Computer and video game genres |
=What are the genres=
I think shooters is too vague when there are already FPS, third-person and side-scrolling shooters already listed 01:01, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
:I m at a loss how to describe 01:06, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
:: 02:33, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
::: It might be worth having a retro subsection under which those simple shooters go.
:::: Retro is certainly more descriptive; I like it. - 03:02, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
::::: I ve been struggling to resolve the difference between retro shooters and real shoot-em-ups too. Obviously, 20:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
::::I like Retro . But perhaps non-scrolling shooters would be even more descriptive. Then all shoot-em-ups are classified under (requiring progressively more hardware, and hence historically appearing in this order): non-scrolling shooters , Shoot em up / Scrolling shooters , First-person shooters , and Third person shooters . ... Or I suppose you could call it a side-scrolling shooter that doesn t scroll (allusion to the video-game-centered movie [http://imdb.com/title/tt0087597/ The Last Starfighter] ). -- 05:34, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Where s any mention of massively multiplayer online games And their precursors 22:39, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
: Text adventures are mentioned under Adventure games. However, I have to wonder: do they count as video games I don t know, and personally I always eschew the term because it s kind of redundant. Computer games is nice and precise.
:: Very true, should the old VHS cross board game nightmare be a video game It s not what most people think of as one. I d support moving this page to Computer game genre (or maybe even list of computer game genres)
::: Apparently the argument about computer games vs video games has been had before, as evidenced on Video game and the talk page for that article. But I second that the page should be moved. Computer games is the broader definition, and I have yet to see any convincing description of the difference.
:::: Page moved, to bring it in line with 02:43, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Is Prince of Persia notable enough to list under Platform games
What flight simulators aren t serious Are you serious 
Perhaps the serious section should say ... except for simulators .
--
05:34, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
:
: I think real flight sim fans would consider them to not be games rather than not being serious. 05:42, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
:::To 17:10, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What is being touched on, in this discussion, is a part of the larger controversy surrounding game genres. Frankly, people are free to invent genres at will, and do so, irrespective of any real philology or coherent theory. So I think listing and describing genres here is not objectionable but it s going to be very difficult to propose compelling arguments that one set of genres is properly identified (or hierarchically ordered) as this-or-that while another is not because there simply no definitive set. These are subjective classifications and too much argument about them is borish. I propose listing all genres at the same level (e.g. 20:11, 11 March 2004 (UTC)
= Re-arranging the page =
I think the alphabetical mode of listing isn t the best. FPS and TPS should be listed together in category individual combat . Adventure and Roleplaying should be listed together under individual action (or somesuch.) I.E.
==Individual Combat==
===FPS===
===TPS===
That way, related genres can be grouped together and their differences and similarities explored and explained. 00:25, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
:I don t think that particular taxonomy really works. Crossreferencing is a better idea, since there are plenty of games that get categorized in one genre that have next to nothing in common with games of related genres (should 01:17, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
When you reduce them both to their essential core, why should they not be categorized together In both you are solving a series of puzzles and combating a number of monsters while moving across a map in order to complete the game. Thus they belong to same top level category (let s call it Quest for discussion s sake), while within the category Quest are the sub-categories Adventure and Role-Playing. Thus it s easy to see at a glance that while they are related, they are different.
