[Davies]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Davies, I see you wrote a lot in the time it took me to finish all that. I hope you'll forgive me for not reading it right now- my brain is exhausted.

Wow, you wrote a lot in the time it took me to finish mine! I'll forgive you, if you forgive me for not reading yours right now. I need some lunch.

[MoriartyL]

Davies, I'm going to try to find problems with your definitions. That's okay, right? I mean no offense in doing so, I'm just curious to see your responses.

Originally Posted by Davies

Puzzle game: The manipulation of abstract elements (such as words, numbers, colours, shapes) to attain an arbitrarily defined goal or "solved" condition. No characters or storyline -- a story may be included as window-dressing, but its absence would not affect play. Gameplay consists of a series of separate puzzles solved one by one, with no links from one to the next.

I find it strange that you say a puzzle game has to be abstract. It seems like an arbitrary style choice, not a defining characteristic. What about Armadillo Run? That's not really abstract, seeing as how it simulates realistic physics. Or is Sokoban abstract? You're moving a person around a room, pushing boxes. Maybe that's nonsensical, but abstract? Or would you call Lemmings abstract?

And say you take an abstract puzzle game, and then give it a more realistic theme and justification. It doesn't stop being a puzzle game, does it? It's just a coat of paint!

Why is an old-school platformer not a puzzle game? Or is it a type of puzzle game? I mean, it's pretty abstract, and the levels usually are self-contained with defined goal points. And there are abstract strategy computer games, with self-contained battles that have clear goals (eliminate the opposition). Are those puzzle games too?

Adventure game: Player assumes the role of a character within a storyline. Gameplay consists of using logical deduction to solve a series of puzzle-like problems in order to cause the storyline to progress. There are few or no random elements. Character "development" means acquiring specific possessions or traits which are needed at specific points in the plot.

Puzzle-like problems. Hm. Before, you defined a puzzle game by its abstractness, its disconnection from a story, and its self-contained nature- two things that don't make much sense inside a standard adventure game. The last thing that should be in the middle of a good story is a little challenge with shapes and numbers that is disconnected from the rest of the experience. (Which is not to say that isn't often done!) But if the puzzles fit in context, if they're linked to other puzzles in the game to provide a long-term payoff, those aren't really puzzles any more, by what you've said!

Okay, I'm stretching. First off, you might see a difference between "games of puzzles" and "puzzle games", in which case you've never defined "puzzles" at all. Secondly, you did say "puzzle-like problems" rather than "puzzles", thereby disconnecting your adventure definition from your puzzle game definition. Fair enough.

But then, what are these little challenges? I could argue that in The Legend of Zelda, it takes simple "logical deduction" to find each enemy's weak spots. Combine that with all the actual puzzles in the game, the possession-acquiring, and the storyline, and I think it just about fits. Are you willing to include some of that type of "adventure" in your definition?

And once you've thought about that a bit: What about Myst? Sure, there's a storyline and (in theory) you're a character in it. But when you solve a puzzle, it almost never leads to a continuation of the storyline. The story's a backstory, which is mostly laid out in books you can access at any time. The puzzles have nothing to do with that- they're just granting you passage to new areas. There's no character "development", as you've defined it. And you're wandering around aimlessly as much as you're solving puzzles. How is this an adventure? Or is it not?

Have you played Photopia? It's only got one or two puzzles. So is that not an adventure game? What is it? (And please don't say "Interactive Fiction", unless you're going to then explain that interactive fiction and text adventures are not the same thing.)

Strategy game: Player competes directly against one or more equal opponents, either other humans or AI simulations. Each player controls certain "units" (anything from simple pawns to complex simulated troops), and may be able to gain more units or increase their capabilities as the game progresses. Gameplay consists of each player attempting to deploy and use his units in order to defeat the opposing units.

I don't understand what you mean by an "equal opponent". Could you clarify? Because I've played strategy board games where one player has a very different role than the rest of the players. Even in modern RTS games, each player could be playing a different race, and those races are not equal. And when you're playing a single-player strategy game, you often come up against enemies who do things you never can!

I assume you meant that there need to be at least two units, though it was not specified, since otherwise just about any action game fits the description. And I've never played an action game which let me switch characters at will. But there must be some other type of game with more than one unit...

