Why do game companies make clones of other games? Misplaced financial envy? Trying to ride a trend in the market? Hoping to capitalize on an existing fanbase? Yeah. But those aren't really reasons why a designer would want to lean heavily on another title for "inspiration". Surely designers want to make unique original games?
Let's zoom in a second.
Ask a random person what they imagine the most challenging aspect of designing a game is and you'll hear a few familiar guesses. "Coming up with ideas?" No. God no. "Balancing the game?" Sure, tough, but just another task. "Making the game feel good?" important, but not it. It goes on...
In my opinion, without doubt, nothing comes close to the hellish task of trying to pull a vision from your head and propagate it out to a team of developers. I'm talking about communication. Idea transfer. Debate. Salesmanship. Mustering an army, unrolling your battle plans, and doing what we can to convince the generals that the plan makes sense. The longer you work with teams, the more you realize that's the bulk of what we do (assuming you're working with others).
There are countless tools for this of course; detailed design documents, prototypes, art reference folders, animatics, presentations, PowerPoints, 4 hour design meetings, shells, Lego dioramas, whatever, you name it. ALL of these exist purely to overcome our inability to directly wire your brain to mine. Just 30 seconds of co-op mindlink and we can have one symbiotic shared imagining of what this proposed amazing game could be like. People could 'get it', experience the game in a common moment, and march off with enthusiasm and shared purpose. Hell yeah! Thanks, Mindlink 2000!
Sadly, there's no wetwire technology yet, so we have pitches, greenlight processes, milestones, and other bureaucracy. At many companies, a dedicated designer's only job is this communication loop, the 'brain dump'.
The closest thing we have to a human 'brain dump' is our shared experiences. It's why I can say to you in an elevator "CoD meets MechWarrior"... three freakin' words... and you can picture TitanFall in pretty vivid detail.
I drop a 50 page document on your desk for a bad ass viking game with clans, ship upgrades, encounter types, plot points, and mechanics? If you're like everyone else on the planet you're not going to read that, who would want to? But I say "FTL with Vikings!" and again, Mindlink 2000, we are 90% on the same page! We have our starting point and you can start making assets now!
From a developer's point of view, existing games are a fundamental communication tool. Games themselves are our language.
(I certainly applaud developers who are creating games that defy comparison in such a way. It's a very frustrating reality when your game pitch doesn't easily fit existing molds; you're depending more on everyone around you to drop preconceived notions and really try to like what you're saying. It can be especially hard for another developer to hear out someone else's game vision with an open mind.)
________________________
This communication issue scales up with larger organizations, logically. You've got 10 layers of management and marketing and external studios working on various aspects of the game; it's more important than ever to have the common crutch of a shared past experience.
Similarly, why do we see 5 sequels of every major game? Because that's 4 projects staffed by people who basically knew what was expected of them on day one of the project (5 if the original was a clone!).
With this in mind I'm frankly astonished when a larger organization creates something that isn't easily summed up with "X meets X", it's something of a miracle.
______________
When it comes to pure 'clones'? Hell, we're looking at a fully realized "design document" that everyone has thoroughly digested! What could be better?! (That is sarcasm, dear internet)
Obviously the issue is when people execute an existing vision and stop, without bringing anything new to the table. I've actually really enjoyed two fairly obvious clones since iOS hit. Veggie Samurai (sorry HalfBrick, I love the double slash! Forgive me!) and Harbor Master (think Flight Control with traffic coming and going. Later Imangi made Temple Run!). Both of those games brought some new elements and slick execution.
I dislike when critics or users (or devs!) quickly dismiss games for having obvious common elements. As an observer, you're not clever by being able to point out "that game is just blah with blah". Of course it is! And? Rarely is it a negative to make those associations. Games are like brownies, there's only so many common ingredients involved; it's all about the ratios of those components in the recipe and how it's all executed. The best games out there are the ones that borrow heavily from existing games, but execute it so well that players feel like they're experiencing something new and unique.
