Discussion: How similar to another game is too similar?

[ZedClampet]

Note: I marked this as "Discussion" because "Question" seems more like you are asking for help.

This came up in the monthly thread in relation to Pan'orama, a game launching in May that bears a strong resemblance to Dorfromantik.

Another example that I can't link because I can't find the game on Steam now, was a game where you rode on a little raft, used a hook to capture garbage, expanded your raft and explored small islands that you came across. NO, it wasn't Raft. It was a game exactly like it only with better graphics.

So my general thought is just "We can have similar games". Think of all the shooters out there that are basically exactly the same except with different 3D models, and it bothers me when people hold other genres to a different standard. When Techtonica was announced, it was flooded with people accusing it of being a Satisfactory reskin (played the demo, and it is definitely its own game).

So where do you draw the line? Does it bother you when a game releases that is similar to another game?

 

[mjs warlord]

Hello Zed we meet again ...... rewind to 2002 the original version of age of mythology.
A few years after it came out some very dodgy characters made their own take on it , it was featured in pc gamer but only as a warning NOT to buy it. Instead of human soldiers you had waves of animals and you could even make silly things like half tiger have fish.

Pc gamer only showed screen shots of it and said by the time the magazine hit the shelves microsoft/eso would have hit them with a very big stick and stopped them selling it , also theservers would be taken down so if you did buy it you would not be using it for long.

Microsoft succeeded in stopping them because they proved the company even stole their coding to make it work.

 

[Pifanjr]

It seems tacky to me when someone makes an obviously inferior clone of a successful game, but it's not like it really affects me. I'll just not play that game. And there are reasons beyond making a quick cash grab to make a clone of a successful game. A lot of the low quality clones seem to be made by just a single developer who is using it as practice. It's a lot easier to practice by copying someone else's work than to make something entirely new.

 

[neogunhero]

It seems tacky to me when someone makes an obviously inferior clone of a successful game, but it's not like it really affects me. I'll just not play that game. And there are reasons beyond making a quick cash grab to make a clone of a successful game. A lot of the low quality clones seem to be made by just a single developer who is using it as practice. It's a lot easier to practice by copying someone else's work than to make something entirely new.

That seems to be the case with Vampire Survivors. Although a relatively simple game, its gameplay was very unique and straightforward to make the game fun. To my knowledge, no other game before it did it's bullet-hell style gameplay the same way that it did. So of course with it's insanely massive success there were bound to be a few clones, but I was no expecting there to be like 100 of them on Steam. Perhaps a lot of them are people just practicing their game dev skills, but then why sell it on Steam? If it's inferior to the product it's clearly ripping off, I assume most people will buy the main product. I don't think I've heard of an VS clones after the PCG article about them, they're just that unpopular.

Now when a game borrows mechanics from other games to make itself it's own thing, that is different. VS is not entirely original by any means. It has gameplay features found in many roguelites, enemies swarm the screen like bullet-hell shmups, and the graphics are a bit uninspired to say the least. However, what they've done was tweak some things, make a few things work differently than other games, and came with a gameplay flow that was unique and very fun to play. It's the people who directly rip off other games that irks me, especially when they are trying to ride the success wave of the other game. I'll always champion unique ideas and creative risks over chasing what's popular.

But like Pifanjr says, it doesn't really affect me personally. I at least hope the people who are making the rip-offs will one day make something original and become able to have a career doing something they enjoy like making games.

 

[Brian Boru]

it wasn't Raft. It was a game exactly like it

Lost World?

This isn't a straightforward topic, in that attitudes change with time, location, and profession. For example, it's a foundation stone of the Scientific Method that others in your field be able to replicate your findings. Professionals in numerous fields are urged to copy breakthru ideas and techniques.

Creators weren't concerned with ownership for millennia, ie for much longer than the recent emphasis on copyright and IP, which only started roughly 500 years ago. A Greek copy of an Egyptian creation was regarded as every bit as original as the first one.

