Be original dont worry about originality
by AzraelK · in General Discussion · 05/21/2002 (4:02 pm) · 35 replies
I think im just got a bit tired, everytime someone comes up with a game idea that looks nice, immediately some flamer goes for the yugular claiming on their originilarity, "is been done! you infidel!" even realm wars has had its share of this "cyber inquisition" conflict, and even half life has been claimed to be "about running around killing monsters and soldiers" (now I dont know about you but I wont take that!)
Look guys, here are some news about originality: I believe is a pretty weak choice for the main interest of a project, is a sure fire way to get into trouble while designing your game, and make it unplayable, is like salt in your food a little will make it taste better, but eat a can of it or use it in anything (including water and coffee) and you will expend the rest of the week emptying the contents of your stomach, in a nutshell caring about originality on your game above all things, will make it suck beyond recognition.
I mean ok, I will personally find the address of the team leader, who gets an idea on doing yet another counterstrike clone (unless is really good) and smack him silly with his computer monitor several times,
until he recovers his common sense.
But other than a way out of the clone machine, Originality is a nice value to have in a game, BUT just that, no matter how ORIGINAL your game is, nobody will care for it, if its not FUN TO PLAY!!!
Gameplay and fun should be a much greater concern before originality.
Anyway I wouldnt call what is needed to make your game
not look like a clon of a similar game "originality" but more like "novelty", do something that has already been before (perhaps in a different medium) or that it should have been done before and wasnt before technology or even "traditions" didnt allowed, and do it right the technology at hand to do what was impossible to do before.
Design games you have always liked to play the way you wanted to play them and that you can create now!
Per example:
*Doom
*Duke Nukem
*Half Life
*Deus Ex.
Now if we put all this games together in a row, on first sight they all look the same, but as you start to play them you will realize they are completely different, the way to play them, their look, the strategies, the goals, even the mood set by the game and their philoshophy (to call it somehow) is very, very different.
(The curious thing about this list is that it comprises some of the best selling most played games ever!)
You see, you dont really have to be that ORIGINAL
to create a really cool and enjoyable game you need a lot of hard work so your game has a "mood" a vision,
and the playaility required to be me entertaining,
an idea to give it hidden extra mile to create something worth playing. That little something that was missing
in any other game and would make a world of difference if you could find out what it is.
Novelty more than "originality" create a new experience, based on something you find familiar and feel comfortable with. I believe thats the key to good game design.
Im not saying complete originality is bad, but how many of us would play REZ or ICO more times than Max Payne or MGS2? Rez and ICO being the most original games Ive ever seen. and Max payne being just a mixture of the matrix and duke nukem,MGS2 being the "new and improved" version of a game you played a thousand times before, do a poll and you will see.
Thats all I have to say about the so called
"originality"
So when billy flamer A gets all tingly saying:
"Your game sounds like that wildly unknown game I used to play a thousand years ago in my C64! you heretic! you CANT do that is unoriginal, burn your project at the stake I say !" your best answer is to store A by sending it first to variable H and then in alphabetic order to variables L,E,L that would solve the problem.
May the torque be with you...
BTW:
Yeah and star wars is a bunch of people holding light sticks and riding around in ships right? come on, get the picture!
peace.
Look guys, here are some news about originality: I believe is a pretty weak choice for the main interest of a project, is a sure fire way to get into trouble while designing your game, and make it unplayable, is like salt in your food a little will make it taste better, but eat a can of it or use it in anything (including water and coffee) and you will expend the rest of the week emptying the contents of your stomach, in a nutshell caring about originality on your game above all things, will make it suck beyond recognition.
I mean ok, I will personally find the address of the team leader, who gets an idea on doing yet another counterstrike clone (unless is really good) and smack him silly with his computer monitor several times,
until he recovers his common sense.
But other than a way out of the clone machine, Originality is a nice value to have in a game, BUT just that, no matter how ORIGINAL your game is, nobody will care for it, if its not FUN TO PLAY!!!
Gameplay and fun should be a much greater concern before originality.
Anyway I wouldnt call what is needed to make your game
not look like a clon of a similar game "originality" but more like "novelty", do something that has already been before (perhaps in a different medium) or that it should have been done before and wasnt before technology or even "traditions" didnt allowed, and do it right the technology at hand to do what was impossible to do before.
Design games you have always liked to play the way you wanted to play them and that you can create now!
Per example:
*Doom
*Duke Nukem
*Half Life
*Deus Ex.
Now if we put all this games together in a row, on first sight they all look the same, but as you start to play them you will realize they are completely different, the way to play them, their look, the strategies, the goals, even the mood set by the game and their philoshophy (to call it somehow) is very, very different.