Not every genre will be a sub-category however, Puzzles and Simulation would be both a top level category and a genre for example. (Though Simulation has a sub category God Games.) 06:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
:At some point we have to stop excercising personal preferences here. (See my previous note.) It is not the job of Wikipedians to express POV or 07:43, 12 March 2004 (UTC)
Doesn t really have anything to do with POV, but a novel classification system is original research and thus undesirable. Instead, pick a reputable book and use its classification system. If you have a better system, publish a book on it and we can use it then. 07:52, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
, I just worry that selecting one from those that have been proposed in books (some more reputable than others) is still an excercise of preference. Below is the structure proposed by Laramee in Game Design Perspectives (© 2002 CRM) and begun with his own quote: : Any taxonomy of games is bound to be incomplete, controversial, and at least partially ambiguous... - F.D. Laramee *Action Games
:I think there s a misunderstanding about NPOV - it means neutral , not no point of view. Most everybody understands that genres are not hard and fast, and there is a point where we have to use some of our own brainpower in deciding how to organize. Lots of subdivision is fine, just as long as each one is attested by an authoritative source, and if a subdivision is uncommon, NPOV just means we say this subgenre is not commonly identified . Discussion of genres and genre-crossing games is good to include here, because WP is the perfect place to separate the avalanche of marketing hype from reality. 17:31, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
My only point in proposing an organization other than alphabetical is place similiar genres adjacent to each other. Right now they are scattered across the page and providing a misleading idea of the total number of and relationships between genres. Sean s idea of cross-referencing seems cumbersome when all the entries are on one page as they are. (And they don t really belong on more than one page.) Leaving them all as top-level but abandoning alpabetical arrangement might serve both purposes. 18:00, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
:But if we abandon alpha listing, how will they be listed then If we list like genres together, that just prepetuates the problem. Alpha listing (with or without crossrefs) is the best way to do this IMHO. - 08:32, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
= Asteroids not a Scrolling Shooter=
I m confused about the classification of 02:01, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
:Classifying video games is often tricky. But if you look at the description for scrolling shooter you ll see that it says that the background scrolls. This is true for Asteroids —the asteroids keep moving around. This is what I beleive was meant by the scrolling part of scrolling shooter. But it could also arguably be classified as a Shoot em up. This is true for many games—they just don t fit nicely into one genre (e.g. Diablo is both an action and RPG game). HTH — 13:51, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
::I m aware of the description, because I wrote it. ;) I m also familiar with the difficulty in classification, but my point still stands. The background in Asteroids doesn t scroll, because it has no background. The asteroids are foreground elements, and they don t scroll either, they just move around in random directions. Scrolling is a different thing; it s when the entire screen moves in a direction. (I believe the term derives from a paper scroll being wound round a roller.)
::I could also complicate this further by adding that games like 14:14, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
:Okay, now I m confused. Are you also 19:54, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
:: Yes, I don t have a static IP. And to further complicate matters, I ve got myself a username now, but hopefully that should solve the problem. :) 01:08, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
:Great, that should help matters. I d say go ahead and change it to something else. There are plenty of other examples to choose from. — 14:12, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
::Okay, I ve expanded on Shoot em ups a little; however, I m not sure if I m being POV or not. I m a big shoot em up fan, so I know what people tend to regard as being a true shoot em up , but obviously that s a bias.
::I think perhaps there needs to be a distinction between scrolling shoot em ups and continuously scrolling shoot em ups. In 18:29, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
= FPS revert =
I object to the revert of my changes to an older version. Information about the effect of FPS on 3D technology is not mentioned in the FPS article. However I will place it in that article instead of here. 08:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
= Hybrids =
Most game genres are so mixed up together that they effectively create a new genre all by themselves. However all of us recognise that there are some standard archetypes that are a perfect example of a type of game. What I propose is to name those archetypes and then create a secondary hybrid category where games are assigned two archetypes.
For example:
;Basic Genres *Adventure Archetypes: Monkey Island, King s Quest *RPG Archetypes: Eye of the Beholder, Baldur s Gate *TBS Archetypes: Civilization, Sim City *Puzzle Archetypes: 7th Guest *FPS: Doom, Quake, Unreal
;Hybrids *Adventure-RPGs: Quest for Glory *TBS-RPGS: Fallout Tactics, Heroes of Might and Magic *Puzzle-Adventures: Myst, Riven *Puzzle-Platform: 3 Vikings *Puzzle-Platform-FPS: Tomb Raider
Just like colors have 3 basics that are combined to produce all the others, games have some basics that can be combined to produce any other type that does not fit into one specific genre. Even games that could fit in do many genres could be classified without problem. For example, say a new GTA came out that had RPG elements as well; where would it fit
What do you think 10:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
PS: Generally, it is very hard to categorize games because there are many categorizing groups that overlap and are not always exclusive of each other. For example, games could be categorized as
*By pacing: Real Time or Turn Based *By type of gameplay: Action ( Platform, Shooting, Fighting ), RPGs, Strategy ( Tactics, Resource Management) , Sports ( Although some would argue this is action ), Simulators ( Driving, Flight, Space Opera, Sci-Fi ) etc *By View: First Person, Third Person ( Top View, Behind view, Variant view) Scrolling, Static.
