The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
In the post-modern world, where video-games are in, townies hate gribbleys, gribbleys hate townies, nobody gets along yet we have big thriving communities like Special Reserve, we increasingly want originality in games.
But...
Who are we to decide what original is? What is the definition of original? Is it breaking boundaries, technically and graphically? Or what about just making up new genres. Well, technically it is all originality if it is done right. But, I have thought of numerous ways in which games could be tagged original, ways they could give life to genres and generally give the average gamer a great time.
First up, we have revival. No, not bringing back dead people from the ground a la Resident Evil, but revival of ancient genres. There are plenty of game types which matured then dropped off over the many years since gaming began. What about the traditional Zork style text based adventure. I don't mean to have a text based adventure update, but adventures like this are very rare. They developers either think 'Guns sell games. Lets give the hero a gun', or, 'Lets make it totally impossible, perhaps a platformer'. Why can't they make a true blue adventure game. Such as Monkey Island. Monkey Island is possibly the only genre which hasn't defected into others as it aged. And that's why it is still so great.
Then there's originality on the graphical and synaestetical fronts. Such as Rez. Rez isn't 'original' in the way the term is meant to mean, it just used different graphical styles mixed with musical change to create a variation on the simple space shooter. Target enemies. Fire bullets. Evolve. Not an original concept, but executed in such a manner that it is different to the rest of the breed and a new experience all the same.
And then what about irrelevance. The greatest games have spawned from their totally irrelevant concepts. Such as Tetris. Only a true genius could have thought of it, because it is totally unthinkable. In the years to come, new genres will appear, and you'll think to yourself 'I could have invented that'. When they're here, they seem normal. When they're not, you wouldn't have thought of the concept in a million years. Irrelevant games are refreshing games. Mr Moskeeto is irrelevant; you have to suck blood out of people. While it probably won't sell well - Despite wanting original things, the general public refuse to defect from the stone-mould genres - Mr Moskeeto is a refreshing play, and fun because it is different.
It is a very talked about subject; I'm sure if you scroll down the first 20 topic list you'll find about 3 or 4 topics on it, but originality is something that we crave yet ignore. Simple things like Bemani, and otherwise are ignored because perhaps they're just too original. And what should you do if you want something original? Go out to your local game shop, look in the bargain bin and pull out the first game with an exclamation mark in its title. It'll be different, thats for sure...
But...
Who are we to decide what original is? What is the definition of original? Is it breaking boundaries, technically and graphically? Or what about just making up new genres. Well, technically it is all originality if it is done right. But, I have thought of numerous ways in which games could be tagged original, ways they could give life to genres and generally give the average gamer a great time.
First up, we have revival. No, not bringing back dead people from the ground a la Resident Evil, but revival of ancient genres. There are plenty of game types which matured then dropped off over the many years since gaming began. What about the traditional Zork style text based adventure. I don't mean to have a text based adventure update, but adventures like this are very rare. They developers either think 'Guns sell games. Lets give the hero a gun', or, 'Lets make it totally impossible, perhaps a platformer'. Why can't they make a true blue adventure game. Such as Monkey Island. Monkey Island is possibly the only genre which hasn't defected into others as it aged. And that's why it is still so great.
Then there's originality on the graphical and synaestetical fronts. Such as Rez. Rez isn't 'original' in the way the term is meant to mean, it just used different graphical styles mixed with musical change to create a variation on the simple space shooter. Target enemies. Fire bullets. Evolve. Not an original concept, but executed in such a manner that it is different to the rest of the breed and a new experience all the same.
And then what about irrelevance. The greatest games have spawned from their totally irrelevant concepts. Such as Tetris. Only a true genius could have thought of it, because it is totally unthinkable. In the years to come, new genres will appear, and you'll think to yourself 'I could have invented that'. When they're here, they seem normal. When they're not, you wouldn't have thought of the concept in a million years. Irrelevant games are refreshing games. Mr Moskeeto is irrelevant; you have to suck blood out of people. While it probably won't sell well - Despite wanting original things, the general public refuse to defect from the stone-mould genres - Mr Moskeeto is a refreshing play, and fun because it is different.
It is a very talked about subject; I'm sure if you scroll down the first 20 topic list you'll find about 3 or 4 topics on it, but originality is something that we crave yet ignore. Simple things like Bemani, and otherwise are ignored because perhaps they're just too original. And what should you do if you want something original? Go out to your local game shop, look in the bargain bin and pull out the first game with an exclamation mark in its title. It'll be different, thats for sure...
V.V.V.V.V wrote:
> I also loved REZ - what a game - I just wish that UGA/SEGA would take
> the idea and make a full-on huge flying adventure using the REZ game
> engine. Introduce a bit of a story, and add more variety to the
> gameplay.
*
I agree. But games that deserve sequels never seem to get them.
> I also loved REZ - what a game - I just wish that UGA/SEGA would take
> the idea and make a full-on huge flying adventure using the REZ game
> engine. Introduce a bit of a story, and add more variety to the
> gameplay.
*
I agree. But games that deserve sequels never seem to get them.
Before I sold my PS2 to buy an Xbox, I was going to buy Mr.Moskeeto.
I like quirky games that have a unique slant.
I also loved REZ - what a game - I just wish that UGA/SEGA would take the idea and make a full-on huge flying adventure using the REZ game engine. Introduce a bit of a story, and add more variety to the gameplay.
For me, REZ was like the beginning of a new genre. SEGA should take the idea and expand it.
