it''s been a long time "to long infact" sense i''ve picked up a game to find something original. Every game seems to be a copy, of a copy, of another game...is this where gaming is going? the same old product under a new polished hood? has gameplay Reached the pinnacle of its evolution, and the only thing left to advance are the number of polygons to be displayed every frame???

Visit our forum. The ideas are original. From a detailed model of equine behavior, to betting on impromptu street fights and Quarter horse races, to fighting on board trains, playing poker and having the opportunity to turn your card playing disputes into brawls, to showdowns at high noon...

Ok, one, originality is overrated, to be blunt.

Two, none of those are all that innovative. The Japanese has a thriving horse betting video game market and have had it for a long time, for example. If you think your extra features are what make your game unique, you''re right. And that is what originality in games is.

Warlords is Pong with castles and walls.

Super Mario Bros was Mario Bros or Donkey Kong or even Joust with scrolling worlds.

NFL Blitz was football games with NBA Jam gameplay, which was basketball with fighting elements.

Granted some games are just blatant copies and me-too''s.
I remember a game reviewed in PC Gamer that they basically made fun of because it not only played like Starcraft, the cover on the box looked like Starcraft.

But I have heard enough arguments about originality in games that I sometimes wonder what people expect.
For instance, why do so many sequels sell well, but innovative titles don''t always do so?
Original War is an innovative RTS game, and at $20, you would think it would be selling like hot cakes.
But no, Warcraft 3 sells millions of copies and to be honest, I don''t remember seeing anything significant about it.

People don''t care for originality as much as some may want them to.
On the other hand, some argue that there are only 7 original ideas and everything else builds on those.

For instance, turn based strategy was the rage when PCs were not that powerful. Then Real Time strategy became possible with faster processors, starting a whole new genre.
But it is still the same thing, only in real time rather than turn based, right? No "real" innovation there, right?

New things will come about as people think of them. A lot will be based on older ideas.
Doom 3 is the most anticipated game right now, but it is Doom THREE, for crying out loud! How can a sequel to a sequel be so anticipated if it wasn''t innovative in some way? Well the thing that is its selling point is the amazing graphics engine behind it. Other companies will lease it and use it for their games, which will be innovative or not.

Max Payne had bullet time, but how different was it from Tomb Raider really?

Do you see the point? Even small innovations make the same old thing new again.

Movies do that. Shakespeare made the love story, or did he? The Greeks had tragedies and comedies. How innovative is a Tom Clancy novel or Stephen King or any science fiction? It is all based on reality or an idea about reality, isn''t it? Yet people read them because they are good.

Besides, if you are talking about truly original, genre-making games, how many genres can there be? I am sure there is some limit, at least in the near future.

As for the future of gaming, I am sure there will be more than just how many polygons can be pushed through the GPU.
Half-Life, Alien vs Predator 2, and a number of other games tell a story that you partake in. I am sure it will be a matter of time before we have games that may look the same as these, but let you actually control the story (like a choose your own video game adventure, only with "normal" gameplay rather than text choices).
That is innovative, not because it is totally original, but because no one else is doing it that way except paper-and-pencil RPG players.

quote:

---

Original post by GBGames
The Japanese has a thriving horse betting video game market and have had it for a long time, for example.

---

You''re missing the point. Ours isn''t a horse racing betting game. But since it models horses on such a detailed level, and the culture of the time often had impromptu horse racing down Main Street, we''re going to try and have that too. Be a bystander and bet with the guy next to you, or be on your horse in the race, employing all that makes up the horse/man synergy that is modeled. I think that IS unique. The same goes for fighting. Fight, watch a fight, or bet on a fight. Play poker, but turn it into a fight instead. Employ a train for transport, but end up fighting on the train. Or hijack the train.

quote:

---

Original post by GBGames
Ok, one, originality is overrated, to be blunt.

Blunt and wrong. It''s just so rare you really can''t make any judgements about it except people are trying to figure it out long after it has been revealed. The perception that it is overrated comes from the exasperated mentalities that gave up on trying to fathom the genius that originality is because it took too much work and change for the observation and interpretation of it. It''s just too rare to draw any conclusions represented as valid or effective opinions without study of such significance that a long time passes before you even know a little about the totality that you are looking at. I cite as examples of the nature of originality things like cubism (the loss of perspective; not multiple perspectives as rationalists require), the general theory of relativity, and non-violent resistance.

All these original aspects of behavior or observation are almost each a hundred years old, yet the finest minds today still reel and cope with their implications.

Two, none of those are all that innovative.

