Gimme Five: The Branching Path of Future Games

Video media is separated into many distinct categories, such as films, TV shows, documentaries, and commercials. Yet no matter how varied they may be, games are very rarely separated into categories.



Each category of video has a different purposes and criteria by which it's judged. The industry benefits from these distinctions in that the ideals of one category will not necessarily restrict the other. For instance, a film does not need to teach, and a documentary does not need to entertain. Yet there will often be a lesson to learn in a movie, and documentaries can be riveting. This is because creators are free to combine several categories, while others push them further apart with their work.



The difference between the categories is essentially purpose, not format. Even
the most similar categories, TV show and film have distinct intentions:
a film generally tells a single, self-contained story, while a
story-driven TV show typically recounts episodes or disjointed events
that happen to a set of characters.





The Status Quo



Wikipedia divide games into three types: core, casual, and serious. The distinction between the two major types, core and casual, is made primarily by scope and accessibility. Small, simple games are thrown into the casual category, while more elaborate games are defined as core. I find this distinction inadequate for many reasons, but primarily because it doesn't deal with the game's intent.



By
the current definition, challenging puzzle games like Tetris would be
grouped with iPhone apps that hardly require more than a couple of taps
from players. Fast paced games such as Call of
Duty and Starcraft would find themselves grouped with a slew of RPGs,
whose primary purpose is to involve the player in a storyline.



The only type listed on Wikipedia that considers a game's intent is Serious Games. However,
this purpose is listed as "other reasons," basically encompassing any
piece of software that is not exclusively entertainment.






What Should a Game Be?



As developers explore what a game truly is or what it should be, many varied opinions have been expressed. As opinions are subjective in nature, none are right or wrong. Yet people will zealously argue for or against their views. When Gamasutra posted an opinion piece by Lew Pulsipher suggesting that games should be more like interactive movies, it was met by much disapproval.



The problem here is not his opinion, but rather that he is making it of "games" in general. If he were to suggest the same things about "Immersive Entertainment," perhaps his critics would be more inclined to agree.



Games have reached a sufficient level of maturity to branch into various categories. I would argue that they already have, but we've yet to make the distinction formal. Think of the differences between a game
on the iPhone that involves a cartoon cat batting at a roll of toilet
paper as you drag your thumb across the touch screen versus a game like World of Warcraft. There are also games like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare that feature non-stop, twitch-based action, games like Second Life that focus more on socialization, and games like Wii Sports that combine digital entertainment with physical activity. Yet we refer to all of these as games.



But
just as no one would suggest putting an end to all sketch comedy shows
because their format doesn't lend itself to film, no one should feel
threatened by the emergence of new game styles or an adherence to the
old. This is why I believe that the industry would benefit from the differentiation of the very generalized word: game.





Gimme Five



To this end I purpose a tentative list of five categories into which the word game can be divided. This
list is by no means final, but my hope is that it will encourage
discussion amongst the community, so that together we can determine
what paths the future holds for our beloved industry.





IDE (Now with less programming!)



Before we get into the five partitions, let's create the root of the hierarchy. IDE, in this case stands for Interactive Digital Entertainment. This term, or hopefully a catchier one yet to come, should take the place of the current use of the word game.





Digital Toys



The purpose of Digital Toys, like their analog counterparts, is to entertain. Most casual games pertain to this category, but just because they are casual, does not mean they are simple or small.



Scribblenauts exemplifies this category. It can provide an interesting and fun experience, yet it's unlikely to produce professional gamers. Even
difficult puzzle games can be categorized as Digital Toys, so long as
the puzzles are comparable to physical riddles -- the sort that can be
quickly and easily solved if the answer is known. The
generation of these puzzles in this type of game is not dynamic, and
usually involves having to open a door of sorts to progress to the next
stage.



The depth of Digital Toys can vary significantly. They can be full length, triple-A games, or simple iPhone apps. The latter of which can arguably be attributed to a different category, which I like to call Finger-Flickers. Digital Toys of this type do little more than respond to a player's gesture in amusing ways. But
by the same token it is unfair to assume that all iPhone apps or Flash
apps should automatically be qualified as Digital Toys, as many are
not.





