By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Help me create a Taxonomy for Videogames!

LGF on 05 August 2016
Slimebeast said:
LGF said:

The dimensions should all be crossed to classify a given game. And since a game is a complex product, it may have aspects of one or multiple categories in each dimension (please check the Pokemon classification I've given to DonFerrari).

Does it make sense to you? Or do you have a different perspective?

Well it should be that practically every game on the planet has all of the dimensions A to E, shouldn't it?

Nearly every, if not every, game should be able to be defined in those 5 attributes (what you call dimensions):

controls
environment
structure
objective
content

And your Pokemon example did this, didn't it?

I'm not objecting to anything, I'm just trying to get a clear picture of your taxonomy method.

Did you come up with any of those 5 categories (dimensions) and 12 sub-dimensions by yourself at all or is it taken from some existing universal method to define game structure?

Yes, all games have all dimensions and sub-dimensions. Or in other words, all dimensions should be applied when classifying a game. Exactly, my Pokemon example used all dimensions.

Yes, I've come up with all 12 dimensions by myself. Then, I've done some research and found some classifications. They were not as comprehensive as this one, and I couldn't add any new dimension. I could just take a couple of ideas for the categories, namely in dimension 10 (Challenge), which is the most popular dimension to define game genres.



Around the Network
Slimebeast on 05 August 2016
LGF said:
Slimebeast said:

Well it should be that practically every game on the planet has all of the dimensions A to E, shouldn't it?

Nearly every, if not every, game should be able to be defined in those 5 attributes (what you call dimensions):

controls
environment
structure
objective
content

And your Pokemon example did this, didn't it?

I'm not objecting to anything, I'm just trying to get a clear picture of your taxonomy method.

Did you come up with any of those 5 categories (dimensions) and 12 sub-dimensions by yourself at all or is it taken from some existing universal method to define game structure?

Yes, all games have all dimensions and sub-dimensions. Or in other words, all dimensions should be applied when classifying a game. Exactly, my Pokemon example used all dimensions.

Yes, I've come up with all 12 dimensions by myself. Then, I've done some research and found some classifications. They were not as comprehensive as this one, and I couldn't add any new dimension. I could just take a couple of ideas for the categories, namely in dimension 10 (Challenge), which is the most popular dimension to define game genres.

Very interesting.

Now next you should name them more properly. It doesn't look good when two separate dimensions are described as gameplay.

It's hard to name though and have all the categories be properly represented by just one word each.

I wouldn't use the word structure for C for example because a game's structure encompasses more than dimension C includes.

And sorting Myst and The Witness under strategy/tactics doesn't feel right. And I never saw Bioshock as a horror game lol.



LGF on 05 August 2016
Slimebeast said:

Very interesting.

Now next you should name them more properly. It doesn't look good when two separate dimensions are described as gameplay.

It's hard to name though and have all the categories be properly represented by just one word each.

I wouldn't use the word structure for C for example because a game's structure encompasses more than dimension C includes.

And sorting Myst and The Witness under strategy/tactics doesn't feel right. And I never saw Bioshock as a horror game lol.

Thanks for the feedback!

Yes, the names are clearly subject to change. In the main groups, I'll probably go for the first option (before the slash): Interaction, Environment, Structure, Objective and Content. Therefore, I don't use Gameplay which is a quite broad term.

What does Structure encompass more?

Strategy/tactics games, as opposed to action games, involve thinking more than motor skills. I've never played Myst and The Witness, but they seemed to fit in this category. Why doesn't it feel right to you?

Isn't Bioshock Horror? :S Than what is Horror? And what is Bioshock, Crime? Or maybe a thriller?



LGF on 06 August 2016

Come on guys, no one else wants to comment?

The VGCharts community is so active and well informed. I'm sure I could learn a lot with many of you!



DonFerrari on 08 August 2016
LGF said:
DonFerrari said:
I think your idea is great, but I have a hard time imagining you being able to classify most games under a order-family-species fashion... the most will be on genre, sub-genre and cross-genre

Thanks!

The idea of this taxonomy is not to be of hierarchical fashion. These are just separate dimensions that can be used in combination to classify a game.

For instance, classic Pokemon games can be classified in the following way: recreational puzzle/exploration game recreating a scripted fantasy adventure on 2D orthographic open world, in real and continuous input time, played with digital inputs by a single player who progresses the skills of its pokemons; the battles are played in turn-based, discrete input.

