next »

[Zack Bell]

What are the pros and cons of both?

I'm wondering about this specifically when it comes to re-playability, procedural generation, and mass appeal.

For example,

-Would Spelunky have been more or less popular if it used something even more generic than caves (Space Marines?) ?
-Would it have been more or less poplar if it used something totally new like an original world, differing creatures, no humans, etc?

I suppose we can compare Spelunky to The Binding of Isaac. Which is more appealing when it comes to characters, monsters, and setting?

Other things to consider,

-Will you attract more players with something more generic?
-Will you attract more indies with something more original? (No flaming for the term indies, I know it's ridiculous  )

Eh, this was all just something that my designer friend and I were discussing earlier this week. So...continue and discuss

[Inanimate]

Moving this to Writing, but I like the idea.

I think a good way to do something is to use elements you find appealing, in ways you find appealing. I don't think the idea of "generic" and "original' are as important, as long as the actual elements themselves are interesting! For instance, a fantasy world appeals to lots of people, even the most generic; but, at the same time, a unique one is also quite interesting. A careful blend of what someone finds interesting is important, not the rarity of the elements involved. (Although, unique ideas = interesting, more often than not)

[Bree]

I think one of the biggest misconceptions is the idea that generic as a term is always a bad idea. This is true, but only to a certain extent. A generic idea is a widely understood concept, and easily digested. We know what a generic tree looks like, and we know the basic gist of a zombie. We don't have to explain every single time they show up, unless they're a special type of zombie that defies common conceptions. This is where the specific comes from, and is how an author like J.K. Rowling excels. The Harry Potter books are filled with generic fantasy elements- wizards, witches, dragons, etc. But they are also given specific qualities that set them apart from other series. The most notable of these is their juxtaposition with modern-day Europe, a conflict which informs much of the story and setting. The entire concept of the Ministry of Magic is designed to deal with the specific setting of a world where magic universities exist unbeknownst to the general non-magic public, and provides some of the most interesting elements in the entire series. Rowling doesn't need to explain what a wizard is in this world, since they operate a lot off of  common (or rather, generic) conceptions of what a wizard is, allowing her to get to the real meat of the books, that is the story of The Boy Who Lived.

[moi]

This is a wrong dichotomy. Everything is more or less original and/or generic at the same time, to a degree

[Zack Bell]

Thanks for the replies. They have been well thought out and fairly in depth. Also, I feel like originality comes from slightly tweaking something that is bland. Harry Potter was a good example.

[Evan Balster]

Honestly the creative process takes care of all this stuff on its own.  Plant a seed for your idea, tend it by thinking about it frequently (until it's essentially a mental disorder you have to address) and use your getitdone mojo to coagulate the result into something others can experience.

As much as people worry about originality, there are only two real problems:  People who don't think enough about a given thing before creating it (often stories are afterthoughts to games) and people who dispute originality any time they can count a handful of common elements with another work.  (see: CAVE STORY RIPOFF)

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i think spelunky would have done worse if it used aaa industry fashions like space marines rather than indie fashions like caves and proc gen

in any case i generally prefer new worlds. i don't want to fight dragons or spiders, i want to fight creatures with new names that don't look like any creature i've seen before. that's what i liked about zelda1 -- well, it had spiders and dragons, but they were called tektites and aquamentus, not spider and dragon. the tektite had 4 legs and one eye, not 8 legs and thousands of eyes. and aquamentus also had characteristics of a unicorn mixed in. not 100% original for either tektite or aquamentus, but still more original than "dragon" or "spider" would have been

[s0]

and people who dispute originality any time they can count a handful of common elements with another work.  (see: CAVE STORY RIPOFF)

In my experience, most games that get called ripoffs actually ARE ripoffs.

[Contrary]

I think genericism has the advantage of giving you lots of information and depth without the game designer having to work for it. For example if you have mithril items in your game, you don't need to explain anything about it. The player understands the value and rarity, it already has the connotation. If you had gofium metal, the player would go "wtf is that? is that any good?"

In the same way AK47s in games are usually very fun to use. Not really as much due to the game designer, but because it carries the reputation the image, the player has had fun with it in other games, etc.

