Video games are a business, and all publishers must analyze their sales numbers if they want to know which games are being played the most; that's how you find your target-audience, right? Not if I have anything to say about it. Today's blog will present a counter-thesis to the practice of designating a set of gamers to be your one and only objective, instead of appealing to the masses of what most consider to be ''minorities.''
If you head to your local Gamestop today and check out the list of games on the shelves, you'll most likely come across a staggering amount of shooters. This is to be expected, as that's the genre gamers love the most... or so you would think. Is it really the consensus (of actual players) that a first-person shooter is ''the most fun experience?'' In actuality, most people would beg to differ. The reason there is an over-saturation of shooter games is because the publishers behind those millions of dollars-worth of funding are careful not to waste their money; they fund games based solely on statistics. In this case, the renowned Call of Duty franchise's sales numbers come into sight first and foremost, and it happens to be in the ''shooter genre.'' Bingo: over-saturation of shooters.
I can see the business-side of this practice, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's logic behind it. After all, gamers aren't statistics. Most of us didn't start out playing shooters, and even the ones that do have a singular exposure to shooter games would admit to wanting something new. It's just that they never actually know what it is they want changed. Just the other day I was talking to a friend of mine who was burnt out on the ''shooter genre,'' and I asked him about trying out a new genre, like an RPG; he told me, ''I'm not really into those sorts of games,'' yet... he wasn't able to tell me what he was into either. So is he just not cut out for a specific genre? Is that really what we're meant to glean from someone saying he doesn't like the current stock of RPGs at his local Gamestop? I pose a new outlook on video games to those residing in this unhappy party, and it can be summed up in one sentence: there is really no such thing as a genre.
''What?!'' I can hear you saying, ''No such thing as a genre?! Have you lost your mind?!'' Bear with me as I explain where this misconception came from in the first place. In the old days, when game developers spent all of their effort creating totally new types of experiences, we took to calling a game like The Elder Scrolls an ''RPG,'' and games like Doom a ''first-person shooter,'' because those were some of the early inspirations for copy-cats to come. Henceforth, we took to tagging any game that used an element from one of those originators a member of that ''genre'' (or if the game used multiple elements from those genres, it was labeled a ''hybrid''). Take our beloved Call of Duty for example. When Modern Warfare came out, people were saying it had RPG elements (because of the ability to level up); that earned it the title ''an FPS/RPG hybrid,'' at least to begin with; funny how my burnt-out-on-shooters friend said he wasn't into RPGS....
Nowadays, leveling up in multiplayer is a must-have mechanic if you want your games to sell. But that's not because ''shooter fans'' just love ''RPG elements.'' No... gamers just like to have fun experiences, and that element of leveling up just happens to fit with Call of Duty's model. I mean, what is an RPG anyway? Let's say it's a game where you get to talk to people. Well I can talk to people in lots of games, including Halo (I interact by pressing the ''action'' button, and they respond). Okay, maybe that's not what defines an RPG. Is it the ability to change the outcome of the story? Well I can do that in a lot of games, too (most of which people don't consider to be RPGs, like Dishonored, Far Cry 3, and Singularity). Is it leveling up then? Come come, now... the RPG genre as we know it today is solely based on the predecessors that defined it. But there really is no way to define an RPG objectively.
What about the other genres? Is Call of Duty a racing game? After all, you're able to drive vehicles in time-based action sequences (and come to think of it, those sequences happen to be the series' highlight ''set-piece moments'' that helped earn it so much acclaim). Was the game made for ''racing fans?'' What defines the racing genre? The ability to drive cars? If so, that's a totally subjective stereotype, since you can ''race'' on many different sorts of mounts, including sci-fi vehicles, animals, and even bugs (refer to Antz Extreme Racing). So if we get rid of stereotyping the sorts of mounts that are allowed in the so-called racing genre, why can't any game that has you racing against time be a ''racing game?'' A better question would be, ''Why label a game as being part of a ''genre'' in the first place?''
Mentioning genres is okay for gamers to do when referring to specific gameplay mechanics, so as to help their friends better understand a game's contents; just as it's okay for reviewers to claim a game is an ''FPS/RPG hybrid.'' What's dangerous is when developers go around using ''genres'' as an excuse to find a ''target-audience.'' This alienates gamers from having a different experience because a target-audience inevitably leads to a narrow mindset of what belongs in that ''genre'' (this is especially apparent in the biggest one of all, the shooter genre). To prove my point, I'd like to refer to a quote from Della Rocca:
''... a lot of corporate decisions are made based on historical sales data. If I've got this great idea for a Cows in Space, then they look at the data and say, Jeez, there's no other Cows in Space games. There's no history, there's no competition, there's no past examples, there's just no data to support us giving you $20 million to make your Cows in Space idea.''
Developers are shooting themselves in the foot by viewing us as statistics; if genres don't exist, then there's nothing stopping me from liking something other than what I've got, if only someone would offer it to me; I'd jump over to a well-made racing/FPS/shooter or a third-person/flight-sim/puzzle game any day if developers would get their creative juices flowing. They'd make a lot more money if only they gave us some innovation in the genres no one has innovated upon. Look at the flight-simulator genre, the racing genre; both are in stark disrepair because no one is willing to break competition with their counterparts and create something unique. That is a crying shame, as these untapped game-types have unlimited potential.
As the gaming industry continues to mature, hopefully the developers will as well. It's not right to restrict gamers from trying something new based on sales data; they really do want something different to play. Sooner or later, companies will realize what potential lies in ditching the target-audience and treating gamers like the people who we really are: guys and gals who just want to have fun, regardless of genre.
Thanks for reading.