To be ''original'' I think what you need to do mix different non-original ideas and that''s the most original thing you will get. I think originality is non-existant, is just means something that is used less often. You just have to make others beleive that what you are doing is original.

However I have found a problem with originality, that is whenever someone does something original, too many people try to copy it so it stops being original and gets boring.

I agree that there are no 100% original ideas, but I think you can be original. The thing is, gamers don''t necessarily want originality and innovation. A fun, well polished game with high production values in a well established genre will impress people a lot more than a lower quality game that is very novel and innovative.

The problem I have with people that cry out for originality is that they rarely suggest ideas on how to be original or even often original ideas of their own. Many people will give you original ideas that are within an established game type or genre but have a unique setting or story. While having an original setting is fine, I think SullView is looking for original gameplay that can lead to new games or even new genres.

Here are a few suggestions on what you can change in standard game types to come up with original gameplay ideas.

1. Interface
I wouldn''t recommned changing this. The problem with radically changing the interface for an existing game type is because players have to learn your new interface and it will be different from what they''re used to. A situation you may want to change the interface in is if you add a new action to the game type or if you have gameplay the interface doesn''t support. Even if you game is radically different from everything else out there it will do you well to use standard control schemes though.

2. Output
This means changing the perspective, camera, graphics, sound, etc. of the game to change the way the player gets information. An example would be a 3D game where you have to navigate mostly with sound and "touch" (collision response.)

Other interface and output ideas would be to make a game that uses the control scheme and viewpoint of one type, but the goals and mechanics of another. For example, an action game that uses a realtime strategy interface or a empire building strategy game that is presented as a single character RPG.

3. Conventions
Many game genres have gameplay conventions that can be altered. Most first person shooters have health packs and ammo, most realtime strategy games have unit and building production, etc. These genre conventions often have a big effect on the game rules and changing just a few conventions can result in a game that looks and controls like a standard but plays very differently. FenrirWolf''s idea is a change in conventions. In most games dying is a bad thing, by changing that and making death a victory condition he ended up with something original.

4. Game structure
Changing the way a player progresses through a game. This can be the goals (linear vs. quest based), the physical structure (wide open world vs. discrete levels), character development (level based vs. skill based), etc.

5. Game actions
This is creating unusual actions for the player to do. Many games involve some sort of walking, running, shooting, sneaking, building, driving, flying, talking, fighting or puzzle solving. Things that aren''t as common are cooking, eating, drawing, singing, dancing, smoking. Sure the second list is more boring than the first list, but you can do this on a smaller level. For example, a fighting game where you can time travel backwards for a few seconds and replay parts of the fight that go badly for you.

Obviously changing a lot of things or starting out with a weird premise in the first place will give you more original gameplay, but making small tweaks can be a set toward original gameplay and sometimes lead to surprisingly different games.

Totally Off-Topic

quote:

---

Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
I think my zombie idea was clever. Nobody has ever used sleeping, dermally respirating zombies before, to my knowledge. Cram it. With walnuts.

---

Dermally respirating zombies!!??
*Trying desperately to keep a straight face*

Forgive me my humour chip isn't fully online yet but..., you are joking right!?
Though that would explain why they don't suffocate when you smash in thier noses (although I always thought that was because the dead didn't need air to live )
So, if they get wet, they would start coughing violently?
And you could kill them by getting them to wear clothes, they'll suffocate!!
*ROTFLMAO*






[edited by - thelurch on January 14, 2004 1:39:57 PM]

quote:

---

Though that would explain why they don''t suffocate when you smash in thier noses (although I always thought that was because the dead didn''t need air to live )

---

Well... that''s where you have gotten into trouble... you see, they aren''t exactly "dead"... they are UN-dead.

Many lives have been lost while smashing zombie noses under this erroneous assumption.

Aaaah! I see. It all makes sense now.

If only they had known this on the night of the living dead.

Hey, you didn't read the idea. It's clever.