(The curious thing about this list is that it comprises some of the best selling most played games ever!)
You see, you dont really have to be that ORIGINAL
to create a really cool and enjoyable game you need a lot of hard work so your game has a "mood" a vision,
and the playaility required to be me entertaining,
an idea to give it hidden extra mile to create something worth playing. That little something that was missing
in any other game and would make a world of difference if you could find out what it is.
Novelty more than "originality" create a new experience, based on something you find familiar and feel comfortable with. I believe thats the key to good game design.
Im not saying complete originality is bad, but how many of us would play REZ or ICO more times than Max Payne or MGS2? Rez and ICO being the most original games Ive ever seen. and Max payne being just a mixture of the matrix and duke nukem,MGS2 being the "new and improved" version of a game you played a thousand times before, do a poll and you will see.
Thats all I have to say about the so called
"originality"
So when billy flamer A gets all tingly saying:
"Your game sounds like that wildly unknown game I used to play a thousand years ago in my C64! you heretic! you CANT do that is unoriginal, burn your project at the stake I say !" your best answer is to store A by sending it first to variable H and then in alphabetic order to variables L,E,L that would solve the problem.
May the torque be with you...
BTW:
Quote:
Half life: is about running around shooting monsters
and soldiers...
Yeah and star wars is a bunch of people holding light sticks and riding around in ships right? come on, get the picture!
peace.
#22
I do not want you to shut up - I value your opinion - even if I don't always agree with it. But you are overlooking the fact that an indie game developer has already done it. They made a mod and called it --Counterstrike.
And if you feel that that isn't original enough or small enough as a team to qualify I have another - though you might not like the genre - Myst.
05/22/2002 (3:50 pm)
Matt,I do not want you to shut up - I value your opinion - even if I don't always agree with it. But you are overlooking the fact that an indie game developer has already done it. They made a mod and called it --Counterstrike.
And if you feel that that isn't original enough or small enough as a team to qualify I have another - though you might not like the genre - Myst.
#23
Here at the indie level with little (read zero) revenue to create games, we have the luxery to attempt new ideas, new innovation, and originality within our games. Were allowed to try and implement these features into a workable fun game without fear of investors pulling in the reins and the money. Will they be successful, make money, and allow you to buy that Astin Martin you always wanted? Probably not. Will it spark even newer ideas, more innovations, and further the industry? Hopefully. So what if you crash and burn, at least you put your ass out there to tested the water. A privage that many professional(money making) dev houses don't have.
Yet with that said, who's to say that small twist/derivatives in current genres are not innovative or original. Maybe not in overall story or mechanics but they do act vehicles for the smaller inovations to reach the general public(ie.. Max Payne, bullet time). Those dev houses and publishers still need to make money, so they use a vehicle that is known to create revenue and make baby steps towards new ideas. Should indie developers use this appoach? Personal choice, but as indie developers we aren't restricted to it.
We can take those baby steps or we can take the giant step, its our choice. Were not restricted on our approach or our ideas. The only change is that now we have the tech(thank GG for that) to open our minds and explore and (hopefully) make a little cash in the process.
05/22/2002 (4:31 pm)
Guys, your looking at it from two extremes. Not all independent games have to be completely "original" ideas. But without these innovations, we as indie developers won't be able to blaze new paths in the industry.Here at the indie level with little (read zero) revenue to create games, we have the luxery to attempt new ideas, new innovation, and originality within our games. Were allowed to try and implement these features into a workable fun game without fear of investors pulling in the reins and the money. Will they be successful, make money, and allow you to buy that Astin Martin you always wanted? Probably not. Will it spark even newer ideas, more innovations, and further the industry? Hopefully. So what if you crash and burn, at least you put your ass out there to tested the water. A privage that many professional(money making) dev houses don't have.
Yet with that said, who's to say that small twist/derivatives in current genres are not innovative or original. Maybe not in overall story or mechanics but they do act vehicles for the smaller inovations to reach the general public(ie.. Max Payne, bullet time). Those dev houses and publishers still need to make money, so they use a vehicle that is known to create revenue and make baby steps towards new ideas. Should indie developers use this appoach? Personal choice, but as indie developers we aren't restricted to it.
We can take those baby steps or we can take the giant step, its our choice. Were not restricted on our approach or our ideas. The only change is that now we have the tech(thank GG for that) to open our minds and explore and (hopefully) make a little cash in the process.
#24
Why would you want to limit yourself when you have the freedom to more than just copy your favorite game and "improve" it a bit?
Don't think outside the box; you aren't in the box. You are out looking in on the box. If you're trying to break into the games industry (many of us are) then this is your chance to use this opportunity to try something you won't be able to do in the future.
