Kaz: I’m bringing this back up from the show for a couple reasons. I was irritated listening to games journalists, a group that frequently complains that there isn’t an audience for serious game discussions, sidestep and give up on an important discussion. To say that we can use vague, ill-defined words and “get what we mean” from them is copping out.

All too often, gamers fall into the trap of not wanting to engage in difficult discussions because “games are for fun and what fun can be had of serious discussion.” I don’t think that discussing how to define a game precludes having fun with it. I like to think about how to better define genre-bending games like Bioshock. Trying to define the experience lets us develop a means to express the value of a game beyond the obvious “because it’s fun.”

That’s why I don’t want to avoid a simple question like “what is and RPG?” It’s a more complex answer than the question’s brevity would lead you to believe. And my thought process wasn’t well developed on the podcast but I’d like to discuss the question further here.

Justin: Well, to be fair, I’m not really sure they were “giving up on an important discussion” so much as they were leaving it open for future podcasts. Like you said, reclassifying games is a tall order, and I don’t think it’s something that can (or should) be accomplished within a two-hour chunk.

That said, when I think about what makes an RPG, my answer now would be considerably different from what it would have been 10 years ago. Whereas I originally associated it with leveling up, status ailments and upgradable abilities, those elements have gradually been adopted by action, adventure and even first-person shooter games. And while I’d say that the sweeping stories and multiple quests have come to differentiate RPGs in recent years, a game like Mass Effect 2 calls even that into question. Sure, it’s being billed as an RPG, but the shooting segments feel right out Gears of War of to me.

I’ve been seriously pondering this question since episode 122, and I keep coming back to my “drama section at Blockbuster” analogy. Movie critics don’t really get hung up in arguing whether or not a film is a drama or not, because it’s generally assumed that they all are dramatic to some extent. You do have genre flicks (horror, sci-fi) that I think serve as the movie equivalent of sports or racing, but the bulk of releases out there are aimed at a broader audience. I guess my question to you then, Kaz, is why does taxonomy matter here? How do we benefit from this classification?

Kaz: The benefit is twofold: practical and philosophical. I’ll admit that in the grand scheme of things this difficulty in taxonomy and nomenclature is meaningless. But then again we spend a lot of time talking about video games. I’d like to think that they merit the amount of time I put into discussing them every single week.

The practical benefit, the more important of the two for me, is not for the podcasters, journalists and bloggers of the video games industry, but rather for their audience, people who listen to games journalists for consumer advice. Someone listening to our podcast is going to hear us call something an RPG or claim something is very “RPG-like,” but if those terms have lost all meaning, then the listener does not gain any insight into the game.

Example: my girlfriend dislikes RPGs but fell in love with Fable II, a game that blurs the line between genres. If she hadn’t seen the game or played it for herself, she wouldn’t have had that great experience. I think listeners benefit the most from really putting thought into the language we use to describe games.

I’ll have to admit that the philosophical benefit is weak, but I’d hazard that a game designer worth his or her salt spends some time defining the desired experience for the player. However,  the designers of Mass Effect 2 didn’t define genres and tailor the game to fit them. Determining the classification is our job, and I (and others) are dissatisfied with the current genre definitions; that’s reason enough for me to want to talk about it.

Justin: Well, to answer your first point, I don’t see how not having rigid genre definitions would somehow take away from the “merits” of the medium. Again, I feel like getting hung up on these minor details seems pointless when you can talk about so many other elements of game design, world building and story telling.

But even on a practical level, I think that boiling down game types to their methods of input – as you suggested on a recent podcast – would in fact do many games a disservice. In the case of Fable II, there are so many different facets to the game that I think calling it an action adventure or a real-time RPG or whatever else doesn’t truly do it justice. I think when it comes down to it, sometimes a more detailed (but still succinct) approach is the way to go.

And as always, my analogies come back to other media. When your girlfriend visits Barnes & Noble’s “new paperback” section, how does she figure out what she wants to read? And when you take her to the theater, do the trailers explicitly explain which ones are for action flicks and which ones are for rom-coms? No, because marketing folks know how to communicate what they’re trying to sell, and if this problem falls on anyone’s shoulders, it would land solely on the game publishers themselves. We can take the time to identify these genres if we want, but I’m not sure I want this to be “our job.”

Kaz: We keep coming back to comparisons to movies, books and music, and I have to refute those comparisons with the same argument we use on a monthly basis. Games are different – you interact with games, and that interaction is different than merely watching a movie. It’s more akin to music genre preference if anything. I think for most people a good movie is a good movie, but good music is less universal.

