Be original dont worry about originality

#1 Actually, you're summary of Half-Life and Star wars is pretty spot on :p

"Fun" is not something you're going to be able to design from the get-go. Do you think ANYONE has sat down and thought: "Let's try not to make this game fun."? Why do you think "let's make it fun" is probably missing from every design document out there?

"Fun" is so subjective that it doesn't do much but stupidify the design process. Fun is only fun to the person who said it'd be fun, and depending on how the actual execution is they might not even find it enjoyable.

Gameplay is the most important thing. Fun usually comes along with it, and depending on your target audience and own personal talent innovation will sometimes follow.

Innovation is key to indie development because we cannot get attention with a Diablo or Quake remake. Blizzard and Id can, and that is due to their past success and pure financial backing. Innovation allows indie developers to cut through the massive productions of rehashes by getting attention for thinking outside of the box. Sure, it might not always bring the most fun results but it certainly will bring some attention. Attention can never hurt you.

Even games with extreme violence, that get berated by angry mothers will only sell better! Any publicity is good publicity! Why do you think Postal sold more than two copies? Because it was violent to an extreme, and had jack to back it up. The violence was a gimmick.

Innovation is the correct balance of gameplay and gimmicks. Look at Deus Ex. Not the first FPS to have RPG elements nor was it the first to have a good story. It was the first to merge them, win praise for them, and market them.

If your goal is not to innovate, then you better find some millionare to back your project. If you can't get the consumer see why your project is worth trying, then you're already dead in the water. The only way indies can do that is with a strong word of mouth campaign, and some innovation to attract skeptics.

#2 Thats a pretty interesting point BRS, I had never thought of that. I always assumed that originality was the holy grail of design, but I can see what you mean, definitely something to think about...

#3 As much as your entire post screams "Take my opinion as fact", I'll be nice.

Look at the top two games being sold right now for consoles and PC. Grand Theft Auto 3 and the Sims. Those alone destroy any arguement you had aside from "the game must be fun".

Innovation is not only a good sign of your skill as a developer, but it's also something that can attract many more customers. The customers don't care if your game is fun if they already own the game that you copied.

#4 Just to play devils advocate . . .

Grand Theft Auto 3 is just Driver with guns and some other stuff.

OR
Grand Theft Auto 3 is just Grand Theft Auto 1 / 2 in 3D.

Either way, original or not, it is a hoot to play! :)

Now my own personal opinion is if the gameplay is there and the game is fun, it can have a few rough edges, sub-par graphics and anything else that does not detract from the gameplay.

You know how many hours I played derivitives of Artillery or Breakout! And had more fun with them than some of the "original" or "unique" games lately.

Creatures was really neat and one of the most unique games I can think of, and all but it was boring as hell, why?
Because it was a graphically jazzed up Life with some other stuff. Now that fish with a guys head on it game for the DreamCast was the most bizarre things I have ever seen at E3! It was innovative but not that fun.

Parappa the Rapper is one of my all time favorite games, and guess it was innovative and unique, but that is not why I bought it, I bought it because it was fun! Same with Bust-a-Groove 1/2, and Crash Bash, and other titles. These may or may not be innovative but they all are fun as hell!

I say forget about trying for unique, innovative or coming up with some "hook" that makes your game "differnt" just of the sake of being different and make a fun game that people will enjoying playing.

#5 Yeah you do that. Just make a Fun game and avoid innovation.

Just don't come begging to me for a loan when your game fails miserably. "But Starcraft sold well! Why oh why didn't my near-perfect copy do just as well?"

That thinking is one large companies can do, not indies.

"Fun" won't do much but keep your microscopic audience happy. Innovation will help expand it.

As for GTA. GTA 3 is GTA 1 and 2 in 3d.

What's innovative? The city actually feels massive, more things to do, and a more immersive game (since it's close up)

So unless you can find a game that gives the same feeling, then GTA 3 stands as a very unique and innovative game. Driver was a racing game where you drove in a city and weren't doing laps, the theme didn't make it innovative. Theme has almost no ability to innovate.

#6 You taking loan applications, Matt ? You got forms ? Can I give you my kids as collateral ? uhhh, can I just give you my kids and forget the loan ?

#7 never said, "avoid innovation" I agreed that "innovation" as an end is no better than blantant coping of another game.

I never enjoyed, Command and Conquer, and I doubt I would enjoy any of the clones as well.

Driver was not about RACING, it was about the EXACT same thing as GTA but you were secretly on the "good" side to appease the soccer moms. It had the same 3D environment, same, objective / time based mission format, just no getting out of the car.

Interstate '82 did have getting out of the car and running around with weapons way before GTA3, and it sucked!

Innovation is NOT the end all be all, if it is poorly executed. Trying to distill what makes a good / fun game is not that black and white. It also varies greatly on the person.

