[It's time for another Monthly Musing -- the monthly community blog theme that provides readers with a chance to get their articles and discussions printed on the frontpage. -- CTZ]
In the race to create things that are new and interesting, many companies that lead the games industry have endeavored to provide experiences that blend genres in order to capture the interest of a wider audience. As a result of this desire, we are experiencing sudden influxes of games which attempt to blend or mix and match what were originally different genres. This process can produce success, but is far more likely to provide a cheapened experience on both fronts.
Genre generalization occurs when a game attempts to straddle two or more different genres or styles, without effectively fleshing out any of them. This often leaves the player inevitably wanting more from one part of the game or another, without ever really delivering a fully fleshed out experience. “Jack of all trades, proficient in none,” is an accurate term for this affliction. Unfortunately, this appears to be a major trend that will be shaping the modern gaming market in the months and years to come.
Some of the bigger blockbuster game titles of the last few years showcase this troublesome trend in all its gruesome glory. Mass Effect, from Bioware, is a chief offender, as are Resident Evil 4 and 5. Now, before I rip into these three games, I want to be absolutely sure that you know I really enjoyed these games. I’m not bringing them up here because they were bad games; in fact, I’m using these examples specifically because of their notoriety. The success of these games is the primary reason I see generalization as the next step in gaming, and where I see the industry as a whole headed.
Let’s begin with Mass Effect. Is it a shooter, or an RPG? Neither, really. It never quite delivers on any front in terms of functional gameplay. The shooting is, at its best, sub-par. The RPG elements, while present, are muted in order to allow for the more casual shooting design of the game. The only thing Mass Effect succeeds at is the intriguing and satisfying way it presents its narrative. This game gets completed because it draws the player into the narrative in an interesting and satisfying way. It does not compel you to play it because the physical act of playing it is rewarding. If anything, the gameplay actually gets in the way of the experience, and that is just ridiculous.
Mass Effect attempts to straddle the lines between shooter and RPG based gameplay, and utterly fails at delivering a full experience of either. The shooting mechanics are loose and clunky, the animation is acceptable, but boring, and the RPG elements are about as paper-thin as can be. The gameplay experience is cheapened significantly by the attempt to blend two genres, the result being a sub-par game with a compelling narrative and little more.
Resident Evil 4 and Resident Evil 5, or as my good Canadian friend calls them, “The suicide of survival horror.”
These are action games. Let’s not confuse ourselves with trying to create exact definitions of survival horror and shooter and adventure genres; these two games are about pulse-pounding, unrelenting action. And in the pursuit of that adrenaline-pumping experience, they deliver beautifully.
But they do not deliver the full experience of either shooters, adventure, or survival horror games. You are thrown ammunition and healing items at a generally acceptable rate (or a ridiculously high rate, compared to previous RE installments) to keep you alive, which significantly breaks the tension that is lovingly cultivated in survival horror offerings. You are relegated to standing completely still while aiming, in a foolhardy attempt to preserve some tension, but without any reasonable explanation as to why, which (for me, as well as many others) does not actually produce tension as much as annoyance. And, finally, the puzzle-solving elements from previous RE offerings has been significantly reduced, resulting in puzzles which tax the mind about as much as adding 2 and 2.
I will allow for the fact that there are certain moments in both of these games which are certainly scary to some extent. However, neither produce the same experience as a traditional survival horror game. Rounding a sun-drenched corner in Africa and finding a street full of zombies is not something that is especially terrifying any longer. In fact, in Resident Evil 5, I relish moments of open combat with zombified enemies.
Never, under any circumstances in either game, have I been held sitting on the edge of my seat for hours on end, nearly holding my breath for fear that whatever shares space with me in that digital plane of existence might transcend its designation of meticulously organized 1’s and 0’s and come searching for me from the darkness. This is the atmosphere that survival horror creates, and it is an experience unto itself. Resident Evil 4 and 5, at best, claw “Oh, [Insert Your Go-To Expletive Here]!” out of the player at a few unexpected occurrences. They are intense, but they will not make you second-guess opening one of the drawers or cupboards in your kitchen, for fear of what may lurk inside, hidden from prying eyes and reason.
In the compromises made to reach a wider audience, all of these games (Mass Effect, Resident Evil 4, Resident Evil 5, and several more) sacrifice their more distinct, well-developed flavors for muddied, lackluster experiences.
If, as they often say, “the sales tell the tales,” then the future of the industry for the moment is genre generalization. The current consumer’s desire for new and different experiences and the industry’s desire to reach a wider scope of the population is coming together to break down the walls between genres and gameplay styles.