Just a heads up. I'm not a violent person, but if I ever hear anyone besides idiot press (like IGN or PC Gamer) praise Counter-Strike for design I might have to murder someone.
Just a warning...
05/22/2002 (4:39 pm)
Counter-Strike stopped being indie come beta 5. Barking Dog (the company that made Global Operations... a true clone, received funding from Valve to polish it up for retail) Personally, I still don't understand why more than 2 people play that game. Horribly boring, and I'm just amazed at how it could be praised for gameplay. The design itself seems like a 3 minute plan "so um, lets have realistic guns and uh the goal is to kill everyone".Why would you want to limit yourself when you have the freedom to more than just copy your favorite game and "improve" it a bit?
Don't think outside the box; you aren't in the box. You are out looking in on the box. If you're trying to break into the games industry (many of us are) then this is your chance to use this opportunity to try something you won't be able to do in the future.
Just a heads up. I'm not a violent person, but if I ever hear anyone besides idiot press (like IGN or PC Gamer) praise Counter-Strike for design I might have to murder someone.
Just a warning...
#25
For some thats were ideas start. Some people prefer to work on the smaller changes that they can see progress. And sometimes it just that these inventive games just don't seem fun to them, thus aren't motivated to create.
05/22/2002 (5:12 pm)
Quote:Why would you want to limit yourself when you have the freedom to more than just copy your favorite game and "improve" it a bit?
For some thats were ideas start. Some people prefer to work on the smaller changes that they can see progress. And sometimes it just that these inventive games just don't seem fun to them, thus aren't motivated to create.
#26
However at least in my case you have completely failed to prove that anything you are saying is right, the only basis you have is a lot of imagination and conjetures based in what you believe is the way the market works.
Unless you can prove that there is a publisher out there who wont publish a game based on the single solitary fact that it considers it "not original" and completely overlooks is novelty value, quality, execution, gameplay and fun potential I think your theory (which is what it this) is based on just an unparticular thin layer of hot air floating around an undisclosed location near your area.
But what the heck show us a demo of your truly original project (if you have one) which will sell millions of copies over the fact that it is "original" and then we will merrily continue this discussion.
You have torque at your side, so it shouldnt be that hard to do a demo at some time soon, I mean you do HOLD a truly original idea for a game do you? otherwise I dont see HOW you sustain a thread for HOURS based on something not even you have.
May the torque be with you...
You may have to kill someone, because counterstrike design is not only good in also "original" it was the first game on its class to use "real death" on a team based multiplayer game. It also was the first one to give each team a distinctive characteristic and goals. (terrorists vs counterterrorists)
But lets not praise cs, I mean lets just forget it was a game made by a independent group who achieved commercial quality working on on their free time and even added their own communications program to half life, which is a breeze I mean any mod team can do that! lets forget they even created their OWN model system with their OWN collision detection system, lets forget it has been the most popular Mod in the story of mod making. (after CTF) lets forget thousand of people play it everyday on a daily basis to hone their skills in it, I mean anyone can do a game like that!
Lets talk about your game! which will revolutionize game story trhough is originality (and by not using anything related to counterstrike. which sucks)
and marvel us. Matt the floor is yours.
What is your game about?
05/22/2002 (6:08 pm)
Look Matt I think we have used any possible medium to show you that complete "originality" is not a life/death deal for any developer, solid gameplay, a bit of ingenuity and a good team effort is, and you still claim you are holding the holy grail of game design by claiming "originality is god" well.. so be it. However at least in my case you have completely failed to prove that anything you are saying is right, the only basis you have is a lot of imagination and conjetures based in what you believe is the way the market works.
Unless you can prove that there is a publisher out there who wont publish a game based on the single solitary fact that it considers it "not original" and completely overlooks is novelty value, quality, execution, gameplay and fun potential I think your theory (which is what it this) is based on just an unparticular thin layer of hot air floating around an undisclosed location near your area.
But what the heck show us a demo of your truly original project (if you have one) which will sell millions of copies over the fact that it is "original" and then we will merrily continue this discussion.
You have torque at your side, so it shouldnt be that hard to do a demo at some time soon, I mean you do HOLD a truly original idea for a game do you? otherwise I dont see HOW you sustain a thread for HOURS based on something not even you have.
May the torque be with you...
You may have to kill someone, because counterstrike design is not only good in also "original" it was the first game on its class to use "real death" on a team based multiplayer game. It also was the first one to give each team a distinctive characteristic and goals. (terrorists vs counterterrorists)
But lets not praise cs, I mean lets just forget it was a game made by a independent group who achieved commercial quality working on on their free time and even added their own communications program to half life, which is a breeze I mean any mod team can do that! lets forget they even created their OWN model system with their OWN collision detection system, lets forget it has been the most popular Mod in the story of mod making. (after CTF) lets forget thousand of people play it everyday on a daily basis to hone their skills in it, I mean anyone can do a game like that!
