Video game genres shouldn't be defined by mechanics, controls, or intended "ways to play the game"

No worries, I'm new too and still haven't done by three debates! This is my second!PortalPRO's main argument relies on the notion that Portal should potentially be considered a puzzler rather than a first-person shooter.The problem is however that "puzzler" doesn't represent the "feel" of the game that he suggests should be a replacement for genres in R1. "Puzzler" is in fact one of the old fashioned genre definitions that he is meant to be offering a repalcement to. Personally I'd describe the game's feel as a minimalist journey through a futuristic dystopian scenario that is full of dark comedy.By arguing that it is a puzzler and not a FPS, he is merely arguing which of two old fashioned genres it should fall under - not offering an alternative. He is therefore implicitly supporting my arguement.Also this argument seems specific to Portal as a whole and picked out purely because Portal is not representative of games as a whole. Even if Portal couldn't be described using a conventional genre, that only applies to Portal, portal 2 and maybe a few similar games. byThat therefore still leaves the vast majority of genres as those that should be defined by "mechanics, controls, or intended ways to play the game" and hence the argument in favour of CON.Movie ComparisonIn regards to the comparison between movie and games, I feel the comparison is invalid for several reasons.a) The defining feature of most games and movies is not the camera work. We define movies by the nature of the narrative because we are passive viewers and the plot is what we engage with. We define games games by the nature of the gameplay because we are active participants and the nature of the type of games defines how we play with it. The implication of his point is that movies and games should be judged on the same basis, but this is impossible when movies are judged on narratives (which some games lack completely) and games are judged based on how we interact with them (which we can't do with movies. As the two methods of judging are mutualyl exclusive, we are left with judgign them on the basis of how we interact with them.b) Sometimes when the camera work is a factor in a movie it DOES define the genre, like the found footage genre defined by it's shaky camera work and supposedly naturalistic amateur feel.c) Most game genres aren't defined by camera work either. A beat-em up is usually just a beat-em up with no first person specified. Same with Puzzler, RTS, etc. Many games like racing games and flight sims, will even offer multiple camera views so it can be first person or third-person.D) PRO admits that the difference in camera between the sub-genres like first-person and third-person shooters is a "miniscule difference". My argument has not relied on camerawork being the central basis of how genres are defined. Why then does he treat it as such for the purpose of this comparison when he admits this is wrong?Lack of RebuttalsI feel that my points weren't adequately dealt with. Take my point about how a substantial amount of games games lack narrative and are pure gameplay, hence how the only description that can be given is one that defines their genre like platformer or puzzler or what have you.