What is an "original" game?

[Promaginy]

With a few threads talking about being original and doing sequels, I thought I would test the Indie crowd with this question.

What is an "original" game? Does it even exist?

Our first game will borrow heavily from Arcade and RPG influences. I cannot claim that it will bring anything new to gaming outside of some new content by taking existing archetypes and refreshing them, using 3D instead of 2D, etc.

My own theory is that all gaming is based on real-life influences. Action games are inspired by sports, Puzzle/Strategy games inspired by board & card games, Adventure games are inspired by folklore and stories.

[GBGames]

There are arguments about how nothing is really new, that everything can be boiled down into 5, 7, or some other number of themes. I am sure this can be extended to games.

What is an RTS but a turn based strategy done in real time? What is a FPS but a shooter in 3D from a different perspective? What is Super Mario Bros but Mario Bros with scrolling?

So while I believe innovation is important, I also think that some people expect too much from it. People are getting upset because the big games this year are all sequels, but I don't think that Super Mario Bros 3 was a bad game. People get upset because more innovative titles aren't available, but it can also be argued that no one is buying them. Games like Gish or Mutant Storm would probably never have gotten funding from Nintendo or EA. Some people expect innovation to always mean genre breaking titles.

Innovation is important, but I think that the fun-ness is more important.

[Coyote]

Original means whatever the reviewer or player wants it to mean.

To some, a straightforward, vanilla FPS with the addition of a single, unique weapon type would be wildly original and worthy of unbelievable praise.

I've also seen reviews (and had games be victims of such reviews) that slammed a game for being completely unoriginal, and then went on for several paragraphs slamming each original, unique element in the game for not adhering to convention.

You just can't win.

[papillon]

You know your game is 'original' when each reviewer struggles to find a game to compare it to and different ones pick games that don't resemble each other in the *slightest*.

Well, it's original OR the thing you ripped it off from is really obscure. :)

[PoV]

Do do doo!

If you want to be a jerk, you can claim that nothing is original. That and other such funkyness like we don't actually have independant thought (given that we are the sum of all our experiences and environments, and the that we can't prove that given an identical situation that the result wouldn't (or would) be the same), but that's far too deep for me to care about.

I'd say an original game is one where the player must learn something, or be challenged to think or act differently. Now that in itself isn't a formula for success, as you could just screw up the standard controls to a common game and call it original, and it would be it it's on sick and twisted way. Not to mention, grade school is a perfect example of how learning isn't always fun. :D.

[tentons]

The same question in another light: is it good, from a business perspective, to be truly "original" (allowing for the sake of argument that we agree what that means)?

There's a line in the middle somewhere, in my opinion, between original and rehash. You want people comfortable enough to be able to categorize and compare, but not to the point that they're put off by having seen it all before.

[svero]

There are very few truly original games. I think some games get unfairly branded as clones because the games they're derived from tend to be simple in an obviously identifiable way. Any game that is tetris like immediately gets compared to tetris, but a side scrolling shooter is rarely compared to other shooters. And yet there is arguably as little difference between the two games. I think certain genres lend the developer much more freedom. In some types of games it's difficult to keep the game fun while breaking the basic rules.

[Anthony Flack]

It's a concept that can be obfuscated as much as you care to. But you know full well when you're ripping something off.

[Anthony Flack]

is it good, from a business perspective, to be truly "original" (allowing for the sake of argument that we agree what that means)?

Depends on what the business' perspective is, of course. All businesses need to get money from somewhere. But the purpose of a business shouldn't solely be to make money by any means - that's a bit like saying the purpose of being alive is to eat.

A business may have other objectives besides ensuring its operating costs are met. Releasing unusual games might be one of them, in which case it would be good from a business perspective to do so.

Providing you don't go OUT of business, of course. Which is always the tricky part.

[WildFire]

Hi Promaginy

My opinion on the issue original games is this: I don't care if it is original, or if others think it is original or not. I believe if I make the game fun for me, then a lot of other people will also find my game fun.

I will steal and borrow game elements from other computer games and non computer games like there were no tomorrow, as long as it makes my game more fun to play.

As some have pointed out, there are marketing issues when you make a game that doesn't fit into a well defined niche. Next time you send in a game for review, write up a description of the game in terms of other successful titles, and don't be shy to describe your own game positively and at length. Reviewers tend to cut and paste when they have to reach a deadline. This works nicely for the large development houses.

[Diodor Bitan]

Originality isn't how much or how little a game borrows, but how much novelty it brings. A game that doesn't resemble everything ever made, but is rather boring and unplayable is less "original" than a brilliant remake that gets all the details right.

