CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

A game designer said (the maker of Katamari Damacy, actually) that current games displayed a severe lack of originality. The ideas are all recycled. I agree. I wish games were like they used to be, I wish they gave me the same thrill that they used to. Now it's all like, "been there, done that". Games like Pac-Man and Mario make me nostaligic. Games shouldn't use recycled ideas, but I don't believe there could be great RPGs any longer if they didn't use them...

The majority of games these days do lack originality. Many also try to sell on graphical merit alone and this unfortunately works. I would would like to see more emphasis on better gameplay in games too. Who cares what the graphics look like? What really counts is the gameplay. Everything else is just style over substance. Games must have more substance. That said, nothing is original these days, its just old ideas that are given a twist and if done right they work.

They can't help, it's called business risk.

Either they spend millions of dollars into making a brand new spectacular newly concept game that's so unique but risk being suck and no one buy it (waste of money), or they "upgrade" from the previous and release another solid title, guaranteeing that it'll sell, and still be better than previous.

Only few exceptions come around when originality is concerned, these are not the days of garage gaming...

What about Thief: The Dark Project? That was a risk and it didn't sell like Half-Life or whatever but it did sell. But its true that they don't want to risk the money. Kind of sad really.

Only games I can think of that broke the mold were:

Thief 1 and 2
Deus Ex

(I'm sure there were a few more)

Lorentz speaks the truth.

one reason i want to get into video game design is i have a couple original ideas but the question is will the game industry even accept new ideas if the person doesnt have the money to own a company....

I find that with Final Fantasy, each game has a completely new ability system, similarities permeate through all the games, but each one is different enough to earn some credit there.

You want an example of failed originality - Virtua-Boy.

a game doen't have to be orginal, just fun to play. i mean just look at halo. and i find that most of the time if the introduce a lot of wierd concepts it just doesn't make the game fun.

Final Fantasy is an exception: You can't change it too much without it losing it's 'Final Fantasiness'. The battle system is constatly in a state of flux, but mostly everything else remains intact.

Star Ocean 3 is a game that pushed the limits and it only did OK. So did Deus Ex, Thief, Max Payne and almost any other game that is radically different. These games did OK, but not great. Mostly they are just cult games with loyal fan followings. I think a lot of people are happy with recycled ideas. Halo itself isn't really all that much different than your average FPS, it just made everything work together really well.

I doubt this adds anything to the discussion, but hey, it's my 2 yen.

skynes wrote:You want an example of failed originality - Virtua-Boy.

Unfortunately, as I've stated many times before, Nintendo is now a prime example of things that are original but do very poorly, such as being able to connect your GBA to a Gamecube. Very innovative, original idea...but the problem is, it wasn't utilized well, and gamers didn't like it anyway.

Katamari Damacy was original, fun, and had a lot going for it, and it sold really well. Partially because it was cheap.

Another example of a good, unique RPG is the Wild ARMs series. What, you've never heard of it? Exactly.

There's a few problems with original games. One, it's usually a small company that makes them, and so they can't advertise as well as other companies. Two, some people are going to see the originality as excellent, while others will see it as stupid. I had a friend tell me he started playing Wild ARMs 3 and got bored of it, whereas I couldn't put it down.

I don't know how to end this post, so I'll just end it.

kaemmerite wrote:I had a friend tell me he started playing Wild ARMs 3 and got bored of it, whereas I couldn't put it down.

GUILT TRIP!!!!

fine fine ill play it more! ill give it another shot

kaemmerite wrote:Unfortunately, as I've stated many times before, Nintendo is now a prime example of things that are original but do very poorly, such as being able to connect your GBA to a Gamecube. Very innovative, original idea...but the problem is, it wasn't utilized well, and gamers didn't like it anyway.

Nintendo did make a device before that allowing the original Gameboy to connect to the SNES. It was really nothing more than a way to play Gameboy games on a big screen (not a very good idea considering the graphics on most GB games), but it was the first of its kind.

