Ever come across another game just like the one your making?

Hello,

I was curious if anyone else ever came across another existing game or game project that is super similar to the game your working on? I don't mean copycats or copyright infringement, I mean a straight up coincidence. I ask because I recently came across a game in the same genre with a very similar name as the one I am working on... I'm not really worried as the game is still very different and neither of us could have taken any ideas from each other, but its a bit annoying.

 

I could have swore there was a thread like this like two weeks ago.

You might just be the guy who had the same idea as him.

 

I just find out where they live and kill them, then delete all their files.

 

This thread has turned dark quick... lol

 

Yeah, it's pretty common. Partly because a lot of us all have a lot in common and thus have similar influences, and partly because it's super easy to find similarities between things if you're looking for them.

Even with all of that, often the play experience of both of the "similar" games will indeed be pretty different, so it's not something I'd worry about too much. In fact, if you can be on friendly terms with the other developers it could maybe even be cool to help promote each other's games - people interested in one are likely to be interested in the other, they're probably different enough that "better" isn't really a consideration, and chances are you've both got limited marketing reach you need to get the most out of...

 

Every single time. I go halfway through my project, find something very similar and abandon it. I just ... give up.

 

Why?

 

Well I don't really like making games which already exist. I have a strange obsession for making original games with original ideas. (Or Atleast a game which is not similar to an existing game). It's just feels wrong.

 

I could continue asking "why", but I won't.

Point is, as I said earlier, similarities can be drawn between virtually any two things if you look for them. The fact that similarities exist doesn't mean that there aren't also meaningful diversities, and anyone who claims otherwise (as is often done with games!) is either missing the point or deliberately trivialising the work of others.

Movies are a great example of this. There are many, many action movies which follow more or less the same template, but nobody feels bad about making yet more of them. White House Down is pretty much Die Hard with the most significant change being "it's set in the white house" (and all other non-trivial differences being derived directly from that), and it's not the only action film to follow that kind of formula. Filmmakers don't seem bothered by this, and moviegoers are perfectly happy with it (myself included, I enjoyed both movies). For that kind of brainless entertainment that movie worked really well, and I can't imagine too many audience members shaking their head and walking out saying "this is just Die Hard with better effects" because... that's exactly what we wanted?

So, two questions:

1. Would White House Down have necessarily been a better movie if it were more different to Die Hard?

2. Would it have been possible to make White House Down such that it wasn't recognisably similar to any prior action movie?

I'm not saying that we should all make games based on a "prior successful game in different setting" formula. But I am suggesting that taking something that we already know and is familiar to our audience and adding a meaningful change or two can be just as effective as holding out for some elusive, completely original idea where you have to start from scratch.

 

You should just be thinking to yourself "How can I make it better?".

 

There's a huge misconception about (beginner) artists, that originality is important. It's not.

If you're original, you will alienate your players. They don't want originality!

What players are looking for is similarity. They want things that "trigger" something they already know, in a new way.

Ideally these things come from a different medium.

 

I agree with you, but I'd go a step further. I do think games should be made on a successful formula. The question really is, what is the "bare bone" of the successful formula. What is the structure of the game. The rest can be changed, maybe mixed with other successful game formulas. Bringing the same thing in a new light.

 

Not really. It does share similarities with some things from the 90's. But I chose something from a not quite as popular genre.

Anyway, there will always be similarities. That's not a bad thing. If a game is too far off the beaten path there is less of a chance of success. As others have said, people are drawn to something familiar.

And as time goes on, it's going to become tougher and tougher to come up with something truly unique and still be playable.

 

I think AngryPenguin made some good points. And finding a similar game certainly does not stop me from making my game(s). The thing is when I see a similar game I immediately think:

1. is this guy/gal gonna say I stole his/her idea?
2. are people gonna think I stole his/her idea?
3. are people going to accidentally download his/her game thinking its mine?
4. Are my ideas not as original(awesome) as I thought?

Don't misunderstand my last point, I mean original within reason, not to the point it alienates player.

 

I was making this game:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.yorkgamestudio.superpogo

Then I made I little research:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.koolgamez.pogo

Thank God I found that it was different from what I was doing.

 

I agree that a lot of games should be made on a successful formula. The programmer in me wants to highlight that my original statement was about whether all games should be made that way, which I think would cripple creativity. But where it does work I think it definitely should be done that way.

When I start designing a new game there's normally some idea or concept I want to explore. To maximise the impact of that idea or concept I want everything else to be as approachable and acceptable as possible. For instance, if my new game is about safe cracking I don't want to introduce some new locomotion system that's unfamiliar to players unless it somehow directly ties in with and supports the safe cracking aspects of the game - otherwise it becomes a distraction, because it's something that users have to overcome before they can even get to the core of my game. Why would anyone want that?