And you intend to classify per game or genre/sub-genre?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
LGF on 08 August 2016
DonFerrari said:
LGF said:

Thanks!

The idea of this taxonomy is not to be of hierarchical fashion. These are just separate dimensions that can be used in combination to classify a game.

For instance, classic Pokemon games can be classified in the following way: recreational puzzle/exploration game recreating a scripted fantasy adventure on 2D orthographic open world, in real and continuous input time, played with digital inputs by a single player who progresses the skills of its pokemons; the battles are played in turn-based, discrete input.

And you intend to classify per game or genre/sub-genre?

The fact that the Taxonomy has multiple dimensions gives flexibility to use it in different ways. We can classify one game in every dimension, to establish the identity of that game, or we can pick particular dimensions and have some discussion about it.

For instance, I must say I don't like "discrete input" games. I'm more of an action-oriented gamer, so I like "real-time" and "continuous input" games. For some time I believed I didn't like RPGs. But then I realized the concept of RPG is related to character advancement (in this Taxonomy, "skill-based" progression) and collaborative storytelling ("non-scripted" behaviour). So, breaking down these concepts, I realized that what I didn't like were the traditional RPGs, which are "discrete input" and "turn-based". True RPG elements, like "skill-based" progression, can be found in games like GTA San Andreas (where you had progression bars for muscle, fatness, driving, riding, shooting, etc.) and Pro Evolution Soccer (where you can evolve a team of players with different profiles), which were some of my favourite games. And they had nothing to do with the boooring RPGs where you have to select something on a sub-menu and give it to a person to open a door which will lead you to somewhere else ... phew, I get exhausted just by thinking about it!

When I look at typical game genres, I get a bit confused. Some are based on the challenge, like shooting or racing, but others are related to the players, like MMO, and others to the environment, like 2D side scrolling platformers. So, I would say the Taxonomy gets all these things together and may help people better understand the concepts behind game design, as well as express their tastes in a more clear way. Also, we could start discussions about what game designs aren't well explored and that we would like to see developers working on. For example, I believe gaming will evolve more in the "non-scripted, online multi-player" direction, but I would like to see more effort in the "open-world, exploration, simulation" type. I miss games like The Getaway and LA Noire, and I don't remember any other game of this type in the last 15 years.

What about you?



DonFerrari on 09 August 2016
LGF said:
DonFerrari said:

And you intend to classify per game or genre/sub-genre?

The fact that the Taxonomy has multiple dimensions gives flexibility to use it in different ways. We can classify one game in every dimension, to establish the identity of that game, or we can pick particular dimensions and have some discussion about it.

For instance, I must say I don't like "discrete input" games. I'm more of an action-oriented gamer, so I like "real-time" and "continuous input" games. For some time I believed I didn't like RPGs. But then I realized the concept of RPG is related to character advancement (in this Taxonomy, "skill-based" progression) and collaborative storytelling ("non-scripted" behaviour). So, breaking down these concepts, I realized that what I didn't like were the traditional RPGs, which are "discrete input" and "turn-based". True RPG elements, like "skill-based" progression, can be found in games like GTA San Andreas (where you had progression bars for muscle, fatness, driving, riding, shooting, etc.) and Pro Evolution Soccer (where you can evolve a team of players with different profiles), which were some of my favourite games. And they had nothing to do with the boooring RPGs where you have to select something on a sub-menu and give it to a person to open a door which will lead you to somewhere else ... phew, I get exhausted just by thinking about it!

When I look at typical game genres, I get a bit confused. Some are based on the challenge, like shooting or racing, but others are related to the players, like MMO, and others to the environment, like 2D side scrolling platformers. So, I would say the Taxonomy gets all these things together and may help people better understand the concepts behind game design, as well as express their tastes in a more clear way. Also, we could start discussions about what game designs aren't well explored and that we would like to see developers working on. For example, I believe gaming will evolve more in the "non-scripted, online multi-player" direction, but I would like to see more effort in the "open-world, exploration, simulation" type. I miss games like The Getaway and LA Noire, and I don't remember any other game of this type in the last 15 years.

What about you?

Got it.

But just a small point. For GTA and Sport games, that would be "RPG elements" but they would be propper RPG. RPG involves story telling and choices (and character progession is a prop inside), but I see the element of JRPG you don't like is the turn based part, but then you can choose the action-rpg.