Lets talk about your game! which will revolutionize game story trhough is originality (and by not using anything related to counterstrike. which sucks)
and marvel us. Matt the floor is yours.
What is your game about?
#27
i look at it this way, if i made it then its original, period,i dont dont care if anyone thinks it looks like this,or plays like that or runs like the other, or even my mothers, hehe, if put it together, put it on the web for downloading,put hundreds of hours into it then its my original work , everyone has there own style, techneeks,ect.ect.
05/22/2002 (8:39 pm)
heh , no i didnt read all of the above, just maybe half of the first post,i look at it this way, if i made it then its original, period,i dont dont care if anyone thinks it looks like this,or plays like that or runs like the other, or even my mothers, hehe, if put it together, put it on the web for downloading,put hundreds of hours into it then its my original work , everyone has there own style, techneeks,ect.ect.
#28
I'm not talking about getting published or even how it works with larger titles. I think you know that, but acknowledging that would have ended the arguement a while ago.
As for Counter-Strike. Are you aware it's a mod? In beta 5, an actual company took over the development. They didn't even touch things like the collision or model rendering, Valve saw an opportunity to milk their ancient product so they let them borrow their new technology as well as a bit of cash. I'd like to have the exact figures on original code, because aside from the templates used to add weapons it's probably one of the most basic mods in terms of development on the market. Valve worked closely with Barking Dog (not an indie team) to integrate the model rendering improvements, better netcode, and the voice chat. I wouldn't be surprised if Valve's staff actually added the code to make sure things went smoothly.
The game itself borrows from so many games that came years before, that labelling it innovative is like labelling Quake 3 innovative compared to Unreal or Quake 2.
Either way, Counter-Strike is a fluke. It's design is so mind-numbingly simple that if pitched to a developer before it came out, I doubt anyone would bite. Take Quake Capture the Flag and make people die quicker. Viola, you're set! CANCELLED!
Counter-Strike has annoyed me mainly with the cheaters who play the game, but secondly in that it's basically flooded the market with rip-offs. Rip-offs of a rehash? Oh, that's gonna be fun.
Your previous posts implied you were looking for a discussion on innovation, but your thinly veiled insults make it clear you're just looking for some people to agree with you. Unless you have anything worthwhile to say, I'm done with this discussion.
05/22/2002 (11:15 pm)
Burning Rose, not to be rude; is English your first language? If not, then I can understand why my not-so subtle points did not register with you.I'm not talking about getting published or even how it works with larger titles. I think you know that, but acknowledging that would have ended the arguement a while ago.
As for Counter-Strike. Are you aware it's a mod? In beta 5, an actual company took over the development. They didn't even touch things like the collision or model rendering, Valve saw an opportunity to milk their ancient product so they let them borrow their new technology as well as a bit of cash. I'd like to have the exact figures on original code, because aside from the templates used to add weapons it's probably one of the most basic mods in terms of development on the market. Valve worked closely with Barking Dog (not an indie team) to integrate the model rendering improvements, better netcode, and the voice chat. I wouldn't be surprised if Valve's staff actually added the code to make sure things went smoothly.
The game itself borrows from so many games that came years before, that labelling it innovative is like labelling Quake 3 innovative compared to Unreal or Quake 2.
Either way, Counter-Strike is a fluke. It's design is so mind-numbingly simple that if pitched to a developer before it came out, I doubt anyone would bite. Take Quake Capture the Flag and make people die quicker. Viola, you're set! CANCELLED!
Counter-Strike has annoyed me mainly with the cheaters who play the game, but secondly in that it's basically flooded the market with rip-offs. Rip-offs of a rehash? Oh, that's gonna be fun.
Your previous posts implied you were looking for a discussion on innovation, but your thinly veiled insults make it clear you're just looking for some people to agree with you. Unless you have anything worthwhile to say, I'm done with this discussion.
#29
CS has a number of features that make it quite different from CTF in Quake, the largest being the overall feel of movement, shooting and being hit. Things like your accuracy changing based on the weapon, slowing down when getting shot, etc.
I would also point out that CS runs on most computers.
CS was very popular in beta before it got any improvements from Valve. It's funny that people don't understand why CS is popular - makes me wonder what sort of a position you are in to design games if you can't for the life of you figure out why certain games do well. Is just totally random luck that CS is so popular?
-----------
The original poster stated that originality is less important than fun. That is obviously true. Games exist to be fun, not to be original.
I would also point out that you can execute a familiar theme and still stand out as better or different from others. Starcraft is pretty similar to other RTS games in many ways but for a real fan of the RTS genre it plays quite differently. Most fans of a genre will tell you that games that appear similar to those who don't know much about them actually play quite differently.
Attempting to improve upon an existing theme or type of game is a very noble goal. Why do people still paint with brushes when they could use Adobe Illustrator? Why do people still write novels when they could make movies? Improving on an existing framework can be an interesting challenge and please an audience. And certain styles of games may be inherently interesting and worth repeating, as is "boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, boy must overcome the forces of fate to ..."
I don't think anyone is advocating making pure clones. I think what the poster was getting at is if you make the game you want to make, a certain part of you ends up in the final product and gives it, if not originality in a strict sense, it's own character. A hundred different people can write 100 different love stories that all feel different.
--------
Also let me point out that debating the best way for an Indie developer to succeed is pointless. 99.9% of Indie projects are going to fail no matter what. How can Indie games compete with corporate publishers? They can't. This is the wrong business to be in if you are looking for financial success. For every CounterStrike there are a thousand utter failures. Just make the game you want to make, make it good, and hope for the best.
05/23/2002 (12:47 am)
This is all really quite silly.CS has a number of features that make it quite different from CTF in Quake, the largest being the overall feel of movement, shooting and being hit. Things like your accuracy changing based on the weapon, slowing down when getting shot, etc.
I would also point out that CS runs on most computers.
CS was very popular in beta before it got any improvements from Valve. It's funny that people don't understand why CS is popular - makes me wonder what sort of a position you are in to design games if you can't for the life of you figure out why certain games do well. Is just totally random luck that CS is so popular?
-----------
The original poster stated that originality is less important than fun. That is obviously true. Games exist to be fun, not to be original.
I would also point out that you can execute a familiar theme and still stand out as better or different from others. Starcraft is pretty similar to other RTS games in many ways but for a real fan of the RTS genre it plays quite differently. Most fans of a genre will tell you that games that appear similar to those who don't know much about them actually play quite differently.
Attempting to improve upon an existing theme or type of game is a very noble goal. Why do people still paint with brushes when they could use Adobe Illustrator? Why do people still write novels when they could make movies? Improving on an existing framework can be an interesting challenge and please an audience. And certain styles of games may be inherently interesting and worth repeating, as is "boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, boy must overcome the forces of fate to ..."
I don't think anyone is advocating making pure clones. I think what the poster was getting at is if you make the game you want to make, a certain part of you ends up in the final product and gives it, if not originality in a strict sense, it's own character. A hundred different people can write 100 different love stories that all feel different.
--------
Also let me point out that debating the best way for an Indie developer to succeed is pointless. 99.9% of Indie projects are going to fail no matter what. How can Indie games compete with corporate publishers? They can't. This is the wrong business to be in if you are looking for financial success. For every CounterStrike there are a thousand utter failures. Just make the game you want to make, make it good, and hope for the best.
#30
However you are right and I apologize for answering with light hearted insults at you, any way you cut it that just wasnt right and I apologize for it.
Now if we analyse this thread my position is:
*You dont need to have to a truly original design to create a game ready to be published or to just to create a fun game. Well designed gameplay a bit of innovation and good execution are far more important than "originality".
And your position is:
*You have to create an INNOVATIVE, original game to stand out in independent game making.
Now if we leave it as that, WE ARE BOTH RIGHT those are true statements, and both have some value of use for fellow gamemakers.
It was fun and educational to reach this conclusion with you and I have no hurt feelings for any of this, I hope you can say the same, since we are both entitled to have our opinions.
And yes this is a thread about inovation and lack of it, in game making, if you feel like adding something to it, feel welcome to do so.
May the torque be with you...
05/23/2002 (6:55 am)
[sigh] Ok Matt Look, you probably havent noticed but you have been agressive (if not insulting) since your very first post, along this thread you have diminished CS, Star Wars, Half life in the last post you even suggested I didnt understood you because Im not American (now that was subtle) curiously you just asked If I didnt knew CS is a MOD when just 2 post ago, I mentioned "CS is the best MOD in the history of mod making (after CTF)" now which one of us does not understand english? (Sorry I just had to say that)However you are right and I apologize for answering with light hearted insults at you, any way you cut it that just wasnt right and I apologize for it.
Now if we analyse this thread my position is:
*You dont need to have to a truly original design to create a game ready to be published or to just to create a fun game. Well designed gameplay a bit of innovation and good execution are far more important than "originality".
And your position is:
*You have to create an INNOVATIVE, original game to stand out in independent game making.
Now if we leave it as that, WE ARE BOTH RIGHT those are true statements, and both have some value of use for fellow gamemakers.