I realize now that while I wanted to have the discussion “how to define games if the genre designations we have today didn’t exist,” but it instead came out as “let’s argue the semantics of the genres!” And that’s totally my fault, as I haven’t been able to put my finger on the discussion I wanted to have. Even so, we’ve gone down this path so I’ll see it through.

I know this is scatterbrained, but I just realized that when I play Dungeons & Dragons (4th edition), we discretely break up the game into two chunks, the “RP” and the fighting. And this distinction is not limited to our group alone. We’ve parsed out the talking to NPCs and shopping, and advancing our characters from the battles. Mind you, the combat and the conversations are driven by the same exact mechanic: say some stuff about what your character is doing and roll some dice to see if you succeed.

Table top gamers can break down the game into finer parts to more accurately describe what they want to do. Yet, I can’t convince video gamers that it might be worthwhile for them to do the same? The medium is far more akin to D&D than it is to cinema.

Justin: Well, while I disagree on a few of your points – objective quality of cinema? really? – but I will at least concede that the term “role-playing game” is a bit outdated; I’ll play ball here. When D&D was still fairly underground and video games were in their infancy, it made sense to differentiate the story-based number crunchers from more arcadey fare. But as more of these elements have been adopted into other genres, the term “RPG” has become pretty vague. Rather than falling back on “JRPG,” maybe we should use “menu-based” or “turn-based” as the new genre. Not sure where something like Final Fantasy XII falls in this setup, but again, I think it’s silly arguing over these quibbles. I don’t think it cuts through the message board crap so much as it adds to another layer of obfuscation.

Satisfied by our sparring session? Want to get in your two cents? Be sure to chat it up on our boards.

Justin: I watched a 3D screening of “Avatar” a couple weeks ago, and I’ll admit that I’m a little sick of the coverage this movie has received, a huge box-office take be damned. While I found much to like about the film, which is why Nick and I are dual-blogging here, I found the plot and thinly drawn characters to be utterly forgettable. I think if you take even a not-so-close look at the logistics of the Avatar program and the supposed diplomatic mission to Pandora, it makes little sense, and there are a bunch of other nagging issues that bug the hell out of me. Not trying to be a downer, but I want to make it clear that I have a lot of issues that I’m ignoring for the sake of this conversation before we proceed.

That said, I love those glowing helicopter lizards. And the hair-tentacle fusion stuff between the Na’vi and Pandoran wildlife. And the bioluminescent fauna that lights up when Jake walks by at night. Throughout the entire 2+ hour experience, I kept thinking about how much the planet reminded me of the Panzer Dragoon series, most notably Orta, and I was unsurprised when Nick mentioned that he picked up a similar video game vibe during his viewing. The movie, both thematically and visually, seems reminiscent of many recent gaming favorites, and I thought it would be fun to explore the symbiotic relationship between Hollywood and our industry that’s cropped up in recent years. So Nick, I was hoping you could touch a bit upon the “virtual world” theme that you were talking about last night…

Nick: I would be happy to, but first, let me provide a little context on my experience with “Avatar.” Perhaps the most telling sign of my opinion is the fact that I spent roughly nine hours of my holiday break watching Cameron’s 3D epic come to life – coming from a guy that usually never sees a movie twice, that’s a pretty big deal. But as someone who can be quick to give an opinion on a game I’ve never even played, I was completely enthralled with the film – it’s characters, art and yes, even plot – without really understanding why. All I knew was that I loved it, and I wanted to see it again. And again.

After about a week of thought and conversation, it’s become clear that one of the reasons why “Avatar” stuck a deep chord with me is due to its direct appeal to my gamer side. To say nothing about the stunning CG and beautiful characters, in my opinion, it’s the “virtual world” concept that Cameron uses as the basis of the movie – that we can inhabit other bodies as an “escape” – that shines through the brightest. Not to say that other movies haven’t touched upon or used the idea (lest I have die-hard “Matrix” or “Lawnmower Man” fans breathing down my neck, and god I hope the latter don’t exist), but “Avatar” stands out in my mind as the the first film where the idea of escaping into that “virtual world” is actually an acceptable, even preferable practice. Watching Jake, the main character, become addicted to his second life as a Na’vi, to the point where he doesn’t care about his personal appearance or grooming practices, rings far too close to home for anyone who’s truly been in love with an hour-melting game. I wonder how many Everquest or World of Warcraft players would transfer their consciousness to their in-game avatars if they were given the same opportunity that Jake was.

