How do you feel about games going "off-genre"?

[KingVamp]

Don't think I have a specific genre I dislike, at least, not the well know ones. So, that helps when it comes to switching genres. Of course I don't like all genres equally. Don't remember right now when I felt a game was so jarring with different genres in the same game. As someone said, it also depends on the genres. Some genres tend to just fit together. I think a lot of games benefit from genre switching in the same game, but not every game should do so. Also depends if the game was known for doing so. Don't want to play Phoenix Wright, to only suddenly be thrown into a TPS/FPS. Doesn't mean I wouldn't play a TPS/FPS that has similar gameplay, just wouldn't want to do so with Phoenix Wright.

I'm disappointed that noone mentioned the Final Fantasy series. The series from the first game up to X-2 were turn based RPGs, then after that they change it up to something different every game. XV is trying to be like Kingdom Hearts but not as good. I really hope the next Final Fantasy goes back to turn based.

They may have some similar mechanics from turn based, like ATB, but I doubt they will go back to true turn based. At least, not for their main titles.

 

[FAST6191]

Oh I dunno... sometimes I think you just like to hide behind your wordy posting style in a bid to challenge yourself as to how far off topic you can take a thread without being detected. What on earth does a reviewer only playing through a beat-em-up with a single fighter have to do with a game going off-genre?

Back on topic it's interesting to see quite a split of opinions here. I was expecting that on a gaming forum, where most posters spend a lot of time playing and mastering games, they there'd be a lot of people coming out in favour of games going off-genre for the sake of variety. It's nice to see that there are also some people who argee with me, though.

I might insult people in a wordy fashion but I tend not to push things off topic.

Anyway the premise of the topic was that at some level there is a "proper" way to play and make things, and that was just spinning up a hypothetical (albeit one people might well meet and fall into problems with in the real world on a regular basis). I find it an absurd notion myself, perhaps even more so than the idea of genres, much less what game playing types tend to use as genres. While certainly not impossible for a game to take a radically different shift in gameplay style, even mandating it to "progress"*, and it making it as a whole rather less fun to play I find myself utterly ambivalent at the notion in general.


*your earlier example about a shmup/shooter level in a platformer or whatever apparently counting where Sonic special stages did not I would just as easily be able to spin as "the game ends at the shooter stage, consider it accordingly". If you can define arbitrary things like special stages don't count then you can do that too. I am however all for arbitrary play and encourage everybody to make their own fun at all points, the intentions of the developer being about as relevant as what one of said same developers had for dinner one weekend when making it.

 

[Pleng]

Anyway the premise of the topic was that at some level there is a "proper" way to play and make things,

No it wasn't. But of course, it's true there are good, bad, better and worse ways to achieve anything in life.

*your earlier example about a shmup/shooter level in a platformer or whatever apparently counting where Sonic special stages did not I would just as easily be able to spin as "the game ends at the shooter stage, consider it accordingly". If you can define arbitrary things like special stages don't count then you can do that too.

Maybe you've not actually played a Sonic game before? You don't even need to *enter*, let alone complete a special stage to progress through the levels in a linear fashion. Saying that a game ends halfway through because you come across a level you don't like is just absurd. If you honestly can't tell the difference then so be it.

I am however all for arbitrary play and encourage everybody to make their own fun at all points, the intentions of the developer being about as relevant as what one of said same developers had for dinner one weekend when making it.

Indeed... and that "arbitrary play" becomes extremely difficult in a linear game such as a platformer, when the developer throws a massive curveball without providing any kind of alternative route.

 

[FAST6191]

If I can stop reading a book at a given chapter, or entry in the series, or similar for videos (I watched the first half of full metal jacket a while back, had a great time), albums and whatever else then I fail to see why I could not do it for a game. Similarly there is an old joke about the everybody playing the first level or two of Deus Ex umpteen times, which is fine as they are some great levels and explore some cool stuff.

I can understand why some might think the way you describe, it being a way a lot of people are encouraged to approach the world (see also achievements in games). However in the end it all seems just as arbitrary and if you can just as arbitrarily remove story for yourself, ignore single player in a multiplayer game or ignore clear end goals (ones the dev added no less -- in the case of Sonic the dev added the feature, added the "win" condition, clearly intended them to be a challenge within the game -- if they are mostly only available through exploration or getting to checkpoints without being hit then it is there to get the player to demonstrate a certain level of mastery) then I can just as easily take it a step further and draw my own finish line in your example.

Going for another option. The difference between platformer and shmup is often very small, they certainly test many of the same things (reaction speed, prediction, pattern recognition, often accuracy/ballistics of some flavour). Might then you be the weird one that draws a line?

 

[Ryccardo]

2 games I quite liked (although not exactly prominent in my all-time best ranking), the 2nd Harry Potter for PS1 and Haven for PS2, are actually deliberate genre-compilations with the right amount of bugs and cheesiness to be hilarious... and to a lesser extent, what about all the WarioWares?

 

[Pleng]

@FAST6191 You've shown in the past that you have completely different understanding of concepts to the generally accepted norm, so there's not much point continuing this discussion. Suffice to say I think that most normal people are happy with the concept that "finishing" a game (getting from the beginning of the first level to the end of the last level) and "totalling" (unlocking every achievement, getting every collectable etc) it are different things. Indeed this is why I carefully chose the term "finishing" as opposed to "totalling" or the arguably ambiguous term "completing" (which I grant, could be taken to bean either finishing or totalling).

2 games I quite liked (although not exactly prominent in my all-time best ranking), the 2nd Harry Potter for PS1 and Haven for PS2, are actually deliberate genre-compilations with the right amount of bugs and cheesiness to be hilarious... and to a lesser extent, what about all the WarioWares?

Sure, games that are sold as mini-game compilations, or advertised as being mash-ups of genres are fine. What I have issues with is when I've paid good money for a game advertised and sold as Genre-X, and half way through a totally off-genre level is plonked in.