Hmm, I haven't seen any leveling system in Sim City. I doubt there is one. Unless you consider running a good city with high rating as mayor and keeping pollution level down as leveling, then, so be it. However, then we are saying that leveling system shouldn't or isn't in the traditional sense. Such as leveling to the next rank or whatever.

Splinter Cell on the hand, well, I don't see any leveling either. Unless you mean progressing through the different levels. And it depends on what SC you are talking about. Chaos Theory and Double Agent has a status system, so you know how well you did in a mission. DA also has unlockables. You can say this is leveling up but you know the bug that came with the game prevent you from unlocking. It's silly to use this an argument but w/e. The main argument is (not a real argument, but a point), the game doesn't have a sense or at least a traditional sense of leveling up. Back to the status system. I wouldn't call this as leveling up per se. It's much like the RTS where foyleman mentions that you can sense of achievement. That's essentially what the status system is. And go back and do it all over again until you did better.


As for RTS, Company of Heroes does have a ranking system in MP but I don't play online much because I keep getting kicked for low rank. Keep in mind, I don't play it often but when I do, I do skirmish with AI or my brother. This is a leveling system, well, I will give you that but it's pointless. I see no reason to level in an RTS game like this. There is no unlocks.


The argument between MGS and SC about being the better spy game has becoming thin. I played MGS3: Snake Eater for a little bit. It's the only MGS I played. It's not a bad game but I don't prefer it. Clunky controls, etc. Not saying this ruin the game but it's just a little frustrating and I didn't like the story all that much. A bit to sci-fi for me. Not really a sense of realism. I admit, all this time, I like realism and stick to it. Even the storyline has to be realistic. You are right about the different elements in it but I don't think there is an mixture of genres. Action, adventure, strategy aren't really genres. That comes to the next question. To complete this point, to me, I see elements, like you said, in games. Not necessary a mix of genre.

Now, genre. What exactly is classified as genre? Action, adventure, (lol Steam puts it this way.), shooter?

My list of genres is Shooter (FPS, TPS), RTS, RPG, RTT, sports, racing, and a few more.

Actions, adventures are considered elements because certainly any of those genres will have these elements so it's redundant or ineffective to call action or adventure genres.


And Serious Sam was fun. I recently bought it after I stopped playing it for a long time. It's fun that doesn't dies. Just the way its arcadey feel feels.

Other than the above, there is no limit to what future games will hold or bring. It doesn't matter if genre are mixing or future games are sandbox style, etc, but as long as the game is fun and according to you what its genre of game that you like, that's what it matters.

Wow, feels heroic when I said that, but that's how I see it.