Anyway, I always find it funny when people talk about the golden age of gaming, back when there was loads of creativity and all games were awesome. Unfortunately this time never existed.

To give you an idea of what I mean, you have to remembe that most of the games released in the 8- and 16- Bit days almost every game fell into one of 5 categories:

1.Platformer
2.Side-scrolling shooter
3.Turn-based RPG
4.Sports game
5.Tetris clone

Of those, the platformer was probably the most common. Everything was made into a platformer, whether it made sense or not. There were platformers based on Home Improvement (the tv show), Street Fighter, Total Recall, and every single comic book, cartoon, and video game franchise known to man. Most of them were exactly the same, which is to say, terrible.

Fighting games became popular in the latter half of the 16-bit days, with titles like Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter becoming very popular. Most other fighting games were simply clones of these two proven hits. This meant that they relied on two things:
1.Goofy gimmick characters.
2.Lots of gore.

The general formula was that someone would make a great game, perhaps creating a new genre, then hordes of imitators would try to capitalize on that game's success by producing almost identical products. Not much different than today, except most of us were too young to remember what was happening. Instead, we only remember that games used to be fun when we were younger. Play them again now, and most of them will have lost their magic.

To give you a more modern example, one of my favorite games for the Dreamcast were those from the Power Stone series. They were unique an innovative, incorporating large, multi-level stages, destructible environments, and the ability to use objects in the environment as weapons. On top of that, the game could be played with four players, and the fact that there were only enough power stones for half of the players to be transformed (allowing them to do more powerful attacks and ignore damage) at any one time made them important strategic items. Since the death of the Dreamcast, no companies have really built upon the great ideas that started with Power Stone. The concept has more or less lain fallow for the past few years.

It sounds like a great game, right? It was at the time, but I am reluctant to play it now. In doing so I would probably now notice lots of flaws that I didn't notice when I was younger, tarnishing my memory of the game and it's concept.

The point of all this is that we often remember games as being much better than they actually were. We look back on them and think, why can't games be more like that now? Don't be so hard on today's game developers: they're only using the same tricks that they have always used.

Not really a double post, since everything I am saying here is totally new.

Rather than edit all of this onto my first post where it might be missed, I thought that I would say a few more words on this issue.

First, a game does not have to be innovative in order to be fun. Every Dynasty Warriors game is the same (excluding minor adjustments), but I like them all. Not much changed between Halo 1 and 2, but it is still a great game to play (especially online). Street Fighter has changed very little over the years, but I will still play it for hours. The reason that these games are still fun despite being revolutionary is that the execution is excellent. They don't have to change, and if they did, it would probably kill whatever was fun about the series to begin with.

Second, games can be innovative without being fun. There are lots of creative bad ideas. I would point to the whole genre of dancing games here, but since lots of other people seem to like them, I will provide other examples. Perhaps some of you have heard of a game called Mr. Mosquito. It is a fairly obscure game for the PS2 in which you play as a mosquito, attempting to suck blood from humans without getting swatted. That is the whole game. Creative? Yes. Fun? Probably not.

Rather than trying to come up with things that are simply bizzare or intentionally different (but not fun), I would prefer that game developers focus on improving upon some of the ideas that are already out there. There is plenty of potential. All that is needed is a few brilliant, industrious developers to make the existing ideas work in new and better ways.

cbwing0 wrote:Anyway, I always find it funny when people talk about the golden age of gaming, back when there was loads of creativity and all games were awesome. Unfortunately this time never existed.

Agreed.

There are a lot of good NES and SNES games that are indeed classic. However, for every good game on NES, there were six more that were lame.

Most people only play the true classics, like the Marios, the Zeldas, and the like. But trust me, there were a LOT of lame games in the NES days. There were significantly less in the SNES days, but there were still a lot of lame ones (such as the aforementioned Home Improvement platformer).

Actually, cbwing, I disagree that playing older games would somehow make them less magical. Even after the RPGs on the PS2, I still consider Chrono Trigger for SNES to be the greatest RPG ever made. Though I know how you feel about RPGs, so that makes little difference to you.

At any rate, the majority of NES and SNES games were actually fairly mediocre, it's simply the golden titles that stand out in our mind...but trust me, those pinnacles of 8 and 16 bit gaming were quite rare indeed, so I don't see the 8-bit era as being the "golden age" of gaming.

kaemmerite wrote:At any rate, the majority of NES and SNES games were actually fairly mediocre, it's simply the golden titles that stand out in our mind...but trust me, those pinnacles of 8 and 16 bit gaming were quite rare indeed, so I don't see the 8-bit era as being the "golden age" of gaming.

Normally this is where I would say, "my point exactly," if I had made my point clear enough the first time.

My point is that there are just as many (if not more) Mario's and Zelda's today as there were in the 8- and 16-bit days. The only difference is that we are still seeing the hordes of mediocre knock-offs that surround them. For every Burnout 3 there is a Big Mutha Truckers. For every Ratchet and Clank there is a Spongebob Squarepants or Catwoman.

If we took an honest look (as you and I do), then we would find that the same is true of the gaming past. Most people have simply forgotten all of the bad, unpopular games of their childhood.

Although the general trends are the same, one very important aspect of development has changed; that is, the cost. As has already been observed, games cost considerably more to produce today than they did in the past. This puts more pressure on companies to create gauranteed hits rather than trying ideas that might fail. It also saves us from a lot of the cheap knock-offs produced in the past. Only the most successful platforms (like the PS2 and GBA) are still plagued by lots of cheaply-made, terrible games. In this way, the increased cost of development may have some indirect quality control benefits despite its obvious drawbacks.

I think it`s funny that`s coming from the guy who made Katarmari Damacy. While it was a fun play, it isn`t unique at all. A stick figured guy rolls up balls and turns them into stars because his father got angry and destroyed them all. It reminds me of the good, plotless Sega Genesis days....good times.

Also Star Ocean 3 did exceptionally well. While I think it wasn`t as good as the 2nd one, it did do a heck lot better in the market. This game is no FF, but it made Greates Hits, something the Second Story did not acheive.

oh and kaemmerite......-starts thread for Wild Arms-

I've noticed with Nintendo that when they try a new idea, that ends up Ok and not great, the next time they use that idea it's a big big hit.

e.g.

Zelda Wind Waker. Original art style and way of doing things. Explosions enemy art etc. The game was a bit lacking (though I'm sure many would disagree).
Later Big N released Minish Cap and 4 Swords. They were much better games (especially 4 Swords), yet they used very similar art style.

Metroid Fusion, first GBA Metroid game, first inclusion of the Power Grip. First Metroid to include "Go here, go there" stuff. But it was sub-par. The hints were forced on you.

Zero Mission, hints now dumbed down and only the first one is necessary, all the rest can be skipped. Power Grip now included as an upgrade. Overall a much better game than Fusion.

Pokemon Ruby and Sapphire, I didn't like this game much, but it added the new Natures idea and greatly expanded on how Pokemon grow.
This was put to much better use in Leaf Green and Fire Red, which are currently my favourite Pokemon games (Silver comes in a very close second place).

Has anyone else noticed this pattern with them?

I had to pause for a moment on how to post without seeming negative. There was no incredible revelation, so we'll see how I do.

Personally, I don't think the games of old were really all that great (not gaming as a whole, all games). Of course, neither are the games today. Twenty years down the road, people will likely look back at our current time and wish things were like they were "back in the old days." This is not to say that I don't think there are quality games on the market, merely that I wouldn't place them too high.

Though he makes a good point, I don't entirely agree with cbwing0 about playing old games again... I think that many people can't look past their old memories, so even if they technically realize the games aren't exactly good, they still view them in that light. It is the same in many mediums (the Star Wars movies are often an example).

Of course, I don't like blatant rip-offs... unless they're honestly fun to play. Sometimes, a game does steal the concept of another game, but occasionally it is not merely a low-quality copy, and is actually still enjoyable. Similarly, I am annoyed if the plot of an rpg feels derivative, but I'm not searching for any possible similarity and then denouncing the entire game.

