#BUT! i cannot emphasize enough: the police have none of the aesthetics or personality of the actual mafia so why even bother

[biggest-gaudiest-patronuses]

there's just... there is no reason to make yet another cop show in this day and age. copaganda is not only bullshit, it is a failure of imagination.

you want to watch brooding characters with dark pasts investigate crimes in an official capacity? just use private detectives (cops have a miserable solve rate anyway). want eccentric geniuses & their sidekicks solving mysteries? i present you with armchair detectives & neighborhood busybodies. oh, you're craving a workplace comedy-drama starring overworked protagonists doing their heartfelt best to resolve community conflicts? social worker office sitcom! bitch this is ACHIEVABLE

[rainworlds]

Practicing Genre #1

Mentioning genre in discussions on digital play—like introducing any scheme of classification—should not be an invitation for commentators to set up boundaries and police them in their work.

Rather, in recognizing the fluidity of genre definitions, we may gain new insights about how games are perceived as interwoven compositions of play and aesthetics, and how they make statements about the world. 

In constantly refining and adjusting our understanding of genre, we may become better at reading and interpreting the gradual paradigm shifts at work in the sometimes wildly disparate corners of our field.

So, what are we really doing when we attempt to demarcate ‘genre’ boundaries in video games?

Taxonomy—that is, the act of categorization—becomes possible by identifying sets of common markers that are similar enough across different works so that they may be grouped together, primarily as an analytical instrument for further engagement. 

It is a continuous practice that is primarily descriptive and, by that measure, requires constant adjustment.

It immediately prompts additional questions as to the nature of not just what it is that we are categorizing, but, more importantly, who is involved in these particular practices of categorization; what is their relationship towards the object? Are there notable asymmetries of power that have led practices to become exclusive in any way?

To be clear, since observation is not merely the act of uncovering existing structures, none of these practices are natural, nor are they necessarily binding or deterministic, which is not to say that they lack power: after all, as examples of stylistic decisions and practices that have proliferated over time and became convention, they are history.

Before we can identify common markers, we have to ask foundational questions about the make-up of the works we intend to categorize, which leads us to inquire about the structure of video games. Conventionally, we seem to have concluded that video games are classified according to sets of recurring mechanics so works may appear to be representative of larger trends.

Fundamentally, I think, these are obviously questions of value.

This means that ‘genre’ consists of conversations and practices that are beyond recognition, demarcation or clarification: ‘doing genre’ is a creative incision meant to ground contemporary discussions on works of play and embed them into a wider media landscape. This might be more important than we realize—video games need to be torn from isolation—but it comes with a few familiar difficulties.

After all, it requires us to decontextualize aspects of a work in order to re-contextualize them as part of larger patterns we claim to identify in the media landscape.

Nevertheless, we insist on using pattern “recognition” to solve this problem, which should give us pause as critics, because it obscures the inevitable decontextualization that takes place when we categorize thoughtlessly: simplification may appear helpful in explanation and description, but retaining and emphasizing the original context often provides a measure of nuance that recognizes how ‘mechanical’ aspects of play are interwoven with narratives and aesthetics to produce meaning.

Comparisons that build on simplistic systems of classification are precarious, because they may easily gloss over these synergies in order to reduce friction between the objects compared. This can result in an erosion of difference.

Mechanical rules of play may be the decisive component we use to classify video games, but they are certainly not the extent of what constitutes them as a whole, nor should every conversation on genre center these types of elements.

‘Open-world’ may be a useful instrument only for as long as it can retain its descriptive power and consistency across multiple works. Austin Walker recently pointed out that the term has lost some of that descriptive-ness in recent years, because it is simply not specific enough to capture the divergence taking shape in games we classify under its umbrella.

There are ways to cope with this problem.

There could be an introduction of ever-more specific sub-genres that pinpoint the individual contributions of new components to the concept of a play-world that is, to some degree, openly accessible in spatial navigation.

There is a temptation to abandon the term entirely, and while it might appear to have exhausted its merit as an analytical tool, I am reluctant to discard it. Instead, I think it would be vital to understand how genre can be used in practice as a modular tool. Video games may be classified according to sets of ‘mechanics’, but which ones should we prioritize? Are there primary ‘genres’ and secondary ones? It has always been about what we value most about the works we enjoy.

Realizing that ‘genre’ manifests as modular in video games renders classification a matter of addition and eventual subtraction: first-person shooter is a combination of two well-known mechanisms, it’s just that we sometimes lack the breadth of descriptive genre components to make our statements about games more precise.  

In such a way, ‘open-world’ is a useful descriptor, but it cannot necessarily stand on its own anymore. It would immediately prompt the question: yes, but what kind? I would know that said game has a particular disposition towards the immediate accessibility of its spaces, but I would need more information: recent games have diversified the ‘genre’ to such a degree that additional descriptors are required.