Innovation by definition does not require massive leaps forward in utility or functionality, look at the can opener, it has one job, but dozens of approaches to that job, some of them are minor but distinct innovations and some of them are big leaps, that is the nature of innovation, and scale of the leap the innovation makes is not an evaluative criteria for it''s definition.

The Japanese has a thriving horse betting video game market and have had it for a long time, for example. If you think your extra features are what make your game unique, you''re right. And that is what originality in games is.

I think you are defining unique features as originality in games is, but what about a setting that has never been done before, that is original, but has nothing to do with features. What about character choice in terms of personality or appearance (think of a game called Blind, where you see nothing, but play through tactile gloves and have sound cues for clues) that is nothing like anything out there, is that not original. I think you are setting you goals so high, the little innovations miss your observational abilities.

Warlords is Pong with castles and walls.

Super Mario Bros was Mario Bros or Donkey Kong or even Joust with scrolling worlds.

NFL Blitz was football games with NBA Jam gameplay, which was basketball with fighting elements.

I think you are categorizing for the sake of something other than the point of this discussion.

Granted some games are just blatant copies and me-too''s.
I remember a game reviewed in PC Gamer that they basically made fun of because it not only played like Starcraft, the cover on the box looked like Starcraft.

But I have heard enough arguments about originality in games that I sometimes wonder what people expect.

Expectations are exactly what are hindering your ability to see originality in it''s myriad forms. Every outfit a woman wears is original, even if they are all wearing pink skin tight.


For instance, why do so many sequels sell well, but innovative titles don''t always do so?

It''s because of perceptions. Innovative things take longer to absorb into the populus because we are trained by media from very young to accept faster products and services and experiences bourne of ''regurgitology'' because it is easier to understand, so our little bitty brains won''t have to work so hard to understand it. More money is made on paritally predigested perceptions, originality has no slot in that market, or in those minds unless the crafter of the original thing finds a way to engage them into change. That itself is a big part of the work in getting originality accepted.

Original War is an innovative RTS game, and at $20, you would think it would be selling like hot cakes.
But no, Warcraft 3 sells millions of copies and to be honest, I don''t remember seeing anything significant about it.

The media machine probably conditioned the salivation into the target market segment. If you watch TV *at all* you are being manipulated also. They spend all day, and have had your psychographic for years to tailor the output content to your weakest buttons in the areas of emotion and benefit, and you go out and pay them for it as a consumer at least five times a week.

People don''t care for originality as much as some may want them to.

Cattle do. Humans don''t.


On the other hand, some argue that there are only 7 original ideas and everything else builds on those.

Rationals were designed to make it appear as if a large area of information could be digested in a few sentences. It''s not reality though.

For instance, turn based strategy was the rage when PCs were not that powerful. Then Real Time strategy became possible with faster processors, starting a whole new genre.
But it is still the same thing, only in real time rather than turn based, right? No "real" innovation there, right?

Again, your standard for innovation is set so high I imagine you a very disappointed person most of the time.

New things will come about as people think of them. A lot will be based on older ideas.

Both sets of conditions are usually satisfied for real innovation to occur, but rare innovation

Doom 3 is the most anticipated game right now, but it is Doom THREE, for crying out loud! How can a sequel to a sequel be so anticipated if it wasn''t innovative in some way?

Because they sold you on the perception that what was great to begin with, and improvements will get you more of what amazed you in the beginning material. It''s anticipated because marketers know how to build that on very thin evidence and very long planks. You should be expecting them to manipulate, and get over this disconnect between what is reational and what is emotion passed off as rationale.

Well the thing that is its selling point is the amazing graphics engine behind it. Other companies will lease it and use it for their games, which will be innovative or not.

True

Max Payne had bullet time, but how different was it from Tomb Raider really?

The way in which it was presented. This is the brown paper bag theory coupled with the greater fool theory of investment. The reason we have an economy and profit at all is because of the idea that a fool greater that you will buy your thing.

Do you see the point? Even small innovations make the same old thing new again.

If that was true, innovation would not be part of the equation. They''re just telling you it''s an innovation, and a chunk of people are gullible enough to buy it. It isn''t real. Get that, and be free.

Movies do that. Shakespeare made the love story, or did he? The Greeks had tragedies and comedies. How innovative is a Tom Clancy novel or Stephen King or any science fiction? It is all based on reality or an idea about reality, isn''t it? Yet people read them because they are good.

Besides, if you are talking about truly original, genre-making games, how many genres can there be? I am sure there is some limit, at least in the near future.

There are, but not all of them have been explored, and there in not a lot of evidence to indicate that they have even been properly explored to date, even with hundreds of approaches to the material, and significant new techniques employed in the approaches, not to mention taking an existing concept and applying a new style to it, like the surfboard for snow.