[hmm]

In my opinion, the characters, setting, plot should all be contributing to a theme that is also supported by the gameplay.

For example, Spelunky works because everything contributes to the themes of exploration and advanture: the Indianna Jones character is the ultimate adventurer, whilst procedural generation means that every time you play you are exploring some place new.

Trying to force something unique into your game that doesn't fit with the theme and gameplay can have a negative affect on the experience. In the same way, sticking to generic settings can also have a negative effect if they don't support the theme. For example, using trolls and orcs and dragons and elves in your 'fantasy' game doesn't really enhance the feeling of being on an epic adventure in an unknown land because you've seen it all before.

[Ultima Ratio Regum]

This is a wrong dichotomy. Everything is more or less original and/or generic at the same time, to a degree

No matter what world you come up with, the sheer volume of books, games, films and TV out there so far means that someone, somewhere, will have used at least one of your ideas, no matter what. I think generic defines not just things that are well-used, but possibly more importantly, things people notice are well-used and define as such. Nobody would call a health bar "generic", for instance. I think something generic is not just common, but is actively flagged as such, and lacks any kind o changes or development across time - whereas health bars can be stable, have health packs, regenerate, you can be healed, etc etc...

[gimymblert]

It's a false dichotomy. You can the most creative person with the most creative piece of art, if it's not meaningful (as if someone can attach values to it) then it's worthless. The ultimate originality is random, we don't praise random thing (unless it make sense). Ultimate genericity is bland, when thing stop making sense.

It mean you need context, and the context help define the value of the piece.

Another thing that is important is personality: Metroid is about a space marine killing alien, yet it feel significantly different from say halo which is more generic and yet have enough personality to set itself apart from the mass of bland production.

If you make something original, make it meaningful so people can invest themselves in.

If you make something original, give it personality so it can distinguish itself from the background you draw inspiration from.

[Dragonmaw]

There is no such thing as originality, just plagiarism arranged into interesting shapes.

[unsilentwill]

Well now that that's out of the way...

The pros of doing something generic are a laziness of design, saving you time, energy, and money that comes from making interesting and new things. You also can "ride the wave" so to speak, like Angry Birds and clones of Angry Birds and clones of Angry Birds clones, all very successful. There's no personal risk, and a lot of profit. If you like zombies and wizards and elves, and want to see them go on forever then this is for you.

The cons of doing something unique is that you have to reflect, personally, on the images and themes that make for a good story and something to say worthwhile. This can cause emotional stress and take years of your life to get right. It's also expensive to find artists who you can beat into shape to use your new vision. Describing something that may never have been described before. You leave yourself vulnerable to attacks since you bear all the risk of the idea and its implementation. There will be no market for you to look for except people who are willing to accept strange ideas and risk their money for something they're not sure they want, interested in your ideas personally. You may see people hating your idea because its not something they want or care about.

I think it's pretty clear which way indies, with no pressure from marketing directors, ad agencies, or stock holders, should go.

[gimymblert]

Obviously it is the former with all these retro throwback, but enough time have pass so they are not rip off anymore, these are homage.

Seriously It's like the latter one have fall into disgrace after the "art game" fad. People claim you don't need originality because it save them the hassle of the latter.

[hurpes]

In the same way AK47s in games are usually very fun to use. Not really as much due to the game designer, but because it carries the reputation the image, the player has had fun with it in other games, etc.

Haha yea AK47s are awesome in games. But I agree with the idea that using common gameplay, items, etc. has benefits in terms of quick comprehension for the gameplayer

[letsap]

Generic done well can be absolutely astounding. See: Skies of Arcadia.

[helgravis]

I think it depends on what your goal is. Like, check how many casual casino games are out there. I'm playing Governor of Poker 2 now and I know exactly how the game is supposed to work even without playing it because I love texas hold 'em. It is only slightly unique, imo, because you can walk around and buy lots, but aside from that, it's just another poker game.

I think it's not a matter of original/generic, rather it's more of what appeals to me/relevant to me. I like The Binding of Isaac because

A. I like rogue games.
B. I find the story interesting.
C. I like Super Meat Boy.

Bottom line, you should think why the game is appealing to your target audience, and then choose if you want to use a generic or an original approach.