Poll: Misconceptions about originality and generic.

[Vescosein]

We all know how the videogame industry and movie industry are working right now. Sequels, remakes and reboots.

The idea of continuing a series, making a modern version and changing the whole product all together.

Key word there being "product" because those are industries of business capable of artistic expression within the thoughts of making something that will sell to people.

I can't ever understand why people think originality makes something automatically good and generic is something to be terrified of and fought against. I understand the idea of originality needing to be rewarded in these times, but the idea that if you make something original it's automatically good and anyone who hates it is some kind of "sheep" or "moron" pandering to the industry.

I'm of course talking about Alice: madness returns and the horrible reviews it's getting and the upheaval of people claiming it's original and deserves to be bought and rewarded despite what any reviews are saying.

There shouldn't be some kind of idea of "rewarding" devlopers with your money, you should just purchase what you like and don't buy what you don't like and let it be done. Instead people feel need to buy things based off "originality" and then insult those who don't do the same.

Kind of funny because it's the same thing those who buy these "generic" games do to others.


What say you on generic and original, I just like my entertainment and fun and not concerned about what people seem to care about a product.

 

[tologna]

Waaait... who would answer "no?" Also, I agree, "unoriginal"=/=bad. I think that most people fail to make the distinction because they, so often, coralate<sp.

 

[Jordi]

I agree that something isn't necessarily good if it is original, or bad if it isn't, but the term "generic" does carry some negative connotations for me (like "bland" or "uninspired"). I also get the feeling that a lot of people who are complaining about sequels, aren't really complaining about sequels per se, but just about the ones they don't like. Almost everybody wants their current favorite game to get a sequel. But when bad games get sequels, people start to think "it would be so much better if this shit could be abandoned and we could get something else/original".

Having said that, without originality we can never have new franchises (that can then spawn sequel after sequel). Even though I don't think sequels are bad, thinking that we will never get new characters and universes is a little depressing. So yes, I think it can be okay to reward originality if that is what you want to do. Being original is far more risky than not being it, and I think that it can be good to say "I don't really like the way this turned out, but I would like you, the developer, to keep taking risks and develop original games. Maybe next time it will be better.".

Of course, the problem with that is that you can never be sure how your sympathy/support buy will be interpreted. You can hope that they take it as encouragement to develop something new, but they might view it as encouragement to keep doing whatever it is that you don't like about the new game. You never know.

 

[DEAD34345]

I buy/play (referring to free games here, not piracy) games that are original because yes, being original does make a game better. It's not the only thing that makes a game good, but I really struggle to have fun with something I've done a million times before. Generic games are boring to me, no matter how well made they are.

 

[Loonerinoes]

OP - casuals don't have this problem at all so in fact, most people are exactly like you've said. You can take some consolation in that fact, though it is also true that casuals very rarely inform themselves thoroughly on what they buy. If it looks cool and good (i.e. if the marketing did its job properly), chances are they'll buy it.

For the hardcore crowd, however, they need to feel 'speshul'. They need to think that their monetary contribution actually makes a difference together with 1 million other people in the whole damn world. They need to delude themselves that, rather than the fact that they're not just doing the 100% rational thing - which is buying a game they feel they'll like after making an informed opinion. NO SIR! That's not good enough! They have to feel like they're the HERO that is making sure the developers will not succumb in these days of unoriginal pandering to the sheep! And if anyone criticizes their tastes, they feel the need to take part in internet arguments dozens of pages long so as to bravely 'fight the good fight' for the little guys or conversely to hate and criticize the big blockbuster titles for being 'bland and unoriginal'. *sigh*

It's the primary reason, in fact, why the hardcore community has lately begun to disgust me far more than the casual one. Sure, casuals make mistakes too - but at least they're shallow enough so that you can just shrug and say to yourself "Eh...figures. What are you gonna do - people mostly act like that with everything." But with the hardcore the problem is that they're not shallow...but they are so fucking myopic and opinionated that it sometimes almost makes me vomit.

 

[Zantos]

If there's been no change what-so-ever then it's bad, however there's nothing wrong with just tweaking a good formula. A new idea can be good, but quite often it's not implemented right. One of my major gripes with portal was that it was a portal gun, and only a portal gun. Whereas when Darksiders so shamelessly ripped it off that they didn't even change the colours I enjoyed it more because it was portal gun plus all the other puzzle solvy combat things it had.

Also it finally gave me a reply to the question "Of course it isn't a violent game, it's a portal gun, how do you kill someone with a portal gun?"

 

[chaosfalling]

I think as the years go on, developers take less risks when it comes to testing new waters and trying to put forward new and original ideas. Nowadays the safe bet is to release a sequel to a best-selling game (see COD, Gears, Halo etc) , a remake to a classic game (see Nintendo), or heck just try to clone other more successful games (see Homefront and the 9000 God of War clones).

Its a shame really but from a marketing point of view its completely understandable. At the end of the day developers and publishers aren't charities looking to satisfy us cult gamers, but rather are businesses looking to squeeze out every buck they can, and that's going to come from the CODs and Halos as opposed to the Shenmues and Okamis.

That being said though there will always be a market for 'originality', you just have to dig deeper than you usually do for other games.

 

[cfb_rolley]

I've gotta say, I actually took my copy of medal of honor back to EB 3 days after I bought it for a refund. There was no way I was happy about paying $120 for 5 hours of entertainment, which wasn't anything more spectacular than MW3. It's kind of like my punishment to developers for not trying hard enough.

 

[Elsarild]

Games are entertainment, I play games to be entertained, So i buy games, to have fun.

 

[Nudu]

There is nothing new under the Sun