IMO, developers just starting out should absolutely try to learn from what's out there. I fully support the idea that a team (indie or AAA) can have a common goal of being "like" something else as a starting point. That momentum can propel them through very difficult production phases and discussions.
But, above all, devs have to treat it like a 'jumping off point' and continue their progress with added innovation. Once the project is shaping up and standing on its own merits, you'll have your own game itself as your Mindlink 2000; then you can cast off the crutches of needing to reference everything else as much.
PS- If you're someone blatantly *duplicating* a game, and selling it, I'm not defending that... it's scummy, no doubt. May you have months of indigestion. >:-/
Thanks as always for reading.
Tyler Yohe |
5 Aug 2013 at 12:30 pm PST
|
Wow - great article Lee. I couldn't agree more that this is often one of the major reasons for so many 'un-innovative' designs. I think the original idea was original, but the ability to communicate all the original ideas results in comparisons.
As a project manager / game designer, I've often found that if my idea isn't conveying properly after a few attempts I simply have to use the crutch of a comparison and in the end, whether the manager or the employee's fault, it results in a 'cloned' feel to some of what were originally unique aspects of the game. I do have to say that this communication gap is not exclusive to development teams however. In fact, as a studio owner, publishers often actually ENCOURAGE this type of "X meets Y" or "X merged with blank of Y" communication. Because the want the "30 second pitch" and many times they even will ask for it that way. And once they offer funding and you start to design something "unique", they are disappointed because they wanted a 'clone' that had a proven design. Never the less, love the article. You make some great points. Now the key for us as developers is to realize this 'crutch' and try to avoid using it to prevent more original work! |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Arseniy Shved |
It's hard to imagine you would need a Mindlink 2000 because you deliver your thoughts so well. Ah, envy...=)
But yeah, I could use one=) |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Peter Choi |
Never thought of it this way - definitely opened up my eyes. Awesome read
|
|
|
Eric Finlay |
Screw making a mobile game backend, I want to make the Mindlink 2000.
|
|
|
Kevin Alexander |
Great article!
" I'm talking about communication. Idea transfer. Debate. Salesmanship. Mustering an army, unrolling your battle plans, and doing what we can to convince the generals that the plan makes sense. " If at any time you stumble on one of the above, you open yourself up to allowing mediocrity to sweep in and flesh your idea out with easy, and overly established conventions. You also have to plain ole' worry about running out of time/budget. Frustrated design teams have to shelf good but complex ideas for simple ones all the time because they just couldn't work it out amongst each other. |
|
|
Paul Andrew Mcgee |
This is definitely an under appreciated facet to doing something original. It's a great argument for small scale development. It doesn't mean larger teams should give up though, just be cognizant of the issue and have a clear leadership.
Film is an interesting comparison in this case as while production involves hundreds of people, the final editing process, arguably the most crucial aspect, only ever involves a very small handful. Perhaps game development should only ramp up to hundreds of staff once a core team of 3/4 have already nailed the game. This doesn't doesn't take into account the importance of aesthetic though! |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Jonathan Jennings |
I love this article, and I love you Lee for writing it . Great look into what makes a great game designer and why it seems so many are in a compromised position. On one hand it seems like they get hired to flesh out an idea and make it something the team can work towards while more often than not it seems like they are hired in a role that casts them less as people mapping out the battle plans and more as people hired to translate the ideas of higher ups into game dev jargon that won't make the team want to mutiny against instantly.
|
|
|
Jack Wilson |
I've got this great gamasutra article concept that's kind of Lee Perry meets Ernest Adams...
|
|
|
Brenton Haerr |
"Games are like brownies, there's only so many common ingredients involved; it's all about the ratios of those components in the recipe and how it's all executed."
One of the best quotes I've seen on the topic. This is true in brewing, in tv plot development, and in games, too. It's funny that an honest attempt by an indie--or even major designer--to improve upon what they see as promising but incomplete mechanics in another game is so often conflated with the out-and-out theft that Vlambeer and some others have been victim to of late. One of those things is abhorrent. The other is how a medium develops. |
|
|
Randall Stevens |
Were you just making up that FTL with vikings thing? Cause if someone already made it then I can stop thinking about it and get to playing it. Damn I hope that is real.
