“Originality” is overvalued. Yes, it’s an important aspect, but even near-clones can be great. Just look at Stardew Valley vs Harvest Moon.
Imo, the real key to making a great game (along with skill) is heart/care. If a dev is only making a game to make bank, it’s going to come through. And when a game is made with care and attention, that comes through in spades. All of these games have creators that clearly care about the game itself and, while they are being rewarded for their efforts, that wasn’t and isn’t their primary drive in developing or maintaining the games.
Counterpoint, “originality” almost never really refers to something that has never been done before. Instead it refers to something that the intended consumer has no, or little, reference for. Prime example is stardew valley and Helldivers.
Harvest moon has existed for awhile but few potential consumers have reference for it when playing stardew. So it succeeds. Helldivers is an alt version of many games but earth defense force is one of the genres it’s in. They’re very similar games at the core. Yet most people have no reference for it so it can still be “original” to them.
While I agree these games have heart and care, the success is largely to do with having a genre that already works with some audiences and then polishing it up and adding that heart factor to reskin it and try a new audience.
This is what indie games are great for. Take core ideas from big studios that work. Then don’t skip the part where the heart is ripped out for profit. And bam it’s a good game.
Instead it refers to something that the intended consumer has no, or little, reference for.
I’d argue that’s novelty, not originality, though you may be right in that it’s what was meant. I’d still say that’s not the critical piece in a successful game. Passion and care matter much more, imo.
Yep, it’s usually passion that drives a game (or any art) to greatness. If you’re passionate about it then you’ll see the flaws. If you’re just doing a job then you only care about completing goals and getting it done.
“Originality” is overvalued. Yes, it’s an important aspect, but even near-clones can be great. Just look at Stardew Valley vs Harvest Moon.
Imo, the real key to making a great game (along with skill) is heart/care. If a dev is only making a game to make bank, it’s going to come through. And when a game is made with care and attention, that comes through in spades. All of these games have creators that clearly care about the game itself and, while they are being rewarded for their efforts, that wasn’t and isn’t their primary drive in developing or maintaining the games.
Counterpoint, “originality” almost never really refers to something that has never been done before. Instead it refers to something that the intended consumer has no, or little, reference for. Prime example is stardew valley and Helldivers.
Harvest moon has existed for awhile but few potential consumers have reference for it when playing stardew. So it succeeds. Helldivers is an alt version of many games but earth defense force is one of the genres it’s in. They’re very similar games at the core. Yet most people have no reference for it so it can still be “original” to them.
While I agree these games have heart and care, the success is largely to do with having a genre that already works with some audiences and then polishing it up and adding that heart factor to reskin it and try a new audience.
This is what indie games are great for. Take core ideas from big studios that work. Then don’t skip the part where the heart is ripped out for profit. And bam it’s a good game.
I’d argue that’s novelty, not originality, though you may be right in that it’s what was meant. I’d still say that’s not the critical piece in a successful game. Passion and care matter much more, imo.
Yep, it’s usually passion that drives a game (or any art) to greatness. If you’re passionate about it then you’ll see the flaws. If you’re just doing a job then you only care about completing goals and getting it done.