Genre-Defining Games?

Gamasutra has up responses from its frequent feature, the question of the Week. This week's question was a call for the best of the best. "For any genre of your choice, what is the game that defines that genre for you?" From the article: "For the RPG, simply Final Fantasy 6. It has the best story, greatest variety of characters, tons of different music, and added many secret areas. It was the first game to truly to define a real experience of an RPG to the player. -Anonymous" What games would you refer to as Genre Defining?

Genre Defining?

[BridgeBum]

Wouldn't a genre defining game have to be something which MADE a genre? To me, FF6 isn't even close for RPG's. Pick one of 'Wizardry' or 'Bard's Tale'. For FPS, Castle Wolfenstein. (I'd accept Doom, since that's what really made FPS 'take off'.)

A genre defining game is hardly the same as 'best game in genre'.

Disgusting

[Nasarius]

For the RPG, simply Final Fantasy 6.

The Final Fantasy games are considered RPGs? Oh right, they're "console RPGs".

It has the best story, greatest variety of characters.

OK.

tons of different music

So? If the music is really exceptional, it might be worth noting, but quantity is different from quality.

and added many secret areas

So?

It was the first game to truly to define a real experience of an RPG to the player.

Hilarious. So prior to FF6 (released in 1999?), there were no "real RPG experiences"? What does that even mean?

And how old are these people? I'm only 19, but I'd go with Ultima VII as the genre-defining RPG.

clearly defining genre game

[OleMoudi]

Gotta be Metal Gear Solid(PSX version). IMHO he was the first to truly introduce the concept of stealth play in a seductive way to the masses.

Nowadays its hard not to find an action game without at least a level or mission in which you must avoid being spotted or setting off the alarm. Stealth game play its the perfect complement to action gameplay enriching the experience.

MGS also one of the first and better aproaches to film-like videogames according to the frame of reference of mainstream movies. RPG's always have been better at storytelling but the true aproach to plots, cinematics and characteres following hollywood films was first made with games like MGS or Silent Hill.

Re:Genre Defining?

[orkysoft]

How about Dungeon Master? I'd say that would be one of the CRPG-defining games, if not the CRPG-defining game...

Not Exactly

[beakerMeep]

"Genre defining" I think means the game that best represents what the genre is about. So not necessarily what made a genre take off or started a genre but more like the first game that comes to mind when someone mentions a genre.

Re:Action FPS

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew some fucking clueless fagot would mention WOW.

The Blizzard-astroturfers have become as notorious as the Mac-zealot-astroturfs.

Fucking company-paid trolls.

Zork, you insensitive yougins!

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Most of you are probably two young to remember, but before these fancy-schmanzy E-G-A video cards and Mice, we had (mostly) text games. AND WE LIKED IT!

Zork was one of the first, and one of the best. It established some classic puns (See my .sig), and influenced the humor in many games.

Now, go find that Grue.

Re:Disgusting

[Yobgod Ababua]

I'm afraid I must agree, although the term "RPG" is really way too broad to be defined by any one single game.

Wasteland helped define the post-apocalyptic party-based RPG "genre".

Bard's Tale defined the standard form for many party-based RPGs for quite some time.

Ultima IV was a defining game for RPGs where your in-game choices changed your character, and where certain situations would have no "correct" solution.

Ultima VII showed that you could create a surprisingly living world.

FF6 may be genre defining for it's little niche of the RPG landscape... I haven't played it myself and can't really say.

Re:Zork, you insensitive yougins!

[cphilo]

Zork for text games (1980s) I was taking a class in personal computers in the 80s and was told by the professor that my 5 hours of personal design should be used to get him past the point in Zork where he was stuck. Great fun. Might and Magic (early 1990s)Classic Dungeons and Dragons. Morrowind and Arcanum for innovation. (late 1990s) Cant comment on the MMORPGs, as when I tried to play those, my husband would come in and want dinner or attention or something and then my group would grumble or or die (I play clerics), so I had to give them up.

Re:Not Exactly

[Koiu Lpoi]

I must disagree with the article. If Final Fantasy 6 defines RPGs as a genere, then I hate RPGs. Experience has shown I do not hate RPGs, just the Final Fantasy series/style. I would submit KOTOR. Or Phantasy Star 4.

Fallout

[GebsBeard]

I'm suprised Fallout didn't show up on that list. The game and its spiritual predecessor Wasteland were genre defining in a way - post holocaust RPGs. Granted, a very small genre but on their strength alone they should have gotten at least honorable mention.

THIEF!!

[Axis of Weasel]

the only genre-creating and defining game

First Person Sneakers!!!!

Re:clearly defining genre game

[roystgnr]

Gotta be Metal Gear Solid(PSX version). IMHO he was the first to truly introduce the concept of stealth play in a seductive way to the masses.

Which masses? When I think "stealth play" the first games that come to mind are Thief (came out the same year) and Deus Ex (two years later).

Naming a genre-defining movie is hard enough. I think naming a genre-defining game is impossible. The lists that come to my mind include PC-only games, Mac-only games, and console games that only ran on one of several simultaneously competing systems. If a genre-defining movie comes out, anyone can rent it or see it in the theater for 5 or 10 bucks, but unless you've had way too much money on your hands for the last decade, you probably passed up games that other gamers would consider "genre-defining" because it cost four times as much to buy or rent the yet-another-hardware-platform it was compatible with.

Strategy

[qbhobart]

I compare almost all strategy games I play to X-Com.

Re:Populous

[Anonymous Coward]

Populous defined the god game.

Dune 2 defined RTS.

Kick Off defined football games for a long time (until the trend moved away from overhead view).

Mario defined the platformer.

Duke Nukem defined the shareware platformer.

Wolfenstein 3D defined FPS.

Re:Not Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

Final Fantasy defines the Console RPG, which is to real RPGs what tofu is to beef: a poor substitute that people will continue to try and insist somehow fills the niche.

Console RPGs are, without fail, really "turn based battle simulators," in that the game, such as there is, does not consist of "playing a role" but instead repeatedly fighting the same stupid battles over and over again. A console RPG is all about leveling.

Real RPGs focus on an environment and the role your character plays in it. Console RPGs focus on battles, with the story thrown in to kind of tie them together.

Think "Dragon Ball Z": a poor story drawn out far longer than necessary due to an excessive number of battles. (And a legion of fans that thing it's The Best Thing Ever! and will not stop talking about them.)

So, anyway, Final Fantasy defines the Console RPG, which is not the same thing as the RPG.

Re:Disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

FF6 may be genre defining for it's little niche of the RPG landscape... I haven't played it myself and can't really say.

How about "Pointless Level Grind"? All the Final Fantasy games are about leveling up, and the battles to do so. The story is only there to lead you through the battles.

The decisions you make have no effect. Characters can never die, unless the story says they have to, in which case there is no way to prevent it. Your actions have absolutely no effect on the world you exist in. You can't improve anyone's life. Everything you do has no effect on anything.

About the only thing you can do is gain levels, or run pointless side quests to get better items or abilities. While these side quests may suggest you've improved someone's life, nothing else will change. They just won't give you the side quest any more.

So, I'd call the Final Fantasy genre "Pointless Level Grind" or maybe "Character Battle Simulator" or something like that. It has absolutely nothing to do with playing any role. It is a game, though...

Re:Disgusting

[nifboy]

I'd say FF6 and Chrono Trigger jointly defined the game-as-storytelling subsection of RPGs (most "console" RPGs). Ultima and later refinements like Baldur's Gate helped define the game-as-storymaking subdivision (most "PC" RPGs).

It's worth noting TFA was split between the FF series and the Baldur's Gate series, though.

Re:Zork, you insensitive yougins!

[Bastian]

While I agree that Zork gets a nod for being one of the first, and necessary playing for anyone who likes adventure games, I don't think Zork really defined the genre - though it has some story, and some great scenes and puzzles, I think the gameplay is still too close to its ADVENTURE roots.

If I were to pick one that I think defines the genre, it would have to be either Trinity (if you want to stick to well-known text adventures), or Anchorhead if you're willing to accept games from the amateur IF scene.

