Okay so basically, how do you know if your idea is the only one out there ? so many games are the same just like the hype over slender ever since that was released people have done variations of that game but slender probably mimicked another game and so on and on. just like any other genre of a game they probably have a clone somewhere out in the world. also this is a discussion about what you think about originality and the mimicking of viral or old games.
A lot of it has to do with timing and execution. Angry Birds and Minecraft were both basically clones of existing games. They were just released at the right time (and on the right platform) to make them huge successes.
Our game, Starfall: Ronin, used gameplay similar to Steambirds (which I thought was very original). It wasn’t until after I released the game that some of the players started asking me if it was inspired by other games (which I had never heard of).
I think too many people equate “original” to “good”, when the two are not interchangeable. In fact, most often, they are polar opposites. Many people try to do something completely original and it turns out that there was a very good reason no one had made a game that way before… cuz it was a terrible idea.
My best advice for anyone on this would be, use gameplay and mechanics that best suit your game. Don’t copy people just for the sake of copying them. Trying to ride someone’s coattails to success has never worked for anyone, but I would encourage people to find similar games and discover how they were done. If you find that its the best solution for your game, use it.
Slender was copied as you guessed. Everything is a copy of something else, what matters is ‘how much’ of a copy. Look at the most successful games on the app store, they just found games that were underrated (or games that had potential) on flash websites and re-skinned them or added a story (see Angry Birds for example). The problem with coming up with an original idea is the phenomenon that trying not to think about something makes you think about it. Saying to yourself “I’m not going to copy this game” will subconsciously make you copy that game. Its best to acknowledge that you must copy and then fundamentally change the game to some extent.
There are no such thing as truly origional ideas anymore…
Yeah I said it… Prove me wrong
All games now are just various combinations of features used in other games
CONSIDER THIS
A game is like a essay in high school… You copy and paste bits off the Internet and then use the theasaurus to change a few words
Myhijim,
Don’t be ridiculous, of course there are.
The problem is how to define original. In this context, does original mean inventing your own genre/sub-genre or just not closely resembling something else.
People are always saying “there are no original ideas left!” Then every couple of years, they’re proven wrong.
Bear in mind, 20 years ago, there were also people saying “there are no original ideas left!” Then take a look at today’s games.
I said PROVE me wrong… Not state I’m wrong with no evidence
Today’s games are more a combination of features of older games, tweaked a bit.
Give me a few games.
In my opinion, original ideas still exist. Just because one game is an RPG doesn’t mean that it copies the RPGs that came before it. Genres have been pretty much fully explored, there’s little chance of creating another. Approaching it differently than others, that’s what makes it original.
How about this one?
Where did the FPS come from (before Catacomb 3d, Doom, Wolfenstein, etc.)?
Every genre had a beginning, and video games aren’t that old. So at some point (not too long ago) they were all original ideas.
It’s unfortunate but I have to agree that most ideas are not original. So many ideas have already been done in one way or another, and that’s really a matter of volume - there’s been so many games made already it’s hard to not be like something out there. That’s not to say it’s impossible.
Thing is, this now (as it always was) is a driving force and people keep pursuing this idea of originality. It usually means either there has to be something visual that isn’t familiar or hasn’t been seen, or there is some new technology that hasn’t been mainstream before. And that means typically the original games are pushing the envelope in some way and this puts a lot of focus on having to be the most advanced in order to be original. But not all originality comes from that cutting edge of technology. Originality is really about being different, not necessarily in any particular way, and that really comes down to a unique identity, which is related to branding.
Take a game like VVVVVV for example, puzzle platformer, platform games have been done to the death, puzzle games done to the death, yet something about it was a new take on the genre, a new way of interacting with the environment, that added enough uniqueness to make people go all wow about it. Similar example would be Fez - it’s another platform game, draws upon decades of history, but adds a unique element (rotation in 3D) that puts the whole thing in a different light. People are blinded by whatever is new and it causes them to gloss over all of what was old as if it were new again.
I will say this too… this world, planet earth, is a place of differences, inherently so. No two things are exactly alike. That makes everything a little bit original. To make your game original though you need to spin an illusion of appearances that shows to people images/interactions that get them to think they’re experiencing something significantly different to others. But it’s an illusion that only lasts so long as people don’t wake up to realizing that just beneath the surface of appearances it’s really the same as everything else. Because truth is, everything in the world is the same, it just looks like it’s unique 
… but anyway. You know how FPS games get a bad rap for putting a new surface appearance on top of a totally repeated underlying structure, and so you see through the appearances and realize that it’s really not original underneath. So to make your game really unique you need to uproot the whole thing and give it a really different underlying experience, regardless of what the surface appearance looks like. It must have some new dynamic, way of interacting, gameplay element etc that sets it apart and really convinces people deep down that it is new. But beware… new always becomes old in this crazy old world, so ride the wave and then skip to your next new project.
I believe there are still possibility of new original games. It might emerge with new platform.
By original, I would say it has a unique gameplay, game mechanic, story, and so on. So, as you’re developing a game, give it a twist, a new thing that you have never seen. As long as it’s original to you, and you tweak and twist to make it superb, that’s when original comes in, and people will see that as well.
Talking about originality, my experience in ludum dare 23 was fun and surprising. The theme was Tiny World. So I use the game mechanic which is similar to Alice in the Wonderland (I didn’t notice it would be similar to Alice until I finished it). It was enlarging and shrinking yourself to suit the situation. While developing, I thought it would be unique and original. However when deadline arrived, I found a game that had exactly the same style. But people can’t say that we are copying from one and another because there is no time to copy. The time was so precious.
And my latest game, Altered Cube (link in my signature), was also created to reach as original as possible. But I can’t tell if there is game out there which is similar. What I do know is I didn’t copy another game.
So, yeah, It’s hard to tell if your game is the only one out there. But just give it your best shot.
“Creativity is knowing how to hide your sources”
― Albert Einstein
… is one of my favourite quotes I like to remember when I start getting into the “let’s get an original idea” discussion I find myself in. Truth is, there is never ever and never will be a truly original idea. Every idea you come up with is based on information you’ve got stored in your memory over your life. You brain can’t make stuff up. So even if you think you’ve come up with something completely new, it’s gauranteed to be based on something you’ve seen/experienced in your life.
Some of the best stuff out there is basically a better take on an idea. I think the key is not an original idea, but just a fresh approach and great execution. GTA vice city is a great example. Pretty much everything in that game is taken from scarface or similar miami themed influences. You could even just say it’s Scarface the game, however they’ve applied their own take on it and given us something incredibly fun and engaging. I don’t really recall anyone whinging about it being a Scarface rip off, simply because people love it so much.
I would concentrate on how you can bring existing ideas together. How can you improve a concept? Then set about trying to make seem as original as possible like Mr Einstein suggests. The important thing is to not become hung up on coming up with an original idea because you can’t. None of us can!
It seems that people are putting unrealistic criteria on originality. Of course the idea has to develop from your experiences and thoughts. That’s how thoughts work. No one is suddenly struck with an alien concept from out of nowhere.
Originality is simply doing something in a way that hasn’t been done before. That’s it.
But again, original doesn’t necessarily mean good.
Nah… only in the most abstract sense. Innovations are just variations/improvements on existing ideas. A breakthrough occurs when the value-proposition of a new product exceeds the value of existing products, but with a different metric (easier, faster, cleverer, newer, funner, cuter, cheaper, lighter, more portable’r?). (See Innovator’s Dillema by Christensen).
@OP - Quit worrying that your idea is unique. Build something. Finish it. Share. Improve. Repeat.
Gigi
Man this topic again.
Well, first off: this video is obligatory homework for anyone that attempts to discuss this topic.
Now, with this topic we are forced to define what Originality is. Originality is not about creating something 100% new. It has never been. I hate to go into semantics but it is VERY important to do so in this discussion. Here is the definition of the word Original based off a dictionary:
I bolded item 2 as it’s the definition of the word that applies to this discussion. Over the last decades we have developed a culture of extremism. This is going everywhere, from politics to the mere fact of giving extreme and glorified meanings to mundane words. We have glorified Original as some unreachable OR obligatory holy grail where everything is entirely unique, an impossible standard of newness that simply can’t be ever achieved.
Original simply means:
- new
- fresh
- inventive
- novel
The first “new” is a bit ambiguous but let’s not fool ourselves, it simply means phrases like “the original run of the TV show” can be used to describe “the first showing of new episodes”.
Fresh is a big key to what we actually perceive and tend to label “original”. A game about Zombies will not be fresh because we have been playing zombie games left and right for the last decade. If suddenly everyone stopped making zombie games and then, in 50 years, someone made a zombie game it is very likely it would deserve the branding of “original” simply because for its time period it would be something fresh.
