Originality in games (warning a lot to read)

Zeldrik

Well having seen a large release of games lately such as Doom3, HL2, Halo 2 and World of Warcraft just to name a few I have noticed a lot of people arguments against any of these title is that they are un-original and uninspired, evidence of that being that most of the games released lately are sequels.

But my argument is that although these games may not be the most innovative they are still great games with a large amount of polish that are considerably better than the games that have come before them, making something better is a worthy goal unto itself without trying to be different. But of course this can lead to a stagnation of game-play, I mean let’s face it has been a considerable amount of time since there was a wave of games that were really something fresh and new while still being good games. Some example of that I think were titles like System shock, Deus-Ex, Thief and UO all of which were released many years ago. One exception maybe is San Andreas on the PS2 which seems to have many new ideas and an immersive environment but it being completely innovative is debatable as it is essentially a better version of Vice City.

I guess the root of the problem can pinned to a publisher driven market where predicted sales figures can be given for the latest game “X” number 2 as apposed to something new and different where the popularity is untested and it is a “risk” venture. It seems that it this freedom from the publisher that Valve is trying to achieve with steam, bringing things back to the good old days of internet released shareware. So theoretically in the future if this takes off then the publishers won’t be able to restrict developer’s innovation and the problem is solved.

However I don’t see this happening as in my opinion the real root of the problem is the majority of the target audience that buys video games; innovation has a tendency to not pay off. Your average consumer is scared of what he/she doesn’t know and is far less likely to buy something they aren’t 100% sure of no matter how good it is. An example of this is a game like Res which is not only extremely innovative but also a hell of a lot of fun to play but because it’s hard to explain what the game is about it sold abysmally.

In the movie industry we have art house films driving the scene forward onto previously un explored territory the main reason being that it is cheap to make only requiring a few thousand dollars of equipment and a dedicated persons time (plus their mates to help out as amateur actors) but an art house game can cost just as much as a AAA title and has a large chance of failing miserably.

In my honest opinion until games are cheap to make or there is a large evolution of technology the games industry is doomed to stagnate and never move forward. Anyway this is just my opinion based on observation so please discuss.

-A

Conan

I'd agree with Zel in almost all parts of that post. With all the discussion lately about the horrid work practices of the larger publishers it really makes me think that the industry has gone into the deep end; being all about money and less about making interesting games. But then I'm working in the industry, just not for money giant that is EA, and yet I still can see how screwed up this industry really is.

With smaller games studios dropping like flies, and the ones with a few successfull titles being bought up by publishers, the days of the inovative game are gone, and the days of sequels and "movie" games lie ahead. If a publisher can't determine that the game will sell "X" copies and make "X" money 2 years before its released then they will drop it like a sack of potatoes. Sure business is business and you can't survive without money, but do publishers really need to make million dollar profits? Sure, gamers blame developers, developers blame publishers, and publishers will either say "business is business" or they in term will blame the stockholders. I'm starting to see the beneifts of Socialism over Capitalism

Personally, if I could figure out a way to survive as an Indie Developer then I would, as I would prefer to make smal fun games that people can download for free, rather than making a rushed mass market game that ends up just as a stocking stuffer for christmas.

Anyway, thats my 2 cents.

Conan.

sonic

Here's how I see it.

If you have an original idea, people will complain about how ridiculous it is. If it's something that's been used, people will complain about how it's the same ole same ole. You can make a game that uses all tech, like Doom3, and people will complain it doesn't have art style. You can make a stylish game like Half Life 2, and people will complain the engine isn't advanced enough.

Either way, you can't please everyone.

Mishra

as games become more and more expensive to make, the producers wantto take less and less risks, and try to ensure that they will get a profit. unfortunately, while this means higher production values, originality decreases.

Scott Ruggels

[ QUOTE ]
as games become more and more expensive to make, the producers wantto take less and less risks, and try to ensure that they will get a profit. unfortunately, while this means higher production values, originality decreases.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo, Mishra.

Which is where the volitile Boutique, dev house comes in.

