"new" games that are aparantly copys of old ones
- Thread starter black orchid1
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Although, Dante's Inferno really is a god of war clone. Darksiders and Bayonetta take ideas here and there but they basically do their own thing. Dante's Inferno doesn't.Scrumpmonkey said:
On Topic, recently during my 100th playthrough of Fallout 3, I remembered about my previous favorite game, Deus Ex. I started thinking, and Fallout 3 did take an enormous amount of ideas from Deus Ex. The conversation mechanic, the body augmentations(kind of), the inventory, locks and terminal hacks, the interesting and unique characters, and most importantly, the story, although I may not remember Deus Ex all that well since it's been some time,
I do remember the corrupt post apocalyptic government agency (Enclave) leaded by a computer that everyone thought was a person (Eden).
I'm not saying its by any means a clone, more like an homage, and a very great successor as best Shooter RPG, but when I started thinking why I liked Fallout 3 as much as I liked Deus Ex, the similar elements kept piling up.
the problem with this topic, while good, is that what people regard as original is widely varied. what is totally unique to one person is reminiscent of another game to someone else. not to be a royal pisser, but as an example, here's the list that Scrumpmonkey came up with:
STALKER; Shadow of Chernobyl (and to a lesser extent the others)
Briad
World of Goo
Love
Zeno Clash
Crayon Physics
No More Heroes
World in Conflict (for it's recycling points system)
Renissance of Fate (For it's combat system)
Darwinia
Portal
Audiosurf
L4D/l4D2
While they are all unique in a lot of aspects, someone could walk up and say "oh, stalker was good, nice idea, but it was a total fallout rip" because of the post apocalyptic horror feel. Briad is just another platformer Mario mod, left for dead is just resident evil with more ammo, etc...
really how people identify games is opinionated, so I don't believe that there's nothing original, I just believe that everything can be related to everything depending on how you look at it. Stop worrying about what game is ripped form what and what aspects you can't recognize form another game and just play. have fun.
STALKER; Shadow of Chernobyl (and to a lesser extent the others)
Briad
World of Goo
Love
Zeno Clash
Crayon Physics
No More Heroes
World in Conflict (for it's recycling points system)
Renissance of Fate (For it's combat system)
Darwinia
Portal
Audiosurf
L4D/l4D2
While they are all unique in a lot of aspects, someone could walk up and say "oh, stalker was good, nice idea, but it was a total fallout rip" because of the post apocalyptic horror feel. Briad is just another platformer Mario mod, left for dead is just resident evil with more ammo, etc...
really how people identify games is opinionated, so I don't believe that there's nothing original, I just believe that everything can be related to everything depending on how you look at it. Stop worrying about what game is ripped form what and what aspects you can't recognize form another game and just play. have fun.
one of my many mottos is "dont do new, do better"
cause what could is new if its ungodly broken?
cause what could is new if its ungodly broken?
Well according to your friends logic all FPS's are Doom clones, all sandbox games are GTA clones, all platformers are Mario clones, and all turn based RPG is a FF clone.
H.A.V.E. Online looks like a blatent ripoff of TF2. Here's a video, see for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvaQbntJ4Yw
I think the art style is original although I would have appreciated if there were some differences in gameplay or classes. It looks like the same exact game to me. Although I guess I can saw that about all of the fps shooters out now also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvaQbntJ4Yw
I think the art style is original although I would have appreciated if there were some differences in gameplay or classes. It looks like the same exact game to me. Although I guess I can saw that about all of the fps shooters out now also.
Yeah, I mean, after everyone on this whole site rips off Yahtzee, what do you have left?Saint Psycho said:
But seriously, if you don't like unoriginal games then don't buy them, then you won't be feeding the industry that supports them.
I completely agree with this statement. IT is annoying when people say Battlefield is a MW clone when, little do they know, Battlefield 2 was in existence long before.Scrumpmonkey said:
Yes indeed, brilliant. Mario will see the horrors of war and fight along side Russia in a bloody battle against america, all the while Peach is selling herself on the street just to support her family in hard economic times, and Luigi is an infamous drug dealer, avoiding the law.archvile93 said:
Ya, that game looks really interesting. I saw a video a few months back and thought it was cool. I'm just wondering how people will be able to play without having their heads explode.Steeveeo said:
I'm going to voice what may be a bit of a controversial opinion here on the escapist.
Simply put, sequels/clones are good, spur innovation and improve the industry.
Some points to think about
-If you liked, say the origional megaman, then one day while strolling through the store saw "megaman 2" you'd be pretty annoyed if you bought it, and it turned out to be completely different from the origional megaman in every way. When you buy a game with the number 2 on it, it is because you want to play more of the first game, maybe refined and touched up, but you still want the same core expeirience. True innovation of basic gameplay concepts should therefore only come from origional IPs.
-Creating origonal IP's takes alot of time and effort. You have to plan and have meetings and create a fictional world and characters, spend years creating all the art and visuals of the game, have dozens of people banging out code to get a working game running, then come the bug testing, the reworking of flawed ideas, bug checking, beta testing ect ect ect.
It takes so much work infact, that the game devs often run out of time and have to ship before they've made a game they are 100% happy about. Thus origional IP's often lack polish, are often buggier, and usually just all around worse than a sequel where they have half the development done already and can just focus on doing new and interesting things with the core concepts they've already worked out as FUN.
Perfect example, assasins creed. The IP started out with origional ideas and true gameplay innovations, the final product of this new IP was buggy and filled with numerous less than fun things that sould have been worked out (as ZP put it "a faffing about fetish" ). The sequel didn't come out with any major new ideas or concepts, but improved the core concepts and made what was established in the first game fun and refined.
Sequels are what spurs the little innnovations within gaming. Better GUI's, better graphics, better storytelling, better balance ect ect ect.
To use an art analogy, an origional IP is like a pencil sketch, crude and unrefined, but with the basics of new ideas. A sequel is the finished masterpiece that you can analyze for every trick or detail to use for your next painting.
Simply put, sequels/clones are good, spur innovation and improve the industry.
Some points to think about
-If you liked, say the origional megaman, then one day while strolling through the store saw "megaman 2" you'd be pretty annoyed if you bought it, and it turned out to be completely different from the origional megaman in every way. When you buy a game with the number 2 on it, it is because you want to play more of the first game, maybe refined and touched up, but you still want the same core expeirience. True innovation of basic gameplay concepts should therefore only come from origional IPs.
-Creating origonal IP's takes alot of time and effort. You have to plan and have meetings and create a fictional world and characters, spend years creating all the art and visuals of the game, have dozens of people banging out code to get a working game running, then come the bug testing, the reworking of flawed ideas, bug checking, beta testing ect ect ect.
It takes so much work infact, that the game devs often run out of time and have to ship before they've made a game they are 100% happy about. Thus origional IP's often lack polish, are often buggier, and usually just all around worse than a sequel where they have half the development done already and can just focus on doing new and interesting things with the core concepts they've already worked out as FUN.
Perfect example, assasins creed. The IP started out with origional ideas and true gameplay innovations, the final product of this new IP was buggy and filled with numerous less than fun things that sould have been worked out (as ZP put it "a faffing about fetish" ). The sequel didn't come out with any major new ideas or concepts, but improved the core concepts and made what was established in the first game fun and refined.
Sequels are what spurs the little innnovations within gaming. Better GUI's, better graphics, better storytelling, better balance ect ect ect.
To use an art analogy, an origional IP is like a pencil sketch, crude and unrefined, but with the basics of new ideas. A sequel is the finished masterpiece that you can analyze for every trick or detail to use for your next painting.
