The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Why bother??? Why BOTHER?!?!?!? Why do you think? Originality is on of the main things that draws me towards games. It shows me that the developers have put some thought into their game and not just copied all of the best bits from other game of the same genre.
The thing is, when can originality go too far? Another question is, is it acttually possible for a game to be too original? In my view it is.
Take for example a developer decides to throw all of the FPS rules out of the window, such as having health, limited ammo and all of the other things that make a FPS. Would this be taking originality too far? Or would it be a way to breath new life into a tried and tested formula?
The developers have got to learn that although their game needs to be original, their has to be a line drawn at some point to stop it being stupid. Too much orignality, bad, too little originaltiy, bad, just enough originality, very, very good.
A good example of this is Duke Nukem:LOTB. Here we see the develpoers giving the tried and tested formula of 3rd person shooters a little bit of originality. Well what did they do then? Well what they did was got rid of the health side of things and replaced it with an ego meter.
Now instead of dying when you have run out of health, yuou now die when Dukes ego is at rock bottom. Save a babe and see it soar and so on. This game had one new original thing and too me it helped it, it may just be a gimmick, but a good one anyway.
Now, onto a game with too much originality. For me Iggys recking balls pushed the boundaries of originality a bit too far to be refreshing. They turned a racing game on its head and threw in some strange ideas.
In the game you weren't in a car as such, what you were, was a little head, as this head you had to roll around the ascending tracks using a "grappling hook" to get up to the higher levels of the track. I thought that it could be cool when I first saw it, but once I played it I realised they had changed the racing game formula a bit too much.
A game with too little originality now, not going to be hard to think of really. The game in mention is Fifa 2001. Okay, while it is a good football simulation it is blatently not original. Like the many updates before it, it only had one or two new features, mainly just up to date graphics and prettier graphics.
So is that type of a change enough to warrant another spending of your hard earned money??? Hello, no it isn't. Unless you haven't got any of the previous installments, no EA sprts game is worth spending out on. Even if you love the game. There just isn't enough different ideas in it to persuade you to dish out another 35 or so pound.
So now you have read this, I ask you, is there such thing as a game being too original? Or is that not possible?
(;o|
Thanks for reading, MJ
The thing is, when can originality go too far? Another question is, is it acttually possible for a game to be too original? In my view it is.
Take for example a developer decides to throw all of the FPS rules out of the window, such as having health, limited ammo and all of the other things that make a FPS. Would this be taking originality too far? Or would it be a way to breath new life into a tried and tested formula?
The developers have got to learn that although their game needs to be original, their has to be a line drawn at some point to stop it being stupid. Too much orignality, bad, too little originaltiy, bad, just enough originality, very, very good.
A good example of this is Duke Nukem:LOTB. Here we see the develpoers giving the tried and tested formula of 3rd person shooters a little bit of originality. Well what did they do then? Well what they did was got rid of the health side of things and replaced it with an ego meter.
Now instead of dying when you have run out of health, yuou now die when Dukes ego is at rock bottom. Save a babe and see it soar and so on. This game had one new original thing and too me it helped it, it may just be a gimmick, but a good one anyway.
Now, onto a game with too much originality. For me Iggys recking balls pushed the boundaries of originality a bit too far to be refreshing. They turned a racing game on its head and threw in some strange ideas.
In the game you weren't in a car as such, what you were, was a little head, as this head you had to roll around the ascending tracks using a "grappling hook" to get up to the higher levels of the track. I thought that it could be cool when I first saw it, but once I played it I realised they had changed the racing game formula a bit too much.
A game with too little originality now, not going to be hard to think of really. The game in mention is Fifa 2001. Okay, while it is a good football simulation it is blatently not original. Like the many updates before it, it only had one or two new features, mainly just up to date graphics and prettier graphics.
So is that type of a change enough to warrant another spending of your hard earned money??? Hello, no it isn't. Unless you haven't got any of the previous installments, no EA sprts game is worth spending out on. Even if you love the game. There just isn't enough different ideas in it to persuade you to dish out another 35 or so pound.