All these combined create a game, and games can use many of these (mainly gameplay types) to create something unique. Grand theft auto for example would be a Real Time - Action - Third Person game. More specificaly it would be a Real Time - Driving/Shooting - Behind View game with strategy elements.
What I think we need to do is trim down the list to the basest genres and then crease the hybrids (not all of them, mind you, maybe just the most influencing) 12:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For consistency with a recent move from 02:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
= Serious games =
I am pretty confused about the inclusion of the genre serious . I do not think you can use that name as a distinct genre. It should be more correct to include the notion of serious games in the video games overview page under a header recent evolutions - although this is just a suggestion.
Further proof that serious games are not a genre, but an evolution is that all the games mentioned under the genre are easily re-categorisable. I.e. the Wallmart game would fit nicely under Simulation , while America s Army and Full Spectrum Warrior clearly are first-person shooters...
edit: signed in. ;) -- 08:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:Serious games are a new genre of computer and video games. Not many people have heard of them because they are generally not released to the public at large (with notable exceptions, such as America s Army and Full Spectrum Warrior ). If you were a video game professional, you would no doubt heard of this new genre, since for the third year in a row the Game Developers Conference will host the Serious Games Summit.
:Games fitting into more than one genre is nothing new. For example, Diablo (computer game) is an computer role playing game and an action game. Pigeon-holing games into one genre is unnecessary and often inaccurate. Therefore, labeling America s Army as a first-person shooter and a serious game is appropriate.
:FWIW: I ve had this discussion before. If you like, you can go read the 17:33, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
::hmm... I see what you mean and you are absolutely correct that the idea of Serious games should be mentioned on wikipedia. It is quite a good article too you have written. I do however think that it is not belonging in the list of video game genres. That list should remain as consice as possible, it should be a video game taxonomy - with indeed various games crossing over from one genre to the other and back to a third much like you mentioned. ::Yet, your - and indeed correct - concept of serious game is more about the game s goal, its reason of existence and / or creation and not so much about their execution, method of interaction or their presentation which is what the genres are about.
::In other words, Video game genre defines how a game is presented; which implies how the user interacts with the environment. While serious would more connect to why a game is created. swim -- 21:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:ISWYM. I don t oppose the removal of serious game as a genre. A serious game can be of any genre, but what a serious game tries to accomplish is what identifies it as such. An FPS or an RTS can both be a serious game, but the serious game classification has little impact on their genre. Go ahead and change if you wish. 21:24, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
:If this isn t beating a dead horse, I ll give my input before removing it. Serious is not a genre. It s meerly a description of how a game is used, or a silly title like interactive media . If they found that missile command trained people for a certain strange interface to some defence system, would the label Serious game apply to it Yes. Has the genre, way it s played, anything about the game, changed No. Therefore, Serious is not a genre. :But what about the counterexample of educational games Right. Well, if you can tell from gameplay alone that it s an educational game, then it s a genre. Can you play a game for a bit and say that it s an educational game I m sure you could. What about a serious game Well, you d either call it a simulator, or a training game - educational game in disguise. 04:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
= Fixed shooters =
Right, I ve held off long enough. :)
Could we please clarify this Fixed shooter thing I have never heard any game referred to as a fixed shooter. I ve never even heard of the genre. And I m a big shoot em up fan. Therefore, to have it as a main genre doesn t make sense to me.
Secondly - the classification of scrolling shooters as a subgenre of fixed shooters seems absurd to me. This is like classifying every tennis game as a subclass of Pong.
My solution is just to class all these shooters under the single genre of shoot em up. It is the traditional name for this kind of game, and has been since at least the early nineties.