[aiosup]

Originality isn't how much or how little a game borrows, but how much novelty it brings.
Partially agreeing to this...

The 'original' here would mean the difference from the old. Ok, but what about really novel ideas? They can't be measured in 'how much' or 'how often', but in 'new'. *Really* new is more of a repetition, eh? And how about actually 'measuring' the novelty? Two 'novel' ideas are better than only one? So this is why I do not agree with your sayings...

On the other hand, you can't objectively measure novelty, as it all comes down to the opinion of the reviewer(s). Then I would say you are right, the game is as 'novel' to the reviewer(s) as a measure of how much novelty it brings. This is the part that I agree with...

A game that doesn't resemble everything ever made, but is rather boring and unplayable is less "original" than a brilliant remake that gets all the details right.
I disagree. The remake, or the sequel for that matter, will always be a (modified) *copy* of the original. They would incur some amount of novelty, but only to the extent of already known parts. A game that would not resemble anything else is going to be original no matter how bad it is. If you speak about how the audience will receive it, this goes down into game design, marketing, advertisment and luck, don't you think? Some people are looking for 'original' (read, different) games. But experience shows most games are built for markets where using bunnies instead of leaping frogs is 'novel'. Again, the less than objective idea...

BTW: assuming that we know what original is, do we KNOW what makes a game attractive?

A

[svero]

It's a concept that can be obfuscated as much as you care to. But you know full well when you're ripping something off.

Sure. I'm *not* arguing that clone is not a clone or that ideas weren't used from past games. Any game that uses bejeweled's play mechanic is obviously a rip off of bejewled to some extent. Just like any mahjongg title is a rip off of mahjongg, or any card game a rip off of the classic card games. I'm saying that most games are to some extent or other clones, and some games are more unfairly branded as "ripping something off" than others. I think it mostly has to do with how many clones there are in the same genre and how readily identifiable the concept is.

I could point out 20 things in Platypus that are more or less identical to features of R-Type. Did you rip R-Type off? I doubt you feel you did. But if you make a game where rocks break in 2 and then in 2 again or blocks fall down a pipe, I think you'd say.. I'm ripping off asteroids or I'm ripping off Tetris.

So what exactly is the difference? It seems to only be the ready identifiabilty of the central game's concept. And yet it's not even that. Platypus like R-type is easily distinguised as a side scrolling shooter. Maybe its the latitude that you have creatively as the level designs offer a lot of room for diversity. And yet if I were to do asteroids with boulders that have 1 metal side, and cracked boulders that split up more, and different kinds of ufos I'd still be branded an asteroid rip off. Side scrolling shooters get a pass. Asteroids games don't. You tell me what the fundamental difference is. Are clones clones? Yes they are. But how many truly original games are there around in the last 5 yrs? I'd say close to zero.

[Promaginy]

An excellent discussion going on!

I guess that originality depends on the genre of game. Some things are easier to make original than others. I think that Adventure games are easier to make original than Strategy or Action games. It is easier to create a new setting, new characters, new plots than to create a totally new way of playing an Action game.

For example Marble Madness was truly original because it was played using a trackball. No other game combined a marble game with a track ball. The gameplay was defined by the physical interaction with the game which is defining of Action games.

I know that Marble Madness was not the first game to use a trackball - I think Atari created a Football game with 'X' and 'O' that used a trackball. That game is also orignal because it was the first to use the device plus combine it with a sports title.

The Eye Toy would be another example of a Original device because it uses the person's body image to play games.

Originality Spectrum (because I am a big chart geek)

Easy----------------------------------------Hard
Content -------- Systems (AI) --------- Interface

Maybe that is why some many developers take an existing system and tinker with the content or systems? It is easier and less costly to do.

[svero]

Actually it's a bit of a fake discussion as Anthony and I have had pretty much the same one offline on messenger. I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, but I also think there's some validity to the argument that there's a level of bias with regards to what constitutes a clone and what doesnt.

[Vectrex]

it depends if it's a content game or a concept game. Shootemups are mostly content, ie the joy comes from seeing the levels and traveling through them, using different weapons etc. Sure it's exactly the game concept but that's not the point. Same for fps's and even stuff like supermario3-4-5. But something like bejeweled is a concept game when there is very little discovery because it's the game mechanics which IS the game. So a shump or a fps clone is still worthwhile but a tetris clone isn't (imo ;) )

www.similarmusic.com

[Anthony Flack]

Yep, we've been over this before (missed that last one Svero, I'd already gone to bed for a change). But I was going to say something similar to what Vectrex said.