Immersive Entertainment



The primary purpose of Immersive Entertainment is to involve players in a story. Presenting the player with any form of a challenge is secondary to this goal. Quick Time Events (QTE) are a common in this category. Roleplaying
games can often be considered Immersive Entertainment, although many
contain sufficient elements of strategy or twitch to qualify them as
traditional games.



Another
purpose of this type of IDE is to provide players with a unique
experience that fits with the tone and story, even at the cost of
gameplay. The Resident Evil series often employs
camera angles to limit the player's vision or slower paced movement to
restrict their mobility to compliment the horror setting and instill a
feeling of increased helplessness.





Games



This is perhaps the broadest of the categories. The primary purpose of games is to present players with continued challenge. If you can get better at it, chances are it's a game. And while many core games fall under this category, some don't.



It's not just about games like Halo and Street Fighter. For instance, by my definition Tetris is a game. Strategy and twitch are the two pillars of skill in games. Most true games combine them in some way. In Tetris you must decide where to place the block and have the manual dexterity to get it there.



Even
the players of strategy games are often rated according to their APM
(actions per minute) which is essentially a measurement of twitch skill. In
RPGs, character customization is a form of strategy, which makes that
particular genre difficult to classify, often straddling between
Immersive Entertainment and Games.





Social Games



Games
such as Second Life or The Sims Online certainly possess some aspects
of a traditional game, but demonstrate a greater focus on socialization. The goal of social games is to offer their users an interesting way to meet, communicate, and network with one another. This can involve unique settings or methods. The continued evolution of social networking sites is likely to further incorporate this category of IDE.





Practical Games



The purpose of this type is to in some way improve the player. It does include educational games, but can be taken far beyond the realm of Math Blaster and simple games for children. The
amount of information assimilated by MMOG gamers can truly be
astounding, and there is a lot of potential to change the way we teach
and learn through the use of IDE.



This category of IDE is not just for information. Take for instance the recent development of simulation software by the US Military to train troops as well as deal with post traumatic stress. It can also include games that physically improve the player, such as with Wii Fitness.



I also look forward to seeing the emergence of documentary-style games, such as Pfiefer's project dealing with the social unrest during the recent Iranian elections.

Evolution, in that the words currently chosen to represent categories
(in this case) stand on the shoulders of words that came before it, or
those that represent broader, more established terms. Serendipity, in
that sometimes words and phrases make it into the lexicon out of
chance, where popular acceptance took hold before the analysis took
place.

You state early on that games are very rarely separated into
categories, but in fact this appears to be a regular thing here on
Gamasutra. It seems to happen about once a month, someone will throw a
series of definitions on things, which tends to simply cause a backlash
more than a general consensus. We need to be careful when establishing
the words we use. Why? The dangers of not being too careful are evident
in the misrepresentations presented by mass media. And another
reoccurring topic here on Gamasutra is railing against those
misrepresentations. Put simply: we can't communicate effectively
without a consensus-based vocabulary. And, btw, you're right to see
this as a definite need in our craft.

I completely agree on the idea that the categories that should be
couched on games (if they must be) should be based on intent. I also
agree that any effort in this are should be considered a dialogue
because that's where the consensus takes place.

However, this initial effort of categorization appears to be based less
on previous definitions of game elements (evolution) or on popular
categories (serendipity). As a result, I'm unable to use the categories
you've presented as a way to communicate a consistent meaning. I have a
hard time getting past a category without raising a myriad of
exceptions to the definitions and examples presented. (Puzzle-oriented
games, not games but toys? Toys don't teach? Story is the defining
element in immersion? Only one set of games is considered an avenue of
learning?)

On top of that, instead of breaking one nebulous term down into
manageable ones, you've expanded the list while keeping "Games" and
"Social Games" (two already messy terms) more-or-less as catch-alls.
This does less to inform and clarify than it does to confuse and
misrepresent (even in the examples you've provided for the categories).

Again, I appreciate the intent, but building a vocabulary is tricky and
unfortunately I have a feeling brash efforts to categorize have only
made this effort trickier.

BTW, "What should a game be?", is not a question that should be
considered in this kind of effort. Rather, definitions are concerned
with "what is". And I particularly don't think the reference to the
opinion piece you site is relevant to this effort. That opinion was an
ambiguous take on the value of difficulty and failure in the game
experience as it relates to future development. It raised heated
opposition precisely because of that dangerous ambiguity. My intent
here is only to caution you against that same ambiguity as the
discussion here on this topic continues.

