Talk:Video game genres

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article was a past project collaboration.

Is the big list really necessary?[edit]

This is a truly massive article. I am beginning to wonder if the entire list of small sections with lists of examples and links to main articles is really necessary. Perhaps we can cut it down into a few paragraphs about a generalization in which narrower gameplay genres fall under. Instead of having sections for TRPGs and ARPGs, we could only have one section about RPGs in general. We can consider that to get rid of that cleanup tag hovering over the article for two years now.  Marlith (Talk)  17:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been paying attention to this article for a while, and making small changes to help it along. But I'm starting to think that it needs a fundamental rethinking. Right now, the article is basically re-telling of the information in all the different video game genre articles. It's basically a rehash or summary of what you see in shoot 'em up, 4X, real-time strategy, first-person shooter, etc... not only is this redundant, but it makes it harder to maintain as this summary article and the more detailed articles can diverge. Maybe it's time to just distill this down to a discussion of what it means to be a video game genre (e.g.: what's in the lead). That's how film genre is organized. Meanwhile, we have Template:Video game genre that offers a navigational aid to the more detailed articles. I'm thinking out loud. What do you think? Randomran (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
What I'd suggest is moving each umbrella genre like action game to a level 3 header and bullet-pointing the genres underneath, with an aim to cover each with one or two sentences. No examples, just a very basic explanation and a link pointing readers to the relevant article. Shooter games, though they're action games, could probably do with separating into their own section. 'Video game genres by purpose' and all those see also links could do with having a list of their own, this article is about gameplay-derived genres and they are out of place. Doing that would enable enough room to be given to exploring the concept of genres in the first area. I think the images are OTT, 3 or 4 should cover it. Someoneanother 15:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For example compare this:

  • Action-adventure (level 3)

Action-adventure games combine elements of their two component genres, typically featuring long-term obstacles that must be overcome using a tool or item as leverage (which is collected earlier), as well as many smaller obstacles almost constantly in the way, that require elements of action games to overcome. Action-adventure games tend to focus on exploration and usually involve item gathering, simple puzzle solving, and combat.

  • Stealth games emphasize subterfuge and precision attacks over the direct attacks of shooter games. Most have first- or third-person shooter elements, but there are some exceptions.
  • Survival horror games focus on fear and attempt to scare the player via traditional horror fiction elements such as atmospherics, death, the undead, blood and gore. One crucial gameplay element in many of these games is the low quantity of ammunition, or number of breakable mêlée weapons.

to how it currently looks:

  • Action-adventure (level 2)

Action-adventure games combine elements of their two component genres, typically featuring long-term obstacles that must be overcome using a tool or item as leverage (which is collected earlier), as well as many smaller obstacles almost constantly in the way, that require elements of action games to overcome. Action-adventure games tend to focus on exploration and usually involve item gathering, simple puzzle solving, and combat.

The first action-adventure game was the Atari 2600 game Adventure (1979). It was directly inspired by the original text adventure, Colossal Cave Adventure. In the process of adapting a text game to a console with only a joystick for control, designer Warren Robinett created a new genre. Because of their prevalence on video game consoles and the absence of typical adventure games, action-adventure games are often confusingly called "adventure games" by console gamers.

  • Stealth (level 3)

Stealth games are a somewhat recent genre, sometimes referred to as "sneakers" or "creepers" to contrast with the action-oriented "shooter" sub-genre. These games tend to emphasize subterfuge and precision strikes over the more overt mayhem of shooters. Most have first- or third-person shooter elements, but there are some exceptions like Tenchu: Stealth Assassins.

  • Survival horror (level 3)

Survival horror games focus on fear and attempt to scare the player via traditional horror fiction elements such as atmospherics, death, the undead, blood and gore. One crucial gameplay element in many of these games is the low quantity of ammunition, or number of breakable mêlée weapons.

This does several things: a) it cuts down on the page size, b) it removes duplicated clutter from the genres' articles, c) it sticks to the point - what are the genres rather than where they came from and are going, d) it exposes each genre to actually being cited and e) it makes expansion possible. Someoneanother 16:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ff4wiki.PNG[edit]

The image Image:Ff4wiki.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I am removing the "Escape the room" sub-genre[edit]

