Island or anything by Telltale, so the games I put in this category were things like Zelda, Metroid, Devil May Cry, Animal Crossing, Skyrim, Portal, and Half-Life. Of these I could separate them out into elements such as Exploration, Puzzle, Fighting, and Item Aquisition. Furthermore, Devil May Cry and Hack n Slash games like it gave a good example of single player Fighting when the element was isolated from everything else I lumped under action adventure, as is Animal Crossing to Item Aquisition isolated, and Portal to Puzzles. Not only that, but fighting is a genre all it's own, and yet when combined with anything else like platforming or exploration I would call it action-adventure.

My point here is that maybe lumping a game into a singular genre is meaningless as a whole, but we should instead define them by what elements are combined to make them. Zelda would be an Exploration, Item Aquisition, Puzzle, Fighting game. Skyrim would be the same plus First Person Shooting and Stat Building.

Another point I'd just like to draw some attention to is how some elements are very close to eachother. Like if you take platforming and racing as elements, both involve getting an avatar from Point A to Point B. A platformer requires you to do this without running into an obstacle or falling off the platforms, while a racing game requires you to do this faster than an opponent. Also, a puzzle game has typically one correct solution that will allow you to progress, while a strategy game has several solutions of variable effectiveness. I also can't find a real classification beyond real-time stat building game for Final Fantasy's Active Time Battle system games, which isn't as easy to say as Turn Based Strategy Stat Building, which still strangely reminds people more of Civilization, but not Fire Emblem which is the same type of game as Civ but is instead called a Tactical Role Playing game.

I apologize if this all just sounds like rambling, but if you're able to understand me, what do you think? Are game genres meaningless? Should we categorize games differently? Can you think of any games that defy categorization? Disagree with my genre preferences? Any opinions at all are appreciated.

genres work mostly because they're labeled by the non-specific gameplay traits it's like RPGs no one can quite describe them but just by playing you can recognize them. it's good because it makes easier to know what games one might like but it's bad because many discussions start when a genre enters the subject because tha most played/know ones are the "genre definers" and based on those most haters and people with imcomplete understanding of the situation(me, about one month ago) will use those as examples of why they dislike a genre.

@Neoproteus :

Genres don't really tell what games are like, but provide a way for us to broadly categorize games based on specific elements. Categorizing games based on elements, as you did by describing Zelda as an "Exploration, Item Aquisition, Puzzle, Fighting game", it's too specific. I got a headache reading it. When you hear a game belongs to the Action Adventure Genre, you get the idea of what to expect, a game that involves exploring a world yet also includes action elements. Things such as item collection and puzzles have become staples of the action adventure genre, so they are also expected. Also, while RPG stands for Role Playing Game, its name doesn't reflect its contents. The RPG Genre was inspired by tabletop Role Playing Games, such as Dungeons & Dragons. Game developers tried to replicate such tabletop games. However, due to hardware limitations they couldn't create very accurate representations. The genre evolved, but rather than trying to become more like a tabletop RPG, it instead built upon the formula of previous Video Game RPGs. The direction that Video Game RPGs took was different in Japan and in the West, as they focused on different elements, which is why people often refer to a game as a JRPG or a WRPG instead of just an RPG.

No, genres work because they are understood. I agree you can discuss a genre and if it's truly correct, but I don't think arguing that all games are RPGs is really what I was talking about with discussing the correctness a genre. Trying to identify games by small technicalitys when you are trying to assign what type of game something is is kind of pointless.

WHOA! I wasn't actually expecting intelligent discussion! I am very impressed here, and even more glad I joined this forum.

I guess I'm approaching this whole topic of categorization from a development standpoint. If you can only know what genre something is by playing it, then that would just make games development a process of trial and error, which it's not. I understand that calling Skyrim an Exploration, Item Acquisition, Fighting, Puzzle, Stat Building, First Person Shooter is kind of complicated and headache inducing and certainly a lot less catchy than calling it an RPG or an Action Adventure game, but I think a more technical definition is necessary on a game design document. (Speaking of which, I should probably look up how those are typically formatted.)

As has been said before, RPGs are rooted in table games like D&D.

The defining trait of the genré, is that the story, game progression, and/or character development are heavily influenced & decided by player choice.

Of course, due to the limitations of early gaming platforms, you couldn't create RPGs with player created characters & stories, thus, the JRPG was born. In the JRPG, you have a more linear adventure, and usually have established characters, but there's still lots of room for player influenced growth (equipment they want to equip, how much they want to level). Of course, JRPGs also carried over less defining features often found in RPGs, such as leveling systems, and newer gamers started mistaking those lesser aspects as what defines the RPG (such as the confusion surrounding Sticker Star. Gamers mistakenly think it's not a JRPG because of the lack of leveling & less emphasis on story. It's a very different type of JRPG than other PM games, but still a JRPG nonetheless. Monster Hunter for example, a well known Action RPG series, features even less story than Sticker Star, and also has character growth tied to equipment instead of leveling, but doesn't have it's "RPG" status questioned).

As time went on, and gaming tech improved, western & Japanese developers further divided. Western devs strive to make their WRPGs more Table RPG like (blank characters who are molded by players, and more emphasis on the player's choice to explore the world as they please, rather than a deep story), while JRPGs put stronger emphasis on their more linear aspects (defined characters with deep backstories, and elaborately crafted stories not possible with too much player choice).

@RR529 the part that Sticker Star was an RPG I knew but in all the years of being a fan of RPGs I never knew that was the definition!!!! I always defined an RPG by the atmosphere of the game they are quite different from other kinds of games.