next »

[baconman]

Maybe because that's what most puzzle-action games are?

[J. R. Hill]

It depends mostly on why you're making the game.  If you're making the game because you liked Castlevania, you're going to end up with a game that has some striking similarities.  If your motivation is something else, like "I want to create something that will surprise players" or "I want to play around with x game mechanic" or "I want to tell a story and I think this game genre will help tell it" or a combination of motivations like that, then your game is going to have some character of its own.

That said, making a game that is strictly an homage to another game doesn't necessarily make it a terrible game, and making something wildly original doesn't guarantee a great game either.

[GONGLEN]

Having gameplay that isnt reminiscent of some other game is very hard, for me at least, but I think if you just try to make it similar to a game you like but better in at least one way then thats original enough.

[Gabriel Verdon]

Having gameplay that isnt reminiscent of some other game is very hard, for me at least, but I think if you just try to make it similar to a game you like but better in at least one way then thats original enough.

I agree with this, often innovation doesn't happen like a lightning bolt from a clear sky, except in cases like Braid. Usually it is more of a leap frog effect, where games will copy other games but add one or two new things.

[stevesan]

Having gameplay that isnt reminiscent of some other game is very hard, for me at least, but I think if you just try to make it similar to a game you like but better in at least one way then thats original enough.

I agree with this, often innovation doesn't happen like a lightning bolt from a clear sky, except in cases like Braid. Usually it is more of a leap frog effect, where games will copy other games but add one or two new things.

Not even Braid was completely original. Time manipulation was certainly not new in games, and games like Cursor*10 also had the "multiple copies of self" mechanic.

So, nothing is original. And that's perfectly OK!

[Paul Eres]

braid was *intentionally* similar to super mario bros., it's not totally new at all. no game is totally new, that's too much to ask for and impossible, it's enough that part of a game be new, or that the parts of it all not be new but be mixed in a new way

[Gimym TILBERT]

Generally nothing is new because new thing get mixed with old thing more than often and get overlooked. Then someone take that idea and make it a full game. Or the new idea was a shallow gimmicky experiment, then someone take this, add the polish or the depth or the relevance to a group of people or mixing it back with familiar element and people notice.

So saying nothing is new is more about backtracking from recognition to invention. When thing are new and succeed right of the bat are very rare, especially in game, but not unheard of (sim city, adventure, asteroid).

[stevesan]

Generally nothing is new because new thing get mixed with old thing more than often and get overlooked. Then someone take that idea and make it a full game. Or the new idea was a shallow gimmicky experiment, then someone take this, add the polish or the depth or the relevance to a group of people or mixing it back with familiar element and people notice.

So saying nothing is new is more about backtracking from recognition to invention. When thing are new and succeed right of the bat are very rare, especially in game, but not unheard of (sim city, adventure, asteroid).

Word. Watch this series of mini-docs, and stop worrying about "ripping off": http://www.everythingisaremix.info/

[Gimym TILBERT]

I have seen it long time ago, but at least I can totally have my own opinion 

Also I donot worry about ripping off, It does not mean I don't care about creativity. I feel like most people just want an excuse to eschew the difficulty of creation entirely (filled with doubt) while still robbing the crown of creation. I don't like pat on the back just because it make feel good when I don't deserve it. You are either creative or you are derivative. Sometimes both at the same times.


unrelated about that matrix video on the site (already seen but...)
I also like all matrix analysis miss the HUGE influence of hinduism which is much more significant (especially to understand how the movie is subtly edited) than all the western reference they pick up. Which skew the understanding a bit off the mark. Basically that matrix is made of ref is part of matrix subtext. It's bad example to eschew the concept of creativity (also more like de facto nerdy ref).

There is really only one game, the game in which each of us is a player acting out his role. The game is Leela, the universal play of cosmic energy. Leela is divine play. It is present in the nature of the Supreme Self. It is this playful nature which creates the world of names and forms - the phenomenal world. Leela is life itself, energy expressed as the myriad forms and feelings presented continuously to the self.
The essence of the player is his ability to become, to adopt a role. That which is the essence of the player can enter into any role. But once the player enters into the game, once he assumes the identity of the persona he adopts, he loses sight of his true nature, and gets caught by maya (illusion). He forgets the essence of what it is to play the game. His moves are decided by the karma die.