The Lost Vikings. It's a puzzle platformer. ..I think. I've never actually played it, but from what I've heard it sounds like there are enemy units to defeat in it, and you can move around three characters, without the other ones disappearing. (You didn't actually say the units had to all exist simultaneously, but it just makes sense.) So... computer opponents. "Equal" is unclear. Multiple "units", and though you say you "may" gain more units or upgrade the ones you have, you didn't say you necessarily do. You're "deploying and using" your units. Not all of the gameplay involves fighting enemy units. But then, not all of the gameplay of an RTS involves fighting enemies, either- there's all that resource-collecting and base-building! (And where does that fit in, anyway?) So it's settled- The Lost Vikings is a strategy game.

Wait a minute.

I'm not very experienced in robot battle games either, but I think they come under either strategy or action. If you control the robot's moves directly, it's an action game, essentially a fighting game, with breaks between the fights to make repairs, buy upgrades, etc. If you "stand off" and plan the robot's moves as if it were a board game, then it's a strategy game where the robot is your unit manipulated to defeat other units.

Arg. I guess I didn't need to bother going to so much trouble to find an argument. You accept strategy games with one unit. Okay, every action game ever made is a strategy game. I mean, in this quote you're specifically making a distinction, but it doesn't matter. Check this description of the action-game robot battle against your strategy definition. It fits!

Simulation game: The computer program attempts to simulate some element of the real world, or a fantasy world, in a realistic way. Gameplay consists of controlling this simulation, with or without specific goals in mind, in the absence of strategic opposition.

So what's a game which simulates some element of the real world realistically, but with strategic opposition? I ask because I just learned to play the board game Settlers of Catan a few hours ago. Then again, it's a board game, so you don't really have to answer that.

By the way, you know your definition includes flight simulators, and possibly sports games and action simulations? (Assuming that's not "strategic".) Just checking. Well, it also includes any adventure game which tries to be realistic.

Say! So that's how you can classify Photopia!


I can't find any problems with your RPG definition. At least, no problems which I can back up by invoking actual games, rather than daydreams in my head. So, very nice.

[MoriartyL]

To anyone willing to disqualify my definitions, a tip: My RPG definition contained "strategy systems" in it. Now that I've defined strategy games, those strategy systems have to fit this new definition. So if you can demonstrate that either the "long-term strategy system" or the "short-term strategy system" of a certain RPG (or all RPGs, if you can) doesn't fit my definition of strategy, I've got to rethink things.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by Davies

Perhaps in recent years we have also been seeing convergent evolution, in which it's becoming harder to distinguish between action, RPG, and adventure games.

I've got a different explanation, and I apologize in advance if I'm not making much sense here- I'm very tired right now. Anyway, my theory goes something like this: The longer a type of game develops, the less people think about what that type of game actually is and what it's for. Why should they, when they can just define it for themselves by making a list of things past games of that type have already done? An RPG is wandering around with turn-based battles and leveling up. An adventure is inventory puzzles. A platformer is collecting stars. Gradually, people forget how full of possibilities the different Forms are, and just see how they can repeat what's already been done.

But you can't justify that. You can't tell a player: "Give me your money and I'll give you an imitation of an imitation of an imitation." So there are four options people still see:

1. You take the formula exactly as it is and add on a new gimmick to be discarded in the next sequel.
2. You dilute the formula so you can sell it to people who don't know how to play the better games.
3. Change absolutely nothing, but improve the graphics.
4. You take the formula as it is, and mix in mini-games or small elements derived from one other type of game, so that it'll seem new.

The games made by these methods can be very good, no question. But it's not healthy for videogames for none of the Forms to have their own clear identities.

Here's what'll happen, going into the future. The gimmicks won't change anything because no one cares about them. You use 'em once, come up with a new one. The Form-mixing will continue, and the diluting will continue. So I can imagine a day when almost every single game on the market has elements from all our current Forms, doing not one of those elements as well as the games from the 90s which were designed for them. Classification will be meaningless, because there will be only two "genres": "simulation action adventure sports role-playing casual games", and "weird games". At least the graphics will be good.

And with that thought, I bid you good night.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Here, then, are my definitions of puzzle games and strategy games:

A puzzle game is a system of rules which change the play environment in ways the player can observe and perfectly predict to more than one move ahead.
A strategy game is a system of rules which change the play environment in ways the player can observe and vaguely predict to more than one move ahead.

Now by all means, show me why those definitions don't work.

A lot of good stuff there and well thought out. This is exactly the difference I was coming round to between strategy and puzzle (the predictablility part) so I think these are good defintions for dividing the two.

I'm hoping to have more time this coming weekend (been a bit busy so haven't popped in on this thread properly) so I'll see about posting some more detailed thoughts then. I had some ideas about the RPG definitions as well.