It was fun and educational to reach this conclusion with you and I have no hurt feelings for any of this, I hope you can say the same, since we are both entitled to have our opinions.
And yes this is a thread about inovation and lack of it, in game making, if you feel like adding something to it, feel welcome to do so.
May the torque be with you...
#31
On the other hand, finding a novelty value in your game (even if its quite small) is all "originality" may be about, what has not been done in this area? what would make my game bette than any other? a great example for this theory is the mod for half life "the opera" which is a standard fare mod for half life, but designed to look and play like a jhon whoo action flick, with great execution this mod became very famous (and very downloaded) in its time. (some say it may have inspired the infamous Max Payne) Its just a single twist in gameplay but it made the whole diference from common to extraordinary.
Was it original or not? I think the answer truly lies in the eye of the beholder.
May the torque be with you...
05/23/2002 (8:26 am)
I agree with you James and Ace, I think originality may lay in the eye of the beholder (if its mine is original like Ace said ) , anyway no matter what you do theres basically no way not to strike a certain resamblence with an already known piece of work in your medium or some other, so why worry about that then? unless your product is not intended be a copy of some other product (like a port per example) it should not be a major concern. On the other hand, finding a novelty value in your game (even if its quite small) is all "originality" may be about, what has not been done in this area? what would make my game bette than any other? a great example for this theory is the mod for half life "the opera" which is a standard fare mod for half life, but designed to look and play like a jhon whoo action flick, with great execution this mod became very famous (and very downloaded) in its time. (some say it may have inspired the infamous Max Payne) Its just a single twist in gameplay but it made the whole diference from common to extraordinary.
Was it original or not? I think the answer truly lies in the eye of the beholder.
May the torque be with you...
#32
I mean I played Homeworld at E3 THREE years before it was released! Lots of games never see the light of day!
I can't even begin to list the dozens if not hundreds of games I have seen in various stages of completion that were fun and interesting at E3 that were never to be released. I have seen just a much CRAP also that went on to be platinum sellers!
05/23/2002 (10:22 am)
Just a side note, I saw demos of Max Payne at E3 in 1997 when it was still held here in Atlanta. Since Half-Life was brand new or not even out then????, did it not get Game of the Year 1998? I am pretty sure that "The Opera" was NOT an influence in Max Payne. Granted, Max Payne was not released for YEARS from when it was first announced and demo'ed at E3, but the game as released does hold true to the concepts and gameplay I saw all those years ago. So "The Opera" copied Max Payne, probably not, just a common idea that different people came up with at different times. The "bullet time" slow motion was even previewed in 1997! No one was calling it "bullet time" then, but they already had the concept of slow motion action sequences before The Matrix was released.I mean I played Homeworld at E3 THREE years before it was released! Lots of games never see the light of day!
I can't even begin to list the dozens if not hundreds of games I have seen in various stages of completion that were fun and interesting at E3 that were never to be released. I have seen just a much CRAP also that went on to be platinum sellers!
#33
Is it even possible to add something truly "original" to a game?
My opinion is that true "originality" is close to impossible to achieve and therefore is better to simple ignore it, as soon as your game has enough of is own to be recognized theres just no point to worry about it.
Originality is a bit like quality what is utter crap for someone is diamonds incrusted in gold rocks for someone else. (everquest, cs, doom)
May the torque be with you
05/23/2002 (10:46 am)
Very Good Jarrod thats an interesting point, however I just mentioned "the opera" as an example of what an independent group can do by adding a relatively simple twist to game play. =) does that achieve originality? to your eyes (although you mentioned it could be just a coincidence) the shadow of a doubt that they have seen the max payne and copied it from there. (maybe they both copied it from jhon whoo movies I dont know) so it doesnt. Is it even possible to add something truly "original" to a game?
My opinion is that true "originality" is close to impossible to achieve and therefore is better to simple ignore it, as soon as your game has enough of is own to be recognized theres just no point to worry about it.
Originality is a bit like quality what is utter crap for someone is diamonds incrusted in gold rocks for someone else. (everquest, cs, doom)
May the torque be with you
#34
Shayne here. I haven't posted in a while. But I want to add my two cents here. I think everyone is being too competitive here trying to say that this aspect of the game is more important than that one. Someone said "Fun" is not something you're going to be able to design from the get-go. And then gameplay is the most important thing. If fun comes from gameplay, how can they one be there without the other? Then the arugument gets personal as everyone tries to destroy each others argument by destroying their character. Please, everyone. We have enough trouble fighting the industry, much less ourselves. Instead of fighting over this in some post, go find out for yourself. Go pick up the best games in the world and ask yourself "What the hell was Miyomoto or Kojima thinking when they made this?" The answer is right there in front of you.