Personally I don't think GTA3 is that "innovative".
I think it is more "clever" than anything else and it IS EXECUTED much better than anything that came before it.

The thing is there are so many people with computers that crappy games like 3D Hunting ( and countless sequels that are the exact same game with different graphics ) can sell 250,000+ copies now days, not like back in the day when there were not 250,000 people with computers to begin with! :)

If a game like Combat Mission can sell tens of thousands of copies I am not worried about the niche that I am going after. Nothing innovative here, just a solid execution of a genre that was sorely lacking in quality software titles. Nothing "innovative" about IL-2.

I think people will buy, play and enjoy a well exectued game regardless of how "innovative" it is, they just care that they think it is fun!

If something is executed well and innovative also, that is just icing on the cake, because most software, games or not are poorly executed.

#8 Innovative does not equal popular.

The joys of the eternal 'Deer Hunter' saga was mentioned. There's a reason why it sells. It's called 'mass appeal' ... That same reason is why The Sims sells ... That's why those little 'crappy' games that retail for $15 sell so many copies. Mass Appeal.

If you're going for sales, you inevitably have to strike the mass appeal hot button, otherwise you fall back into the realm of the 'hardcore' gamer ... and they won't like it if it didn't cost $5M to make and uses the engine.

As an indie who hopes to make money, you compete by making games that are fun and have a reasonably broad appeal, or you target a specific niche and you target it hard. Going up against id and epic is suicide, and a waste of time.

Look at the game Jeff T is about to release. Not something most 'hardcore' folks would like, but I'm pretty sure it'll sell. And it'll sell because it's something my wife, my mom, my sisters, etc would be able to play and would enjoy playing.

#9 Innovation doesn't equal popular. Of course, we weren't discussing sales :P just quality of the game. Heh, the masses aren't all known for their gaming tastes.

As for innovation being a waste when it's poorly implemented, yes. That's the whole point.

"Most innovative" doesn't mean a pure mass of unique ideas. It means the best implementation of unique ideas. Grand Theft Auto 3 offered freedom and the crime spree, and did it well.

As for "Hardcore gamers", they've shown they'll avoid all but a few innovative games. I wrote a really long post in the "Violence in games" thread that basically explained why Hardcore gamers won't touch the really innovative games (aka, "fruity") They're used to sticking to genres, and formulas. Their taste doesn't extend beyond that of what they know, and when it comes to a game most aren't willing to try something new.

Just remember. Hardcore gamers aren't gaming connoisseurs. Hardocore gamers play their favorite genre, and know all about similar games. Connoisseurs play what's good, usually independent of genre or developer.

#10 I think a keyword I was missing has been mentioned here: execution.

A novelty idea and near perfect execution that is what is needed to create a great game. Novelty being mixing two generes, creating a new game from an old theme, etc.

I disagree in some statements mentioned (not in all the statements since you guys are right in most points)

first of all im not stating this as facts this is my opinion and thats all.

Second, measuring fun in a game is impossible? to be honest thats like saying you cant measure the performance of a computer you are building, I mean IT is difficult since you dont know what the final user will consider good performance, but you have benchmarks and you can also check on the satisfaction on the testers
(beta testers in our case) or by testing yourself. I mean if you dont think your game is fun, what chances does it have with someone else?

I never said cloning is a good idea, cloning is a bad, bad idea and will only get you into both legal and ethical trouble. I mentioned "novelty" innovation in a closed tested environment or genere, a single unique twist wont take the clon look of a game genere, but 2 or more truly unique twists will. Specially if the execution is real good.

Publishers liking originality? BUZZ sorry wrong answer,
if theres something publishers dont want is originality
why do you think they always bet on franchises, sequels
and (believe it or not!) clones? because they are already
tested formulas, their risks on selling them is much lower than selling a product completely alien to game consumers which basically has a 50/50 chance of either having an audience, or completely bombing. dont look at me like that, simply ask a publisher which one they would prefer to invest in a truly original game like REZ or ICo, or a good MGS2 clone you will be surprised at the answer. (im not saying I condone it, but it is the truth)

Indies not getting a chance? most of the biggest projects
out there like wolf3d (which generated the fps genere), duke nukem (the first games) everquest, cs, horizons, etc. started as being indie projects. And none of them
can presume of being very original (not even wolf3d
which is a remake of castle wolfenstein)

Im not saying originality is bad, Im just saying is not as important as many people seem to think.

Do you think George Lucas and Steven Splielberg wake up each morning thinking to themselves "my next movie has to be really original or I will lose my millions of dollars and fans?" *minority report* cough *blade runner* cough *star wars 3* NO! they ask themselves, which movie would people would like to see next? hmm.. heres a good novel, heres an interesting hot topic, hey look people really liked jurassic park, maybe a movie about this is in order.