Whether this will be the next great stride forward, or a titanic level step back, remains to be seen. Personally, I am hopeful. Perhaps the faults in these games constitute the tedious first steps in a wondrous new direction; little slips and falls to learn from and extrapolate new, more successful integrations. In fact, one of my (and many others) most hotly anticipated games in the coming months, Batman: Arkham Asylum, is doing some genre straddling of its own.
Now that I’ve had my say, what do YOU think? Are we headed for the discovery of combinations that will become defining classics for decades to come (what I will call the “PB&J” phenomenon), or is this a sign that we’ll be treated to massive libraries of bland, unimaginative combinations? Or, worse, God awful nearly unplayable slop?
Contest:
7:00 PM on 06.12.2009 | 
Mass Effect may not have excelled at being a shooter or have been able to stand as a pinacle of the RPG form, but I think you're a bit too hard on it. I for one did enjoy the gameplay as well as the story. Parts were frustrating, but fun was had with it just the same.
As for Resident Evil, it really could use a jolt of horror back into it in the next installment. It is becoming just another action game. An action game with a few distinguishable quirks, but still not anything to be considered "survival horror".
As for the genre-blending the industry's seen so much of recently, again, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. Look at Bioshock - the RPG elements give more depth to a first-person shooter, and the action elements alleviates some of the boredom that once came with RPGs. It's a best-of-both-worlds scenario.
I look forward to seeing genre lines continue to be blended. Sure, not every game that mixes genre elements is going to be a winner. But I think there's more potential for greatness than there is for failure.
After all that, great article. I love the phrase "hidden from prying eyes and reason".
COD4 is still a load of shit though
There are definitely still some great Survival Horror experiences to be had. The important thing about RE4 and RE5 is their notoriety more than anything. Both games commanded high levels of hype, and generally delivered the experience they promised. The mass acceptance of this blend of action and horror over the traditional, more developed offerings in the Survival Horror genre, suggests that we're headed for more genre-bending games. It's likely that the industry will continue to try to re-envision more traditional genres in new and interesting ways, in an attempt to recreate the "RE4 Phenomenon" and land themselves a hit.
Is this a bad thing or not? I can't quite say. I'm just interested in the trend, and where it might take us.
I think it's got potential in either direction, and we're going to see a fair amount of both as time goes on.
This article deserved it, for it was very well written.
For a game like Mass Effect that is a new IP, there's no problem straddling the middle ground. But if, say, Elder Scrolls V decided to nix half of its skills sets so as to appear less daunting to the general gaming public, I think I would have to kill someone.
Since when did Bioshock have RPG elements? Sure, you could spend ADAM to get powerups and special weapons, but I didn't see any attributes or skill trees. The game, unlike it's "spiritual predecessor" SystemShock, really shouldn't be considered an RPG hybrid.
What made Resident Evil 4 so great was that it teetered between action & horror perfectly. What made RE5 such a letdown was that it expanded on one element (action) and pretty much abandoned the other (horror).
I would concur with King. Bioshock didn't have "true" RPG elements. The only thing that comes close I'd say is the ability to take pictures and earn new abilities...and even then.
If you gained more life and Adam directly by killing a certain number of enemies: then I'd see your point.
@Blindfire
I know I'm going to piss you off, but I'm glad RE4 and 5 killed off survival horror. I'm a huge fan of 1-3, don't get me wrong: I beat all of them at least 5 times into the ground. But I'll be damned if I don't have SO much more fun playing 4 and 5, especially 5's coop mode. I'm sorry man! They're much more fun, and they have an exponentially larger amount of bells and whistles.
Small note: I do agree that the puzzles being dumbed down into oblivion sucks; but, professional mode in RE5 is ten times harder than anything RE1-3 threw at you, puzzles and all, so I'm ok with it.
@lastdual
If the scenario you suggested actually happens to Elder Scrolls V, hardcore gaming as we know it will start to be but a memory.
And let's not forget the master of the "Jack of all trades, master of none" department: Grand Theft Auto 4.
Perhaps my definition of "RPG elements" is a little broader than yours. I guess the best way I can describe it is that I feel Bioshock took a lot of RPG concepts and executed them in the form of a shooter.
Like the fact that dead enemies provides you with helpful supplies. Sure, in a traditional FPS you might collect ammo, but dead Splicers could give you healing items, money, or an audio journal. These I see as kind of Bioshock's version of talking to NPCs. The game uses them to allow its NPCs, though most of them aren't present at the time (or have gone crazy and are trying to kill you) a chance to give the player a few lines about what they think about the situation in the game world.
There are also multiple types of shops (as you mentioned), buffs (in the form of gene tonics), and heck, even plasmids themselves operate pretty much the same way magic does in most RPGs, complete with an MP meter (EVE) that you have to restore with potions (Hypos).