As for that Asteroids game - actually, with a few more original ideas like that thrown into the mix you'd get no protest from me. Spheres of Chaos is an Asteroids that got its own thing going.

[Promaginy]

it depends if it's a content game or a concept game. <snip> But something like bejeweled is a concept game when there is very little discovery because it's the game mechanics which IS the game. So a shump or a fps clone is still worthwhile but a tetris clone isn't (imo ;) )
[/URL]

But would'nt you agree that even Tetris has content? The content being the units used (marbles, jewels, etc instead of blocks). That is why it is possible to have variations on the Tetris theme.

I like your concept of a 'concept' game though. Because the gameplay is so tied to the concept, variations of the content are seen more as pure rip-offs. The sad thing is even excellent 3D Shooters are seen as Doom rip-offs. As Coyote said, you can't win. There will always be somebody saying you just copied 'xyz' game.

[Promaginy]

BTW: assuming that we know what original is, do we KNOW what makes a game attractive?

Attraction comes from familiarity. We tend to like things we are comfortable with. This is why franchises tend to be so successful. People want more of what they like and know.

Of course, we are not just Pavlov dogs. There are plenty of people who will reject what they are familiar with and be attracted to something that fascinates them. Usually, they are looking for something beyond themselves. It is beyond familiarity and comfort at this point.

This is where marketing shows its importance. You need to know who will find your game attractive so you can sell it to them.

[DangerCode]

Interesting discussion.

Personally, I think some people are a bit too quick to look down their nose at other developers that have borrowed from other games.

To tell you the truth, I'd love to play well-written clones of some of my old favorite games (Zelda, Punch-Out, Kid Icarus, etc.) as long as the experience was new in the way of level-layout or strategies.

I think Snowy is a good example of such a game. It's obviously a Snow Bros. clone, but I don't think it is shameless. Fans of the original are bound to be pleased with the homage and that's more important than an elitist attitude.

(and no, I'm not a Snowy developer) ;)

[Diodor Bitan]

I disagree. The remake, or the sequel for that matter, will always be a (modified) *copy* of the original. They would incur some amount of novelty, but only to the extent of already known parts. A game that would not resemble anything else is going to be original no matter how bad it is. If you speak about how the audience will receive it, this goes down into game design, marketing, advertisment and luck, don't you think? Some people are looking for 'original' (read, different) games. But experience shows most games are built for markets where using bunnies instead of leaping frogs is 'novel'. Again, the less than objective idea...

I'm saying it's irrelevant whether a game is 100% original rather than 5% original if the new ideas in the 100% original game are less valuable than those in the 5% one. The challenge is to create good new ideas, not to raise the originality percentage.

Partially agreeing to this...

The 'original' here would mean the difference from the old. Ok, but what about really novel ideas? They can't be measured in 'how much' or 'how often', but in 'new'. *Really* new is more of a repetition, eh? And how about actually 'measuring' the novelty? Two 'novel' ideas are better than only one? So this is why I do not agree with your sayings...

On the other hand, you can't objectively measure novelty, as it all comes down to the opinion of the reviewer(s). Then I would say you are right, the game is as 'novel' to the reviewer(s) as a measure of how much novelty it brings. This is the part that I agree with...

Measuring is close to impossible. I'm using terms as "novel", "original", "valuable", "attractive" in the loosest possible way. I'm not assuming them to have a certain defined meaning, and I'm not trying to argue on the meaning of these terms (a lot of contradicting definitions exist and are being used by different people).

[BongPig]

Our current game started out as a kind of Missile command clone. In as much as Space Tripper was a defender clone, and Mutant Storm, a robotron clone.

However, half-way through development, we introduced a mechanic into the game that was completley original. This was only a small part of the game, but it was so interesting and fun we scrapped the WHOLE game and re-wrote a new game based around this single mechanic.

We now have something that is completly original, fun and very easy to play, with 90% of feedback so far being very positive. We struggled to find any other game thats even close to what we were doing.

My point? Im not sure anymore. I think bragging had something to do with it!

No, wait, that was it. For all the conversations we had at PomPom about originality and how to quantify and indeed create it, we didnt get anywhere. It was a comlete fluke. Like newton getting hit in the bonce with an apple. It came at a time when we were not even considering other game ideas. Hell, we were right in the middle of another game!

How many of us have sat there for hours trying hard to think up something new and interesting? Im sure we've all been there.

I say forget about it. Smoke dope, drink beer. Play games. Have fun. Dont talk about it. Originality is born at the most unlikely of times. One day you might step in some dog turd, and *the* idea might hit you right there and then!

