A common complaint about modern gaming is the lack of originality in the medium. It's a topic Mark indulged in yesterday in his latest Cubistically Correct article, taking the slant that, ultimately, we are to blame. We discuss his view.

Is originality dying in games?

bas:

I often wondered about this, wonder what new genres developers could come up with in the future that would still appeal to a big audience.

Personally I would say yes, originality is fading. Even the most breakthroughing game of the last couple of years, GTA, is more or less a 3D conversion of its 2D predecessors if you think about it.

But you also have to consider that established franchise games is something that the consumers want. A new title of Mario, EA's yearly sport titles or the next Doom are highly demanded games and sell like crazy. While Black & White, a truly original game didn't do all that well. Same goes for Pikmin.

So, originality is also depending on economic factors, developers will more likely spent millions of dollars on the next FPS then a totally new concept, because a new FPS is a safe bet.

Dan:

Playstation 2's bestselling games are sequels. Grand Theft Auto mainly but others such as Gran Turismo and Tekken, these games were at the height of originality when they first released but by the third or fourth title they have lost all originality. But it's not only the Playstation format that this happens to! On the Nintendo we have Mario Party series that by now has lost all originality.

Nintendo are the one most original games company out there if not the best. Look at Pikmin, Animal Crossing, Pokem�n, and Billy Hatcher the list goes on. But even with all these games we still get 'the same old' type on the Gamecube and will do on the N5 because it's what sells! But a game series can still become original after many sequals, look at Tony Hawk: Underground and Final Fantasy. But sadly I think the answer to the question is a yes!

jayseven

But GTA3's whole working in a third dimension was pretty much a new idea based on a tried and tested one.

There is a line of thought; games will eventually get so realistic that gamers will stop going "wow! Cool graphics!" and buying a game because it looks 'wicked'; they'll eventually look for originality.

At the moment the vast majority of gamers do not have a high standard of gaming experiences, these gamers are willing to go and buy a game which delivers a similar experience to what they have had before. These gamers don't particularly want to be mentally tested in a game; to have to think about what they're doing. These gamers get in from a hard day at the office/school/pub and just want to sit down and relax, perhaps shoot up some nasty villains whilst contemplating whether to turn the heating on, or if they should go make a sandwich. These gamers have very little needs that developers need addressing, these gamers are willing to stick by what they know and seem to be fearful to try a different game. This breed of gamers is known as� Casual gamers.

Anyone reading this article will probably be a different race; the hard-core. -- A gamer that plays games not just to enjoy them, but to have a sensual experience; to appreciate the history behind the game; to be mentally stimulated. Some people go to the cinema and want a full-on action film. Guns, explosions, the lot. If they get anything extra they're disappointed. A film like Memento or Donnie Darko will be wasted on these people. The problem is the homo-casual erectus vastly outnumber the homo-hardcore-sapiens.

The games business is just that; a games business . A companies target in today's gaming industry is more than likely just to be "to break-even" on a released game, they'd appreciate it if they earned enough cash to cover the costs to make the game. Anything extra is really a bonus. What's the best way to break even? Why, it's to create a game that appeals to as many people as possible. To appeal to the casual gamer. An added bonus to the developer is that the casual gamers have a lower standard, which means that they can get away with a fairly poorly made game.

So yes, games are getting easier; games are mainly sequels or clones of existing games. Games are becoming less unique.

The thing is, the more a casual gamer plays games, the more they'll have experienced in the world of gaming; they will have created a 'database' of thoughts and opinions on games they've played.

We're all human. Yes, even those odd-looking casuals across the river there. Humans can learn from the data around them; adapt to their environment. We can realise that if we rub this stick on that stick, we can make fire. If we use this sharp rock on those wild animals over there, we can make ourselves some dinner. We can even learn to put the animals over a fire to make a rather tasty dinner. We can evolve; the casual gamer will eventually realise that they can get a better experience from computer games, they will eventually demand more from a game; developers will have to meet more specifications for their games to sell well.

Problem is, we don't really know when that one day is... By then, the hardcore gamer could well be extinct anyway...

Sam:

Like everyone before me, I'd have to say that, yes, originality is dying. However, I don't want people to jump to the conclusion that we've all but run dry the well of creativity; it's more likely that the bucket has a leak.

To make if clearer for those who don't regularly dabble in the analogous, the problem is not a lack of creativity on the developer's side, but the failings of the publishers who are purposefully allowing such titles to slip through their fingers. As jayseven has mentioned, it is much more profitable to play to the market then sign a more creative, less commercially recognisable game. I don't blame publishers as such�they are there to make money after all�but I do wish that a few of the larger ones would turn to progression of the medium than of their bank balance. I'd imagine that quite a few publisher employees are, or were, gamers themselves, so surely some of them must have the same sort of passion as the visitors to this site? If this is true, then perhaps they also share our want of creativity. A imminent revolution from within? Who knows.