I would like more racing, platforming, action-adventure games that focus either on SP or in local Co-OP.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Distant Star on 09 August 2016

I've been looking into steam tags to come up with dimensions to quickly find games that I want to play.

Example: Single Player, First-Person, Shooter, Cyberpunk = Deus Ex: GOTY

5 Dimensions

 =Gamemode=  
I feel like this is the first choice when you decide what to play. (if you don't know what to play) 

Examples: Single Player, Local Multiplayer, Multiplayer, Co-op, Local Co-op, Splitscreen

<Viewpoint>
Camera perspective is important to be it's own dimension

Examples: First Person, Third Person, Isometric, 2Dimensions

(Gameplay) 
This describes what gameplay mechanics should be in the game.

Examples: Shooter, Racing, Stealth, Simulation, Survival, Turn Based etc.

-Universe-
This describes the gameworld based on an (alternative) timeline

Examples: Prehistoric/Mythology/Medieval/History/WOII/Cyberpunk/Sci-Fi/Space/Horror/Fantasy/Surreal/Supernatural

Aestetics
This one describes artstyle, but many games with 'realistic artstyle' are not tagged.

Examples: Pixels. Anime, Cartoon, Abstract



0D0 on 09 August 2016

I think the Environment 3D and 2D categories can be improved.

Open world and Closed levels are on their own cells, but you can have

- 3D Open world games
- 2D Open world games
- 3D Closed levels games
- 2D Closed levels games



God bless You.

My Total Sales prediction for PS4 by the end of 2021: 110m+

When PS4 will hit 100m consoles sold: Before Christmas 2019

There were three ravens sat on a tree / They were as blacke as they might be / The one of them said to his mate, Where shall we our breakfast take?


LGF on 09 August 2016
DonFerrari said:
LGF said:

The fact that the Taxonomy has multiple dimensions gives flexibility to use it in different ways. We can classify one game in every dimension, to establish the identity of that game, or we can pick particular dimensions and have some discussion about it.

For instance, I must say I don't like "discrete input" games. I'm more of an action-oriented gamer, so I like "real-time" and "continuous input" games. For some time I believed I didn't like RPGs. But then I realized the concept of RPG is related to character advancement (in this Taxonomy, "skill-based" progression) and collaborative storytelling ("non-scripted" behaviour). So, breaking down these concepts, I realized that what I didn't like were the traditional RPGs, which are "discrete input" and "turn-based". True RPG elements, like "skill-based" progression, can be found in games like GTA San Andreas (where you had progression bars for muscle, fatness, driving, riding, shooting, etc.) and Pro Evolution Soccer (where you can evolve a team of players with different profiles), which were some of my favourite games. And they had nothing to do with the boooring RPGs where you have to select something on a sub-menu and give it to a person to open a door which will lead you to somewhere else ... phew, I get exhausted just by thinking about it!

When I look at typical game genres, I get a bit confused. Some are based on the challenge, like shooting or racing, but others are related to the players, like MMO, and others to the environment, like 2D side scrolling platformers. So, I would say the Taxonomy gets all these things together and may help people better understand the concepts behind game design, as well as express their tastes in a more clear way. Also, we could start discussions about what game designs aren't well explored and that we would like to see developers working on. For example, I believe gaming will evolve more in the "non-scripted, online multi-player" direction, but I would like to see more effort in the "open-world, exploration, simulation" type. I miss games like The Getaway and LA Noire, and I don't remember any other game of this type in the last 15 years.

What about you?

Got it.

But just a small point. For GTA and Sport games, that would be "RPG elements" but they would be propper RPG. RPG involves story telling and choices (and character progession is a prop inside), but I see the element of JRPG you don't like is the turn based part, but then you can choose the action-rpg.

I would like more racing, platforming, action-adventure games that focus either on SP or in local Co-OP.

In a way, the career that you make in a sports game is a story you are collaboratively telling with the game, just like in a Pokemon game. And these games involve a lot of choices: who to hire, who to fire, who will play, what competition will be the focus. The main difference I see is the Theme: one is a Sports game; the other is a Fantasy/Adventure game. Both involve playing the role of some entity: either a character or a team.

Btw, I also like those genres. But what specific Racing games you feel are missing?