I am noticing there are multiple genres people tend to end up mislabeling games under. I figured that I would start a thread to discuss this, and also look at minutia arguments to me, that seem absurd. Feel free to agree or disagree here, and add your own.
Ok, onto the list (in no particular order, outside of recall):
1. Puzzle games. I have seen the likes of classic arcade games, such as Pac Man get called "Puzzle games". Just because a game fits on a single screen, with no scrolling, doesn't make it a puzzle game. Same with it requiring some thought and strategy.
2. RPGs. Oh, one can go into several angles regarding this. First, the TRUE definition of RPGs involves playing a role that isn't yourself, in a story. Stat building isn't necessary for an RPG, but is usually the norm. One has to beg whether stat-building alone is enough for a game to be an RPG. A problem we run into here is that almost all videogames, outside of games that involve puzzles, have you playing a role, rendering the genre of RPG a bit meaningless. However, what we normally accept as an RPG on videogames, is a videogame emulation of people playing D&D (or another paper RPG with stat building). So, we have something oddball where a person plays the role of MORE THAN ONE CHARACTER at the same time, just so long as the party is upping it stats. Again, the computer EMULATES a paper and pencil experience for players. Again, this gets a bit ackward, because if you look at live action roleplaying games, you run into places where there is NO stat-building.
Another angle here is Zelda. Zelda gets lumped into RPGs sometime. It has character improvement through the collecting of items, but not really stat-building (Well, Zelda 2 had it).
3. First person shooter vs third person shooter. I am not going to go and say people get this wrong, just that they argue that it is CRITICALLY important to separate the two. As I see it now, the way decent shooters from Third-person view (aka like Gears or Uncharted) work now, it is more like your camera is further back in a FPS (except when aiming). I end up ducking for cover, and aiming like a do in a FPS. Of course, I get a better ability to jump and move around in third person view. However, why the argument over Gears being "not in the same arena as Killzone 2". Back in my day, a "Third-person shooter" was the likes of Robotron, Berzerk, or Smash TV.
Of course, I could be off, or missed some, so feel free to add your own comments here.