It's a lot easier to practice by copying someone else's work than to make something entirely new

"Good artists copy, great artists steal"
—Picasso
“If you see a great master, you will always find that he used what was good in his predecessors, and that it was this which made him great.”
—Goethe
"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
—Newton

 

[ZedClampet]

It seems tacky to me when someone makes an obviously inferior clone of a successful game, but it's not like it really affects me. I'll just not play that game. And there are reasons beyond making a quick cash grab to make a clone of a successful game. A lot of the low quality clones seem to be made by just a single developer who is using it as practice. It's a lot easier to practice by copying someone else's work than to make something entirely new.

I long for the day when people made practice games and didn't try to sell them on Steam.

Lost World?

That's the one.

 

[Pifanjr]

Perhaps a lot of them are people just practicing their game dev skills, but then why sell it on Steam?

If you've already spent the time to make the game, might as well complete the experience of putting it on Steam as well. You might even get a couple of bucks out of it. And it probably looks better on your resume to link to a Steam page than just claiming you made a copy.

I long for the day when people made practice games and didn't try to sell them on Steam.

I blame Steam for not having better filters.

 

[Colif]

This came up in the monthly thread in relation to Pan'orama, a game launching in May that bears a strong resemblance to Dorfromantik.

So much so reviewers were told by the devs that its fine to compare. Its different enough to not be an exact copy

Roguelites, metroidvanias (its a made up word, I don't know its real spelling) ... it can't be an insult to have a genre named after you... Doom clones. Its as old as ... I bet someone copied the 1st wheel... I know they copied fire

inspiration is fine. Clearly Dorf did something right and now others are creating their own works that are distinct enough to not get taken off Steam.

 

[Zloth]

Well, I don't know how to measure how different a game is, but I do know one thing: the number needed to be OK is dropping. That's only to be expected, though, as more games show up. It isn't as easy to come up with a whole new genre as it was back in the 80's.

I am disturbed by the copycat features. Batman games having a 'detective vision' made sense, but several AAA games are using the feature in games that shouldn't have it. Horizon: Zero Dawn jumps to mind. It seems to just be an easy way to do copy-cat quests in games like that.

 

[Slasken]

I am disturbed by the copycat features. Batman games having a 'detective vision' made sense, but several AAA games are using the feature in games that shouldn't have it. Horizon: Zero Dawn jumps to mind. It seems to just be an easy way to do copy-cat quests in games like that.

Almost inspires me to start the thread, "which game features are you tired of?"

 

[Zimbaly]

If the game is good it's not huge to me. I love Diablo, love Diablo type games. Torchlight, Titant Quest, Sacred, etc etc etc.

A lot are so much like Diablo it's nuts, but it's more good gaming so I'm ok with that.

 

[Colif]

I am disturbed by the copycat features. Batman games having a 'detective vision' made sense, but several AAA games are using the feature in games that shouldn't have it. Horizon: Zero Dawn jumps to mind. It seems to just be an easy way to do copy-cat quests in games like that.

is that the ability to see where everything is on map even through walls? Cause thats dumb. Every game is becoming the same. They don't all have to have the same features. Gets impossible to tell them apart. Cookie cutter builds.

 

[Slasken]

Sometimes, games being similar can be a good thing, as in they need competitors.

I am thinking especially about The Sims series.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

So where do you draw the line? Does it bother you when a game releases that is similar to another game?

Some types of games I like OK for some time and then get bored of. Example Skyrim, I know people play that game over and over. For me I got max level in the skills I was into, explored without fast travelling most of the world and got bored before beelining the MQ just to get it over with. Took about 100 hours or so. Fallout 3 took me about 40 hours, and that was enough. Nowhere near finishing and not enough interest in that gameplay or flavour of world that I cared to see much more of it in NV or Fallout 4. I'm probably one of the 5 in 100 who isnt that excited for Starfield because of that.

Far Crys are too samey for me after 3, I liked 3 OK but never finished the campaign, no interest of more of that style in 4. Tried 5 more recently and still just doesnt gel with me. Assassins Creed shares that wide open world for the sake of it DNA and I find it uninspiring to play, at least Odyssey which I gave about 15 hours.