( Im still not sure what my point was. I had a point, but forgot, as the post is too bloody long :(. Ok, maybe we should scrap 'smoke dope' from my list of suggestions! )

[Vectrex]

well actually I think that was one of the best answers :D Even a small *fundamental* game machanic change can make it into something original. It doesn't take much but there's also an element of risk. But hey if it's fun... then it's fun! Which is why changing bejeweled gfx and selling it is just dull, but even a slight mechanic change makes it it's own game. Of course this all depends on if your in it for money or for fun :)

[princec]

Actually XAP and Alien Flux were concocted under the influence of a large number of drugs and a lot of wine. Super Elvis too. The best levels were designed after smoking - independently confirmed.

Oh yeah, winners don't do drugs etc. etc. guess that's why no-one else likes my stuff ;) I don't recommend it.

Cas :)

[Dom]

Hopefully in the next few days/weeks our newest game (Puzzle Stax) will be unleashed upon the world.

This is a (mostly?) original idea, which came to me late one night as I was drifting off to sleep. Very simple, very easy, & it works very nicely. I checked around and to my knowledge - it is completely original!

HOWEVER - it was 'inspired' by a number of games, and once you know what inspired it it is easy to pick out the mechanics that each source of inspiration gave. When its out (& Ill announce it in the announcements forum!) you can decide for yourself how original it really is.

Unfortunately inspiration has not struck a second time yet - even though I keep falling asleep at my desk :P

[Indiepath]

I don't know what's original but try this: www.morphlings.com - judge for yourself :D

[Photon]

Believe it or not it's not THAT hard to make an original game. Unfortunately if you make it too different from the main stream, people will not understand how to play it and will simply give up. Unfortunately most people don't read help files until they really get into a game, so you need to get them playing intuitively. This limits how original you can make a game.

Once upon a time I've made an original game, and sold it cheap.... I mean really cheap... so people bought it, and even sent some good feedback. But these people were the exception, not the rule. Here's the link, I suspect you won't find any game quite like it: http://www.best3dgames.net/sstruct/index.html

I also made an original game for PDA's, but that's a different story...

good luck,
Tom
http://www.best3dgames.net

[GBGames]

Believe it or not it's not THAT hard to make an original game. Unfortunately if you make it too different from the main stream, people will not understand how to play it and will simply give up. Unfortunately most people don't read help files until they really get into a game, so you need to get them playing intuitively. This limits how original you can make a game.

Once upon a time I've made an original game, and sold it cheap.... I mean really cheap... so people bought it, and even sent some good feedback. But these people were the exception, not the rule. Here's the link, I suspect you won't find any game quite like it: http://www.best3dgames.net/sstruct/index.html

I also made an original game for PDA's, but that's a different story...

good luck,
Tom
http://www.best3dgames.net


Have you thought about increasing the price? How much advertising did you do?

[DangerCode]

Here's the link, I suspect you won't find any game quite like it: http://www.best3dgames.net/sstruct/index.html

Just so you know, you're installer set off my spyware detector. It was trying to take a screenshot of my desktop.

[Anthony Flack]

Believe it or not it's not THAT hard to make an original game.

Of course it isn't. But only original games that are also really good count.


Unfortunately if you make it too different from the main stream, people will not understand how to play it and will simply give up. Unfortunately most people don't read help files until they really get into a game, so you need to get them playing intuitively. This limits how original you can make a game.

No, it just means that you have to be very good at leading people into the game one step at a time, and make sure they're enjoying themselves each step of the way. Which is, if anything, an even more demanding design challenge than creating the original game.

[Diodor Bitan]

You know, I wonder whether there's originality in cloning verbatim. True, nothing new is _created_, but the information that one game everyone may have thought dead and burried can actually come back in force is new.

Choosing between several games and investing in cloning and marketing one of them requires good game design thinking, and the result can influence the industry. Work is done, the world is changed - there must be _some_ originality there.

[Anthony Flack]

It's the creativity of the reviewer. A good game journalist should be able to tell you what the overlooked or forgotten classics are.

And I don't mean to belittle that ability in any way by saying that. Good knowledgeable games journos are worth their weight in gold, especially in these informationally overloaded times.

[Photon]

Just so you know, you're installer set off my spyware detector. It was trying to take a screenshot of my desktop.

I used an old version of Install Shield, so can't immagine why your spyware detector is complaining about that... I think you have an over active spyware detector there buddy.

Of course it isn't. But only original games that are also really good count.

