Does being derivative make the game bad ?

[lord.jeff]

I agree, people complain about this way to much, like with God of War or Halo, after those games came out you couldn't be a brawler or shooter without being accused of being a clone, no one seemed to relies that those games were following decade old formulas, they just did it really well.

 

[bpm195]

It's pretty simple. Suppose that a Game X came out in 2010 and was great. If Game Y copies Game X and is equally great, game Y is failure for not improving. If Game Y is better than Game X, then Game Y earns its place as a great game. If Game Y is worse than Game X, developer Y was clearly purchased by Activision.

 

[Spencer Petersen]

I'm ok with a game being much like another game, as long as that game at least attempts to refine the idea, advance it and add its own style to it. Games that only imitate to gain some sales from vastly superior games are the lowest of the low, and don't deserve to succeed.

 

[Marik Bentusi]

Games need to evolve and build upon what others already did (or else we'd have to re-invent the wheel every time a game is made), but they also need to stand on its own. Just copying a game entirely, changing the settings a bit and tweaking one little mechanic doesn't make it worth buying for me. But games don't even have to be innovating, feature-wise, to me. If they can take what is there and combine it in such a way I don't notice from where it's copying or the game's actual focus is very fluent combat that sucks me in, it's doing a good job as well.

 

[Haydyn]

It really depends. How simular is game X to game Y? How many games are all simular to eachother (ie: stale, boring, borwn and grey marine shooters)? Does the game stand out on its own? Unfortunately for you guys, I ran into some free time, so please delight yourself by skipping my long breakdown into my opinion about game clones.

Look at Viking. It is basically God of War, but with Norse Gods instead of Greek Gods. Having little experience with God of War, I cannot judge how different gameplay is. I think Viking involves more stealth at some parts, and battles involving hundreds of AI on both sides of the fight. Did it sell good? Not really. This is evidence that it is not the game quality that hurt its sales, but rather the fact that it was another hack and slash "like God of War but" games. Even though it could have stuck out on its own merit, the genre was too full.

I'm not even going to get into shooters. I've pretty much stopped playing them. The market is so full it is practically leaking random shooters into my previously played games section.

Let's look at Saint's Row 2. Whie GTA4 went for the realistic approach, SR2 went for full over the top juvinile awesomeness, and it worked. Saint's Row 2 is just about everything I could want out of a Sandbox Crime Game. Not just a copy of older GTA games, it stuck out because it did everything better than before. Naked skydiving, spraying poo at people, throwing people into jet turbines, ragdolling yourself through the air intentionally getting hit by semis, this was not encouraged gameplay, it was included activities that gave in game rewards and achievement points. The desginers of SR2 went above and beyond, thus freeing themselves from underneath the foot of GTA, and becoming its top threat. In Saint's Row 3, there are going to be lucha libre wrestlers and a pimp which says everything in autotune. I think I'm in love with the series.

What does this conclude? It doesn't affect how great the game is, but if too many people are also copying the same thing, the whole experience gets watered down, and it is harder to make a game that stands up to it's inspiration's legacy.

 

[gigastar]

Hmm, not all the time.

Okami takes most of its cues from Zelda and yet it can put most Zelda games to shame.

Really its like calling every FPS a Doom knockoff, but between the first Doom and the likes of, say... Killzone 3. There is so much improvement over time between the two that its nigh impossible to relate them past the FPS genre tag.

Then theres Activision franchises. With so little improvement over the last 5 years it makes me wonder just what thier developers are getting paid for. That is, if they havent left or been fired.

 

[Krantos]

Presentation and execution make or break a game in this case. When a game derives a sizable portion of it's gameplay/story/setting/etc. from another game, it needs to bring something else to the table.

When you can honestly say that game x does nothing that wasn't already done better, it's a bad game. Worse than if it had simply came up with a new idea that didn't quite work.

That's from both an artistic and economical stand point. Artistic because if you're going to copy something poorly why copy it at all? Economic because a game will not sell well when you can point to another, earlier game that delivers the exact same experience only better.

 

[RowdyRodimus]

I look at it like racing. Take NASCAR and F-1 for example. Both are derivative of each other in that they both use cars, fuel mileage, pit crew strategies, etc... but tweek them to suit their form of racing. Where NASCAR uses stock cars and race on mostly oval tracks, F-1 uses high end cars made just to race (you won't see them on the street, but you will find Impalas, etc. like NASCAR uses) and race on tracks with more turns. They are similar enough tio both be the same sport, but different enough to attract different fans.

Now, I admit it's different in games, but really everything has been done before. You can slap on different enemies and story, but a FPS is an FPS, a platformer is a platformer, and RPG is an RPG. As long as it has it's own spin on that particular genre, then why care if it has the same basic mechanics as another game. Using the "same mechanics=same game" method means that D&D, Axis and Allies and Monopoly are all the same game.

 

[MercurySteam]

no, darksiders took a ton of stuff from zelda and it was awesome

Don't forget about the device that shoots blue and orange portals! Still, a great game.

 

[A random person]

It doesn't make it bad, no, the game can still be well-executed.

If you factor originality and bringing something new to the table into it (important in considering a games impact on the industry), however, it counts against the game, making it merely good instead of great.

 

[Hiphophippo]

I don't really think about that much, so I guess it doesn't bother me if they are. I judge every game on it's own merits, not on the shoulders of other games or predecessors.

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

The only time This ever bothered me was with Dantes Inferno. It couldve been amazing, but it felt like a poor mans GoW. It was fun, just nothing special.