What do you think about multiple genres in a game?

Started by
15 comments, last by LunarKnite 11 years, 10 months ago
A lot of good posts on here!

I do find it interesting that a lot of games are adopting RPG-like elements. I agree with some posters that adding in those elements doesn't necessarily make it a genre-combining game, but I think it is a good example of borrowing elements from another genre that make that genre appealing (for example, I think we as humans like to invest, grow, nurture -- all things that are involved in leveling up a character in an RPG). These kinds of things are what blur the lines a little bit.

I think my favorite genre-combining game (and a success) is Puzzle Quest. There have been a lot of copycats and sequels that haven't had the same success though. I think creating a successful game that combines genres requires the game to be both new and familiar at the same time in different aspects...a tough balance! I think Puzzle Quest knew it's audience too...it was targeted at RPG fans, not match-3 fans.
Advertisement
I think an action adventure game is marketable (Will Wright sure thought so). I think Spore is actually a good example of what Ashaman73 is talking about. The trouble is you have to really make the action/adventure surround the reasons why a person wants to plan and design city's. This reminds me of the series Deadwood and the "city planners" in that show. The city planning has to come from the character's personal experiences throughout the adventure and answer the clear issues the player faces or fulfill the desires the narrative builds.

If you've ever seen the documentaries for the Zeitgeist movement, I've always felt this mash-up of genres is exactly the design that would best suit spreading message that movement advocates. The game's action would be activism (both digital and personal) and social dueling, the adventure would be gathering the right materials, technologies and volunteers to start making change and the city design could explore how well a player can implement the technologies and build a moneyless world. Sorry for the tangents.

If you're game design makes the city building a necessity to the adventure and an extension of the action it could be a very good game. The trick with any genre is getting the player entertained enough to want to learn the genre, teaching the genre without losing the player to its difficulty, challenging the player at a good pace then pushing that challenge to a breaking point. The player has to easily learn the game but never master it. By throwing a second genre you have to play double duty on this task, many players are up to the challenge but many designers aren't able to deliver. Most players can pick up an adventure game pretty quick but they get tired of the hack and slash and are often just playing to finish the story, many players enjoy creating a city but they get bored of outcome since it never really leads to anything. Consider these genres individually as you mash-up genres. I would almost suggest not mashing them up unless you are using elements of each genre to try and fix the things you dislike about the the other genre.
A bit on a tangent here, I know most gamers have their preferences towards game genres, so what different genre combinations would possibly hold as much of the market as possible? (Visually, which genre combinations would have the center portion of a Venn diagram largest?) What would you think about an action/adventure and town building hybrid game in terms of market?

That's an interesting and challenging question. I'd approach it by first looking at game types that are so ubiquitous we hardly even notice when they are blended into other games, and ones everyone has played. Games which the player already knows more-or-less how to play have a lower barrier to entry than really unfamiliar ones.

For example, "shopping" - A huge percentage of the games in existence contain some sort of money system, where the player receives income either as a direct reward, as a time-based or level-based stipend, or randomly. The player will generally have enough money to buy something but not everything. The player's choice of what to buy may be strategic if it affects game play, or may be satisfying in a different way if the choice is mainly aesthetic, such as being able to purchase various character customizations.

Another super-common gameplay element is "scheduled resource allocation". What that means is that the player makes a choice or set of choices about what will be automatically developed or invested in while they are doing something else. Some examples: owning only one flower pot and deciding which seed to plant in it, allocating your character's offline time in an MMO, deciding which pet or mount to equip because the equipped one passively gains a share of earned XP, or the rather famous materia-equippage system in FF7 where spell-gems equipped to weapon slots gained an XP share, weapons had varying numbers of slots which gave varying shares of XP, if you maxed out a gem it produced a baby one, and if you maxed out one of every color you could combine them into a big gem which could be equipped more efficiently.

Some other extremely common gameplay elements or activities players will already be familiar with from real life:
- Selling
- Card games, both solitaire and multiplayer games like poker, trick-taking games, shedding games, etc. Card-battling games are not going to be familiar to as wide of an audience but a large percentage of video gamers will have some familiarity with them.
- Non-card turn-based solitaires ranging from minesweeper, maze-navigation, and leapfrog pegs/marbles to adventure game puzzles.
- Real-time solitaires such as tetris, frozen-bubble, match-3
- Sim real-life activities such as gardening, fishing, cooking, and interacting with pets
- Efficiency games, these may include shopping as mentioned above but also include worker placement and task queuing.

I want to help design a "sandpark" MMO. Optional interactive story with quests and deeply characterized NPCs, plus sandbox elements like player-craftable housing and lots of other crafting. If you are starting a design of this type, please PM me. I also love pet-breeding games.

On a different note, I think people in general react well to a game where the player can move, at their own choice or at a steady alternation, between a challenging activity (either strategy or speed and adrenaline, the player faces a constant moderate danger of losing or dying) and a relaxed sandboxy activity where there is no danger and instead there is room for creative customization or reading/hearing/seeing some story, or other slow-paced activities.

I want to help design a "sandpark" MMO. Optional interactive story with quests and deeply characterized NPCs, plus sandbox elements like player-craftable housing and lots of other crafting. If you are starting a design of this type, please PM me. I also love pet-breeding games.

Is it because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts?[/quote]
Of course not. It's because the idea is refreshing and the gameplay provides a new kind of challenge. Simply mashing up several genres in one game won't automatically make the game popular, on the contrary when designing a game you shouldn't think in terms of genres at all - rather you should think of what gameplay would best fit your ideas for the game. In the end you might end up with an RTS or an FPS or a mix, but it will not feel forced.
More genres means less time to work on each genre. Reccettear felt like half a shop simulator and half an action RPG. Rather than two wholes. Both aspects felt underdeveloped. If they scrapped one genre and sent all the time and resources on the other, perhaps the remaining genre would be better made.
A focus only on genres wasn't my intent, but it's simply the easiest term to deal with for expectations of gameplay and such. I do have to agree that genre mashups work particularly well when they are of opposite paces.

Also, the games I mentioned earlier while they do have two different halves to their gameplay, they aren't equal halves. I think all genre mashups have to have one that's the primary genre, with the other as the auxillary. As for Reccettear, I felt the shop simulator was fully developed for what the game was aiming to achieve, while the action RPG was the auxillary portion of the game, thus more simplistic and not quite as important. However if they scrapped either of the portions, it would be an entirely different game, not necessarily better or worse simply due to more effort, time, and resources put into a singular genre instead of 2.

It seems that some think genre mashups are seen to be two halves that should have been wholes by themselves because then they would be better games. But again, (and this is what I really meant by the whole is greater than the sum of its parts) is the overall experience the same? No, it wouldn't be. I can't imagine playing 40 hours of just the Reccettear Action RPG portion, or just the shop simulator, even if both were better realized to their potential having barred work on the other type of gameplay. Part of the charm and allure of Reccettear and other genre mashups are because the two halves work together well. It may not be the absolute best the individual parts could have been, but I believe it is more the combination of the two gameplay styles together where genre mashups succeed or fail.

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement