The importance of originality

"It's just like [insert game title here]" is a common reaction to many video games these days, and often used as a criticism, as if this comparison automatically makes the game in question less than what inspired it. Never mind the things that are unique to that game - soundtrack, visual style, story, characters, etc: the game that did it first did it best, and all else is a pale imitation. Or is it?

The success of a video game - perhaps the most prominent recent example is Dark Souls, which has spawned its own "Soulslike" sub-genre - will often spawn other games with gameplay that is practically identical, and whilst a cynic may see this as a developer attempting to cash in on what was clearly a good idea, if it's a good idea, does this really matter?

How important is originality in video games to you? Are you put off by "clones" of popular titles, or can you find enjoyment in any game as long as it's good at what it does?

Is it more important for a game to be its own original identity, even if that idea is a "bad" one that won't measure up to other titles with similar gameplay in the genre, or for it to have good, functioning gameplay - regardless of whether or not it is practically identical to other, more recognisable games?

Okami, a title that I argue is loved by tons of people, unfortunately has fallen victim to being compared with Zelda. Like... a lot (sadly, I even do this myself, but it's for the sake of easily explaining the game to people). While Okami may have gotten certain inspirations from Zelda, it's pretty much its own action adventure. Taking inspiration from a game doesn't mean you're trying to imitate it down to the nitty gritty aspects and I guess that's what bothers me the most as I feel that just dilutes what makes certain games special and unique and what makes them different from the things they take inspiration from, if that makes sense.

I don't care about the originality of a game. I care if it's fun.

Most games nowadays aren't fun :/

How important is originality in video games to you?

I'll play anything that's enjoyable for me, and originality is certainly a factor - an important undercurrent which will keep my fondness for it burning longer than some fun knockoff of a better title.

Many JRPG's are insanely entertaining, but in my opinion the lack of innovation in design, something you're dealing with for every minute of the journey, can turn a smile into a grimace and inspire a few headaches.

A bulk of them are a car crash of reused ideas, and the wreckage of it is endearing to some but a nightmare to me. I usually sidestep them. I can't handle fusillades of personality archetypes, great magical trees and chosen ones. The stories and the characters... lava is too good for them.

So yes, unoriginality will certainly prevent me from getting a game - no matter the celebrated mechanics and whatnot.

That's not to say that it has to be completely distinct from other titles. It's sort of like zombie movies - they're kind of all the same unless there is a ridiculous twist, but some follow the default formula more than others and suffer for it. Even a small difference can lend you huge credibility. There's zero point in sticking to some rehashed idea that's been spammed for years, despite having no merit whatsoever.

Drawn to Life and it's sequel are not necessarily good games. Their mechanics are janky and the combat is hardly innovative, but they're highly original, the pixel art is divine and the sentiments are touching. It's new. That's reason enough for me to play them and love them.

Are you put off by "clones" of popular titles, or can you find enjoyment in any game as long as it's good at what it does?

Sure. Some clones have been known to be excellent, even if they're leaning dangerously close to the origin product. Just so as long as they're not an exact imitation of substandard material in terms of characters and plot, and bring out the best of the origin product and improve upon it.

I feel a bit all over the place in this post, so apologies if there's contradictory junk and overused words. Low blood sugar, am I right.

I rarely see it anymore but people have compared Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons to Pokemon when it's the exact opposite of Pokemon. Capcom put effort into making distinct worlds, dungeons, gameplay and characters, it's hardly like Pokemon, more like two stories linked together. OoA and OoS are two entire games, not two versions of a game. The only thing that it and Pokemon share is the connectivity to get stuff from the other game.

Originality is something I appreciate, but I also agree that as long as it's enjoyable, it doesn't matter that much to me. And on the flip side of that, if something is original but it's just not that fun, I would much rather play something that is familiar but entertaining.

An example, Stardew Valley is something that most knew was pretty much a clone of games from the Harvest Moon series - it's very, very similar in a lot of ways and I wouldn't say it's very original in concept, but it was extremely fun and a major hit anyway, with lots of people sinking hours and hours into it.

Clones like that don't bother me if it's done well. Sometimes people just look for trendy, cheap, easy to reproduce concepts that they will milk the hell out of though, like all the Minecraft clones or battle royale games, and a lot of them are just poorly executed.