I loved Batman Arkham Asylum, played through Arkam City and lost interest in that style of Batman after that. Did play Shadow of Mordor and really liked it, but that game had other elements that were interesting than the straight out of Batman style combat

OTOH theres Metro 2033, Last Light and Exodus, I loved all of those, and you could say the first two games were very similar, and the third game was a wider world but still similar style. Love Dark Souls, have played all of them past completion into new game plus and second playthroughs, and if they release the DLC for Elden Ring I'll buy it day 1. The core gameplay isnt anything much different from Demon Souls really, I just like it.

Same story with the newer Wolfensteins, really like those. Pillars of Eternity is just an isometric RPG, but I like those so I dont care if the combat is basically similar to games from 25 years ago. Xcom 2 was just refined Xcom Enemy Unknown but I'd be excited to buy Xcom 3 if it came out soon, I like playing its clones like Warhammer Chaos Gate Demonhunters too.

Having said that I do appreciate fresh ideas, and I think its important to innovate. If I was just playing the same old games for the rest of my life I would get bored. Any formula need revising over or it gets boring.

That seems to be the case with Vampire Survivors. Although a relatively simple game, its gameplay was very unique and straightforward to make the game fun. To my knowledge, no other game before it did it's bullet-hell style gameplay the same way that it did.

I remember when it came out it got a lot of buzz, heard at that time apparently its a clone of an older Android game.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4il7VewjQBA

 

[Colif]

I am thinking especially about The Sims series.

You could make a nice profit remaking EA games into better games
Sim City - Cities Skylines

There is a precedent

some one needs to make a better Sims just to stop EA selling you an empty game next time and adding all the contents as DLC

Almost inspires me to start the thread, "which game features are you tired of?"

did you cause it would be a long list.
Kaamos mentioning Far Cry made me think of how Ubisoft do their maps, and how other games copy it... Redfalls ingame map only exists to be a barrier to progress. Clearing maps should be optional, not necessary to complete game.

 

[ZedClampet]

Some types of games I like OK for some time and then get bored of. Example Skyrim, I know people play that game over and over. For me I got max level in the skills I was into, explored without fast travelling most of the world and got bored before beelining the MQ just to get it over with. Took about 100 hours or so. Fallout 3 took me about 40 hours, and that was enough. Nowhere near finishing and not enough interest in that gameplay or flavour of world that I cared to see much more of it in NV or Fallout 4. I'm probably one of the 5 in 100 who isnt that excited for Starfield because of that.

Far Crys are too samey for me AFTER 3, I liked 3 OK but never finished the campaign, no interest of more of that style in 4. Tried 5 more recently and still just doesnt gel with me. Assassins Creed shares that wide open world for the sake of it DNA and I find it uninspiring to play, at least Odyssey which I gave about 15 hours.

I loved Batman Arkham Asylum, played through Arkam City and lost interest in that style of Batman after that. Did play Shadow of Mordor and really liked it, but that game had other elements that were interesting than the straight out of Batman style combat

OTOH theres Metro 2033, Last Light and Exodus, I loved all of those, and you could say the first two games were very similar, and the third game was a wider world but still similar style. Love Dark Souls, have played all of them past completion into new game plus and second playthroughs, and if they release the DLC for Elden Ring I'll buy it day 1. The core gameplay isnt anything much different from Demon Souls really, I just like it.

Same story with the newer Wolfensteins, really like those. Pillars of Eternity is just an isometric RPG, but I like those so I dont care if the combat is basically similar to games from 25 years ago. Xcom 2 was just refined Xcom Enemy Unknown but I'd be excited to buy Xcom 3 if it came out soon, I like playing its clones like Warhammer Chaos Gate Demonhunters too.

Having said that I do appreciate fresh ideas, and I think its important to innovate. If I was just playing the same old games for the rest of my life I would get bored. Any formula need revising over or it gets boring.