I would have done this, but I didn t want to mess up the system already in use. 17:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
= Re-arranging, again =
I don t really like how this page is organized, for many of the same reasons previously posted. I think it would be good to get a collection of genres together, argue over which ones are worth including or not, and then find a good way to group the genres. Here s my proposal: 04:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Popular: (or need to be mentioned )
Notable:
Historical:
Unless there s disagreement, I ll begin re-arrangement/rewrite shortly. 04:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:Personally, I think Platform is a major genre and DOES include 3D platform games such as Mario 64 etc. 07:32, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
::Yeah, I definitely get what you re saying, but then what s the change from platform to 3rd person, or third person adventure There was a very drastic change from the 2D platform games into the third person non-shooters. Compare super mario on the snes to the mario that came out for nintendo 64 - they did try to keep the theme very much intact, but when you compare 2d sidescrolling games like mario (snes and under), metroid, and sonic to third person games like mario64, conkers, and zelda(64), there s a definite difference. I don t think they re the same genre at all, despite the fact that so many platform series moved into this form of 3d game. I think that the article should mention that a lot of things like atmosphere, etc did not loose themselves as the transition was made (in terms of individual series), but it should clearly seperate the two. 08:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::Theres grey lines everywhere, but I really don t see much of a difference like you obviously do. It s 3D. That s pretty much it. Mario 64 is considered a platformer by almost everyone. I propose this structure for page: (with notes)
*Action (1) **Fighting **First-person shooter **Platformer ***2D ***3D **Shoot em up **Stealth **Survival horror **Third-person shooter *Adventure (2) **Interactive movies (3) **Third-person *Arcade (Replaces Retro - see below (4)) *Educational *Music *Party *Puzzle *Racing *RPG **MMORPG *Serious *Sports *Strategy **Real-time strategy **Turn-based strategy *Traditional
1) Every FPS or TPS is an action game. I added this section for structure.
2) Technically speaking Adventure is usually a part of Action hench Action-Adventure . I moved it out and seperated it to allow it be it s own section because there is a pretty big difference between games like Contra and Zelda and not every adventure game is considered action (see what we have under Adventure presently for ex). Under adventure we would explain this a little better.
3) Not really sure about this. Go with whatever.
4) How do you define retro in the present day I understand what someone was going for here, but games like Pac-Man are arcade games. Games like these are still being made today (although not as much) for systems like Game Boy. Snood is arcade. Under our present structure there is no place to add this game.
I do not agree with what is notable and what is a major genre. I think a structure like that is borderline POV and really hard to maintain as some would disagree with what is notable or major and move sections around. I m open to suggestions on this proposal. Perhaps I missed a genre.
:Perhaps I m using the wrong words. Major genres are what everyone is familiar with nowadays. Notable genres is a mix between games that are substantially dropping in popularity, have limited games of the genre, and genres that don t really exist on their own. All (except one) of the first level genres under major are not dropping in popularity, and are, well, major. The one that isn t is MMORPGs (should be under rpgs) and MMO (should be a secondary genre). As for the genres under notable, there are various reasons for them being there:
:Traditional games should be moved up.
:Secondary genre means an additional genre that a game may be . For example, it would be too much to state genres like educational fps (training game), educational strategy, educational ...(and so on). Educational, like horror or stealth, are atmospheric genres (for lack of better terminology).
:For platformers, I don t mind either way, as long as the distinction is there between 2d and 3d.
:I don t agree with the major sections of your classification - it adds action and adventure as ways to group other genres, but there s too much overlap, in my opinion. With that gone, it s relatively flat and unorganized. I think that having the major (best known) genres an the top and old and defunct genres at the bottom is good, as that s a rather concrete way to chop it. Secondary genres can be any of the major genres , so they should be seperate. Genres that see limited popular release should be seperate as well - party games(too few), shootemups(fading), music(too few)... 22:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Theres overlap everwhere. The article specifically mentions this and gives the example of Zelda which is an Action-Adventure third person with RPG elements. Metroid Prime is a first-person shooter action-adventure game with similar RPG elements to Zelda. Tons and tons of games overlap now-a-days, but I feel that what I wrote is the best organized way of listing them. In addition to thinking that listing by notable and major is borderline POV (even though most have good cause, I agree somewhat) I don t see why it s necessary. Whats really the point other than to say that this genre isn t as popular as others, which some already mention in their description. ::What do you mean by moving Traditional up Their listed alphabetically and I don t see how card games etc really fit with another genre. 22:54, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
:::About the overlap, of course, and that s why I think splitting them as such will not work - specific examples of genres that are in the middle: stealth, platformers, horror. It splits games up based on how much of a storyline they have, or how much you think in them. Action is almost like a genre of it s own - fast reflexes and not much thought (jumping around, attacking, etc), while adventure is a game that has a rich storyline and less hostile play (defeating things vs playing through a story). I don t think they re sufficiently exclusive from each other to serve as ways to group games. On the other hand, bygone genres are easy to split out, as are declining genres (2d platformers, shootemups), and genres that don t really exist on their own (stealh, horror, for example, are atmospheric as opposed to goal/method-based).