Justin: I think that sense of escapism extends beyond MMORPGs, too. During all of Jake’s leaps and bounds, particularly the few he takes when he’s first transferred into his Avatar, there was the same freedom of movement and exploration that platforming greats like Super Mario Galaxy and Uncharted 2 encourage. (Pandora’s lush jungles definitely remind me of the latter game.) Jake never thought he’d be able to walk again, which makes the Avatar program particularly enticing. His host body makes the impossible possible, and I think that’s often why we play games.

Maybe it’s just me, but I feel that “Avatar” is one of many recent films that seem to reinforce a symbiotic relationship between the game industry and Hollywood. While we hear all the time about how Grand Theft Auto and Metal Gear Solid want to be movies, James Cameron wants the “Avatar” experience to be almost interactive – it’s definitely game-like in its pacing – with 3D imagery that can (ideally) immerse you completely into an alien world. As we hear about 3D televisions being shown at CES, it seems like the lines between gaming and cinema could begin to blur. Cameron, above all else, is a technology guy, and while he may be mostly interested in bringing audiences to the theater, I could see him latching onto game development more as displays become more sophisticated.

Nick: It immediately reminds me of seeing Steven Spielberg’s name attached to the front of Boom Blox – whether or not the title sold well because of him, I’m really not sure, but it would definitely be interesting to see Cameron’s take on games given how well he can suck me into his non-interactive worlds. But I think you’re spot-on in terms of the symbiotic relationship between movies and games – you can’t play more than two minutes of Bethesda’s WET without being bludgeoned over the head by the development team’s Tarantino influence. Unfortunately, I don’t think there are many examples of films or games that have been able to effectively channel the interactive nature or supreme story-telling that signals the best of either medium. Although there’s blame to be had on both sides, I’m quick to glare at the game industry for continuously giving us control over trite, action-oriented “cool” movie experiences and shying away from “meaningful” ones. Mass Effect 2 and Heavy Rain can’t come soon enough.

I also find it interesting that several outlets have voiced the same issue with “Avatar” that they have with other big-title games – anxiety over supporting a “huge-budget” title. Although I really don’t enjoy riding on the back of whatever hype train comes rolling through pop-culture station, I feel powerless to fight this increasing trend of enormous budgets being tied to enormous success, especially when they arrive via quality titles like “Avatar” and Modern Warfare 2. Is that extra layer of shimmer and shine worth the $100 million bridge across the uncanny valley?

Justin: That’s the thing, though – while I enjoyed those experiences, I’m not sure their quality justifies the outrageous price tags. You feel powerless not because these titles are so riveting, but because that’s where major studios are putting their advertising dollars. Even as the snobby indie film fan, I don’t know how to fight this either.

If box office money was really a barometer of excellence, “District 9″ should have enjoyed the same level of success as “Avatar.” Cameron clearly squeezed every last pixel out of his special effects budget, but Blomkamp got quite a bit of shimmer from his estimated $30 million, too. (I would even say that the interaction between the prawns and humans was just as seamless as some of the battles in “Avatar.”) If we’re looking at big budget, “video-game-like” movies, I think “District 9″ is the model to follow. While the South African parable will eventually be recognized as the better film – trust me – the lasting legacy of “Avatar” will be for ushering 3D into theaters,* and gaming will benefit from that down the road.

*…even if my astigmatism-ized eyes can’t tell the difference.

Not to derail our conversation, but everyone who cares about big budget sci-fi or game-to-film adaptations should check out a recent L.A. Times interview with Neil Blomkamp. Here, he espouses the virtues of gaming, including some behind-the-shoulder shots ripped straight from the modern third person shooter, as well as why so many previous efforts have failed. It thematically ties into a lot of what we’ve been talking about here.

Nick: And yet, I can’t easily pin down the powerless feeling I get with giant marketing budgets. To “Avatar” team’s credit, Michael Bay’s marketing team can throw all of the money they want at me (and I know they had quite a bit), but I still haven’t been suckered into the tornado of filth that was “Transformers 2.” It’s that same “love-to-hate” feeling that creeps up inside me any time I see a major title I’m not fond of receive loads of media attention – while I certainly don’t want to fan the flames, I’m reluctant to be left out in the cold either.

Overall however, I think we’re only going to see this blurring trend between games, movies and other media in general continue to increase. With every medium looking to another for both creative inspiration and financial solutions, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear of franchise ideas being nixed in the first place because of a lack of game or film “potential.” Whether “Avatar” will be looked back upon as a bridge or milestone between games, movies and 3D, I really have no clue. I’ll let Cameron, critics and society decide that. Meanwhile, I’ll be over here doing what I do best – shelling out my money and time for those experiences that can immerse me in something fantastically different.