[QUOTE="Jagazaar"]Okay. YOU come up with an original idea when almost any conceivable concept that'd work as a game (let alone flourish commercially) has already been done. Bioshock, Zack & Wiki and similar games you're going to throw mud on may not be original, but they're still enjoyable and allow a newer audience to experience things they may not have previously. A game doesn't have to be revolutionary to be fun.FlockofSpagheti
revolution and innovation are completely different... also everything has been done? lol man you can't seriously be saying that. like I said go over to igf and check out the entries for 2008... some of them are pretty brilliant... http://www.igf.com/php-bin/entries2008.php
Ok, I'll confess to exaggerating a bit, fair enough. But my point is, what do you want, a new genre or something? As media forms evolve and grow, more and more styles, themes, concepts and genres are explored. Video games have made the leap from Pong to FPS, driving games, puzzlers, RPGs of all sorts, 3D platformers, adventure games, etc, all with varying sub-genres, and sub-sub genres. Tell me, do you think many people starting gaming this generation or the last have played System Shock 1 or 2, looked at Bioshock, thought along the lines of 'oh, this game is very similar, it's trash'? I'd say it's more likely to be 'nice, I haven't seen an FPS with this sort of depth before, this is great!'. Then of course there's those who HAVE played the former two games, played Bioshock, and thought 'eh, it's a lot like System Shock 2, but what the hell, it's still fun and has enough of a different setting to be interesting'? I consider myself to be in the last group.
On a side note, I looked at the site. Sure, there looks to be some good stuff there and I'd certainly consider buying some, but I really don't see how you can consider certain mainstream games 'pure trash' or 'unoriginal' by comparison. I think you're just being elitist for the sake of personal satisfaction or trolling, personally.
Log in to comment