I know we dont have the same budget or number of fans,
but I think the same concept may apply dont you think?

May the torque be with you...

#11 P.s.
Star wars is a bunch of people holding light sticks and riding ships? give me a break! ask the Millions of star wars followers what SW is all about and then we will talk.

But I will give you a hint: SW uses a mythology model so old that comes from times before the bible (and that has been popular since then) and then mixes it with modern sci fi and the latest in digital imagery to create a "believable" modern age myth, it attacks your most vulnerable psychological target zones (legacy, the dark side of men, traveling into the unknown, family, heroism, betrayal and after death) and most wanted desires to involve you into a fantasy world you "truly" feel a part of.

So much for people riding ships...

May the torque be with you...

#12 OK the first 3 Star Wars were mythology...

These new ones are a bunch of guys riding space ships smacking each other with sticks ;p

#13 Okay Buring Rose (can't you come up with an actual person-like name? I feel like I'm playing Everquest or something talking to a name like that! :p) but I really dont' think we should be worrying about what publishers think about.

Or are you telling me you've scored the license to create a Star Wars or Matrix computer game?

If not, then why are we even trying to say "well, mass-market publishers want guaranteed successes, not risk and innovation".

You think you're making a game for a mass-market publisher? This is a niche market, and the people who will be buying are people with half a brain.

You have to stop thinking about everything that worked for Blizzard or some other massive company, and think of your resources and target audience. Blizzard can aim towards dragging in Joe Dipwad by advertising and name recognition. He'll buy it because Blizzard told em it was a good game. He won't buy your game unless he sees it after Pokemon and before Sponge Bob.

So try to lay off the mass-market suggestions when we are all clearly not going that route. Think small, act big. Right now, you're doing it the other way around.

#14 Matt before we continue this conversation, may you please
share with me what is your concept of originality? and
also since we are in the subject, how many games have you published? I have published 3 so far, only one of
them was kind of original and extremely silly. the other 2 were basically (to be honest) clones with twists, a racing game a la mario kart (except they were ran by kids instead of nintendo characters) and a platform game where the hero was a kid inside a computer, think mario with a laser gun and you have half of it right(www.geocities.com/german_cons)

I stated from a beginning that whatever I say is just my opinion, however it sounds to me like you are totally convinced what you are saying is the honest to god ultimate truth, I just want to know how can you be so sure, that the model used by almost any game company I know of, is wrong and you are right.

btw my name is German Cons my nick is Azrael, Burningrose Studios is my group, Im the lead programmer for the group.

May the torque be with you...

p.s.
Harold: ouch, well.. Jar Jar Binks is a hard point to explain, but the history still has some mithology on it. as a matter of fact Anakin turning into evil by the death of his mother, his forbidden love and acussing his
teacher of constraining him, are all acts played by greek mythology heros.

I think the problem is as simple as this, Lucas shouldnt have directed his own work, the mythology of SW is comprised of hundreds of creative minds involved in the project over the years, and thats why his vision falls quite a bit short, compared to the myth he helped to create. Which is the reason why I believe the studio requested him not to direct SW3, which (is supposed) to be by far the most important chapter in the entire series. (and based on the fact that the best chapters, werent directed by him neither)

however thats just my 0.2 units.

#15 Want proof?

Go make a rehash, and then release it on your indie budget.

Then come back here and tell me how many thousands of copies you sold.

Your statements are coming off as "this is how you do it" despite being quite opposite to most of what has been seen or said around GarageGames and most independent development sites. Not saying you're wrong, just that your scope is off.

Those thoughts (innovation isn't important) can only apply to large companies. They have no worries of drawing in potential customers, nor do they really care if their game gets a bad review. It won't destroy their future business, as long as the game sells well enough.

Indies must take a risk, or else they won't be successful. Why should people try your game over one made by a veteran company that already has 50,000 players? Why should they take the risk of trying the "new guy" when they can take a sure bet? What if the "new guy" offers something you can't get elsewhere, wouldn't that force people to look your way if they were interested in your game?

Or am I wrong here, and can someone make a pure Deathmatch (unreal or Quake clone) game and expect to do well? Can someone try to duplicate Diablo and expect to not get swept under the rug?

#16 There is something here that is very subtle and I think you are all skipping over it. As a result you might not see the common ground right in front of you.

Games are following a pattern similar to the development of books, television, and movies. It's a fact that there are certain story lines, plots, and themes that are explored over and over. In addition, there are certain settings that are continually reused (outer space, dinosaur worlds, fantasy settings, racetracks, World War whatever, and the like.) Whenever you reuse a setting or element from another medium you are not being original. Anybody can claim that your work is a copy when you reuse a common element.

So what?