And that’s exactly how ‘genres’ should work in practice. They cannot afford to be static.

[foulfirerebel]

The tags are awesome too.

#i lied the one reason to make a cop show is you want a mafia show and the cops are currently by far the most powerful u.s. mafia#BUT! i cannot emphasize enough: the police have none of the aesthetics or personality of the actual mafia so why even bother#The Sopranos but in an office setting with buzzing fluorescent lighting? and half your co-workers are weekend neo-nazis? come on#no. just no#from now on i want all tv cops to be villainous side characters#but BORING villainous side characters#i like villains as much as the next queer audience member but i cannot overstate the importance of portraying cops as not just bastards#but BORING bastards#they are so boring. they are boring and hateful and also neither particularly smart nor interesting#i need to emphasize: there is NOTHING to romanticize there#i am so passionate and supportive of anti-romanticizing cops. ANTI-ROMANTICIZE THE POLICE. #the police are BORING and HATEFUL and CRUEL and BASIC AS HELL #and we should be pointing that out publicly every chance we get #the police are BORING BASIC BITCHES and mocking them publically is a patriotic service

there's just... there is no reason to make yet another cop show in this day and age. copaganda is not only bullshit, it is a failure of imagination.

you want to watch brooding characters with dark pasts investigate crimes in an official capacity? just use private detectives (cops have a miserable solve rate anyway). want eccentric geniuses & their sidekicks solving mysteries? i present you with armchair detectives & neighborhood busybodies. oh, you're craving a workplace comedy-drama starring overworked protagonists doing their heartfelt best to resolve community conflicts? social worker office sitcom! bitch this is ACHIEVABLE

[lix88888]

#i lied the one reason to make a cop show is you want a mafia show and the cops are currently by far the most powerful u.s. mafia #BUT! i cannot emphasize enough: the police have none of the aesthetics or personality of the actual mafia so why even bother #The Sopranos but in an office setting with buzzing fluorescent lighting? and half your co-workers are weekend neo-nazis? come on #no. just no #from now on i want all tv cops to be villainous side characters #but BORING villainous side characters #i like villains as much as the next queer audience member but i cannot overstate the importance of portraying cops as not just bastards #but BORING bastards #they are so boring. they are boring and hateful and also neither particularly smart nor interesting #i need to emphasize: there is NOTHING to romanticize there#i am so passionate and supportive of anti-romanticizing cops. ANTI-ROMANTICIZE THE POLICE. #the police are BORING and HATEFUL and CRUEL and BASIC AS HELL #and we should be pointing that out publicly every chance we get #the police are BORING BASIC BITCHES and mocking them publically is a patriotic service

Why would you hide this in the tags gaud?

there's just... there is no reason to make yet another cop show in this day and age. copaganda is not only bullshit, it is a failure of imagination.

you want to watch brooding characters with dark pasts investigate crimes in an official capacity? just use private detectives (cops have a miserable solve rate anyway). want eccentric geniuses & their sidekicks solving mysteries? i present you with armchair detectives & neighborhood busybodies. oh, you're craving a workplace comedy-drama starring overworked protagonists doing their heartfelt best to resolve community conflicts? social worker office sitcom! bitch this is ACHIEVABLE

[oojamaflip-whatchamacallit]

#i lied the one reason to make a cop show is you want a mafia show and the cops are currently by far the most powerful u.s. mafia#BUT! i cannot emphasize enough: the police have none of the aesthetics or personality of the actual mafia so why even bother

#The Sopranos but in an office setting with buzzing fluorescent lighting? and half your co-workers are weekend neo-nazis? come on#no. just no#from now on i want all tv cops to be villainous side characters#but BORING villainous side characters

#i like villains as much as the next queer audience member but i cannot overstate the importance of portraying cops as not just bastards#but BORING bastards#they are so boring. they are boring and hateful and also neither particularly smart nor interesting

#i need to emphasize: there is NOTHING to romanticize there#i am so passionate and supportive of anti-romanticizing cops. ANTI-ROMANTICIZE THE POLICE.#the police are BORING and HATEFUL and CRUEL and BASIC AS HELL

#and we should be pointing that out publicly every chance we get#the police are BORING BASIC BITCHES and mocking them publically is a patriotic service

there's just... there is no reason to make yet another cop show in this day and age. copaganda is not only bullshit, it is a failure of imagination.

you want to watch brooding characters with dark pasts investigate crimes in an official capacity? just use private detectives (cops have a miserable solve rate anyway). want eccentric geniuses & their sidekicks solving mysteries? i present you with armchair detectives & neighborhood busybodies. oh, you're craving a workplace comedy-drama starring overworked protagonists doing their heartfelt best to resolve community conflicts? social worker office sitcom! bitch this is ACHIEVABLE