Course, I could be full of crap. I sometimes feel like I see RPG elements everywhere I look, even in real life. I think it's because I read this article and it kind of got inside my head somehow. Interesting read, though.
Have no fear! I'm not the kind of person that gets all blustered when someone disagrees with me; it's the internet, everybody's got an opinion and the right to share it. I welcome dissenting views, especially if they bring something new or interesting to the discussion.
As for the fun factor, I actually agree. Resident Evil 4 and Resident Evil 5 were a lot of fun. The co-op mode of RE5 was probably one of my favorite gaming experiences so far this year. And Mass Effect is still one of the most unique and interesting games I've played in a long time; the gameplay isn't as great or deep as I would like, but the story takes it leaps and bounds above the lackluster shooting experience I got out of it.
The thing that they all have in common, though, is that they diminish one experience in favor of another. A blend of two flavors is rarely going to have the same kind of depth and individuality that those flavors have on their own. Resident Evil 4 is definitely the best mix of the bunch, but it still cuts down the survival horror factor significantly. The high sales and notoriety of these games indicates (to me, at least) that the future in gaming is going to be in these kinds of genre hybrids, exchanging the traditional formulas for some new combination to garner more interest and sales, potentially to the detriment of the experience, but not necessarily. There's a lot of room for good and bad results from genre mixing/generalization, and I'm really interested in where it'll go from here.
Also, just as there are many different RPG sub-genres now (action RPGs, Western RPGs, strategy RPGs), just about every other genre has games with RPG elements mixed in now, often with great results. CoD 4's multiplayer is a great example of using an RPG-like leveling system to make gampeplay even more addictive. How about modes in sports games where you play as one player only, often raising your skills as your player goes through their career?
I prefer to not look at it as mashing up two different genres, but instead as creating an entirely new genre. I loved the simplistic games of the 8-bit era, but I don't miss the outdated developing philosophy that surrounded the era, where games were just shooters, or RPGs, or platformers.
Resident Evil has simply swapped genres and to keep criticizing it for not being scary is, in my opinion, a bit silly.
I also disagree with all the criticism the not being able to move system has received. Resident Evil 5 is not Gears of War or Uncharted. The vast majority of enemies in Resident Evil 5 wield melee weapons. Resident Evil 5 has something that games like Gears of War and Uncharted don't have: Crowd Control. When there is a group of enemies moving at you, you constantly have to make the decision who you shoot, and where you shoot. Will you shoot at his hand so he drops his weapon? Or will you shoot in his face to buy you some time so you can focus on other enemies closing in? or perhaps a shot in his shoulder to follow up with a melee attack to push back the crowd so you can have more room?
The fact of the matter is that if Capcom allowed you to move while shooting, they would also have to significantly increase the enemy movement speed to keep the challenge present. When you do that, it would be nearly impossible to make these "tactical" crowd control decision, turning the game into a 3rd persion version of Left 4 Dead.
The fact you can't move your character has nothing to do with the game trying to be a horror game. It's simply because it has a different gameplay style.
I disagree that Resident Evil 4 and 5 are lackluster experience. While I understand that a survival horror game fan expecting a horror experience is pissed off at RE4 and 5, from a quality perspective, I'd say that Resident Evil 4 is better then any of the previous Resident Evil games. Resident Evil 4 is a much better third person shooter than the older games were at survival horror.
Both the Shooter and RPG elements of Mass Effects were sublime for me.
My criticism of Resident Evil 4 and 5 is not based on the fact that they don't deliver a deep Survival Horror experience. Frankly, I like Resident Evil 4 and 5 just fine the way they are, for the most part.
Instead, my criticism is based on the fact that, in the attempt to combine two genres (Survival Horror and Action), the deeper tones of one or the other is simply going to get lost in translation, ensuring that one element the game is based on is going to deliver a lacking experience to the player. I chose Resident Evil 4 and 5 because of how popular they are, and because that popularity was initially gained by adjusting a more refined, classic formula, by way of blending in a different genre. The popularity that ensued from this leads me to believe that genre blending and generalization is where the industry is heading as a whole.
As far as the lack of movement is concerned, you make an excellent point; so excellent, in fact, that I think you've converted my view on the subject.
I'd go even further. Skill trees and elaborate stats are not enough for "RPG". That's just customisation. "Elements from RPGs", but its not mixed genre just borrowed frosting. For and RPG a Role to Play is essential. If it doesn't really matter who you are - just generic hero - and what you want to accomplish, it's not an RPG.
@topic
I, for one, don't like this trend.
As far as there's huge potential for going out of conventions, mixing and pasting - as long as it's done to reach wider audiences it will be "lackluster" on each front. It's becouse wider audiences in general want ***tty games.
For example - game to blend survival horror and action game completelty would be only really liked by fans of both action and survival. It'd have to be relatively hard, "on the edge" and with some serious puzzles PLUS would demand some dexterity and reflex for action.