First read "Game Over", the story of Atari and Nintendo and the birth and re-birth of the industry. You will realize that fun is something that can be studied seriously. Nintendo had and still has a research and development department dedicated to understanding "fun". Sure, fun is an opinion. But everything is a opinion. That means that that argument doesn't lead us anywhere. The key to understanding fun is to understand opinion.
What makes people have opinion? What makes them enjoy? What they read or see or feel must fall into some pattern that they can make sense of. You must understand the human mind to answer this. Miyomoto would draw out the entire level in mario and lay it out on a big table. He would then move around mushrooms and stars and so forth and play through in his head because he was searching for a sense of pace and a sense of reward that would be almost universally interpreted by a human mind.
There is no truth in this world that we can ever know because we are imperpect beings, however we do possess the amazing ability to see patterns. We have the ability to look at a progression of images on the wall and create some sort of symbolic meaning in our mind that may even make us laugh or cry. Isn't that amazing?!
Now, look at every game Miyomoto has ever made. You will find universal characteristics or patterns that will enlighten you a little bit about how he thinks. And why do I keep pointing to him, because he created our modern perception of what a video game is. And he wasn't a cube dork. He was an artist, a communicator. He speaks to us.
He made Marios nose big so that we could see it with low resolution. So simple and so perfect. Why is it important for Marios nose to be big? So that we understand it's a nose; it's that simple. So often we put things into a game hoping that they will have a purpose in the end when we really should be doing everything for a reason. We should understand fun, understand balance, pace, reward, etc. Why? Because in the end, it's a human mind we are talking to.
None of these elements are any more important than another, and if you think that they are, than one will be lacking and you will create an imbalance. Balance is the key to everything and the ability to create balance comes only from understanding the human mind.
05/23/2002 (12:27 pm)
Hi Everyone,Shayne here. I haven't posted in a while. But I want to add my two cents here. I think everyone is being too competitive here trying to say that this aspect of the game is more important than that one. Someone said "Fun" is not something you're going to be able to design from the get-go. And then gameplay is the most important thing. If fun comes from gameplay, how can they one be there without the other? Then the arugument gets personal as everyone tries to destroy each others argument by destroying their character. Please, everyone. We have enough trouble fighting the industry, much less ourselves. Instead of fighting over this in some post, go find out for yourself. Go pick up the best games in the world and ask yourself "What the hell was Miyomoto or Kojima thinking when they made this?" The answer is right there in front of you.
First read "Game Over", the story of Atari and Nintendo and the birth and re-birth of the industry. You will realize that fun is something that can be studied seriously. Nintendo had and still has a research and development department dedicated to understanding "fun". Sure, fun is an opinion. But everything is a opinion. That means that that argument doesn't lead us anywhere. The key to understanding fun is to understand opinion.
What makes people have opinion? What makes them enjoy? What they read or see or feel must fall into some pattern that they can make sense of. You must understand the human mind to answer this. Miyomoto would draw out the entire level in mario and lay it out on a big table. He would then move around mushrooms and stars and so forth and play through in his head because he was searching for a sense of pace and a sense of reward that would be almost universally interpreted by a human mind.
There is no truth in this world that we can ever know because we are imperpect beings, however we do possess the amazing ability to see patterns. We have the ability to look at a progression of images on the wall and create some sort of symbolic meaning in our mind that may even make us laugh or cry. Isn't that amazing?!
Now, look at every game Miyomoto has ever made. You will find universal characteristics or patterns that will enlighten you a little bit about how he thinks. And why do I keep pointing to him, because he created our modern perception of what a video game is. And he wasn't a cube dork. He was an artist, a communicator. He speaks to us.
He made Marios nose big so that we could see it with low resolution. So simple and so perfect. Why is it important for Marios nose to be big? So that we understand it's a nose; it's that simple. So often we put things into a game hoping that they will have a purpose in the end when we really should be doing everything for a reason. We should understand fun, understand balance, pace, reward, etc. Why? Because in the end, it's a human mind we are talking to.
None of these elements are any more important than another, and if you think that they are, than one will be lacking and you will create an imbalance. Balance is the key to everything and the ability to create balance comes only from understanding the human mind.
#35
At the end of the day though we can't be too Bill Clinton about it and parse the word down to 'anything seen or done before is unoriginal'. Many games feature aliens, dinosaurs, guns, scientists, and soldiers and few are original. Half Life is a fun game but its plot did not have a single original element. Games that use common elements are a fact of life, they are part of our environment and we expect to see some familiar things in games, but if they follow a common formula exactly then even with the best execution they will still seem rehashed.