How DO you make an original game? I don't honestly believe it's possible for most genres to have a 100% original game. That doesn't mean there are not any more good ones. I still love many new games coming out. You just have to pick the gems out of the rubish. There always have been and will always be lame games, but there will also always be a steady amount of good games.

you remember the times n64 games were like 80 dollars?

80$........

They`re like 5$ now.

Let`s see Happy Meal or Ocarina of Time.......?

I suppose the monomyth theory can now be applied to games as well...

Hmm... The metal gear series and the Silent Hill series... Then Seiken Densetsu (2 and 3, anyhow) and a broad spectrum of Final Fantasy games... I like new games AND I like old games... I don't wish new games were like old games, I like new games (at least the new MG, SH, and FF games) exactly the way they are... And DDR, Karaoke Revolution, and all the other bemani games... They're pretty original, even though I guess they're not that new anymore... Yeah... MGS3 was a great game, and it was rather original, so I'll say "no" Modern games aren't any less orginal than old games. In the olden days (you know, the 80's) original games were few and far between. Now, original games are few and far between... Nothing has changed...

EDIT: Sorry about my grammer, it's easy to forget tense in the middle of a large thought that somehow needs to come out through my fingers...

Bobtheduck wrote:Hmm... The metal gear series and the Silent Hill series... Then Seiken Densetsu (2 and 3, anyhow) and a broad spectrum of Final Fantasy games... I like new games AND I like old games... I don't wish new games were like old games, I like new games (at least the new MG, SH, and FF games) exactly the way they are... And DDR, Karaoke Revolution, and all the other bemani games... They're pretty original, even though I guess they're not that new anymore... Yeah... MGS3 was a great game, and it was rather original, so I'll say "no" Modern games aren't any less orginal than old games. In the olden days (you know, the 80's) original games were few and far between. Now, original games are few and far between... Nothing has changed...

EDIT: Sorry about my grammer, it's easy to forget tense in the middle of a large thought that somehow needs to come out through my fingers...

My thoughts exactly.

I don't know about all of you, but I'm having a great time with the games that have come out this year alone; Pyshonuats, Jade Empire, Resident Evil 4, Metal Gear Ac!d, Lumines, Kirby: Canvas Curse, Wario Ware: Twisted, Fire Emblem: Sacred Stones, Chaos Theory, Mercenaries, and the upcoming Battlefield 2.

There still are plenty of new great and unique games coming out, but this generation is coming down to a close. Personally, I really liked this generation, becuase games (good ones) finally felt polished.

I personally think the games these days are better....and I think they should just stay this way.

I agree to a certain extent. If I deserve to be picked off at 300 yards for perferring Final Fantasy X to Final Fantasy, then so be it. However, I would never wish away those old titles, as they formed the basis for newer classics. Leading me to my next point: There really was no perfect golden age of gaming, and there never will be. Sure, there are ups and downs over the years, but having gamed in one of those ups is no excuse to turn into a cenophobic whiner every time the next round of consoles comes out.

Mr.SmartyPants wrote:you remember the times n64 games were like 80 dollars?

I remember those times very well. I also remember that when The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time was released, it cost $100! If you want to talk about greed in gaming, start there.

Kinda funny you bring OoT up considering my post responding to MSP.

" 80$......they cost like 5$ now.

Let`s see Ocarina of Time or a Happy Meal?"

Does that sound familair?

cbwing0 wrote:I remember those times very well. I also remember that when The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time was released, it cost $100! If you want to talk about greed in gaming, start there.

If I remember correctly, it was only $60 ($65 at the most). -or at least that's what I paid for it the day it was released. Not to mention, I got the limited golden cart.

Nintendo games on the N64 were normally under $65. It's the 3rd-party titles that cost in the $70-$80 range. Kinda' like how first-party handheld (PSP, DS, GBA) are normally $10 less.

Totaly random here. But Tom, if you want an original RPG check out Vagrant Story. Now that is a cool rpg.