- Joined
- Jan 10, 2025
- Messages
- 2,841
- Level up in
- 2159 posts
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 15,607
- Points
- 6,077
- Location
- Overworld
I definitely think it's good practice to not do it, and I guess part of the professionalism you're talking about. I never try to mention influences when I talk about stuff I like unless it comes up naturally. It's easier when you talk about stuff you dislike though, since it sort of gives grounds to tear something down. Like I said I have a real hard time justifying buying games if the description mentions a classic they're inspired by (though I made an exception for Lunacid lately)Funnily, I was taught this in business school, too, but in the real world, it simply isn't true – especially in software, you see people describing their product as "IT'S LIKE AIRBNB FOR CARS!!!" all the time. How they get away with this without being massively sued is a mystery.
Though I disagree with your stance on unoriginality=quality (to simplify it greatly), I too have a point where I just sort of have to put my foot down because something appears way too derivative. Bomb Rush Cyberfunk was like that because I don't think it tries hard enough to look unique, and instead looks LITERALLY exactly like Jet Set Radio Future. If it took inspiration but molded it into something that looks more like its own thing I'd be way more interested in it.
Pizza Tower is a way better example, because while you can clearly feel that it was inspired by Wario games when it comes to gameplay, there aren't any Wario games around, and it does enough with its gameplay to justify this, and it does something COMPLETELY unique with its visuals. Regardless if you think it's an ugly game or not, the style and atmosphere is, so far, wholly unique, and the art could even be described as provocative since it's so "ugly", and I think that's something worth appreciating, EVEN if "it's just Wario Land" (which it isn't ;))