Escape the Room type games are not large enough, in both the number of games like it and the length to complete said games, to justify them as a sub-genre. Plenty of point and click adventure games will have escape the room like puzzles. "Escape the Room" is not a unique puzzle that is separate from other adventure games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyenuh300 (talkcontribs) 23:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to go to Escape the room and propose a merge to Graphic adventure game. I'd support you, but we ought to be consistent across all the articles. If there's no support for a merge, I would add it back to the template and genre article. Randomran (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Escape the room puzzle(s) could be found in The Hobbit text adventure with very few/limited graphics and similar such text based adventures on 8bit systems such as Amstrad CPC, so it is not necessarily a property of graphics adventures alone (talk)


Is there some kind of guideline for games to put as examples for the genres? It seems a bit biased to list only a couple of examples, and neglect other games; not to mention that the games listed are of varying quality and popularity.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 02:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The truth is we probably should remove almost all the examples. It *is* biased. Randomran (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


So what's happening with the collaboration? Are we going to let it die off again? I think someone just needs to take the initative and take it live. We can discuss it endlessly, but the best thing we can do is just get it started and discuss changes afterwards. Dune II would be a good article to get us started (high priority). JACOPLANE • 2009-01-18 17:46

Well the bot is ready, we just need to implement the code. I would do that myself, but the page it is needed on is fully protected. In fact, if we can do today, it's all ready for Monday (tomorrow).--.:Alex:. 18:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I added the code. And now we play the waiting game. Gary King (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It looks like the game is now afoot! The bot has just updated the template, and has chosen Video game genres as the first article for us to work on. And also, everyone should be watching Template:Collab-gaming for future articles. Gary King (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that's an absolutely huge article. It's like...all of video games, in a nutshell. It looks like what it mainly needs are references, and possibly some cleanup.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 02:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
That is a beast of an article. But I think it needs more than general cleanup and referencing. Right now it looks more like "List of video game genres" rather than an article. An overview section describing the term and how it relates to video games would be good. Some more history content would help too. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC))
Minor side note, could an admin would update the Template:WikiProject Video games to change the wording of |CGOTW=yes from "This article is a candidate for Gaming Collaboration of the week." to "This article is the current Gaming Collaboration of the week."? The wording on |old-CGOTW=yes seems to be fine. --PresN 05:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
How do you suggest de-listifying the genres, though? It seems that there are so many subgenres that trying to squish them together would be too confusing. Not to mention that many of the genres have their own main page that describes them in detail.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 07:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad to see this article is the first collaboration. For what it's worth, there's one idea for a radical rewrite on the table: to talk less about specific genres (many of which are just Wikipedia:Content forks that point to the first couple of paragraphs from each genre article), and spend more time talking about what's in the lead. Specifically, how genres are split, why, and how. Turn the specific genres into a much shorter list. I mean, that's why we have the template at the bottom. Randomran (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, as exciting as it is to work on such an important article... we may have actually drafted the hardest article of all. Writing a genre article is hard. Writing an article about all genres in video games? Could prove to be very very difficult. Randomran (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think the article might have been a list at one point (i.e List of video game genres).bridies (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's hard, then it's better to collaborate on because otherwise people would leave it alone.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 17:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Randomran that this is probably one of the more difficult video game article on Wikipedia to write or even improve. I hate to be the pessimist, but I doubt any significant improvements can be done on this article in a week, or even a month depending on the research material out there. :-(
As an alternative though- Since it's already in a list format, it might actually be a better idea to split the bulk of the article off to "List of video game genres", add proper sourcing, rewrite the smaller sections in a more professional and even tone, and go for FL. Any thoughts?
Also, should we be having this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Collaboration of the week? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC))
Yes, but for the sake of clarity, it's being continued here instead. In my opinion, since the article itself states that video games sometimes cannot be defined by a single genre, the article should focus on the characteristics of the different genres rather than listing games that conform to the genre. For that reason I've removed all the examples of games.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 17:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, the quickest and easiest way to get sources might be to look in the actual main genre articles themselves. Most of them have at least one or two references pointing out that there is a genre/subgenre, and what it basically is. It won't get us a *lot* of content, but it will get us one or two sentences about each genre. Arguably that's more than enough -- we may just need a list of the genres, with no description. Randomran (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I would love to have the discussion on the collaboration page instead of here. For one thing, it will encourage people to watch that page. Secondly, people don't have to watch this page and get a bunch of discussions that might be irrelevant to them on their watchlist. Gary King (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Let us take this to Talk:Video game genres, then. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Collaboration of the week should also be on everyone's watchlist to keep informed about future collaborations. Gary King (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Only focus on the major genres?[edit]