:::I meant to say move traditional up to major genres. Considering the many sites that house them, they are in no way a small share of the market. 04:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::::I m new to wiki, but am looking to get involved so let me throw my 2 cents into the fray about a couple of things:
::::*I think arranging the genres by perceived popularity or relevance may be difficult to maintain over the long run. As new genres are invented and others fall by the wayside, the ordering would need to be in a constant state of flux. A neutral method (like alphabetical or by relationships) would probably be easier. ::::*I ve always thought that Action is a junk genre. It s not needed, as anything you would classify as Action can also be classified as something else anyway. ::::*Adventure vs Action-Adventure vs RPG. The problem here is that there are really two types of Adventure: text adventures (Infocom) and their graphically enhanced descendents (Sierra adventures, etc.) and what Nintendo attempted to establish as a new kind of Adventure (Zelda, Metroid, Kid Icarus, etc.). This new kind of adventure (action-adventure if we need a different name) is marked by exploration, puzzles, and key items just like text adventures, but also puts the player in complete control of the characters actions unlike the limited choices that text adventures offer. Viewed in this perspective, a lot of horror and stealth games actually fall into this category. What s the difference between exploring a creepy mansion with your shotgun (Resident Evil) and exploring Hyrule with your sword (Legend of Zelda) To me, RPGs are strictly games with things like char levels, stats up the wazoo, and hundreds of items. I don t see how games like Zelda really come close to fitting in this category. ::::*Retro vs Arcade. I like the term Arcade for the reasons listed above in note #4. It s fairly easy to classify any game where the action takes place primarily on one non-scrolling screen at a time as an arcade game. 03:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::::I almost forgot... shouldn t there be a light gun genre These are completely different from FPSs, TPSs, and shmups if for no other reason then the input device. Duck Hunt, Area 51, and those fire fighting arcade games would be prime examples of this. I guess technically you could call these FPSs as it s really the ultimate in first person shooting, but most people don t think about them in the same way. 04:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(I ve dropped down out of the five indents, for easier replies) New genres don t come up often, and the ones that are there aren t really going away. The biggist change that I ve seen recently is the large amount of puzzle, cheap rpg, etc. games that are available via the internet. Action as a junk genre... I agree, though not completely. Hmmm... I go off into a relevant deviation:
Action, adventure, and strategy are the main goal oriented genres I believe. Each one is very distinct too, I think. Action would be fps, most arcade (music games being among these), anything fast paced - things that directly mess with the moreso aggressive emotions. The rush is the driving force here. Adventure is about going through a storyline, and arguably, gaining things: rpgs, the text adventures, etc. There are two aspects, collection and accumulation (stats, items, etc), and discovery. They are different, of course, but for these purposes they more or less go hand in hand. Strategy games are the ones that force you to think - obviously tbs and rts, puzzle games, etc.
First person shooters (like CS) are generally action, but strategy emerges as a second driving force later on . Diablo 2 is an action adventure. Tetris is a strategy-action. NetHack is strategy-adventure (action emerges if you care enough about your character). The Sims is a slight strategy, discovery-adventure, heavily collection/accumulation. And so on.
Universe type genres come next I think, where you group similar universes. First person shooters (fp, holding a gun, intent to shoot), turn based/realtime strategy (looking down at a landscape), arcade (very abstract universes), fighters (two people fighting), third person shooters (holding a gun..), third person platformers, side view platformers, scrolling shooters... if there were enough popular games that took up the whole pac man thing, there d be pac-maners .
