Extra Credits talks about gender sterotypes in game mechanics.

[Silvanus]

Really? That's like saying all puzzle games only have puzzles in them because it's cyclical. It's not cyclical, it's what the freaking genre is. The reason you don't see something in a genre that doesn't fit that genre's description is because it doesn't meet the parameters. You don't consider a lizard a mammal, you don't call a hat a shirt, Portal is not an FPS. Like I said, all shooters are a subgenre of the action genre which requires combat of some sort. Portal has no combat so it can't be an FPS.

(Underlining Mine).

Alright, hows about this. I will compromise. I will exclude Portal from the "FPS" genre, if you exclude "Resident Evil" from the Horror genre. The Horror genre requires ghosts, else it's not horror. Resident Evil contains no ghosts, so it's not horror.

Again, you can shoot a weapon in doom wherever you want, you will see bullets fly out no matter what you shoot, there are no limits to where you can shoot it.

In the original Doom, there weren't really bullets, due to limitations in technology. The game simply registered whether you were pointing in the right direction, that's all.

You could shoot elsewhere-- as you can in Portal-- but literally nothing would happen, only the sound effect. As in Portal.

As for the clicking fingers bit, I thought you meant something along the lines of that guy from Fullmetal Alchemist. As long as it's ranged combat in first person, it can be considered an FPS. It could be guns, lasers, magic, psychic powers, what have you as long as your attacking from a distance with some sort of projectile. Those are the only two things that matter for that classification. QED, still objectively wrong.

In which case, you're still contradicting the description that you yourself offered.

Would you stop saying "Q.E.D.", please? It's wasted on a debate over something so inconsequential.

 

[kris40k]

Again, you can shoot a weapon in doom wherever you want, you will see bullets fly out no matter what you shoot, there are no limits to where you can shoot it. That doesn't mean it need to have an effect on everything, just that you can shoot it wherever you want. You have the ability to miss. The portal gun does not have this ability, it will only ever do anything if it's used in relation to the white surfaces. Point it anywhere else? Nothing happens.

Actually, you can shoot the Portal gun where ever you want, it only sticks if it hits the moon material. It fizzles off of everything else and is blocked by fields.

 

[Silvanus]

Now you just don't know what you're talking about. How is that similar scenario whatsoever? Ghosts aren't even in the majority of horror titles at this point, that's just being deliberately obtuse. Thought I will agree that the latter Resident Evils have really been pushing it with how little actual survival horror they've had. Like I said, action games require combat of some sort. If it doesn't have combat, it can't be considered an action game. And since the FPS genre is a subgenre of the action genre it can't be considered an FPS either. Do you honestly think Portal could in any way be considered an action game?

Eh, not really. I'd say FPS is only generally considered a sub-genre of action games because almost all contain combat.

Now, when you say "ghosts aren't even in the majority of horror titles"... that can't be right; ghosts are in every horror title by definition, because unless they have ghosts, they aren't horror.

Then that was a limit of the tech at the time. The gun would still act exactly the same whenever you pulled the trigger regardless of whether you actually hit an enemy or not. The portal gone noticeably acts differently when trying to use it anywhere other than the white surfaces.

The difference in efficacy is precisely the same in both cases; the guns simply don't do anything unless you point them in the right way.

This is another arbitrary restriction.

Then please point out exactly where I contradicted myself.

Okiday. Well, here, you evoked the Wikipedia article "FPS", citing it as "the definition";

What do you mean I decided that? That's the definition of a FPS, I didn't pull the definition out of my ass or anything. This shit has already been decided by the industry. Let's just look at what Wikipedia defines as an FPS shall we...

First-person shooter (FPS) is a video game genre centered on gun and projectile weapon-based combat through a first-person perspective

...Then, later on, when I pointed out that you could replace the gun in Doom with finger-clicking without changing the mechanics, you said this;

See, that's where you wrong. If you took Doom and replaced the enemies and weapons with whatever you want, it would still be a FPS if it remained in first person and had you fighting some sort of enemy with ranged combat.