Considering that each genre has their own article (Action game, etc.), I think we should only focus on top-level genres, and remove all the subgenres, leaving those for the separate articles to discuss. That should probably be our first step. Thoughts? Gary King (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a legitimate strategy, and we could mention the subgenres in an overall paragraph about the major genres. In the alternative, we could:
  • Talk about genrefication, and how video game scholars group genre by gameplay (see the film genre article for a reference). We'd basically be expanding the lead, and ditching the rest of the article.
  • Turn this into an exhaustive but shorter list about game genres. Basically, summarize what we have now but tighten it up.
  • A combination of both expanding the lead and tightening up the list.
But I also support going through the handfull of major genres, as suggested by Gary King. Randomran (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, details about the sub genres can be discussed in the major genre articles. I think some general info about sub-genres and cross-genres should be discussed in an overview section. Something else to look into are intend audiences of genres. Don't know what can be found about this though. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC))
I don't think the film genre page is a good example at all. It seems to be larger in terms of the definiton, but it's written in an unencyclopedic tone, unreferenced, and the list part goes on strange tangents such as giving examples of all horror films while devoting one sentence to action films. I think this article should be as unbiased as possible and depict genre creation from a historical standpoint. For example, in the history of the Action genre, Pong came before the tactical shooter, and they should be discussed in that order (with historical references).--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 05:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the organization of the film genres article is OK. However, it relies too much on bulletted lists instead of prose, and there are topics that aren't as important in an article about video games. In fact, a lot of the material even in *that* article would be better served in an "genres of fiction" article than one specifically about films. That said, i would probably prefer a different (and less lengthy) format. SharkD (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
It was suggested in the section above that the current material be abbreviated and moved to List of video game genres. That might be a good starting point. SharkD (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure listifying it is the way to go... but I think there's a consensus that there's no need to have 2-3 paragraphs on every subgenre here. We should talk about the best way to condense. I don't think we want a straight list (that's what Template:Video game genre is for). But maybe 10 sections on the major genres, with brief mentions of the subgenres? Randomran (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it needs a list. Gary King (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, what I meant is that we could have two articles: an prose article about the topic in general, and a separate list that mentions all the individual little sub-genres in brief detail that shoudln't otherwise be mentioned in the prose article. SharkD (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems most everyone agrees the sub-genres headings should go for now. And condensing the sub-genre content into brief descriptions under their main genre sounds like a good step to follow that. Any objections?
Slightly related- there's a number of academic papers which briefly discuss genres here and there. They could help with creating a working definition in the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, I think there's a consensus to reduce the number of subgenres, and only focus on major genres (with brief mentions of subgenres). I also think a larger section about genre theory might help. Nothing huge, maybe a couple of paragraphs. But it helps frame the scope of the article, and why it's organized into gameplay, and not (for example) setting or theme. Randomran (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The article looks a lot better than it did before. There's just two main issues that jump out at me when I look at it now: 1) There are LOTS of images—maybe too many of them. 2) The images are too small and you can barely make them out. SharkD (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You can always click on the pictures to make them bigger. Personally, I think an article about genres should have multimedia. If the pics were any bigger they'd take up too much room.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 04:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Serious games?[edit]

The article on "serious games" in Wikipedia seems a bit strange. For one, it appears to be an umbrella category for games such as art games and educational games. Also, "serious" is a relative term - a hardcore gamer could find Gears of War "serious" even though it is an action game. I think that it should be either changed to reflect any differences with other genres, or deleted.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 02:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a few sources that use the term "serious game", but that still doesn't change the relative definition of "serious". How about "socially relevant game"?--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 02:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
"Serious game" has become a term of art, not unlike "platform game" or "nerf". It means more than "a game that isn't funny", or "a game with a lot of intensity" (e.g.: Gears of War, Halo). See [1], [2], [3]... there are more scholarly journals that really focus on serious games, so I'd take the reports from USA Today with a grain of salt here. But the terminology sticks. Randomran (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
"Serious" means "non-entertainment". If that's too vague for you, consider that "serious" games are often funded by by various organizations, such that the prime motivation for creating the game isn't necessarily profit motive (or is OVERRIDINGLY so in the case of advergames). I.e. there's more to playing the games than just "having fun". SharkD (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros. the best-selling video game of all time?[edit]

Recently, Wii Sports has surpassed Super Mario Bros. as the best selling game of all time, so all I did was fix a small inaccuracy. See [4] for proof. Alex 23:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