Setting is the last one. This refers to fantasy, science-fiction (like space games), alternate apocalyptic universe games (current time , but things are drastically different), realistic games (ranging from normal person up to superspy ). These can of course each be divided up further based on setting, and they can be mixed (chrono trigger, for example). For the games like arcade and puzzle this doesn t apply as much.
Based on these three criterea, You can then break games up into the elements that they have (listed here are universe types , combinations are more than possible, and then examples as goals would apply to them): *first person **fps are towards action **sneakers are towards action of a different sort, and adventure *third person **zelda, tomb raider - moreso adventure **grand theft auto, diablo 2 - action/adventure **max payne (I think) - moreso action *for person games, do you have intent to kill, or is it more abstract **fps and tps are kill, moreso action **3d platformers aren t, moreso adventure *top down onto landscape, and unit management **the sims - moreso accumulation/adventure **starcraft - action strategy *abstract games **mostly strategy/thought.
...where was I before I started with this Right, I have no idea anymore. We were mostly arranging things based on universe type I think 09:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Shortly after I posted here, I realized that a page like this might not even really be necessary as it s really just a list of genres. After a little exploration, I think I like the idea of using Categories like this one [Category:Computer and video game genres] to organize and subdivide all of this information. The blurbs that are written on this page for each genre could then be used on the page for each individual genre. It would also make classifying hybrid games easier because you could just make it a member of more than one genre Category, or you could make a Category for hybrid genres that is a sub-Category of both of its parent genres. Either way, it s going to be next to impossible to come up with a consensus on a lot of this stuff because there are so many cooks... 21:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Yes, this is more of a list, because there really isn t much to say about cvg genres apart from the small intro. Most of the understanding though lies in the descriptions. The main point of this page is to not make the user jump through all the genre pages. Makes it easier to absorb the information. 00:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
= Moved text =
I think the below text confuses the adventure section, so I ve moved it here: 06:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) :In the terminology of console video games, adventure games are games which involve exploration of, and interaction with, the environment as a main facet of gameplay. The term adventure here refers to Adventure (Atari 2600) on the Atari 2600 instead of Colossal Cave Adventure . :Notable console adventure games include the Legend of Zelda series series, the Tomb Raider series and the Grand Theft Auto (series) series. A more precise term for this genre is action adventure.
= NPOV =
It should be noted that all who are intrested in this subdivision pay close attention to the new MMORTS in development, Earth 2160: Online as it shows great promise. This Doesn t seem to be NPOV to me, more like shameless advertising. But I m new here and to shy to just remove it at this moment.
:I wonder how that slipped by. I ve removed it. 01:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
= Can the Retro genre ever be superceded =
I m not sure about that retro genre and I m even MORE unsure that if it is a genre, that it s been superceded. Basically while companies continue to rerelease old games (usually in packs but not necessarily) can the retro genre ever be classed as obsolete or no longer in use
If the above sounds funny and metaphysical it wasn t meant to be that way. I m serious - the retro genre will surely keep being used regularly...
=Who moved this article=
Who moved this article and why This is not a list of computer and video games by genre. That would imply that it s a big list of video games, separated by genre. It s not: it s a list of video game genres, with examples from each genre. I elect to move it back to Computer and video game genres . Any objections 21:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
:Pretty soon here I m going to assume that they re aren t any objections and move it back... 14:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
:: I totally agree, move it back. -- 20:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC) ::I took care of it. There is already a 02:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
= Tycoons as Genre =
Hi, There are so many Tycoons out there, they re neither City-Building nor Godlike Games. The description of Simulations doesn t fit either. So I d like to propose a new Genre for all of these: *Theme Park *Transport Tycoon *School Tycoon *Railroad Tycoon *Cruise Ship Tycoon *Rollercoaster Tycoon *Skateboard Park Tycoon *Pizza Tycoon *Airline Tycoon *Airport Tycoon *Business Tycoon *Cruise Line Tycoon *Fast Food Tycoon *Hotel Giant *Mall Tycoon *Railroad Tycoon *Zoo Tycoon ...and so on. What do you think -- 20:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
:I don t think so. Tycoon games are a combination of strategy, resource management and RTS games. I don t think they deserve a separate category. Just my $.02...|
|