...which contradicts the part in the definition you gave, specifying "gun and projectile weapon-based combat".

 

[Silvanus]

As much as I hate to agree with Nods, I think he's right.

Extra Credits said something a while back, and as much as I hate to agree with THEM, I still think it holds some merit.

They said that we should classify games based on the feelings they try to invoke instead of purely on surface mechanics.

The feelings a game like Call of Duty or Wolfenstein try to invoke are pretty different to the ones Portal tries to invokem which is in turn different to the kind that Civilization or Endless Legend try to invoke.

So it's not really fair to put them in the same genre.

I might even agree.

I've been arguing for the past half hour or so because Nods' manner irritated me.

 

[Silvanus]

Well of course if you changed the meaning of survival horror to be something bullshit you can exclude or include anything you want. But again, you never accurately described what horror actually is. Regardless of what you think, all FPS games are action games but not all action games are FPSs. That's the deal with subgenres, they don't miraculously stop being apart of the root genre because you want to change what it means.

"Regardless of what I think"... You've just stated that, though, not demonstrated it. If stating something makes it so, then horror games require ghosts to be horror.

Come to think of it, I don't even remember any skeletons in Resident Evil. It scarcely qualifies as a game at all.

Maybe not some of the older games because of tech limitations but nowadays i can't imagine a single game outside of indie that doesn't have projectile weapons leave some sort of impact on whatever you shoot be it bullets visually being fired or various physics. Portal lacks these from an intentional design standpoint, not a tech limitation.

Then I shall not exclude any of those newer games, which have no such tech limitations. Only Doom 1 and 2.

 

[BytByte]

you and Extra Credits are objectively wrong.

This is my point dude. It's not objective no matter how much you want it to be. The genre classification is not objective, clearly evidenced by me and Silvanus disagreeing with you. I'm not saying describing games or trying to place them into genres is bad, but thinking that all games can fit neatly into strict genres just doesn't work because different people will interpret them differently. Things aren't fact, even if they have consensus. This isn't to prove myself right and you wrong, no one is wrong. But you don't like to even entertain other people's interpretations, which ain't cool.

 

[Silvanus]

But you don't like to even entertain other people's interpretations, which ain't cool.

This is the only reason I'm still being a stickler on this point. Had it been otherwise, I would long ago have shrugged my shoulders and said, 'you might be right'.

 

[Silvanus]

I'm not the one pulling definitions out of my ass though, I'm simply going by what the industry defines the various game genres.

Really? Your sole reference so far has been to Wikipedia.

What about excluding Doom 1 and Doom 2 now? They both have projectile based combat, Portal does not and the very act of 'shooting' is debatable at best.

As we've established, there aren't actually projectiles. Well, aside from the Imps' fireballs.

In the end, the main elements Portal needs to classify are already covered by the whole "First Person Puzzle Platformer" thing so this whole argument comes across as superfluous fluff for an already bloated descriptor for the game.

It's supremely superfluous fluff, I agree completely. "First person puzzle platformer" would be a far more useful descriptor.

As I explained to Gundam, I wouldn't still be arguing had you been a little less absolutist or condescending regarding such an inconsequential dispute.

 

[Gengisgame]

Really? Your sole reference so far has been to Wikipedia.

Can you just let this go.

It takes little effort to realize that FPS are there own thing within FP games. Call of Duty and Half-life are not the same genre of game as Skyrim or Far Cry.

You are arguing semantics and dragging on a non-point.

 

[SKBPinkie]

Arguing over semantics is gonna get us nowhere.

The crux of the argument is that people who like standard FPSs can be potential customers for something like Portal. Which is bullshit. Yeah, there are people who like both games, but their opinions on the titles are not based on whether or not they share a single feature - first person gameplay. It depends on what they want to play at any particular moment. Liking one doesn't guarantee enjoying the other.

The crucial difference here is the genre of the games. One focuses on combat, while the other on puzzles. One more focused on skill, and the other on solving a problem.

These are two very different types of games and going "now that you've played Mario, you'll definitely love Braid" is utter nonsense.

 

[BytByte]

So because you disagree with me, it's not objective? Stop the presses! 2 + 2 = 7! The sky is green! Up is down and down is purple! Like I said many times before, I'm simply going by already established industry genres. Why should I entertain other people's interpretations when they fail to do their research?

You keep missing the point. You are treating the classification you stand by as complete fact, something that cannot be altered. I'm saying that my and Silvanus' differing opinions to yours are no less valid because we hold them. Classification is a subjective things. Some people say "Gone Home" is a game, some don't. It does not matter that I think Fallout 3 and Portal are FPS' while you don't. What I'm trying and failing to get across to you is there is no standard or true, objective classification. And this branches out into everything you say on the forums.

You are too black and white.

You always need to be right even when there is no right or wrong answer. That happens in an artistic medium like games. When you come into a thread, you dismiss others you don't agree with in one fell swoop. No discussion. Like Silavnus said, it's a condescending attitude that does not contribute anything. In this very thread you just talked about genres rather than addressing the video, because the video did not have something that could be said as "objectively" wrong (I do realize the irony of what I'm doing). I want you to discuss things, not state things at people. It's more fun, trust me.

 

[Jake Torrance]

Personally, i can't really deal with Extra Credits after he suggested that Yuna from FFX was a boring character and that characters are more interesting because they have different sexual preferences, it's too subjective.

 

[inmunitas]

So because you disagree with me, it's not objective? Stop the presses! 2 + 2 = 7! The sky is green! Up is down and down is purple! Like I said many times before, I'm simply going by already established industry genres. Why should I entertain other people's interpretations when they fail to do their research?

You keep missing the point. You are treating the classification you stand by as complete fact, something that cannot be altered. I'm saying that my and Silvanus' differing opinions to yours are no less valid because we hold them. Classification is a subjective things. Some people say "Gone Home" is a game, some don't. It does not matter that I think Fallout 3 and Portal are FPS' while you don't. What I'm trying and failing to get across to you is there is no standard or true, objective classification. And this branches out into everything you say on the forums.

You are too black and white.

You always need to be right even when there is no right or wrong answer. That happens in an artistic medium like games. When you come into a thread, you dismiss others you don't agree with in one fell swoop. No discussion. Like Silavnus said, it's a condescending attitude that does not contribute anything. In this very thread you just talked about genres rather than addressing the video, because the video did not have something that could be said as "objectively" wrong (I do realize the irony of what I'm doing). I want you to discuss things, not state things at people. It's more fun, trust me.

Gone Home is not a game. Portal is not a FPS. Those are facts. There is nothing to be discussed there. Games are not an artistic medium, video/computer games do however fall under electronic art, but it's not the "game part" that makes them art.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Gone Home is not a game. Portal is not a FPS. Those are facts. There is nothing to be discussed there. Games are not an artistic medium, video/computer games do however fall under electronic art, but it's not the "game part" that makes them art.

Virtually everything you've said is not in any way a "fact", while the subject of games-as-art (including gameplay) is VERY MUCH under discussion due to a lack in consensus.

But if you insist on pressing the issue as a factual matter: *citation needed*
Burden of proof is on you. Good luck.

 

[CaitSeith]

But notice, none of the categories are 0% female. They're just mostly female. However, that's what studios and publishers are saying when they say that Shooters are for men. The ratio is so heavily stilted towards males that from their perspective that's what matters. They're not wrong. I would hardly consider a game like Portal to be a FPS though.

That's the first complain in the video: oversimplification from the industry's point of view. I think they (the people in the industry) simply generalize things and tend to omit niche markets (at least the AAA side). However, if AAA publishers and studios don't want to do it (experiment with the genres), but people still want it, it will come from another source (like it happened with Minecraft).