Originality? WTF is that?

[Cowabungaa]

How does originality look like? Like this:
That's the kind of weird shit I want to see more of. Games like Katamari, Zeno Clash, Rock of Ages, games that almost defy genres.

I completely agree with you there, but I don't think the problem rests in a lack of originality. It's entirely possible to tell a story that's been told before and make it seem fresh.

For example, Red Dead Redemption; it's the classic "one last time" story, very common in Westerns. The hero's been retired for a long time, but has to come out of retirement and be a gunfighter "one last time", usually for his family's sake. Any coinnesseur of Western films could have told you how Red Dead Redemption was going to end. That's just the way those stories go. In that way, RDR was unoriginal. But did this make it boring, or bad? Depends on who you ask, but the general consensus seems to be that the game's story was pretty great. Despite being copy-pasted right out of "Unforgiven", RDR's story was appreciated because it was told well, in a way that made it seem new and exciting again.

If you're pumping out story-based games where the only thing you're changing is the twist at the end, the problem isn't a lack of originality, it's poor storytelling.

Very well put, and I think Mafia 2 is an example of the opposite; how not to do it. It's story is pretty much a direct copy of your average mafia flick, and even the relatively small twist at the end is one you could see coming a mile away. It wasn't told any differently either.

I do love the game, but not for it's story.

Originality is an urban myth, like "innovation" or "immersion".

Nonsense. Everything has to start somewhere, from everything there's a first (though whether that's applicable to time and the universe is still the question, but that's a wee bit off-topic). Everything was original at one point.

As for immersion, that's anything but an 'urban myth'. It's what I strive for when playing games, reading books and watching movies. To be engulfed by them, swamped, completely forgetting about actual reality. And that has happened every now and then.

Most games I end up playing just end up being fun, and sometimes I too play a game just for fun, but sometimes I truly get immersed. When that happens, the game/book/movie in question is a masterpiece for me.

 

[Lono Shrugged]

does not include "survive" I win.

And here I thought we were having a friendly discussion sharing opinions for our mutual good. All of the seven stories relate to survival. Either metaphorical or physical. All drama is conflict and all conflict is the struggle for survival between opposing views. Maybe not physical survival but the domination of one force over another. What video games need to learn is that conflict of a physical nature is not the be all and end all.

Many, many stories are about the survival of an idea at the expense of life and form the basis for some of the most influential parts of history and works of fiction.

So the last objective in Halo Reach is pretty original for a game, but not original in the slightest in terms of dramatic narrative. At that point the story was wrapped up and you were a loose end of the story that had to be tied off.

 

[Folio]

YES! A fellow fan of originality! (you are one, aren't you?)

Games today are like Hollywood films. Lots of action, lots of succesfull formulas and as long as it's visually good, anything is good.

Then the independant film/game comes along which is creatively done with a lower budget and sometimes better than anything remotely high budget.

I want a game with balls. Not action, but balls. Halo doesn't have balls, it has aliens and zombies. Mario doesn't have balls, it has a princess and a monster and a hero, time and time again.

Katamari Damacy has balls (literally) because it does something the 'Hollywood' games don't: something new that doesn't involve killing or death.

Portal on the other hand has balls (or cubes, whatever) because it uses something new and creates a game around that. Plus it puts you in a place where you normally wouldn't think about.

Also: Swearing and sex doesn't make a game more adult. Without it, you'll just get something like He-Man or G.I. Joe.

I want a game that goes to a diffrent path instead of: You Good, He Bad, KILL!
What if you were from a noble family or heroes only to find out that your heritage is nothing but some muscular sick-o raped your grand grand grand grand grand mother. Adult? Yes. Gripping? Yes. Interesting? It might be!

 

[Folio]

Nintendo had it removed from the dictionary.

*opens mouth* ... *closes mouth*

:'( The truth hurts a little...

 

[Hosker]

Original games don't sell as well as ones that use a tried and tested formula (COD). So it's much safer being unoriginal, as games cost a lot to make.

 

[Folio]

Original games don't sell as well as ones that use a tried and tested formula (COD). So it's much safer being unoriginal, as games cost a lot to make.

Extra Credits discussed this. It's true that games nowadays cost more to make. But the publishers don't want to take risks because... well... 'risk' for them is equal to 'losing money'.

Original games should still be good and sell well. But the publishers aren't as creative and open minded as developers or most gamers. They want to live inside the box, not think outside of it.

 

[JuryNelson]

But the publishers aren't as creative and open minded as developers or most gamers.

This is sort of the crux of it. The people who make games and love games and understand games aren't the same people who sell games.

There's games as gamers and developers understand them, and then there's "the gamer's understanding of a game" as understood by the people who publish games.