We are in the entertainment business. Our job is to make something that entertains our audience. Looking around for "originality" as many here are using the term, is a waste of time. We have a unique medium in that our audience can interact with the environments we create. That is what makes us different from books, movies and TV. But, there is a price we pay for that interactivity. The price is control over presentation.

There is no significant difference between the plots of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story. The difference was in the way it is presented in the context of the time period. There are a very limited number of plots in the writing world and there are a small number of settings that get reused over and over. They get reused because they are places where the reader/viewers have an interest. We do the same thing. We build game worlds where game players have an interest.

Our challenge is that unlike books, TV, and movies - we cannot make the player go the way we want them to. By giving our player interactivity we give them choice. By giving them choice we remove the ability to play out the scenario we envision exactly as we want it to happen. A movie director can reshoot a scene until he gets the actors to say and do what he wants them to. Good directors get more from their actors and their cameramen than what they initially picture. But, what goes into the film is a passive plot experience that can be repeated in endless variety because the interactions are scripted, choreographed and controllable.

When you judge a film, you look at the acting, the integration of music to scene, the photography, and the plot's consistency. People rarely complain that it is the same plot.

Where this leads is that the settings of our game worlds will be exhausted fairly quickly when we use broad categories. If you say, "It's a MMORPG fantasy game." you have just described about a half-dozen different and entertaining game worlds. Those worlds are not the same. The rules governing how the player interacts with the environment are similar but not identical. If you say, "Game X is just another FPS." your statement has said no more than if you say, "Star Wars is a sci-fi movie." Yup, it is. There are lots of sci-fi movies. Some are entertaining some aren't. Same with an FPS.

I've read a lot of books that have the same basic plot. I've seen a lot of movies that tell the same basic story. There are a lot of fantasy movies, sci-fi movies, mysteries, and comedies out there. For those of you who are obsessing about whether your game idea is original my opinion is, don't bother. Even if it isn't you're interpretation of it can make it original. And that is the common ground it is YOUR interpretation that will make a game unique and entertaining. Originality comes from the mixing of old ideas in new ways. What many people in this group refer to as originality is actually better termed invention a totally new idea or concept. It is rare, it is rarely profitable, many people are afraid of it, and it is not necessary to create an entertaining game.

Where many games fail, in my opinion, is that they duplicate the one element that makes our medium different. They exactly copy the interactivity of another game while keeping the setting the same except for artwork and music. Quake with different monsters is still Quake. However, if you change the setting and interactions that the player has, you can get Unreal, Half-Life, or NOLF.

And as for not making a game that is like the big companies, I would submit that the big companies do have one or two things that it might be a good idea to emulate. For example, strive for quality artwork, quality audio, general robustness of the game, thoughtful user interface design, and a commitment to making an entertaining product.


Good hunting!

#17 David, well said.

#18 Couldnt agree more with you Dave! =)

matt: what are you talking about? I just said: I published 2 clones! not just one, but two of them, they were like other games except they had some interesting twists the publisher liked the execution and the twist and the deal was made. And to be honest I havent even noticed they were clones at the times they were made.

Why are you so sure something you have never tried doesnt work?

And yes, Im very sure that if I make a fun, well executed and somehow different clone of command & conquer (per example set in 3d and in space) it will be cool and pretty possibly it will be published, same thing with Diablo. (Havent you noticed dungeon siege IS a diablo clone in 3d?).

Why is that so difficult to believe for you?

#19 yep you are right BRS

Quote:command & conquer (per example set in 3d and in space)

See also Homeworld!

I learned in film school there are only 7 basic plots in the known writing world! Shakespeare beat them all to death years ago.

Then there are combonations and twists on those plots but any STORY can be factored down to those 7 plot components.

A twist or better exectution d!= innovative. I don't believe there is anything such as originality or innovation per se.

I would rely on solid execution and quality over innovation for innovation sake.

#20 So those two clones sold well, and is that what your opinion is based on?

You guys really are thinking too far ahead.

"We" are in the entertainment industry, but a small branch of a growing section. We are not Valve, Blizzard, or Electronic Arts. We are people with minimal budgets, and limited development time.

We are not going to be able to beat industry giants or even survive on our own if we try to beat them at their own game. Their game is to produce games people will buy through advertising and licensing.

We cannot think by their terms, and that is what has bothered me with this thread. As I said, I'll shut up once I see an indie clone do well.

Indie can't be "Electronic Arts Jr.". Indie must pave the way for themselves, and it won't happen by copying previous successes.

Jarrod: "I would rely on solid execution and quality over innovation for innovation sake."

Everyone would. Ever wonder why Seaman for Dreamcast didn't do so well? Innovation is the balance of quality and creativity. It's not just pushing ahead at the cost of a game that works well with itself.