VGChartz isn't considered a reliable source, for the purpose of Wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
VGChartz eh? *laughs*--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 02:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't aware that Wikipedia was a reliable source either. *smirk* In any case, this page lists Wii Sports as having sold 40.5 million copies, and that cites a reliable source, so I don't see the big deal. Alex 21:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex723723 (talkcontribs)
Actually, Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. That's the whole point of references. But if Nintendo says it's true, then...the non-gamers have won! We're all doomed! Just's not like I care. Really.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Can Wii Sports be considered to be sold? In other territories (such as Japan) Wii Sports must be bought, but in most countries near America, Wii Sports is a pack-in. Does a pack in count as a sell for the game? Are the pack-in numbers being added? P.S. Alex723723 - A study has been done to show that Wikipedia has nearly the same number of errors as the Encyclopedia Britannica.[5] Unfortunately, Nature, the company that did the study, requires a paid subscription. (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Super Mario Bros was also a pack in, so that doesn't really prove anything.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
^PWNAGE (pronounced as "ownage"). Favouratism can't be covered with makeup on Wikipedia. Accept that as horrible as a video game Wii Sports is in the classical sense, it still counts and has outsold all other best selling video games Zoele (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
In the classical sense Wii Sports is a great game. It's multiplayer arcade sports. Those were huge in the Arcade-Atari-NES days (and now, evidently). It's a terrible game in the much later "hardcore" sense.

Christian ideology?[edit]

I'm not a Christian, but won't some Christians find the term "ideology" offensive, given that the word links directly to "Christianity" (and thus the faith as a whole, not some defined subset with political or cultural goals as the term "ideology" might imply). Would "religion", "faith", or "theology" not be better words? And should the genre even refer to Christianity in particular? Shouldn't a hypothetical Islamic, or Buddhistic (or even sceptical) game be in a common category with Christian ones, such as "Faith-based games", or "Religion games" or perhaps "belief-specific games"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to "religion". I don't know of any other faith-specific games other than Christian ones, and "Christian (video) games" are the terms used. I actually don't feel they should be here, as they're not really a genre. If we look at the sources used in the main Christian game article (e.g. [6] and [7]) they give conventional genre definitions such as "real time strategy" and "action". "Christian" really just pertains to themes (one of the sources explicitly says "biblically-themed") in the same way as "WII shooter" or "Sci-fi RTS". Perhaps this should be a separate discussion but there you go. bridies (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sport Games?[edit]

I just noticed that this article seems to miss a quite important genre. So what about Sport games? AzaghalNK (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's already covered in the "Other notable genres" section. Randomran (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Casual gaming genres[edit]

It's on my to-do list to make this into a full-fledged section. This is a quick-list taken from the Zylom-page. Help is always appreciated. GameLegend (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I would think that "casual game" isn't a genre, just like "hardcore game" isn't one either. They contain games that fall into certain categories, such as the puzzle game, board/card game, and simple adventure game genres. What defines them isn't a genre, but that they rarely contain things like heart-pounding action, difficult battles, combos, and long plots, etc. That's not to say that there couldn't be an article on them, but including them in this list is questionable since the definition is vague.
EDIT: I noticed that there's already a section about them, the issue would be repetition of genres.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Match 3-games, hidden object-games, Mahjong-games etc. are specifically casual game-industry genres you don't see in the core games industry, that's why I put them in a seperate category. When they've been written out, we might be able to drop that category, but for now it's easier overview-wise. GameLegend (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I would support such a move. SharkD (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Good source to use[edit]

Whew... this article is a mess! Anyhow, I came across this article on Gamasutra that might be of utility; "The Designer's Notebook: Sorting Out the Genre Muddle". Cheers, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Do Puzzle Games deserve their own section?[edit]

At the moment, Puzzle Games isn't defined as a major genre, and is part of the "other notable genres" section. Should it be given its own section, especially considering the constant rise of puzzle-based freeware games now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There are no "spin-offs" of a puzzle game, since puzzles are puzzles. They tend to be incorporated into other genres rather than the other way around. You wouldn't call Henry Hatsworth a puzzle-action game, you'd call it an action game with puzzle elements. Maybe Professor Layton is a puzzle/visual novel game, but there's no offshoot of the puzzle genre there, I think.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sports games[edit]

Shouldn't sports games get their own section? They're extremely popular and quite varied - each sport could be thought of as being a separate sub-genre really. They're responsible for the continued existence of two huge video game brands, i.e. EA Sports and 2K Games. sdornan (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Categorization of genres[edit]