But I don't think they will, and why? - because I don't think its sales were very good....
Does it pay to be original?
I like quirky games that have a unique slant.
I also loved REZ - what a game - I just wish that UGA/SEGA would take the idea and make a full-on huge flying adventure using the REZ game engine. Introduce a bit of a story, and add more variety to the gameplay.
For me, REZ was like the beginning of a new genre. SEGA should take the idea and expand it.
But I don't think they will, and why? - because I don't think its sales were very good....
Does it pay to be original?
I would say a game which IS original but now you mention it very few games are.
Nice post! :)
Nice post! :)
Nice post, a thought provoking idea.
Nothing is original anymore. I defy you to show me anything, anywhere, that is WHOLLY original. An idea always has something borrowed, modified or inspired from another idea. As my English teacher says, 'there's no such thing as an original idea'.
Nothing is original anymore. I defy you to show me anything, anywhere, that is WHOLLY original. An idea always has something borrowed, modified or inspired from another idea. As my English teacher says, 'there's no such thing as an original idea'.
In the post-modern world, where video-games are in, townies hate gribbleys, gribbleys hate townies, nobody gets along yet we have big thriving communities like Special Reserve, we increasingly want originality in games.
But...
Who are we to decide what original is? What is the definition of original? Is it breaking boundaries, technically and graphically? Or what about just making up new genres. Well, technically it is all originality if it is done right. But, I have thought of numerous ways in which games could be tagged original, ways they could give life to genres and generally give the average gamer a great time.
First up, we have revival. No, not bringing back dead people from the ground a la Resident Evil, but revival of ancient genres. There are plenty of game types which matured then dropped off over the many years since gaming began. What about the traditional Zork style text based adventure. I don't mean to have a text based adventure update, but adventures like this are very rare. They developers either think 'Guns sell games. Lets give the hero a gun', or, 'Lets make it totally impossible, perhaps a platformer'. Why can't they make a true blue adventure game. Such as Monkey Island. Monkey Island is possibly the only genre which hasn't defected into others as it aged. And that's why it is still so great.
Then there's originality on the graphical and synaestetical fronts. Such as Rez. Rez isn't 'original' in the way the term is meant to mean, it just used different graphical styles mixed with musical change to create a variation on the simple space shooter. Target enemies. Fire bullets. Evolve. Not an original concept, but executed in such a manner that it is different to the rest of the breed and a new experience all the same.
And then what about irrelevance. The greatest games have spawned from their totally irrelevant concepts. Such as Tetris. Only a true genius could have thought of it, because it is totally unthinkable. In the years to come, new genres will appear, and you'll think to yourself 'I could have invented that'. When they're here, they seem normal. When they're not, you wouldn't have thought of the concept in a million years. Irrelevant games are refreshing games. Mr Moskeeto is irrelevant; you have to suck blood out of people. While it probably won't sell well - Despite wanting original things, the general public refuse to defect from the stone-mould genres - Mr Moskeeto is a refreshing play, and fun because it is different.
It is a very talked about subject; I'm sure if you scroll down the first 20 topic list you'll find about 3 or 4 topics on it, but originality is something that we crave yet ignore. Simple things like Bemani, and otherwise are ignored because perhaps they're just too original. And what should you do if you want something original? Go out to your local game shop, look in the bargain bin and pull out the first game with an exclamation mark in its title. It'll be different, thats for sure...
But...
Who are we to decide what original is? What is the definition of original? Is it breaking boundaries, technically and graphically? Or what about just making up new genres. Well, technically it is all originality if it is done right. But, I have thought of numerous ways in which games could be tagged original, ways they could give life to genres and generally give the average gamer a great time.
First up, we have revival. No, not bringing back dead people from the ground a la Resident Evil, but revival of ancient genres. There are plenty of game types which matured then dropped off over the many years since gaming began. What about the traditional Zork style text based adventure. I don't mean to have a text based adventure update, but adventures like this are very rare. They developers either think 'Guns sell games. Lets give the hero a gun', or, 'Lets make it totally impossible, perhaps a platformer'. Why can't they make a true blue adventure game. Such as Monkey Island. Monkey Island is possibly the only genre which hasn't defected into others as it aged. And that's why it is still so great.
Then there's originality on the graphical and synaestetical fronts. Such as Rez. Rez isn't 'original' in the way the term is meant to mean, it just used different graphical styles mixed with musical change to create a variation on the simple space shooter. Target enemies. Fire bullets. Evolve. Not an original concept, but executed in such a manner that it is different to the rest of the breed and a new experience all the same.
And then what about irrelevance. The greatest games have spawned from their totally irrelevant concepts. Such as Tetris. Only a true genius could have thought of it, because it is totally unthinkable. In the years to come, new genres will appear, and you'll think to yourself 'I could have invented that'. When they're here, they seem normal. When they're not, you wouldn't have thought of the concept in a million years. Irrelevant games are refreshing games. Mr Moskeeto is irrelevant; you have to suck blood out of people. While it probably won't sell well - Despite wanting original things, the general public refuse to defect from the stone-mould genres - Mr Moskeeto is a refreshing play, and fun because it is different.
It is a very talked about subject; I'm sure if you scroll down the first 20 topic list you'll find about 3 or 4 topics on it, but originality is something that we crave yet ignore. Simple things like Bemani, and otherwise are ignored because perhaps they're just too original. And what should you do if you want something original? Go out to your local game shop, look in the bargain bin and pull out the first game with an exclamation mark in its title. It'll be different, thats for sure...