So now you have read this, I ask you, is there such thing as a game being too original? Or is that not possible?
(;o|
Thanks for reading, MJ
Page:
Grix Thraves wrote:
> Yes, of course, the deposit is £300,000, an empty building,
> and about twenty PCs... :0)
And what is the address we send this deposit to?
:)
> Yes, of course, the deposit is £300,000, an empty building,
> and about twenty PCs... :0)
And what is the address we send this deposit to?
:)
Yes, of course, the deposit is £300,000, an empty building, and about twenty PCs... :0)
Something I read the other day in PC Gamer was that Goldeneye was the first game to use a sniper rifle... at least the zoom function, anyway. Anybody know any different?
Hey Grix you taking Preorders for "Monkey Raiders - The Green and White tides" yet??? If you are I want my deposit to reach you as soon as possible.
(;o|
(;o|
You see the thing is that sequels make money. That is why there are so many un-original games out there, like FIFA, like Tomb Raider. But at one time those games were original. There is nothing wrong with making games that are blatant copies of some games. Goldeneye and The World Is Not Enough spring to mind. But although TWINE was very un-original it was also a good game. It also happened to be in a genre where there were not many competitors. On the N64 there were not that many FPSes and Goldeneye and TWINE and PD were not in the same type of FPS as Quake and Doom. So for TWINE to copy Goldeneye was not to bad and the end result was a very good game indeed. But had it been a Rare style platformer then it would not have been so great even if it was a great game, simply because there are more of them in that genre and type. But as you said there is some thing wrong with being to original as those games seriously mess up the genre that they are in. They try to almost make a new genre all for themselves and it can lead to a poor game.
Good topic, really.
A game can easily be too original... which is why I'm being really careful who I hire for Swordspines... let me explain.
Someone wants to make a game, pretty young. Ask them to make it original.
"Right, ok. We're going to have this huge monkey universe, right? And they... they have loads of guns and bombs, and they have to save it from the giant leek, which appears every two centuries to destory all monkey kind, and you play Joe the Monkey, and your job is to destory the giant leek... by eating it. No! Hiding it under your finger nails!"
Copyright Grix Thraves.
So you can see how it can go over the top... there's no need for anything like that, and originality isn't so important to me. As long as the game is fun, I'm happy. Originality is still a good part, but there is no need to reinvent EVERYTHING. It still has to be at least believeable.
(Expect "Monkey Raiders - The Green and White tides" in late July 2004.)
A game can easily be too original... which is why I'm being really careful who I hire for Swordspines... let me explain.
Someone wants to make a game, pretty young. Ask them to make it original.
"Right, ok. We're going to have this huge monkey universe, right? And they... they have loads of guns and bombs, and they have to save it from the giant leek, which appears every two centuries to destory all monkey kind, and you play Joe the Monkey, and your job is to destory the giant leek... by eating it. No! Hiding it under your finger nails!"
Copyright Grix Thraves.
So you can see how it can go over the top... there's no need for anything like that, and originality isn't so important to me. As long as the game is fun, I'm happy. Originality is still a good part, but there is no need to reinvent EVERYTHING. It still has to be at least believeable.
(Expect "Monkey Raiders - The Green and White tides" in late July 2004.)
Well done Mark :)
Personally, I think Originality is gaming is very important, but the quality of the ideas in it need to be good as well.
No point in creating an original game if the ideas themselves don't actually work.
There's nothing wrong with unoriginal games as well, some of the best games around are based on old ideas.
Personally, I think Originality is gaming is very important, but the quality of the ideas in it need to be good as well.
No point in creating an original game if the ideas themselves don't actually work.
There's nothing wrong with unoriginal games as well, some of the best games around are based on old ideas.
Why bother??? Why BOTHER?!?!?!? Why do you think? Originality is on of the main things that draws me towards games. It shows me that the developers have put some thought into their game and not just copied all of the best bits from other game of the same genre.