Halo was a fun game, I enjoyed it, the same with Deus Ex, yet both games were rather boring as narrative experiences. If these games were novels they'd be, at most, 40 pages long (stripped of all the descriptive padding). Games today have a slim cast of unique characters and no few or no long term consequences (or even choices). You could make a shooter with the 10 year old formula of Wolf3D and as long as the graphics are pretty and guns sound nice, it'll be a respected product. Maybe add a vail interactivity (beyond shooting, deing) with light scripting and you could have a five star product.
There is a MASSIVE amount of room for innovation and originality, and one of the best places to start is by reading literature. Inspiration has to come from a source and I find my best designs/ideas are from ancient or completely unrelated-to-gaming sources. The trouble is most of the folks here are probably reading too many gaming magazines and trying to knowingly, or unknowingly, draw ideas from what's already being produced. X-Files was a great show the first few seasons, it drew from the UFO movement decades before, and had a new (to 90's TV) theme: government corruption and conspiracies. X-Files was not truly and entirely original, yet it was a new mixure of old ideas made fresh. The same could be said for The Matrix, it took stale ideas from cyberpunk novels and introduced them to a new audience in a new way.
I read about the new Quake1 engine before it came out and marveled at what might be possible, having fiddled with Doom and Duke editing. Monsters which chip away when shot, intricate location damage, getting hurt certain ways or in certain areas, npc's that act in unexpected ways (beyond HL's talk, cower, die), real consequences to in-game choices. Upon finally playing the game though, I was sorely disappointed by the actual repetitive and uninteresting game itself, it didn't even have that haunting appeal of Doom. Sure, Quake's armor icon looked pretty when rotating, but its a game that'll get far more shelf time than a collection of early X-Files episodes.
05/26/2002 (10:10 pm)
ORIGINALITY IS IMPORTANTAt the end of the day though we can't be too Bill Clinton about it and parse the word down to 'anything seen or done before is unoriginal'. Many games feature aliens, dinosaurs, guns, scientists, and soldiers and few are original. Half Life is a fun game but its plot did not have a single original element. Games that use common elements are a fact of life, they are part of our environment and we expect to see some familiar things in games, but if they follow a common formula exactly then even with the best execution they will still seem rehashed.
Halo was a fun game, I enjoyed it, the same with Deus Ex, yet both games were rather boring as narrative experiences. If these games were novels they'd be, at most, 40 pages long (stripped of all the descriptive padding). Games today have a slim cast of unique characters and no few or no long term consequences (or even choices). You could make a shooter with the 10 year old formula of Wolf3D and as long as the graphics are pretty and guns sound nice, it'll be a respected product. Maybe add a vail interactivity (beyond shooting, deing) with light scripting and you could have a five star product.
There is a MASSIVE amount of room for innovation and originality, and one of the best places to start is by reading literature. Inspiration has to come from a source and I find my best designs/ideas are from ancient or completely unrelated-to-gaming sources. The trouble is most of the folks here are probably reading too many gaming magazines and trying to knowingly, or unknowingly, draw ideas from what's already being produced. X-Files was a great show the first few seasons, it drew from the UFO movement decades before, and had a new (to 90's TV) theme: government corruption and conspiracies. X-Files was not truly and entirely original, yet it was a new mixure of old ideas made fresh. The same could be said for The Matrix, it took stale ideas from cyberpunk novels and introduced them to a new audience in a new way.
I read about the new Quake1 engine before it came out and marveled at what might be possible, having fiddled with Doom and Duke editing. Monsters which chip away when shot, intricate location damage, getting hurt certain ways or in certain areas, npc's that act in unexpected ways (beyond HL's talk, cower, die), real consequences to in-game choices. Upon finally playing the game though, I was sorely disappointed by the actual repetitive and uninteresting game itself, it didn't even have that haunting appeal of Doom. Sure, Quake's armor icon looked pretty when rotating, but its a game that'll get far more shelf time than a collection of early X-Files episodes.
Torque Owner Jarrod Roberson
I have a huge stack of EA games for my C64 still.
Innovation in those days ( 1983 - 1989 ) was just making a computer game to begin with.
Just like Starbucks was once a mom and pop shop, so you just might be sharing this forum with the founder of the next EA!
I don't think that anyone here is putting up making clones exclusively as the holy grail to marketable games that will sell well.
I put up Combat Mission as a niche market game that had hit a nerve with an untapped gamer, the HARDCORE strategy gamer. Nothing really new or innovative as it is only a digital version of SquadLeader the board game in 3D. But it has done extremely well, because it is fun to play. They did not "define" or "redefine" a genre or anything, just a good game that is fun to play at a reasonable price.
Completely unoriginal but not a clone and extremely successful because they went for SOLID EXECUTION and GAMEPLAY over trying to be clever or innovative.
Being an entrepenure is NOT about TAKING risks it is about MANAGING risks.