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Ian Richard |
While I agree with your main point, I disagree with your point on "Observers saying it's just X meets Y"
To use your analogy, the observer is saying that the new brownie taste like the ones you already own. If you aren't craving more chocolate-y goodness... save your money. Unlike brownies... changing the recipe of a game doesn't guarantee a new flavor. Many times, it simply mashes two things together and offers the same experience from the two source games. If a game feels like the ones I already own, I'm grateful when someone warns me. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
John Lee |
I'm glad you decided to capture your thoughts here because it's exactly the sort of thing that we're constantly challenged with, and we're a small indie studio (it was even more of a challenge when I worked for big game studios.)
Ultimately, the games we play define how we communicate our thoughts and ideas to each other, and not everyone plays the same games, nor plays them the same way. It's easy to fall into the trap of just referencing obvious games and features that easily conjures up shared understanding of what you want to create, and if that happens too often, you start to travel down "clone" road. We try to solve this by using other games as a way to frame discussion, and then start to come up with new ideas, either by taking a gameplay mechanic further than it has been pushed before, or seeing what new ideas gets introduced if you combine two things together in new ways. The combining of things doesn't have to be limited to just gameplay mechanics, as it could also be mixed with art direction, themes, business model, platform, or even a personal story that needs to be told. |
|
|
Daniel Cook |
One technique to get around the communication is to start with a very small team (like 2 people) and create original playable prototypes. Then incrementally bring on new folks as the team ramps up. A couple things happen:
- The playable prototype is the central shared experience. - Agreeing is much easier with fewer people. - The team creates its own language instead of needing to borrow one. - If you grow the team slowly and keep leadership consistent, they'll transfer that language to new team members organically. The ramp up can be slower, but your burn rate for that tiny team is dramatically lower. So costs are equivalent if not cheaper. Much of what you describe stems from poor management of the team building and creative process, not something inevitable. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Allan Munyika |
I agree with Daniel Cook wholesale. Firstly l am not actually a game developer/designer, I'm just an avid and well informed gamer with dreams of creating my own game some day. I've written down literally hundreds of pages of video game design documents just for kicks and have noticed that sometimes understanding your own idea can be difficult, which in turn makes it difficult for you to communicate it to others. I think where words fail, pictures, videos and game prototypes should be used. If like me you cannot draw to save your life then try writing up a stage in your intended game and make sure you describe in detail what the player is doing and how they feel as they play. Storyboards are a good way to express ideas as well and don't require much artistic talent. I've also seen a 'making of' video for Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty where Hideo Kojima used Legos to build a model of the oil tanker which was the first level in the game. I think the key is to get creative even in the methods and techniques you use to express your ideas.
|
|
|
Daniel Backteman |
Well put, Lee. Can't say that I haven't experienced the same situation now that you mention it - and when I refuse to explain the game by comparison it results in a myriad of other words the listener needs to have the same definition of as I, and there is less understanding.
"It's Elder Scrolls with guns!", Fallout 3+ had it easy. :/ |
|
|
David James |
Interesting point of view. Can't say I totally agree as there are ways around lack of communication.
|
|
|
Matt Ponton |
"Linebackers with Chainsaws"
- Gears of War. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Michael O'Hair |
"But, above all, devs have to treat it like a 'jumping off point' and continue their progress with added innovation."
A problem arises, however, when developers seem to be 'jumping' in circles onto the same circular formation of lilly pads, over and over again, as long as enough units sell. Failing that, they scramble to bring out oddball ideas disguised as innovation. It's not specifically duplication, but more likened to a limited gene pool for the breeding of ideas. Don't limit influences and derivative elements to other games. There are limits to how much "parts of Game X combined with parts of Game Y" consumers can tolerate. "Akira Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress combined with Flash Gordon, on a cheesboard." |
|
|