I remember when it came out it got a lot of buzz, heard at that time apparently its a clone of an older Android game.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4il7VewjQBA

This all just reminds me that what a game is depends upon what each player tends to value most. For instance. to me the recent Wolfenstein games were both exactly the same (not counting the terrible co-op game they made), but all the Far Cry games seem different enough to me. AC is kind of a mixed bag. It just depends on the individual player, I suppose.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

This all just reminds me that what a game is depends upon what each player tends to value most. For instance. to me the recent Wolfenstein games were both exactly the same (not counting the terrible co-op game they made), but all the Far Cry games seem different enough to me. AC is kind of a mixed bag. It just depends on the individual player, I suppose.

They outstay their welcome. 15 hours into Far Cry 5 or Assassins Creed Odyssey and I had enough and I knew things werent going to change substantially after that point. There was probably another 50+ hours each in those games just to finish the story. Wolfenstein games had very similar gameplay to each other but finishing the campaign in 3 of those took almost the same time as I took to get 3/4 of the way through Far Cry 3.

Funnily enough out of the latest Wolfenstein games, I only played New Order, Old Blood and New Collosus. I stayed away from Youngblood because everything I heard and saw showed they had changed up the formula to something I wasnt very excited about

 

[ZedClampet]

They outstay their welcome. 15 hours into Far Cry 5 or Assassins Creed Odyssey and I had enough and I knew things werent going to change substantially after that point. There was probably another 50+ hours each in those games just to finish the story. Wolfenstein games had very similar gameplay to each other but finishing the campaign in 3 of those took almost the same time as I took to get 3/4 of the way through Far Cry 3.

Funnily enough out of the latest Wolfenstein games, I only played New Order, Old Blood and New Collosus. I stayed away from Youngblood because everything I heard and saw showed they had changed up the formula to something I wasnt very excited about

I finished whichever Wolfenstein game was the short one and probably should have taken a break, but started up a full length game, made it a few hours and just couldn't take anymore.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

They're all kind of short, 10-20 hours. Also played them all years apart so no chance of fatigue.

 

[ZedClampet]

They're all kind of short, 10-20 hours. Also played them all years apart so no chance of fatigue.

I feel like 30 minutes would be a good length. Charge me a dollar.

 

[Pifanjr]

I feel like 30 minutes would be a good length. Charge me a dollar.

That's what Game Pass is for. If I still had the same amount of time for gaming as I did when I was a teenager I would've instantly signed up for Game Pass and just play as many games as possible, most of them probably for an hour or two at most. In fact, that's exactly what I did when I tried out the free month of the Google Play Pass.

 

[ZedClampet]

That's what Game Pass is for. If I still had the same amount of time for gaming as I did when I was a teenager I would've instantly signed up for Game Pass and just play as many games as possible, most of them probably for an hour or two at most. In fact, that's exactly what I did when I tried out the free month of the Google Play Pass.

That's pretty much how I use it.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

I feel like 30 minutes would be a good length. Charge me a dollar.

All killer, no filler.

Seriously though, if someone is a genre person then a game can probably be almost identical to another and they'd still enjoy it. Just depends on what it is you're a mark for.

 

[aganthastephan3]

If you've already spent the time to make the game, might as well complete the experience of putting it on Steam as well. You might even get a couple of bucks out of it. And it probably looks better on your resume to link to a Steam page than just claiming you made a copy.


I blame Steam for not having better filters.

In the video game industry, there are typically legal frameworks in place to protect intellectual property such as copyrights, trademarks, and patents, which can help determine the extent to which a game can be considered "too similar" to another game. However, even with legal protections, there may still be instances where the line between inspiration and imitation is blurred, and it can be challenging to establish clear guidelines for what is acceptable.

 

[Colif]

Games taking the names of other games and using them as a skinsuit... Fallout, Wolfenstien, Sacred 3. The original games weren't like the ones we play now, though Fallouts history isn't as filled with games as Wolfenstein. I just threw Sacred in as its the worst example. Others aren't as blatantly a rip off.

Open worlds should be optional, not a place to shove copy/paste quests like they do now. Shouldn't havee to do everything to finish game - Refer Sacred 2. You could finish game without seeing 80% of the map. Probably a good thing it has no achievements. They are the thing the make people believe they have to finish games completely. Must get Platinum or whatever. Its not like the achievements are real, once steam or Playstation is offline, just like NFT you are left with nothing.