Well there you go. Hard to argue with that.. Make a good game and they will buy it. Unfortunately that's only true if you throw in good marketing. But than again, good marketing will also sell bad games, and clones, and bad products of all sorts... So just having an orginal game isn't the key to selling games, even if it walks you through the beginning. Oh and the thing about "good" games is, it's relative. I have several customers that sent me fan mail about Superstructure being the best game ever, and thanked me for making it so affordable etc... I allways like those. Then I also had some feedback that saiz "it's the worse game ever!" So which is it? Is it good, or is it bad? It's neither and both.. You can't please everyone, so I just make stuff that I enjoy making, and playing. If people don't like it, well, they don't have to buy it...luckly I'm not in this for the money. :)

Have you thought about increasing the price? How much advertising did you do?
I've sold several games at different prices, ranging from $1.99 to $7.99. My impression is, people love a good bargain. I know that marketing 101 sais if you sell something too cheep people won't buy it. Having 7 games, I charged different amounts for them, and people seem to be buying the same qty up to $3.99. Than as the price goes up, sales go down. This may only mean that my games only impress people enough to spend $3.99 in good conscience, but in anycase, higher prices do not seem not work for me.
My marketing is weak, at best. I put my games on all the free places I find + cnet. I drop a few news releases for some of the games, and lately I've been doing link exchange. I put a few free online games on my site, a forum, and a couple of articles. That's it! :)

[Promaginy]

Make a good game and they will buy it. Unfortunately that's only true if you throw in good marketing. But than again, good marketing will also sell bad games, and clones, and bad products of all sorts...

You're right. Good marketing will help sell poor made games, but it will kill the company faster. My marketing instructor says it well. A poor product will just be better known with good marketing. The company that releases a mediocre product is better off not marketing at all.

[Anthony Flack]

But if it's all relative... then there's no such thing as a mediocre product!

Well, I beg to differ there.

[Photon]

Good point Anthony. You have to assume all things are equal to apply my argument. So if 10 games are in the same class as far as being polised, with similar level of complexity, and have overal good game play, can you really say one game is better than another? Or can you only say that it appeals to the taste of more people or less people? My view is that one of these games may do better because it confirms more to the popular view of what a fun game should be. This in my mind doesn't neccesarily make the game better.

-----------------------------------------
http://www.best3dgames.net

[Diodor Bitan]

This in my mind doesn't neccesarily make the game better.

That's because "better", as most words, can be assigned a lot of rather different meanings.

[aiosup]

That's because "better", as most words, can be assigned a lot of rather different meanings.

Hmmm, if I am to list some of the ideas that I've seen here, I would say:

0. anecdotal proofs just catch our eyes (also true for any subject, for that matter)

1. good original games aren't (amogst others, diodor's point)

2. original marketed games aren't (amogst others, my point)

3. in the ideal world, marketing for good games is irrelevant, and marketing not-so-good (up to bad) games is a waste of resources

4. changing game mechanics (even slightly) is original, while changing graphics (even in full) is not [many seemed to point this out - how come!? I would say]

5. there's no such thing as public 'originality' review (people are not educated, or are subject to too much marketing (I wonder why, given point 3 :P) aso)

My point is that I think we are not talking about originality per se, but about what makes games to be considered 'high quality' by others/us...

So my question is (again): can we find what makes a game original and how does this relate to the way a game is percieved as good by actual gamers?

My idea is that it's too difficult to find out what 'original' is in a way that might serve us solving the latter problem (how we can relate the originality to the acceptance by the public opinion of the game as being 'high quality'). But if we can decide what makes even the tiniest part of the game's smallest component novel, then maybe we can assess how does this relate to the whole picture. In other words: can we decide what originality means for a particular (sub-(sub-(...)))component of a (certain type of) game and further extrapolate that in some kind of a 'quality' formula?

For me it's just amazing how making a mere change in the mechanics of a boring game can result into such an incredibly addictive / difficult (name your feat here) game. So, examples again (alas!): changing just the number of needed stones in-a-row and/or the size of the table changes the boring tic-tac-toe into the attractive (ok, it is for some) go-mo-ku. Heh, mathematical tricks! you might utter. Yeah, but this is also the case for many other zero-sum two-player games, like hex, chekers, awari, and go. Can we do the same for puzzle / action / ... / strategy / even adventure games?

And another example: Can we say that 'if you have >10 original units and the ~20 traditional ones in a given hack'n'slash game, that many reviewers would consider it 'high quality' [we can prove that by excerpts from the gamespot, ..., reviews, for instance] It would be fun (ok, it's a fairly wild guess) to prove that there is a formula for nowadays hack'n'slash games... And so goes for all other kinds of games.

'Cause if there is such a formula, then we can easily find out wht to put in our work, apart from our sparkles, to make original (in our opinion) and high quality (in the eyes of the reviewers) game design / development.


What do you think?


A