Mass Effect^2 would also be hard to sell "to the massess". If there were stories demanding some attention for hours, or characters and plots transcending whole story (which are kinda pointless if you don't remeber what you did 1hr ago) - fps guys would be turned off. Same thing different side for more demanding, faster or tougher action.
I guess at some point niche titles for hardcore gamers that blend genres without cutting all edges on which newbies could hurt thier hands will be profitable. But for now, I expect most of the blockbusters will be dumbed down severly. Mixing genres and getting rid of all potentially problematic (but also rich) segments is just one symptom of hollywoodyzation of game industry.
(BTW I like Mass Effect and will play another, though I attribute fun to few extremally good tricks - that hopefully will now be mimicked by competition ;) - and see huge place for improvement.)
It was the first attempt of Bioware to cross-blend genres, many considered the RPG elements of the game to be up to standards with other Bioware titles, like Kotor or Baldurs Gate. Obviously Bioware is new to shooters so give them a break in that department, plus it looks like Mass Effect 2 will greatly improve on those shooter faults from the first. I also dont think it would be possible to make a true RPG or true shooter because one element will take away from the other inevitably.
As for Resident Evil 4 and 5, I've yet to play them but I've only heard good things about them.
If you want a good RPG buy an RPG game, if you want a good shooter buy a shooter. If you want to try something inbetween then get Mass Effect.
And they should have done it so you don't have your aiming reticule while attempting to move and shoot (or have it swerve and swivel around erratically), making your shots go in a 120 degree wide arc when your target is in the center of it, making the possibility of hitting it 5-10% at best.
Wasting ammo on those shots would do wonders to end this senseless critique-bitching, and maybe have you criticize your favorite SHOOTAN GAEMZ like Gears of War and Halo having perfect precise control of aiming while running around.
I agree on your point that genre-blending seems to be the wave of the future. It's hard to find many action games nowadays that don't have at least a smattering of RPG and/or character building elements. I also agree think it's inevitable that many games trying to blur the lines between genres will end up diminishing at least one of those parts in service to the other. However, I would also argue that this genre-blending is, to a certain degree, necessary for the gaming industry as a whole to evolve. Think of how boring games would be nowadays if developers stuck solely to the established trappings of the various genres. Heck, think of how much different Nintendo would be now if they never tried new things. In order to create something innovative to offer gamers, such blending is a necessary evil. Yes, there will be some games that try to mix action, RPG, fighting, whatever and end up failing on all counts. Then again, think of how many games have stayed squarely within the confines of established genres and still ended up failing. While it can be argued whether or not Mass Effect and RE 4 and 5 failed or succeeded in their attempt to blend genres, I think their efforts should be applauded as the first steps in creating new gaming experiences for us to enjoy.
I don't know how anyone can call CoD 4 a "massively shitty game" and expect to be taken seriously.
Or how about the fact that many dialogue choices gave you pretty much the same result.
Fallout 3, for me, is an example of this - the action is terrible, RPG elements simplistic and story bland but the world is utterly engaging.
I think the best example of the article's subject is Spore. Gameplay is made up of many different genres, but each lacks depth and the features that mark the great games of each genre. It was fun and interesting for a while but I doubt it held the interest of most gamers.
It isn't enough to shoehorn different genres together, we should expect that they are also well represented and the game offers the best of both worlds.
Would Mass Effect be more enjoyable if it handled shooting more like other shooting oriented games? Well, maybe it would if you're someone who likes other shooting oriented games, but if you're not, the normally twitch-tastic experience may not be ideal for you. I do play a lot of first- and third-person shooters; I thought there were things that could use improving (e.g., the way grenades handled), and I thought it was way more interesting to play when you had something other to do besides shoot (e.g., play any class besides Soldier), but overall I enjoyed the gameplay so much that I beat the game several times.
Would Mass Effect be more enjoyable if it handled its RPG elements more like other RPGs? Speaking as someone who keeps trying to play traditional video game RPGs and keeps getting disappointed, I'd have to say no. I can't stand fight scenes that involve standing around and staring at one another, endless menu navigation, ludicrously long cut scenes, detailed inventory management to deal with every other guy's special resistances, etc. For my money, Mass Effect had just enough point-allocation and action-queueing options (though maybe slightly more inventory management than necessary due to the difficulty in deleting things).
I think that if we hold up specific paradigms of what a game of any given genre is supposed to be, it's going to stifle innovation and encourage us to cling to some of conventions out of tradition more than out of necessity. Blending, shredding, and shedding some conventions sometimes results in some kooky stuff (e.g., very weak puzzles in Resident Evil 4), but I think the payoff might be worth it in the long run.