I know how difficult it can be to introduce new terms that not only can
be agreed upon, but actually implemented. I certainly don't expect
commercials to be touting their products as "digital toys" or IDEs any
time soon.

However, the ambiguity in these categories, which you are right to
point out, is there for a reason. Currently, the two most popular
categories of game I've seen used are "core" and "casual." Not only are
these labels extremely vague, but they seem to change meaning from use
to use.

Realizing this, my goal began to elaborate on these terms. I should
point out that it is not my intent to define genres. Just as films and
television shows contain a myriad of genres, so should the broad
category of games -- albeit that subject matter and intent are often
times hard to separate. I didn't think that getting too specific with
these terms would be of benefit for reasons you have mentioned. It's
difficult enough to introduce a single term, introducing a whole
lexicon of terms at once is near impossible.

As for the categories themselves, I agree that "Games" and "Social
Games" would probably benefit from better labels. However, I think the
categories cover intent fairly well in a broad sense.

Practical-Digital Toys

Most toys don't teach, but certainly can teach. Scribblenauts can
encourage players to become more creative and perhaps expand their
vocabulary, yet I believe its primary goal is to entertain. This means
it's first a Digital Toy, and second a Practical Game, making it a
Practical-Digital Toy. As I mentioned, blending of the categories is
inevitable.

Puzzlers

As for puzzle-oriented games, I believe the type you are referring to
would more commonly fall under Immersive Entertainment than toys.
However, many puzzle games, such as Tetris, would fall under the "game"
category. The rule here is, if the puzzle can be solved the same way
every time (i.e. push the block onto the pad to open the door), it is
not a defining element of a "game." The category of games is marked by
the intent of presenting the player with ongoing challenge. A riddle
loses its challenge after you've heard the answer. Many puzzles exist
that continue to be challenging even if the answer is known.

Immersive Entertainment

Interactive Digital Entertainment has more tools to tell a story than
simply narrative. In addition to elements present in film, it can be
told through the environment and the gameplay. Furthermore, because it
is not linear, it needn't tell a single story, but rather frame a
situation conducive to a certain kind of experience. This is why I
believe that the intent of traditional story-driven games and those
that simply provide a canvas upon which certain experiences may be
painted have similar intent. Most of these games, however, such as the
Resident Evil series, blend the two approaches.

Thank you again for your response. You've given me a lot to think
about, and I feel like I could write another 10-20 pages on the matter,
but I'll spare the internet from that fate, and close out with one last
thought.

The reason I took the approach of "What should a game be?" is because
the categories are separated by intent. Furthermore, the purpose of the
categories is to protect one from the other as games progress, not as
they are, since little can be done about games that have already been
published.

What I'm really after is that somewhere down the line, there can be two
gamers with very different preferences making demands from the industry
that may seem mutually exclusive, but because they are making them of a
different category of games, both can be appeased. They may ask:

Can you please not reduce my RPG's gameplay to a few mindless button presses?

And...

Can you please make it so I don't have to research how to kill a boss
or grind for 8 hours in order to see the continuation to my RPG's plot?


In this case, both are asking that changes be made to the very broad
genre of RPGs. With current terminology, you may say that one is core
and the other is casual, but the term "casual" can also come packaged
with flimsy story lines and shallow environments. And does the "core"
gamer expect a single, enjoyable play through, or are they after a game
that can challenge them for years to come?

These are the sort of questions and concerns that I would like to address with the introduction of categories.

Practical Games




The purpose of this type is to in some way improve the player. It does include educational games, but can be taken far beyond the realm of Math Blaster and simple games for children. The
amount of information assimilated by MMOG gamers can truly be
astounding, and there is a lot of potential to change the way we teach
and learn through the use of IDE.



This category of IDE is not just for information. Take for instance the recent development of simulation software by the US Military to train troops as well as deal with post traumatic stress. It can also include games that physically improve the player, such as with Wii Fitness.



I also look forward to seeing the emergence of documentary-style games, such as Pfiefer's project dealing with the social unrest during the recent Iranian elections.