I found a nice page at Mobygames describing various videogame genres. I guess it's used when submitting games to their website. What I like about that list though, is that they are categorizing the genres in major types: basic genres, perspectives, themes (sports and non-sport), and "other attributes". While some Wikipedians may not agree with the exact taxonomy they use, it can be a great inspiration for a reboot of the Wikipedia article. What is also nice about that list is that it can also be used as a source! I also like the fact that their descriptions are succint and to the point! (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's the link: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Did Sony steal final fantasy from Nintendo?[edit]

Sony and Nintendo both got together and made final fantasy. Before the actual release date of final fantasy, Sony released it and basically took all the credit. Because Nintendo was under contract, they couldnt say anything about final fantasy also being there creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with video game genres, which is what this talk page is for? See WP:NOTFORUM. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK

Role Playing (small thing)[edit]

It says "involve up to hundreds of players interacting with each other on the same persistent world in real-time." Shouldn't that be thousands or maybe even millions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Visual Novel needs to be removed[edit]

A Visual Novel is not a game. It is a work of interactive fiction. This is well-documented within other wikipedia articles. See: It is a common fallacy to describe any digital medium as a 'game'. From '': Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. Visual Novels do not have goals, rules, or challenges, they only have interaction, and this interaction is on the most basic of levels. Calling them games is both disingenuous to the genre they are actually in, and to the misinformation it distributes to readers of this article. Furthermore, none of the sources cited for the context of a Visual Novel as a 'game' or accurate or reliable, generally relying on layman speculation with few expert sources. There is absolutely no reason why a Visual Novel constitutes a game. And it doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Fallacy or not, see Wikipedia:Verifiability -- "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia". There are reliable, secondary sources that describe "visual novel" as a video game genre, and there are a lot of examples when individual visual novels are referred to as games. Yes, they are hardly "real games", but such analysis is original research and cannot be used to determine inclusion or exclusion of content. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
If the interactivity is reliant on chance or can cause a different outcome for the story, then it is a game, regardless of the fact that it has minimal control.
Reclassification of Visual Novels has wider implications than this one article, so if you want to propose that, WT:VG would be the best place to do it, because it really is a bigger issue than this one article. - X201 (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

big problem .... 2D v 3D[edit]

Say guys - this is a well written page and well done, you are all to be congratulated

One thing. A very basic division is 2D games versus 3D games.

I actually came to the page looking for a specific list of "2D video game genres" - there are so many classics. whether like space invaders, like asteroids, like mario - etc.

it's possible, that you hard workers here should either:

Group them in to pre3D and after3D sections

In each section, just note whether indeed it is a 2D or 3D game (this is a basic bit of info that is missing)

Alsop quite simply ..... someone clever could very simply add a new section "Genres by 2D" and "Genres by 3D" where you would simply note all the categories from this page, grouped in either group

you can imagine these days there is a big interest in "retro" or "pixel" games - essentially the many distinct 2D genres .. it would be very excellent to clarify this list. Particularly with young people coming up who only know about GTA  :)

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Many genres can be both 2D and 3D, both in perspective and implementation, not to mention 2.5D, isometric and all the weird variations. See video game graphics article, which was basically made to clear this up somewhat. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

When discussing the system's flaws...[edit]

I think it would be important to mention that some games appear to defy classification. For example, I don't think Katamari fits into any of the specific genres, and only vaguely into the top-level action category, and I can't place Wii Fit anywhere (party game maybe, as it is mostly a collection of minigames, except that seems plain wrong). Another, related problem is that sometimes games of the same genre are so different that it seems absurd to lump them together. For example, Pikmin is apparently (accroding to its wiki page) a real-time strategy game but is nothing like the Command and Conquer-style wargames more typically associated with the genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking for Genre Title[edit]

I can’t find a genre to describe the kind of games where you (as single player) speed along a course or tube and have to dodge objects, usually by quickly steering left or right, or by jumping over them, while the speed gradually increases. Here is an example where you can also collect yellowish objects, whatever they are, and here is one with multiple lives, ducking, and tricky physics. I can’t quite fit those into any of the listed genres. Thanks! —Telofy (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Have to be obvious here, but what do the reliable source say the genre is? And if they don't say it, then you can't really use it anyway. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Visual Novels do not belong in 'Video game genres'[edit]

Visual Novels are not actually games and therefore do not belong within the purview of so-called "Video Game Genres". They should be appended to this list: and that list alone. Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are a genre as supported by many reliable sources. Already was brought up at WP:VG back in September where your change did not gain consensus. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This may be a bit late but has there been any change since then because looking at the past discussion (which the proposer was involved in) I would find it hard to find anyone coming to the conclusion that there would be anything to even remotely indicate a consensus to remove visual novel as a genre?-- (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)