Scott

RageUnleashed

I'm with ya for the most part. I think games have just become like most other media, the vast majority is strictly formulaic, rehashes of a solid but overused idea. I doubt we will see a surge of original games ever again, like we seemed to see more a decade or more when gaming was alot less widespread.

sonic

like I said, you can't please everyone. When companies try to incorporate both style/gameplay with tech, they always end up fuckin it up, or the people don't want to accept it. There are tons of original games, but how are you defining original? You can only go to a certain extent with originality. Like prince of persia is an adventure game like thousands before, and you can stab and block... but has time reversal and a cool combat system. Do you consider that original?

lkraan

I think people are just spoiled, harder to please and that there's nothing wrong with the originality of today's games
Besides that in one way or the other "everything" has pretty much been done. The amount of games that is being released is huge and also the number of platforms is still increasing. For every game genre there been released at least 2 or 3 good games this year and a couple that are worth renting/checking out. If you like a couple of genres like I do then you can spend a whole lot of your free time this year playing these games.

You might need to take a closer look at games to find their originality. As I said pretty much everything has been done but often there are are small changes that make a game new and fun. NFS Underground 2 was a sequel but the free roaming part and 2 new/different race modes were added which makes it original to me and fun to me. To me it's a different game from Burnout 3 even though they involve racing cars.

Maybe I have a different attitude towards playing games then some people who feel that there is a lack of originality. Sometimes I like to play a game that is the same old story like another WW2 shooter or another race game. When there is something really new (either new concept or just new to me) then I just enjoy it extra.

KDR_11k

Saying "everything has been done" was Bertold Brecht's excuse for plagiarism. It's plain out bullshit. Claiming there's nothing new that can be done just means your mind is too limited to think of something new. Once you forfeit the bounds of reality you open up infinite possibilities.
People claimed "everything has been done" five years ago yet we've seen games like Katamari Damacy, the Eye Toy and Wario Ware since then.

Original means to me "feeling different". HL2 feels exactly like HL1. Doom 3 feels almost exactly like Quake. But what does Arena Wars feel like? I've pretty much left the PC retail games two years ago, when I got sick of playing games that feel so similar all of the time. The PC is the least innovative of the platforms when it comes to major games, if you don't have a console you should buy one immediately and get to experience wholly different games.

lkraan

I didn't really mean that there is absolutely nothing that hasn't been done before but more that a hell of a lot has been done and that's why I had put the word everything between " ". For instance pretty much every past and future type war has been featured in different game genres so certain games described in a gfew lines sound like another WW2 shooter or another space marine game.

Besides original as "feeling different" it;s also a personal thing to me. Maybe Burnout 3 had exactly the same gameplay as the first 2 games but I had never played those to the 3rd one was totally new to me.
Also where you see Doom3 as less original because it feels to you like Quake, to me it was original because I had never had the crap scared out of me by a game and had never seen such detailled visuals and stylised mechanical stuff.

KDR_11k

Doom 3 didn't scare me. Eternal Darkness and especially Project Zero/Fatal Frame are much better at that even without attempting shock scares (which I've apparently built up an immunity to, something jumps out of the closet I don't think "oh my god", I think "Moving target!" and blast away at it). If you aren't scared by Doom 3 it's just a pretty dark run-from-point-A-to-point-B-blasting everything FPS.

JKMakowka

[ QUOTE ]
pretty dark run-from-point-A-to-point-B-blasting everything FPS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like fun You gotta stay true to your roots

I recently noticed that I wait for PC games to become cheaper, because by then they are less bug ridden and if it is a modable game you get more bang for your bug instead of waiting for mods to come out (recent example UT2004)

Zeldrik

Hehe I almost used Katamari Damacy as an example instead of Res but I am yet to play it so I went with what I knew, looks really fun though. I think that it's important to both have games that are polished and get better and better but at the same time you need a few revolutionary titles shaking things up a little. KDR is right though if you want innovation then consoles is the way to go.

poopinmymouth

I don't think lack of originality is at fault as much as lack of passion, and game developement with too many middlemen. Back in the day one or two people could bang out a game in a couple of months. Any idea that had promise could be identified and polished with another month or two. The game design itself is the most important aspect, and the most nebulous, but it seems to be the area with the least expertise and focus in modern day game making. Bring game developement back to where a small team can actually produce an entire game, and you will start to see some awesome titles. Thats my prediction anyway.