The thing is, when can originality go too far? Another question is, is it acttually possible for a game to be too original? In my view it is.
Take for example a developer decides to throw all of the FPS rules out of the window, such as having health, limited ammo and all of the other things that make a FPS. Would this be taking originality too far? Or would it be a way to breath new life into a tried and tested formula?
The developers have got to learn that although their game needs to be original, their has to be a line drawn at some point to stop it being stupid. Too much orignality, bad, too little originaltiy, bad, just enough originality, very, very good.
A good example of this is Duke Nukem:LOTB. Here we see the develpoers giving the tried and tested formula of 3rd person shooters a little bit of originality. Well what did they do then? Well what they did was got rid of the health side of things and replaced it with an ego meter.
Now instead of dying when you have run out of health, yuou now die when Dukes ego is at rock bottom. Save a babe and see it soar and so on. This game had one new original thing and too me it helped it, it may just be a gimmick, but a good one anyway.
Now, onto a game with too much originality. For me Iggys recking balls pushed the boundaries of originality a bit too far to be refreshing. They turned a racing game on its head and threw in some strange ideas.
In the game you weren't in a car as such, what you were, was a little head, as this head you had to roll around the ascending tracks using a "grappling hook" to get up to the higher levels of the track. I thought that it could be cool when I first saw it, but once I played it I realised they had changed the racing game formula a bit too much.
A game with too little originality now, not going to be hard to think of really. The game in mention is Fifa 2001. Okay, while it is a good football simulation it is blatently not original. Like the many updates before it, it only had one or two new features, mainly just up to date graphics and prettier graphics.
So is that type of a change enough to warrant another spending of your hard earned money??? Hello, no it isn't. Unless you haven't got any of the previous installments, no EA sprts game is worth spending out on. Even if you love the game. There just isn't enough different ideas in it to persuade you to dish out another 35 or so pound.
So now you have read this, I ask you, is there such thing as a game being too original? Or is that not possible?
(;o|
Thanks for reading, MJ
The thing is, when can originality go too far? Another question is, is it acttually possible for a game to be too original? In my view it is.
Take for example a developer decides to throw all of the FPS rules out of the window, such as having health, limited ammo and all of the other things that make a FPS. Would this be taking originality too far? Or would it be a way to breath new life into a tried and tested formula?
The developers have got to learn that although their game needs to be original, their has to be a line drawn at some point to stop it being stupid. Too much orignality, bad, too little originaltiy, bad, just enough originality, very, very good.
A good example of this is Duke Nukem:LOTB. Here we see the develpoers giving the tried and tested formula of 3rd person shooters a little bit of originality. Well what did they do then? Well what they did was got rid of the health side of things and replaced it with an ego meter.
Now instead of dying when you have run out of health, yuou now die when Dukes ego is at rock bottom. Save a babe and see it soar and so on. This game had one new original thing and too me it helped it, it may just be a gimmick, but a good one anyway.
Now, onto a game with too much originality. For me Iggys recking balls pushed the boundaries of originality a bit too far to be refreshing. They turned a racing game on its head and threw in some strange ideas.
In the game you weren't in a car as such, what you were, was a little head, as this head you had to roll around the ascending tracks using a "grappling hook" to get up to the higher levels of the track. I thought that it could be cool when I first saw it, but once I played it I realised they had changed the racing game formula a bit too much.
A game with too little originality now, not going to be hard to think of really. The game in mention is Fifa 2001. Okay, while it is a good football simulation it is blatently not original. Like the many updates before it, it only had one or two new features, mainly just up to date graphics and prettier graphics.
So is that type of a change enough to warrant another spending of your hard earned money??? Hello, no it isn't. Unless you haven't got any of the previous installments, no EA sprts game is worth spending out on. Even if you love the game. There just isn't enough different ideas in it to persuade you to dish out another 35 or so pound.
So now you have read this, I ask you, is there such thing as a game being too original? Or is that not possible?
(;o|
Thanks for reading, MJ
Page: