New Game's And Why They seem to all seem to rip-off Each other

[Paru_tarusaya]

Interactive cutscenes anyone ? Resident evil 4 started it and I can;t count the amount of games that copied it.

There's nothing wrong with borrowing but i mean they coulda at least changed it up a little bit with something different.

 

[Paru_tarusaya]

A dev can take an unoriginal idea and make it original by tweeking the formula a bit, games tend to copy each other because some new ideas work really well.

And example, it is very hard to find a third person shooter now a days that doesn't have some variation of the gears of war sticky cover.

you could argue that the uncharted series copied off of gears of war, but you can't deny that the final product was quite diffrent and quite good.

I think that uncharted though came with it's own plot that is simple and fine. I mean at least they didnt have you fighting a horde of under ground wierd ass creatures so i'd give it the thumb's up on this topic.

 

[Internet Kraken]

It's not just new games. The old consoles were flooded with games that just copied other, more successful titles. Some of them were near identical clones.

And the reason why people do this is because it's the safest way to make a game. If you follow what is proven to be successful, you are more likely to be successful. Sure if you do something bold and adventurous you could end up creating a masterpiece, but you are just as likely to end up with a pile of crap.

I guess so but i mean there's gotta be a feeling of empty hollowness just eating away at the people who make these and don't add anything new.That's why there is just stuff that we can add to game's something's interesting. I can understand taking engine's and stuff cause i mean if you combine uncharted's water graphic's with alone in the dark <---- Crappy game that sucked you could through togehter something amazing looking and pleasing and then at least add a good amount of Let's not steal the whole plot from someone else.

Not really. Video games are a business, and a lot of people enter the business simply to make money. They don't care if they are being original or creative, they just want to make some cash and see video games as an opportunity to do so. Now I'm not trying to insult these people for their lack of creativity. I mean, everyone has to make money somehow.

Making money is the problem we should stop giving them our money for there lack of thought. I mean Really i enjoy some game's that are copy and paste but i really hate what they do to the gaming community.

What exactly are they doing to the gaming community? These people have existed since video games were first made. They haven't stopped the more creative developers from making new and original games.

They have actually killed off some of the more interesting game companies that make game's of there own design and wanting by taking over there company or just simply holding them down under a pillow by making game's that most non-gamer's will simply by and play for the nostalgic want of certain criteria that we seem to be stuck on.

What exactly are you talking about? Care to give some examples? I think the reason most of the companies that try new and ambitious things go under is because they produce bad games. They may be unique, but they aren't very good. Other times they may be very good, but they don't appeal to a large enough audience to generate substantial profit. In both of these cases it is not the other companies fault.

 

[Paru_tarusaya]

It's not just new games. The old consoles were flooded with games that just copied other, more successful titles. Some of them were near identical clones.

And the reason why people do this is because it's the safest way to make a game. If you follow what is proven to be successful, you are more likely to be successful. Sure if you do something bold and adventurous you could end up creating a masterpiece, but you are just as likely to end up with a pile of crap.

I guess so but i mean there's gotta be a feeling of empty hollowness just eating away at the people who make these and don't add anything new.That's why there is just stuff that we can add to game's something's interesting. I can understand taking engine's and stuff cause i mean if you combine uncharted's water graphic's with alone in the dark <---- Crappy game that sucked you could through togehter something amazing looking and pleasing and then at least add a good amount of Let's not steal the whole plot from someone else.

Not really. Video games are a business, and a lot of people enter the business simply to make money. They don't care if they are being original or creative, they just want to make some cash and see video games as an opportunity to do so. Now I'm not trying to insult these people for their lack of creativity. I mean, everyone has to make money somehow.

Making money is the problem we should stop giving them our money for there lack of thought. I mean Really i enjoy some game's that are copy and paste but i really hate what they do to the gaming community.

What exactly are they doing to the gaming community? These people have existed since video games were first made. They haven't stopped the more creative developers from making new and original games.

They have actually killed off some of the more interesting game companies that make game's of there own design and wanting by taking over there company or just simply holding them down under a pillow by making game's that most non-gamer's will simply by and play for the nostalgic want of certain criteria that we seem to be stuck on.

What exactly are you talking about? Care to give some examples? I think the reason most of the companies that try new and ambitious things go under is because they produce bad games. They may be unique, but they aren't very good. Other times they may be very good, but they don't appeal to a large enough audience to generate substantial profit. In both of these cases it is not the other companies fault.

Well First thing i have problem's with The true creators of portal selling out and stuff But i'll let them live. And game's like sky's of arcadia had some great idea's and the growlanser series who are slowly dieing out. There's really to many to look into the topic.

 

[Internet Kraken]

It's not just new games. The old consoles were flooded with games that just copied other, more successful titles. Some of them were near identical clones.

And the reason why people do this is because it's the safest way to make a game. If you follow what is proven to be successful, you are more likely to be successful. Sure if you do something bold and adventurous you could end up creating a masterpiece, but you are just as likely to end up with a pile of crap.

I guess so but i mean there's gotta be a feeling of empty hollowness just eating away at the people who make these and don't add anything new.That's why there is just stuff that we can add to game's something's interesting. I can understand taking engine's and stuff cause i mean if you combine uncharted's water graphic's with alone in the dark <---- Crappy game that sucked you could through togehter something amazing looking and pleasing and then at least add a good amount of Let's not steal the whole plot from someone else.

Not really. Video games are a business, and a lot of people enter the business simply to make money. They don't care if they are being original or creative, they just want to make some cash and see video games as an opportunity to do so. Now I'm not trying to insult these people for their lack of creativity. I mean, everyone has to make money somehow.

Making money is the problem we should stop giving them our money for there lack of thought. I mean Really i enjoy some game's that are copy and paste but i really hate what they do to the gaming community.

What exactly are they doing to the gaming community? These people have existed since video games were first made. They haven't stopped the more creative developers from making new and original games.

They have actually killed off some of the more interesting game companies that make game's of there own design and wanting by taking over there company or just simply holding them down under a pillow by making game's that most non-gamer's will simply by and play for the nostalgic want of certain criteria that we seem to be stuck on.

What exactly are you talking about? Care to give some examples? I think the reason most of the companies that try new and ambitious things go under is because they produce bad games. They may be unique, but they aren't very good. Other times they may be very good, but they don't appeal to a large enough audience to generate substantial profit. In both of these cases it is not the other companies fault.

Well First thing i have problem's with The true creators of portal selling out and stuff But i'll let them live. And game's like sky's of arcadia had some great idea's and the growlanser series who are slowly dieing out. There's really to many to look into the topic.

The people who made Portal sold out? Last time I checked, they willingly joined Valve. And the game's quality didn't suffer because of it.

And while I've heard of Skys of Arcadia before, I've never payed any attention to it. Nothing about it seemed interesting enough to draw me into it. But maybe that's why it's fading away? Maybe it just doesn't appeal to enough people. Or maybe the games just suck. Either way, that's not the fault of the uncreative gaming companies that you seem to blame for this.

 

[Paru_tarusaya]

It's not just new games. The old consoles were flooded with games that just copied other, more successful titles. Some of them were near identical clones.

And the reason why people do this is because it's the safest way to make a game. If you follow what is proven to be successful, you are more likely to be successful. Sure if you do something bold and adventurous you could end up creating a masterpiece, but you are just as likely to end up with a pile of crap.

I guess so but i mean there's gotta be a feeling of empty hollowness just eating away at the people who make these and don't add anything new.That's why there is just stuff that we can add to game's something's interesting. I can understand taking engine's and stuff cause i mean if you combine uncharted's water graphic's with alone in the dark <---- Crappy game that sucked you could through togehter something amazing looking and pleasing and then at least add a good amount of Let's not steal the whole plot from someone else.

Not really. Video games are a business, and a lot of people enter the business simply to make money. They don't care if they are being original or creative, they just want to make some cash and see video games as an opportunity to do so. Now I'm not trying to insult these people for their lack of creativity. I mean, everyone has to make money somehow.

Making money is the problem we should stop giving them our money for there lack of thought. I mean Really i enjoy some game's that are copy and paste but i really hate what they do to the gaming community.

What exactly are they doing to the gaming community? These people have existed since video games were first made. They haven't stopped the more creative developers from making new and original games.

They have actually killed off some of the more interesting game companies that make game's of there own design and wanting by taking over there company or just simply holding them down under a pillow by making game's that most non-gamer's will simply by and play for the nostalgic want of certain criteria that we seem to be stuck on.

What exactly are you talking about? Care to give some examples? I think the reason most of the companies that try new and ambitious things go under is because they produce bad games. They may be unique, but they aren't very good. Other times they may be very good, but they don't appeal to a large enough audience to generate substantial profit. In both of these cases it is not the other companies fault.

Well First thing i have problem's with The true creators of portal selling out and stuff But i'll let them live. And game's like sky's of arcadia had some great idea's and the growlanser series who are slowly dieing out. There's really to many to look into the topic.

The people who made Portal sold out? Last time I checked, they willingly joined Valve. And the game's quality didn't suffer because of it.

And while I've heard of Skys of Arcadia before, I've never payed any attention to it. Nothing about it seemed interesting enough to draw me into it. But maybe that's why it's fading away? Maybe it just doesn't appeal to enough people. Or maybe the games just suck. Either way, that's not the fault of the uncreative gaming companies that you seem to blame for this.

Joining willing and selling out is very much the same thing

 

[Internet Kraken]

Joining willing and selling out is very much the same thing

Usually when people say someone has "sold out" they mean that they sacrificed the creativity and effort they originally put into their work in favor of money. The people who made Portal didn't do this. I don't see how them joining Valve destroyed the creativity they intended to put into the game.

 

[VGStrife]

Why do most new games no matter good or bad seem to be just copys of Old games.

Fix'd
Apostrophes are only used when contacting 'is' or when something belongs to someone.

OT: There are some original games, but devs often stick with what is seen as good and selling well at the time.

 

[FactualSquirrel]

because nothing can be completely original, and seeing as you probably played good games more than bad games, you remember them. And seeing as developers only rip off good games, they seem familiar to you.

 

[VGStrife]

Why do most new games no matter good or bad seem to be just copys of Old games.

Fix'd
Apostrophes are only used when contacting 'is' or when something belongs to someone.

OT: There are some original games, but devs often stick with what is seen as good and selling well at the time.

Fixed it wrong. The plural of 'copy' is 'copies'.

There also probably shouldn't be a capital 'o' on Old games (or should be one on games) but i was more annoyed by the apostrophies. Just a pet peeve

 

[Marksman18v]

pretty much every concept has been tried before.

fps-doom
sandbox-gta

and so on. nothing is completely original anymore.

It all depends on how much you disguise the fact it's unoriginal now.

By most standards, an "original" game is a game that offers slightly different features than other games in it. According to 90% of my friends, at least.

It's almost impossible to be original anymore, though sometimes gamedesigners pull it off but the game still sucks horribly.

 

[maninahat]

The video game market is especially derivative at the moment, not just of other games, but of popular films. When "Saving Private Ryan" came out, game manufacturers cottoned onto the fact that everyone wanted to re-enact the Omaha beach scene. Games like Medal of Honour and Call of Duty go to some lengths to actually recreate seemingly identical missions to scenes from the movie. Manufacturers duly noted how well MOH:AA and COD did, so triggering a massive slew of WWII themed war games which were all fairly similar in execution.

Sometimes though, it is just coincidence: Note how "Assassin's Creed", "Infamous", and "Prototype" all came out around the same time, yet all feature similar free-running sandbox setups. All three of these games were popular, so expect a slew of sequels and knock offs.

Either way, manufacturers will lean towards games that conform to what is popular at the moment, as this will guarantee big returns. Hence why FPSs are top dog, and will remain so until people will get bored of them (fairly unlikely: there is no thrill greater than murdering someone, so nothing can hope to surpass the carnage of FPSs in bringing excitement to the masses).

Sometimes though, a derivative can be superior to the concept it is copying: "Mafia" is possibly just another GTA sandbox clone, yet I'd argue it is a far superior game to GTA3. (Also note the way in which Mafia emulates classic gangster movies such as "The Goodfella's").

 

[Abengoshis]

Games may be copies of copies of copies these days, but the difference in quality is what sets them apart. Modern Warfare and The Darkness are both FPS, but they're hardly on the same playing field.

[troll] Yeah, The Darkness is better... [/troll]
[apology] I just had to say that... [/apology]

 

[funguy2121]

I think this is flawed logic. There are too many games ripping each other off, yes, but certainly not all of them. I make a huge distinction between games that are influenced by other games (read: all games) and games whose designers are guilty of plagiarism. Also, a lot of sequels and remakes are self-cannabalizing instead of taking some of the tried and true elements and injecting some fresh ideas into the mix. Splinter Cell Conviction looks pretty damned interesting, though.

There is a void of ideas, and I personally blame the suits, because I see a growing trend with just about every company to make all of their games easy, middle-of-the-road, and not challenging (to ideas) at all.

Or it could just be that you've grown up a bit and the medium has yet to catch up with you. That happened to me during the last half of the N64 era bleeding over into the first couple of years of the Gamecube period.

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

You keep buying the games right? They wont change anything until the see a drop in sales.