The Taxonomy of Gaming

[Soundwave]

It seems to me, that a recurring point of contention among Gamers, is the Classification of Games. So I ask:

1) has anyone attempted to create a standard Taxonomy for Gaming?

2) If someone were to create one, what would be the Kingdoms (plant, animal, fungii etc.) of Gaming?

A few thoughts: I personally, would base my taxonomy strictly on the core mechanics of gameplay, and as the intent is to increase understanding, rather than limit it, I would avoid using latin names as a gaming convention. I rather like tvtropes.org method of naming, though rather than describing the situation (example 'thick-lipped-alligator-moment'), I'd use a term like, Super Mario Bros.-like or Final Fantasy-like (in a nod to the term 'rogue-like'), as I would think most Gamers have some idea as what Mario or Final Fantasy francise games are like.

 

[MysticSlayer]

That's what genres are for. The contention comes because some people view our current genre classifications as inadequate, as they only describe the mechanics, not the feelings conveyed through the game. We don't need an identical equivalent to biological taxonomy.[footnote]This isn't to say that genre classification isn't a lot like taxonomy, though. After all, we tend to start with an overarching genre (ex. action) before going into a specific genre (ex. shooter) and sub-genre (ex. FPS). So there are already some major similarities, even if we don't use biology's terminology or recognize it as equivalent to taxonomy.[/footnote] If anything, we need to first establish if genres should be defined by mechanics (as they have traditionally be done in games) or through the emotions conveyed in the work (more similar to movies). After that, we just go along with traditional genre classifications.

 

[TehCookie]

I agree with MysticSlayer that the difference between mechanics and emotions needs to be made clear. That is probably why there's so much confusion over the RPG genre.

I'd use both like how an animals true name is family-species have it be emotions-mechanics. So like CoD would be classified Action > Shooter > FPS > Military FPS. FPS-military would make more sense following it but it doesn't roll off the tongue as easily. Though I haven't thought out how mixed genres would work since currently it's just smashing letters/words together. Like Disgaea being a SJRPG or the new FPS-RPG games.

 

[DocHarley]

I think Wikipedia has at least a fair start. Look at the article for "Video game" and there's a list of "Genres" in the side bar. Click on a "Genre" you go to that page and there's invariably a laundry list of "Sub-genres" in the sidebar there.

It's in no way complete, but it could easily serve as the skeleton for a more complete list should someone be inclined to make one.

 

[elvor0]

(example 'thick-lipped-alligator-moment'), I'd use a term like, Super Mario Bros.-like or Final Fantasy-like (in a nod to the term 'rogue-like'), as I would think most Gamers have some idea as what Mario or Final Fantasy francise games are like.

That seems unnecessary to me. Roguelike is a genre unto itself, because it's the most applicable way and no ones thought of a better name.

Super Mario is a 2D Platformer, we all know what those are.

Final Fantasy is a JRPG. We know what to expect from that.


It's not quite so easy to class games as it is books or movies, because yeah you have a genre of story, comedy, action, sci fi,and maybe have a secondary genre to better define; once you've defined what type of genre it is, you're pretty much good to go.

Games have game play; you can have a Sci Fi game, but is it FPS, Strategy, Stealth, Point and Clicky?. Action Adventure is the only one that people get iffy about because it's a crap way of describing it and is applied to everything under the sun. Other than that, everything else fits neatly into its box. You've got RTS, TBS, FPS, RPG, Point and Click and Simulator as your main terms, then lots of sub terms to go from there. Most people know what most of em mean I'd say.

 

[Soundwave]

It's not quite so easy to class games as it is books or movies, because yeah you have a genre of story, comedy, action, sci fi,and maybe have a secondary genre to better define; once you've defined what type of genre it is, you're pretty much good to go.

Games have game play; you can have a Sci Fi game, but is it FPS, Strategy, Stealth, Point and Clicky?. Action Adventure is the only one that people get iffy about because it's a crap way of describing it and is applied to everything under the sun. Other than that, everything else fits neatly into its box. You've got RTS, TBS, FPS, RPG, Point and Click and Simulator as your main terms, then lots of sub terms to go from there. Most people know what most of em mean I'd say.

Is a game a sci fi game first? or is it a strategy game first? I feel like setting would come later, like starcraft would be Strategy>Real Time>Warcraft-like>Starcraft. 'Everyone' has heard of Warcraft (though I could see starcraft taking the family name by being considerably more popular). That kind of thing. The reference to roguelike was just that the concept of classifying things that way appealed to me. The idea that there could be some "classic example" of something.

Edit: Also not all marios are the same. Consider the difference between "new super mario bros." and "mario 3dland"

Regarding MysticSlayer and TehCookie:

I rather intended "the kingdoms" to fall along Genre lines, but then the question becomes "What makes a genre unique enough to be a kingdom unto itself". I suppose the fairest thing to say would be that I think we should "clean up our classification system and remove ambiguity"

 

[Bad Jim]

In biology, every living species has evolved from something else. This means it is possible to create a taxonomy. All plants have a common ancester. All animals have a common ancestor. Same with fungi and I think there are a few more kingdoms. You don't get species randomly popping up that are part fungus, part gerbil and part grass, and screwing up the system. Nor do you get species that don't even have an identifiable kingdom popping up out of nowhere

In game design however, there are no rules apart from making it enjoyable. There are mashups. There are games like Minecraft that come out of nowhere, are completely different, and are popular enough that you can't ignore them.

The best thing you can do is classify similar games into genres and sub-genres.

 

[elvor0]

It's not quite so easy to class games as it is books or movies, because yeah you have a genre of story, comedy, action, sci fi,and maybe have a secondary genre to better define; once you've defined what type of genre it is, you're pretty much good to go.

Games have game play; you can have a Sci Fi game, but is it FPS, Strategy, Stealth, Point and Clicky?. Action Adventure is the only one that people get iffy about because it's a crap way of describing it and is applied to everything under the sun. Other than that, everything else fits neatly into its box. You've got RTS, TBS, FPS, RPG, Point and Click and Simulator as your main terms, then lots of sub terms to go from there. Most people know what most of em mean I'd say.

Is a game a sci fi game first? or is it a strategy game first? I feel like setting would come later, like starcraft would be Strategy>Real Time>Warcraft-like>Starcraft. 'Everyone' has heard of Warcraft (though I could see starcraft taking the family name by being considerably more popular). That kind of thing. The reference to roguelike was just that the concept of classifying things that way appealed to me. The idea that there could be some "classic example" of something.

Edit: Also not all marios are the same. Consider the difference between "new super mario bros." and "mario 3dland"

Yeah I don't know why I said it that way round either actually. Of course the playstyle would come first, derp >< I was still in film mode, changed that paragraph a few times and it ended up being upside down.

On the "not all marios are the same" point, that would also mean Super Mario-like wouldn't work, hence why we have 2D platformer and 3D platformer as genre types. Or to condense strategy, we have RTS and TBS. Obviously you've got the classics and most gamers worth their salt will have played them or know what they are, but I feel the genres are already pretty concrete and well established.

Of course classic examples of stuff are handy for people just getting into gaming, but then again, that's limited to pure classics. Command and Conquer or Starcraft may be classics for gamers, but I doubt anyone else has heard of them. "Everyone has heard of Warcraft" only works when we're talking about gamers, who like I said, for the most part know most of the genres and what to expect from games labelled as such. Games still don't have as much of a public conciousness as films or books. There's tons of films you can name drop which people will recognize even if they've never seen them. Games..you're limited to Mario, CoD, Sonic and er... GTA.

It's a cool idea, but relies more on familiarity than the more descriptive labels we have now. Roguelike just stuck I guess, and "Randomly Generated Dungeon Crawler With PermaDeath" is a bit of a mouth full in full and as an acronym The labels themselves are our own taxonomy, because games are such a unique medium, and are the best we can do to group similar games together. Until a game with totally new mechanics comes out like Minecraft and we're screwed because we've got nothing to label it with.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

It think the ones that are easier to define are stuff like RPG, RTS and RPG - well, acronyms in general, for some reason. When you get to "action adventure" things get reaaaaally murky, especially since apparently a game can be action, adventure or action-adventure. I've never come across a fully satisfactory taxonomy. Wikipedia has an OK one though.