Dude, don't worry at all – I'm loving this, and your replies are excellently thought-out and phrased! I really appreciate the good faith you're putting in me, because contrary to popular belief, I actually
don't hate everything for no reason. I just have high standards and give zero slack to people selling me things. To wit:
Again, I'm not saying that taking influence from games is in itself a bad thing, but I
do think that celebrating repetition, nostalgia, and previously-tread ground to the extent that the indie space does is absolutely stifling the medium's potential – especially when that indie space so eagerly touts itself as being somehow more "forward-thinking" than AAA games. I don't need every game to appeal to me specifically, but I also don't need yet another indie Metroidvania clogging up digital storefronts. I want something
different – something
new. (I'll get back to this point later in this post.)
dropsmegamega gave a great explanation for this, but I'd like to add my own, as well. Sonic is a game that, despite also being a 2D platformer like Mario, has:
- Completely different visuals (in terms of both art direction and colour palette)
- Completely different music (in both style and complexity)
- Completely different gameplay mechanics (from movement to power-ups to the "health" system)
- Completely different level design philosophy
- Completely different gameplay structure
- A completely different setting, aesthetics, and premise
- Completely different supplemental mechanics (through Sonic's bonus stages)
Sonic is a game that took inspiration the right way – it was directly inspired by Mario (the creator admitted as such), but it defined it's own unique, individual identity in every single aspect of itself. Lethal League did the opposite – it was designed
specifically to remind people of Jet Set Radio, or to capitalize on people who didn't know that Jet Set Radio was an existing game. That's the difference.
Compare
this screenshot and
this screenshot, then
this screenshot and
this screenshot. Doesn't the latter entry in the two pairs look more creative alongside the former, and more original? You don't even need to hear the music or see the gameplay in motion – you already know that one pair is more of a copy than the other.
I know, I know, I was being slightly snarky and overly-reductive in that thread for the sake of hilarious internet comedy. But isn't the fact that I could name not two, not three, but
ten different games that could all be described as "quirky indie Earthbound-inspired pixel art JRPGs" somewhat telling of how tedious these games are from a conceptual level alone?
Is "Earthbound-like" a genre? It might as well be, these days. If it isn't, though, I can't think of how it's anything but fair to criticize these games for unoriginality. (And that's putting aside the fact that some of those games absolutely do share gameplay mechanics, visual styles, and music – Toby Fox alone composed songs for at least four of 'em.)
Certainly not at all, but there are ways to make quirky RPGs that don't immediately identify them as being derivative of Earthbound. If Undertale were a full-3D game set in Yugoslavia that didn't use chiptune music at all and had the player character move around in first-person, I wouldn't be deriding it for unoriginality. (I would be deriding it for other things, but that's beside the point.) Good iterations on a genre define themselves as utterly distinct in all aspects, even when they take influence from previous titles.
This is the crux of my argument – I don't think innovation should be the
sole goal of art, but I do think that:
- Originality and creativity should be encouraged, nurtured, and celebrated, even when it's taking place in previously-established genres, and
- Yes, sometimes the wheel should be reinvented, because some level of continuous innovation is necessary for the growth and quality of the medium.
If we keep praising nostalgia and discouraging originality, the video game industry as a whole is going to stagnate, and games are – despite becoming more numerous – going to get worse. Many would argue that's exactly what's happening right now.
I think we can all agree that the most recent incarnation of the indie gaming scene – the scene that brought us Undertale, Stardew Valley, Metroidvania #71892, and many more indie games that draw excessively from older Japanese console games – is at least a decade old. And where has that gotten us? The 2020s are half-over – what's the big innovation from this decade? Have new video games really gotten better – was 2024 a better year for games than, say, 2004? What's been improved? If these modern indie games are really so progressive and influential, then I have to ask: What's gotten
better?
A game that came out in 2004 was Katamari Damacy, which was a game that quite literally no other game was even remotely similar to in any aspect of gameplay or presentation. Katamari Damacy is such an iconic game that, when you type it in on Google, you can literally play it on the results page. What's the 2020s equivalent to that? Where's the modern cultural equivalent to Katamari Damacy? Or Echochrome? Or Scribblenauts? Or Rez? Or Flower...?
Is there even one example? I certainly can't name one. But there are lots and lots of Earthbound-likes, and Metroidvanias, and farming simulators.
That's my issue with indie games.
Wonderfully put, RageBurner, and I fully agree with you. I know that, really – in my secret heart – indie games copy other games because that's what sells. BUT IT WON'T SELL TO ME