Of course, thinking about it, the prior approach could almost be the wrong one; perhaps publishers should be concentrating on filling their coffers. Any gamer with an interest in the industry (any of those reading this, most probably) will no that times are hard. Many development houses are finding it hard to scrape a living with mass redundancies being a regular feature of, say, EDGE. So perhaps the industry as a whole should concentrate on saving what is left of it's self; it can't make the rush for freshness until it's back on its feet.

You could compare recent times to a sort of videogaming Dark Ages: there are many changes happening�some good, and some bad�and all these transformations are nullifying each other, keeping the industry in a kind of stasis as it both tries to advance and fallback. At some point it has to go one way or the other and I don't think videogames are ready to give-up just yet. We will get through this, and when we do perhaps innovation will come into full bloom.

In short, (Is that a collective sigh of relief I hear?) I think that current times aren't as good for originality as they could be, but if we let the industry sort itself out we can look foreword a much more prosperous future.

Lamsh:

I don't really think originality is dying, it's just not necessary anymore to sell games. Game x part 5 will sell about as much as Game x part 4, so publishing it is a safe bet. It's not as if everything has been done before, people have been saying that for quite a long time now, but games like Monkey Ball, Rez and Killer 7 are still being made, they just don't sell as much as GTA and Tom Clancy games. I guess what I'm trying to say is originality is still around, you just have look for it a little further than you had to a couple of years ago. Maybe this is just a phase gaming is going through, we could get the most original stuff we've ever seen in a few years. Who knows, weirder things have happened.

Iun:

Originality is dying like the dog it is.

Let's face it, the Games Industry is a business and the one thing a business wants is a successful product that can be rolled out time and again with the same amount of success after only a little work to update it for the new season/year/generation/plum pudding. (Delete as applicable)

So why would anyone want to try making something like Ico or Pikmin knowing that they aren't going to sell as well as FIFA 2004?

Well, Nintendo would. Nintendo are still commited to making and aiding the development of original games. Take Viewtiful Joe, Pikmin and Billy Hatcher, not all necessarily developed by Nintendo, but they certainly would not feasibly appear on any other system -they're just too different!

This is both Nintendos biggest stumbling block and their greatest asset. While they continue to make original games, they'll never attain the big league status they held in the nineties. They will, however, have my unfailing support as they continue to carve out their own niche in the market.

However small that may be.

Matthew:

Why do we NEED originality? Is a new, original way of playing FPS's necessarily be better?

What this roundtable should be about is if quality is dying, and to that I'd say no - games over the last few years have improved vastly over it's 2D predecessors, and even if we aren't getting new approaches to games, we're still getting a lot of bang for our buck.

'If it aint broke, then don't fix it.'

Capiche?

BasCE:

Many videogame fanatics complain about modern games lacking originality. But at the same time they are very much sequel-orientated. Nintendo has the name being innovative, but they too rely heavily on old franchises and popular characters. Just look at your GameCube collection: I'd be surprised if not at least half of them were sequels.

It's true that publishers preferably want a concept that has proven successful, but even the so-called hardcore gaming audience often doesn't take the time to try original games, which often makes them commercial failures, leading to even less 'risky' concepts. It seems the market is not yet big enough to support a diverse cataloge of games.

But new ideas are still around: so stop moaning and for once leave the obligatory purchase on the shelf and give Viewtiful Joe, Wario Ware or Animal Crossing a chance. Or EyeToy, Pikmin, Amplitude, Metal Arms, Boktai...

Conor:

I enjoyed Mark's editorial but to be honest, but disagreed with a few points. In my opinion originality isn't dying, it just has gone unnoticed on many occasions. There are original games about, and there are developers out there willing to do things a little different. We enthusiasts tend to overlook them for the most part, instead concentrating on the Fifas and their breed. So, as Mark said, it comes back to us and our attitude and actions.

Super Monkey Ball, Pikmin, Viewtiful Joe, Animal Crossing are all both original and brilliant. Let's not forget Wario Ware on the GBA, and games like Ico, Farenheit and Gregory Horror Show on the PS2. If we just stopped focusing all our attention on the hyped-up games, titles like Metal Gear Solid and Grand Theft Auto and the latest FPS. Not that they aren't good, of course, but they tend to drown out other games which are as good, but harder to pigeonhole and hype.

And what about Eyetoy? People like to bemoan the lack of originality on the PS2, but it has just as much as any other platform. Forgetting Frequency, Rez etc., the Eyetoy and the various games you can play with it is an absolute joy. Well done on all accounts Sony. A mate and I had great fun messing about with it in a high street store, recording videos of us acting like big children.

Faced with financial arguments and a look at publishing, it's easy to say that developers are just going with generic, unambitious crap. Sequels! Boo! Sony! Boo! Originality is dying! The world is ending! Erm, no. There will always be developers who want to deviate from the norm, and there will always be original games. They had unoriginality back on the SNES too, you know.