Inventive would refer to an interesting mixture of elements. Portal may be a good example of that, despite we being flooded with first person shooters at the time of its release, and teleports being nothing new, the use of both elements together was rather inventive resulting in a very original experience. It did not hurt that the game had some great funny writing, nothing extremely original in that department, mind you.
Novel requires another dictionary search to get right. I heard this word used a lot to describe “new” and “fresh” ideas, but it simply means:
This is mostly a literary bit and likely used as a synonymous to Original due to the fact that any long story is, by definition, a unique thing, therefore something that is novel is considered to be unique enough. Mind you, the long story that is used in question may also fall victim to the above dissection to see if it itself is original. Just because it’s a novel does not mean it’s original. 
So, in closing: what do we get out of this? Just keep it fresh and/or inventive! Don’t break your head asking “has this thing here ever been used or done?” instead ask yourself: “what is everyone else doing? OK, let’s not do THAT.”
An interesting bit from someone in Pixar a while back… don’t recall who exactly but they were talking about how to write a great story. One of the tips they give is that at the start of the process, they define the start and end. Once they know where they are going, they have a quick session tossing every idea they can come up with without thinking too hard into the table. These are the “obvious” ideas and they use them as the “don’t go here” places. They write the actual story only after they have dismissed all these obvious elements. As far as story goes, not being able to predict what happens next in a story can also inflict that great feeling of awe that comes from experiencing something “original.”
Edit:
We all get lots of ideas all the time. One thing I like to do is to write these down in tiny notepads in my phone. As time goes on, working on another project, I start to see other games launch that used the same idea. This is not some one beating me to it, this is some one else showing me that it was not that fresh of an idea so I chalk it out of the board for the future. Does not help my current project, but future ones will be better filtered.
Ah those two mega hits. I know it looks great to think those games just became hits overnight. Makes it “realistic” to think we may also win the lottery one day.
Truth is, though, Angry Birds became a great success thanks to marketing. At its launch, the game was not huge, but it offered a free and a paid version. At one point, Clickgamer did something not many had done before: they made a press release bragging about there being half a million downloaded copies of the game. This was not anything amazing; to be honest given the time the game was out. BUT it was not something many said before and so it became big news. Everyone got curious and started downloading it. THAT press release drove the success of Angry Birds. Today I bet most people get it just to check what the deal is about.
Not saying it’s a bad game, but being a good game alone won’t make you that big. A press release with the same wording won’t do much good today either. The market is better educated of the insane numbers people sell and download in the app store.
Minecraft is a near direct clone of another game but got lucky it got covered by some reporter that triggered the viral effect while the game was still in alpha. That is a more lucky shot, got to admit, but you can still say Minecraft would be nowhere without the marketing he got from that reviewer.
I think the real problem is too many equate “original” to “success”. Big sellers like the Modern Warfare games prove this is not the case.
Ah those two mega hits. I know it looks great to think those games just became hits overnight. Makes it “realistic” to think we may also win the lottery one day.
Truth is, though, Angry Birds became a great success thanks to marketing. At its launch, the game was not huge, but it offered a free and a paid version. At one point, Clickgamer did something not many had done before: they made a press release bragging about there being half a million downloaded copies of the game. This was not anything amazing; to be honest given the time the game was out. BUT it was not something many said before and so it became big news. Everyone got curious and started downloading it. THAT press release drove the success of Angry Birds. Today I bet most people get it just to check what the deal is about.
Not saying it’s a bad game, but being a good game alone won’t make you that big. A press release with the same wording won’t do much good today either. The market is better educated of the insane numbers people sell and download in the app store.
Minecraft is a near direct clone of another game but got lucky it got covered by some reporter that triggered the viral effect while the game was still in alpha. That is a more lucky shot, got to admit, but you can still say Minecraft would be nowhere without the marketing he got from that reviewer.
I think the real problem is too many equate “original” to “success”. Big sellers like the Modern Warfare games prove this is not the case.
That’s because everyone was busy calling it a Miami Vice homage, a more appropriate subject than Scarface.
But I feel the urge to repeat: there can be original ideas because original ideas are not 100% new ideas, they are just fresh ideas. And one thing I did not mention earlier: they only need to be new for the audience. Before the internet there was a huge market for artists that took songs from other countries and did nothing but translate them to achieve huge level of fame thanks to their “original” scores and songs. It was just fresh material for the audience.
My jaw dropped for a minute when I read this.
But then it seems that despite your realization, you too hold the word to a higher standard than it deserves. 
Still give you some points for being in the right path at first.
Yes… And now an FPS is no longer origional… Proving my point even further