Re:Disgusting

[miyako]

I don't think that it's necessarily that PC and Console style RPGs are so different as I think that the difference is in the japanese vs american style of story telling (and types of stories). In american style RPGs, the focus seems to be on adventure for the sake of adventure, collecting treasure, and the story of a common person picking themselves up by the bootstraps and becoming a hero. In contrast, Japanese style RPGs seem to focus on the reluctant hero, chosen by fate, to to fulfill some great destiny/prophacy/etc. In American (or perhaps Western style would be more appropriate) RPGs, there is a bit more lattitude in the characters themselves, essentially the entire gamut frrom Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil can still be seen as being Heroic. In Japanese style games the storyline tends to only work with a character, though often reluctantly, struggling with the morality of a situation and eventually becoming something like Chaotic Good.
I think that these differences end up effecting the games in a number of ways (or rather, each type of story faces it's own technological limitations). In the Japanese style games, since there is a more fixed character (the player controls the character) A much less branching storyline is acceptable. In Western style games (the player IS the character) the character has more choice, and that limits the possibilities for the pre-written scripts. Because of the limitations on how much story can be written in American style games, the games themselves seem to focus more on dungeon crawling, accumulating treasure and experience (which also fits in with the image of the western style hero as the rouge adventurer).
I think that the reason it seems to be divided among PC/Console lines is that most PC games are developed by american companies, whereas historically the majority of console games (especially RPGs) were developed by Japanese companies.
Although I don't think that either style is inherintly superior to the other, I personally tend to prefer the more story driven Japanese style games to the Adventure driven American style games.

Re:Not "genre-defining"

[gangien]

i dunno when people talk about RTS, they almost always compare it to starcraft, therefore i'd say starcraft defined what RTS should be, for now anyway.

Warcraft 2 was great but no one compares it to anything after starcraft was released. C&C was pretty overated IMO, same with TA.

Starcraft was and still is "genre-defining"

[CaraCalla]

• It was originally released in early '97. The original CD dosn't even feature copy-protection. Can you point me to any other 8 years old game which is still played by thousands of gamers?
• The mere fact that it still runs on todays hardware proves its technical excellence, a feature rarely found in games.
• It was the first RTS game to feature three well balanced races.
• As pointed out above: "Genre-defining" doesn't imply "first ever", it rather means "The one every other candidate is compared to".

Who could forget...

[irchs]

FPS/RPG: System Shock 2

Absolutely ground breaking game, just not accepted widely enough :(

Jan

Puzzle Genre - Tetris!

[WoTG]

Thinking back now, I can't believe how many hours I spent on various platforms organizing 6 different blocks...

I think that that game on the original Game Boy created the entire hand held gaming industry.

Re:Not Exactly

[Targon]

I think of an RPG as a game that lets me develop characters the way I choose to, as well as to decide what my characters do, and how they will respond to people in the game environment.

With that said, Diablo doesn't qualify because you can't choose if you want to accept a quest, or even how you will interact with an NPC. Games that only let you accept or reject a quest without choosing the tone also fall short.

Baldur's Gate 2 is one of the best when it comes to computer role playing games. You can pick a tone when it comes to dialog choices, and that will alter the way the dialog flows. You can also choose to be nice(good), or you can be nasty and greedy. It's up to you. The only thing that most find limiting is that you can't necessarily ally yourself with the side of evil. You can BE evil, but you can't choose to ally yourself with the person who starts as the enemy.

Wizardry 6-8(the three games are a trilogy that tells a story) is the flip side. You have your choice about which side to ally yourself with, but you don't have a lot of choices about how you interact with NPCs.

You also have the old-school dungeon crawl type games that many think of as RPGs. The original Wizardry, or Bard's Tale arn't great RPGs by the standards of today, but back in those early days they were fun games.

Then you have the old "Gold Box" games, with Pool of Radiance being the first. They used the old Dungeons and Dragons rules(none of this 3rd edition junk we have today), but added things that made the game more like a RPG, such as maps(in the manual).

The sad thing is how many games coppied Dungeons and Dragons when it came to a combat system, yet none of them really improved on it. When you go up in level, you get more hit points. The original Dungeons and Dragons system had a decent enough reason, because Hit Points also reflect your ability to avoid taking damage, and as you gain experience adventuring, your endurance will go up in theory. Other game systems that use stamina or endurance really have no good reason to award more hit points because you go up in level.