Anything that doesn't directly facilitate the core unique aspects of a game should be as similar as possible to what users will already expect.

 

Happens all the time. One of my prof's in university has ties to Dreamworks, Pixar, Disney, EA, and a variety of other large names. He had some great stories about how things change in the industry and everyone uses the same ideas. Ice Age, Madagascar, and Happy Feet somewhat swapped storylines and the tone of how serious/fluffy they were -- one of them was supposed to be a lot more like the Lion King. In fact, even their release planning was completely turned around. Same thing happens with games. A friend of mine was an animator on Brother Bear and that movie got completely changed because of competing studios that did projects that encroached on its original territory, so the execs changed its target date and shifted the theme slightly. It ended up getting released later than originally planned too.

When you go to make a game, just make it your own. Put your style and creativity in it. While you might see the similarities between your game and someone else's, others might not. In fact, unless the only difference between your game and someone else's is that your's just looks like a re-skin of someone else's game, most people are going to think (and the game will play) different enough that it feels different.

 

It doesn't cripple creativity, it cripples originality. It's only your ego that feels inferior, because you value originality too high (probably society, that has no idea about artists, does that).

It is much much harder and more "creative" to work with set of limitations that you give yourself.

I think your example with the safe game is great. That's exactly how I mean it.

 

I kind of disagree. The entire idea of being "formulaic" means that you're being deliberately less creative. Take the safe cracker game idea. I could have got to that by saying "I want to make a game like Metal Gear Solid, but with one difference... so I'll add safes which need cracking". Is that creative? A little, sure, but a huge amount of my game was defined by that before I even got to the unique bit. I didn't pick Metal Gear because it provided a good base for a safe cracking game, I picked safe cracking because it was a minor deviation from Metal Gear. Then the fact that I'm making a Metal Gear clone essentially drives how I'll end up designing my safe cracking, instead of the other way around.

On the other hand, if I had a real desire to make a safe cracking game and needed other stuff to flesh out the rest of it, I could (for instance) decide "right, so it makes a lot of sense to have stealth mechanics on top of this" and go the Metal Gear or Splinter Cell or Hitman routes. Or I could decide it should be a tactical game about managing a squad of bank robbers. Or... well, a variety of other things. And I'll pick something different based on what I want to emphasise about the safe cracking.

See where I'm coming from?


But yes, I agree that there's a difference between "creativity" and "originality" and that the latter is hugely overrated amongst creatives. I get the honest impression that most of our audiences don't care though, because if they did they'd surely be far more discerning about it and not be so satisfied with sequels.

Ever heard of the fear of a blank canvas? I honestly think it's far easier to work with limitations. As soon as I start picking limitations my designs get significantly clearer and questions start answering themselves, because there are often a set of clearly optimum answers derived from the limitations.

 

I had a fully featured Minecraft ready but Notch beat me by one day so I didn't bother releasing

Seriously, I often gain inspiration from games i enjoyed but wanted to improve but I feel mine are unique enough and I haven't ever felt there is something the same as it available.

 

I did not mean taking a game like metal gear solid, changing one thing and call it a day. That's cloning it. I'd call this almost "fanart". ;-)

What I mean is take the formula of metal gear solid. The abstract layer of it, and change everything around it.
Unfortunately I haven't played metal gear solid, but by formula I mean something like (just an example):

The player needs to collect certain objects under time pressure. There will be opponents that, if they hit him 3 times he will lose.

That's a very basic formula. Now you could make a safe cracking game with this formula:
The player has to find the clues on how to open the save, before the alarm goes off. There will be moving surveillance cameras, if he's seen by 3 of time, he will lose.

The art style could be completely different as well, something that suits your preference or your game. Maybe it's pixelart 2D.

One could also make a more casual game:
The player has an (abstract) map in front of him, split into squares. Under time pressure, he has to lay open one piece at a time (only one or a few are ever open), to find the pieces he needs to open the save. There are obstacles, if he lay's open 3 of them, he looses. The obstacles should be somewhat visible with the pieces covered.

Getting this to work is hard.. but you've got a proven pattern, that people like and you know is going to work.

That is how I meant it.

I never have a fear of a blank canvas, I have too many canvases I'd like to start.
Having a fear of something doesn't mean it's harder. It's more like an obstacle (can be lack of knowledge, drive, inspiration...)
What I mean by hard is "thinking hard and changing all the time". It's harder the more you know, the more limitations / guidelines you set yourself.

 

I know, I'm not disagreeing, I'm just expanding on the discussion.