Which is why developers that are also publishers (Ubisoft) tend to have more unique games. And publishers that clearly get their money from elsewhere (EA) can afford from time to time to take a risk.

 

[JuryNelson]

Spoiler: to avoid a wall of text, I'm putting my post here

When something original comes out, people either don't buy it, or bash it when anything similar to it comes out. There's a difference between being unoriginal and taking what works and using it.

They say there are too many sequels, but sequels tend to be the biggest sellers, meaning people must really like it. That's NOT a bad thing. Sure, some times a series catches "sequel-itis" like CoD, Guitar Hero, Street Fighter 2 (which has been cure with 4, which will in time catch it's own case of sequel-itis. Just give it time...), and so on, but having a sequel doesn't make the series unoriginal, just sucessful.

Complaining about unoriginal stories: See Unrulyhandbag's post.

Plus, just because it's original doesn't automatically make it good. I can't think of any right now, but there were some things that, while nobody ever did it before, it's certian it will never be done again. Because it was awful.

Just because it's unoriginal doesn't instantly make it bad. Hell, Mario has just been the same story for 20 years, and remaking either Mario 3 or Mario 64, and the games are still great, because of great level design, new mechanics, music, and just overall FUN.

And (as much as I hate this), oringal games don't garuntee SALES. Why make something new and risk a big monetary loss when you can make a sequel to a game with an existing fanbase, possibly expand it, and have an almost certian profit. As said before: "We'll stop making *insert current trend* games when people stop buying them".

I could go on for a while with this, but honestly, there are videos on youtube, blogs, and this very site that can sum it up better than I can.

There are more youtube videos, blogs, and articles on this very site that do exactly the opposite; claim that because something has not redefined the medium, it has no business even existing.

The "Every RPG Ever" flow chart even had a huge picture of Cloud Strife in the middle. Now, not to belabor a point, but when FFVII came out, how many people played that game who had never, ever played an RPG before?

I just wish people would stop complaining when genre stories turn out to be generic. "Fantasy story, huh? I bet there's a dragon. BORING." NO, it isn't boring. It's fantastic.

 

[Geekosaurus]

I'm studying literature and have come across a theory that nothing is ever original, and that everything we do is influenced by everything else we do. You might think it's complete BS, but it's interesting nonetheless.

 

[Eponet]

Just because it's unoriginal doesn't instantly make it bad. Hell, Mario has just been the same story for 20 years, and remaking either Mario 3 or Mario 64, and the games are still great, because of great level design, new mechanics, music, and just overall FUN.[/spoiler]

As you said, they've been introducing new mechanics into their games. It's origional enough to prevent complete stagnation. Hardly the best example.

Nintendo had it removed from the dictionary.

Nintendo aren't that bad. I'm not that involved with their games, but in regards to the more recent console games for Legend of Zelda, they have definitely been changing things. Compare Ocarina of Time to Majora's Mask and Wind Waker.

While both used many of the same resources, as well as practically unique items, the experience of them as a whole was quite different.

Antagonists:
OoT: Ganondorf
MM: Majora's Mask
WW: Ganondorf

When you compare the primary villians of these games, you actually get a different feeling out of all of them; even Ganondorf 1 vs Ganondorf 2. Ganondorf 1 is the classical Big Bad of the game, he yearns for power simply so that he can rule over the land. He's cast as an absolute tyrant. Majora's Mask is an eldritch abomination, its only purpose seems to be to destroy everything. Wind Waker's Ganondorf doesn't even seem like a villian at all. His wish is to restore the land which he brought about the destruction of. He seems more like someone that has learned their lesson, and wants to repair the collateral damage caused, but is stopped because despite the wish to change, everyone else lets his past actions define him.


Gameplay Focus:
OoT: Central Plot Line
MM: Side Quests
WW: Sailing

While OoT and MM had very similar gameplay mechanics, the way they were put together is diffenet. OoT has relatively little outside the primary storyline, while MM focuses much, much more on side quests. WW introduces the new aspect of sailing which is nice.

Background:
OoT: Guardian Spirit forsees that you are destined to save the land from the evil king, so you go to do it. You will do it because destiny says so.
MM: Arrive in Termina, moon is doomed to fall and kill everyone. The option of leaving is actually open as he does in the end. He saves it because he chose to.
WW: Sister Kidnapped, save her, gather strength, confront evil guy. Standard, and kind of generic, but at the very least the protagonist isn't some chosen hero of time or whatever.

There are many others, but concidering how overly verbose this is, it's probably better than I don't add more.

 

[JuryNelson]

*zelda rant snip*

THANK YOU.

This is easily the most common complaint I see on this topic. Claiming that Nintendo has no originality just because they have world-class brands that everyone loves. "Mario hasn't changed appearance since the last time Mario changed appearance. Yawn." But yes. They move forward.

Thank you. And verbosity is awesome.