As for the future of gaming, I am sure there will be more than just how many polygons can be pushed through the GPU.
Half-Life, Alien vs Predator 2, and a number of other games tell a story that you partake in.

Absolutely.

I am sure it will be a matter of time before we have games that may look the same as these, but let you actually control the story (like a choose your own video game adventure, only with "normal" gameplay rather than text choices).

It will be technically feasable, but I doubt it will be any more fun, as non-professional storytellers tend to tell lousy stories. Or, haven''t you heard that there really isn''t a story in everyone, they just think so of themselves.

That is innovative, not because it is totally original, but because no one else is doing it that way except paper-and-pencil RPG players.

And we know how much money that made. Well, at least it laid the foundations of the information architecture that drives us today.

It may be interesting to point out that The theory of dreams by Freud, The theory of special relativity by Einstein, Atonal Music by Stravinsky, Modern Dance by Martha Graham, Prose by T.S. Eliot, Non violent resistance by Ghandi *all* appeared in modern socity in a short period of seventeen years span, and yet today we are still reeling from the implications of these innovations.

How many country bumpkins look at three dancers by picasso and say, "Awh down''t geddit" even though the innovation, and it''s advocates and followers have been preaching it for over seventy years? Don''t belittle innovation when you see clearly that acceptance is what is overrated, not innovation.

Addy

---

Sure, there could be more original games out there, but just dont say that''s a new problem. Remember how many tetris clones you saw 15 years ago?
Then don''t tell me the current number of Halflife-clones (or should I say Wolf3d clones?) is a problem...

Anyway, now that I mention Halflife, that game really goes to show that even making a clone, can turn out to be a really innovative game. It''s basically "Just another fps game", but if you''ve ever played it, you''ll know how much better it was than anything else out there...

quote:

---

Original post by bishop_pass
Visit our forum. The ideas are original. From a detailed model of equine behavior, to betting on impromptu street fights and Quarter horse races, to fighting on board trains, playing poker and having the opportunity to turn your card playing disputes into brawls, to showdowns at high noon...

---

Sounds a bit like Shen Mue... :D Well, not the details, but the general direction of it...

Adventuredesign, maybe you missed my point.
I was arguing that people put too much expectation into what an original title is. They miss out on a lot of good games because of this.

while I understand that originality is important, I know that it isn''t supposed to mean brand new features.

For instance, when I argued that the game with horses was original, I was saying that even if you did see elements of this game somewhere else, having it together in a new way makes it a new and refreshing game.

Again, I was not arguing that games should be completely new and original, as you thought I was saying. I was arguing that it is not possible for people like mentalstatement to be happy because they insist that the future of gaming is "the same old product under a new polished hood" and I was saying that it isn''t the case. Every time someone complains that games aren''t original enough, I say that their standards are too high. I found a lot of fun playing side scrollers that can be seen as nothing more than Super Mario Bros, but with element X. Sequels to games have as much right to be innovative and fun as the original.

So please don''t appear to disagree with me when I am arguing basically the same thing.

quote:

---

Original post by bishop_pass
You''re missing the point. Ours isn''t a horse racing betting game. But since it models horses on such a detailed level, and the culture of the time often had impromptu horse racing down Main Street, we''re going to try and have that too. Be a bystander and bet with the guy next to you, or be on your horse in the race, employing all that makes up the horse/man synergy that is modeled. I think that IS unique. The same goes for fighting. Fight, watch a fight, or bet on a fight. Play poker, but turn it into a fight instead. Employ a train for transport, but end up fighting on the train. Or hijack the train.

---

If you read, I was making an example of one of the features as being not technically new. I go on to say that that is perfectly fine. I am actually pretty interested in seeing how the game turns out, as it does sound like fun.
My argument is that mentalstatement defines originality as completely new, when it shouldn''t be. It is possible that I didn''t make myself clear, but I believe that while new things are nice in a game, they don''t need to be completely new to be good.
Pong is a fun game, and Arkanoid and a number of other games take the same mechanics and make it something new. You might even say original. But people that tend to make the argument that the future of gaming is just the same old thing with new graphics seem to not see it that way.
Games that are considered innovative almost always tend to have traces of something else, and I am saying that it is perfectly fine.

Emotive game mechanics were Chris Crawford''s innovation 20 years ago. I believe that they''re the spiritually correct use of games as an artform. They''ve still not been fully appreciated. So, hell yes, adventuredesign! It takes a long time for true innovation to trickle down the pyramid of expertise! I love you!

- Bezzy