Of course zombies need to breathe. Unless they're magical zombies (which mine aren't) they still need oxygen to metabolize ADP and use their muscles. So, instead of using the inefficient sort of respiration that you and I use (take oxygen into lung, bond oxygen to hemoglobin, circulate blood through body to every freaking cell, etc.) they use a superpower to pull oxygen straight from the air into their myoglobin in their muscles, through their skin.

They only have to breath sometimes, because the selective use of bodily systems (no digestion, limited neural activity, no actual respiration) reduces their oxygen consumption drastically. So, they shamble and feed until they get "tired" (they slowly turn from pale to blue) and then they have to sit dormant and "recharge" their oxygen level (with their visual faculties disabled, but hearing still active). It basically puts them to sleep to facilitate stealth areas and allow effective knife kills. I imagine ten minutes every half-hour would be enough, depending on how much strenuous activity they do, but in the absense of food (which they don't really need, since they can't digest anything, but biological and narrative imperatives demand that they hunt and kill), they'd probably stay dormant a lot. It's a gimmick.

I figure the zombie retrovirus was partially grafted from a salamander or something, and mutated to allow them to suck oxygen out of the air, as amphibians can pull it out of the water, however slowly. I dunno. It was clever and original. Nobody ever said it had to be terrific. And as a bonus it can make for slimy zombies. Sweet.

[edited by - Iron Chef Carnage on January 14, 2004 5:00:57 PM]

Hey Chef,
Like you said, I didn''t read the original idea only heard that phrase. And seriously, a funny idea doesn''t necessarily mean a bad one (a la scary movie), and your idea is seriousss...ly funny.

.
.
.

I''m sorry, I couldn''t resist it. But as I said a funny idea isn''t a bad one... ...Aha! you thought I was going to poke fun again didn''t you!

On another note though, I would recommend you do not spend too much energy trying to rationalise ideas that are already widely accepted.
Nobody ever hated a vampire film becuase it was extremely unrealistic in the way the sun ignited thier blood which burned so hot it didn''t even leave bones behind. (Even cremation Kilns leave the bones).
Of course you could go into theories of how thier bodies had already metabolised the bones even while the vampire was alive(sorry, undead) but firstly 99% of the audience won''t hang around for all that biology, and the remaining one percent will try to punch holes like, if they didn''t have any bones why weren''t they double jointed, heck why did they even have joints?

---------------------------------------------------
There are two things he who seeks wisdom must understand...
Love... and Wudan!

You see, I wasn''t just trying to make up a new origin for zombies. I was trying to change zombies so that they would occasionally lay down and not chase you, so you''d have to sneak past them. It''s a gameplay issue. I wouldn''t bother explaining that to the player, but I''d make the information available, so that people wouldn''t say, "WTF? Is that zombie asleep?"

On a Sluggy Freelance note, did you ever wonder why moonlight doesn''t hurt vampires? It''s reflected sunlight, after all. If I can use a shiny piece of metal to hurt a vampire that''s hiding in a dark cave, then the moon should torture them.

Here is why there are no original ideas: Do you remember that South Park episode where they try to take over the world but the Simpsons have already done those things? The Simpsons have used every plot device ever conceived by man.

quote:

---

Original post by jerubaal
Here is why there are no original ideas: Do you remember that South Park episode where they try to take over the world but the Simpsons have already done those things? The Simpsons have used every plot device ever conceived by man.

---

A comedy is often based on things we have already seen somewhere, but render in a funny way

Originality is something hard to accomplish since you need to adapt it without scaring the players. You encounter problems never solved before (interesting but dangerous) and your ideas may be a little fuzzy to others. If the player is lost within the first hour, you are screwed. However, if you succeed well you''ll probably make one of the best game of the year. When you recreated something already done but a little different, then you can expect people to play it, but you''ll probably not get as much attention as an original game that appeal to the players community. The question game designers should ask themselves is "Is a try worth it?".

For the sake of art, I answer yes.

Sébastien Nadon
http://www.foredoomed-mansion.com