For example, let's examine Portal, which I had the pleasure of playing for the first time last week. Technically, it would be accurate to describe as a first-person shooter. The game is played in first-person perspective, and the player has a gun they shoot with. It just so happens the gun shoot portals. The reason we shy away from the term "first-person shooter" in this case is that most games that fall under that banner are all about killing things, whereas Portal is about solving puzzles, getting past obstacles and reaching the exit.
There are the turrets which will try to kill you, but the strategy to defeat them is VERY different from what someone who plays a lot of first-person shooters would expect. You can't directly attack the turrets. Instead, the player has to sneakily use portals to knock the turrets over, drop things onto them, or otherwise disable them indirectly.
This discussion brought up the question in my mind: Why even bother with genres then? The ultimate reason seems to be that we as human beings feel more comfortable when we can define something, quantify it, and place it under a category. Things that defy definition bother us. Besides, grouping similar things together tends to be a good business model. That's why Amazon and others will suggest similar products after you look at or buy something.
While the concept of genre may be useful for gaming, it seems that games are too diverse to outright define in such a way. The same could be said of other forms of media, for that matter. It seems the right approach we should take is not to define the game as a whole, but rather identify elements it contains.
Portal is not a first-person shooter, but it contains first-person shooter elements.
No comments:
Post a Comment