The purpose of this small game is to help the player gain this ability to withdraw from his identifications and see how he might become a better player. For this game is a microcosm of the larger game. Contained within the seventy-two spaces of the game- board is the essence of thousands of years of self-exploration, the heart of Indian tradition.

As the player moves from space to space, square to square, he begins to see patterns in his own existence, emerging with ever-deepening clarity as his understanding of the game broadens. His sense of detachment grows as he sees each stage as temporary, some thing to move beyond. And once the temporality of any space becomes a reality for the player, he can detach from that space, let it go as he seeks to discover ever more about the wonder that is Being.

As with all games, here too there is a goal, an object to be attained. Because the essence of the player is his ability to identify, his only chance of 'winning' the game is to identify with that which is his Source. This is Cosmic Consciousness, the essence of pure Being, which transcends time and space and knows no limits, is infinite, absolute, eternal, changeless, the All, without attributes, beyond both name and form. The game ends when the player becomes himself, the essence of play. This is Leela.

Neither the author nor the date of origin of the game we now call Leela is known. As a general rule in the Indian literary tradition, the name of the author is considered unimportant. He is but the pen in the hands of God, a tool of expression; and so the name has not been recorded. The influences apparent in the formulation of the game point to an age of at least 2,000 years. The creators of the game saw it foremost as a tool for understanding the relationship of the individual self to the Absolute Self.

"Imagine sitting in front of a television set, watching all sorts of pictures projected on the screen of the picture tube. Some of these pictures are of rain, murder, gun shots, romance, and so on. When the show is over, the screen neither becomes wet from the rain, nor has blood from the murder, nor bullet holes from the gun shots, nor emotions from the romance. The screen itself is clean and unchanging; for the projections are unreal, and the screen is real."

[Geti]

Gimmy, you're legit. May all your games be endlessly rewarding

[Gimym TILBERT]

May all your games be endlessly rewarding

[Geti]

What's wrong with that?

[1982]

I think that the biggest challenge is to differentiate when you make a car, and when you make a Lamborghini LP500

And sure both derive from horse carriage.

[Gimym TILBERT]

@geti

Nothing wrong it put pressure

You can dream of making an everyday car in a world of racing car, but even if you have the talent of pulling off, it's still a huge task to do it well without precedent. And what if it is not the right idea does the effort goes to waste? How would you know you focus on the wrong solution but right problem? It's the story of langley and the wright brother.

But if failure was not a factor it wouldn't be a challenge.

Of course people will dismiss the concept pointing that it is still a car, that it derive from sport car, and that it's a very bad sport car. But making a good everyday car is not the same thing and require a new mindset, and maybe you won't end up with an everyday car, you may end up with a tramway or postal service.

Confusing the "metaphor" (which help thinking new idea with old concept) and the leading concept and problem to solve is what make people think nothing is new. Creation actually involve jumping from metaphor to metaphor to best handle a new idea, that's the metaphor that create the "legacy", and yet it might be deceptive of the thought process. If you truly create you know what I mean, better you can felt it.

Letters and words might be the same but the meaning surely had change.

[Geti]

@Gimmy: ah, I thought I'd caused offense. To clear it up completely - I meant it more as a cheerful message of goodwill rather than an expectation

I think the derivation becomes lost at some point - it's very clear when something's a mario clone (derivative work) and when something's a gfun platforming game in its own right.

A lot of things I make use of in my work is derivative in the beginning (pulling the knockback without stun mechanic from zelda, or the floaty jumping from N, for example) and then evolves as I decide I don't like some of the consequences (ridiculous issues with latency, or too much air control making it hard to predict player paths). I think that kind of work is unoriginal, but I also don't think that it's bad practice, especially as it means I understand more about what makes those mechanics work and not work in various situations.

Alongside cheerfully stealing and polishing and recombining, I'm free to insert my own ideas and mechanics. That's honestly where most of the fun for me is, but I doubt I'd be able to reliably invent fun mechanics if I didn't spend a lot of my time studying proven ones.

I feel like I need to clarify my thoughts on this more before I write anything else, I'm not quite sure I agree with all I've written here already..