next »

[JobLeonard]

Fuck, I used to have that game... what happened to it? It was fucking awesome!

[King Hadas]

Bayonetta had a really cool genre shift near the end of the game.

[spoilers]The part where you guide a lipstick bullet while dodging glass shards[spoilers]

[Paul Eres]

guardian legend

[FemtoKitten]

I don't know if this counts, but Mirror's Edge changed it's focus dramatically towards the end. From a free-running game to a semi-FPS with a character who is quite fragile.

[Sharkoss]

Major Havoc did this, and did it good - all of the components are well put-together and even pretty groundbreaking individually.  It switched between, like, three different game types - breakout, space shooter, and platformer.
http://youtu.be/_tLd_QhhRgM

[Hima]

That reminds me... Abobo's Big Adventure is, like, one stage per one genre. I know it's a parody of old games but does this count?  The game was also entertaining.

[PeteDevlin]

Didn't change halfway through, rather you had to constantly jump between them: Henry Hatsworth. Both match 3 and plat former simultaneously

[Graham.]

Minecraft: creating, mining. Very different; don't even feel distinct.

[SirNiko]

The hardest part is making the genre shift add to the game. If the shift is too drastic and sudden, it's like suddenly taking the game away and giving the player a different game they might not like. LA Noir does this when the final level turns into a pointless and poor quality FPS when the rest of the game has been a clever detective game. It's pretty similar to the problem most games have with obtrusive cutscenes that pull the player away from getting to play the game, except in this case it's just replacing the game with a different game.

Probably the best strategy is to either go with multiple genres and apply them consistently through the game (like Actraiser does) and ensure there's a sensible link between the genres (Good performance in the sim sections gives you higher power in the platformer sections) or just vary the genre wildly throughout the game and make this clear to the player from the outset so they don't get disappointed. Wario Ware and Battletoads are good examples, because every level introduces something completely different.

If you're going to vary the genre suddenly for effect, make sure you give an extremely good reason for doing it. Metal Gear Solid 2 did this badly by turning the final battle into an inexplicable sword fight for no sensible reason. The change lacks any significance to the player, and forces them to learn to use the sword just barely in time for the credit roll. Metal Gear Solid 4 did this right when you pilot Metal Gear Rex near the end of the game. Getting to pilot a metal gear after destroying them in game after game is a fun surprise and leads to a very memorable battle.

Related topic - giving the player godmode at the end of the game for effect.

[Azure Lazuline]

Strange that you mention MGS2's final boss, which uses a weapon you were already introduced to about an hour ago (and Snake gave you specific training for it, and it's one of the best weapons to use from that point on), and then praise MGS4, which turned into a fighting game with counterattacks and new controls while fighting Ocelot.

But yeah, the Metal Gear fight before it was amazing. The Ocelot fight was kind of cool too because of how it was handled and its signifigance, but it was weird how drastic the control changes were.

[Graham.]

Core value: genre shift powerful.
Core restraint: genre shift hard to make smooth for player.

That's it.

[C.D Buckmaster]

A bad use of genre shift was in Condemned 2.  The game is a first person brawler, with a limited shooting mechanic used mostly as a form of power up.  The guns were okay when fighting melee characters (they were shaky and could only hold one clip), but the game kept forcing you into shooting sections that just played like a bad first person shooter.

The problem with genre shifting is that it can leave one of the genres with underdeveloped game play.

[SundownKid]

I was just playing Sleeping Dogs, which switches from a third-person brawler in the first half missions to a third person shooter in the second half. Which makes sense from a realism standpoint, but feels superfluous considering you have 3 times as many kung-fu skills as weapon skills.

[SirNiko]

Strange that you mention MGS2's final boss, which uses a weapon you were already introduced to about an hour ago (and Snake gave you specific training for it, and it's one of the best weapons to use from that point on), and then praise MGS4, which turned into a fighting game with counterattacks and new controls while fighting Ocelot.

I think the final battle in MGS4 had a similar feeling of significance for me, since the music and method of combat changes in each segment to reflect a different game in the series (you could also consider it a callback to the final battle in MGS1). I enjoyed it, but I think ultimately it would have been better to finish with a gunfight like in MGS3 that utilizes the mechanics from the rest of the game (or series, for the same effect as the existing battle).

I never used the sword in the final segment of MGS2 (and I've beaten it on Very Hard!), and honestly had to stop and think back hard if you even get a chance to do so before the battle with the Rexes. If the game had taken away all your guns and left you with only the sword, it might've come across as less abrupt because then I would have had to use the sword through the final leg.

An unusual example of genre shift is Hydrophobia for the PC. The game is broken into three phases, each of which is clearly marked on the save screen. In the first phase, you have no weapons and solve the puzzles simply by running and climbing. In the second phase, you get a gun and wind up fighting a lot of foes with a combination of gunfire and environmental hazards. In the third and final phase, you get poisoned and have to search for antidotes, leaving you with time limits on many sections. At the very end, you develop water-controlling powers, which you use to battle the last waves of enemies and defeat the final boss.

It gives each chapter a different feeling, where you're slowly becoming more capable, but in more significant degrees than your typical JRPG or Metroidvania. In practice, it seems like the game might have been abruptly concluded and released with only half the planned content, since you are left unable to use your pretty involved powers in only a few rooms before the credits roll.

[Alec S.]

I like games where one genre defines the moment to moment gameplay, and one genre defines the overarching structure.  Like XCOM with real time Sim for the world view and turn based tactics as the missions, or the Total War series with a light Grand Strategy game for the structure and real time tactics for the missions.  C.A. Sinclair mentioned Pirates, which had an element of this too, with a 4X strategy game being played out by the computer controlling the state of the world.  You didn't directly play this 4X game, but could indirectly effect it through gameplay.


On the other hand one of the worst examples of genre combining I've played was Brutal Legend.  I liked the game, but the RTS sections were frustrating and out of place, and it felt like that took over what should have been just a good third person action game.