So I got to thinking the other night about originality.

Is anything truly original? Limiting this discussion to StarCraft mapping, I guess I could say yes. Bunker Wars probably had some archaic ancestor. EVOLVES has probably evolved from something. There must have been an original Bound game. Someone had to think of Cat and Mouse first (no doubt inspired by Tom and Jerry, but heck, it's new to SC).

But as of late, I haven't seen anything truly original. Sure, there are all kinds of 'Ultimate' versions out there; Norm's Hero Sanctuary, which is making such a big hit, is a good example: Norm states in the threat that the goal is to achieve a level of balance never before reached in a DotA-type game. That's fine, and I'm reasonably sure that he's achieving his goal fairly well. But, it is not original. It uses the same format as all other DotAs that have gone before it, right down to the shape of the map and the number of additional bases. It's innovative in a few areas, yes; the vespene geysers are a new mutation, as are the specific storylines for each character and the item pickup system (which I love, btw). But it has its roots in TS and all other DotA-type games that have gone before. Please, don't take offense, Norm. I'm merely trying to point out the unoriginality of HS. I have great admiration for it as a single game; my point is that it has ancestry.

I find that very few games in this day and age are truly original. PearS recently started a Build-a-Mech-type game. That's been done before: Astrogears. Vanished recently posted a Bunker Wars map - obviously not original, though it does introduce some odd mutations on top of the basic skeleton of Bunker Wars maps. I've been trying to beat Cave Escape, by DeVouReR, for the past few days. I thought it looked pretty original, until I read his post:


Eh. So it isn't original.

Originality has also been my main problem in mapmaking, both recently and for the past few years. The only halfway-decent map that I've ever finished was a direct sequel to Crash IV Code Blue RPG (which sucks, by the way, don't play it). Mine was almost exactly the same, except that it was a little more complicated and had different hero classes and not so many bugs. I entitled it Crash V - The Matrix (don't ask). It was made entirely with SCXE, which I thought was pretty dang cool.

That was when I was thirteen.

I'm fifteen now, and I've learned a lot. I've learned that SCMD > SCXE. I've learned how to use DCs. Heck, I've even learned a little about EUDs. But still my old problem of originality comes back to haunt me.

Here's a list of projects that I've started and abandoned over the past two or three years:

• Lurker Defense ADV - Got it done all the way to balancing, then I realized that it was just one more Lurker Def in a sea of Lurker Defs.
  
  
• Rebellion RPG - Was going to be a single-player RPG. I ditched it when I realized... it sucked. In comparison to all the other RPGs out there, it sucked.
  
  
• Invasion RPG - Was going to have three heroes and three towns all participating in an RPG. Never really worked out.
  
  
• LvR_v1.0 - Pretty much a copy of Storm The Fort. Nothing to make it even the slightest bit original.
  
  
• Crash VI - Final Mission - Don't ask.
  
  
• Storm Defense - Some of you know about this one. I even started a Production thread about it. Then I found out that no, High Templar Defense had been done already. Sorry, and better luck next time.
  
  
• When Darkness Falls RPG - And some of you know about this one. I changed Storm Defense to this. Then it died.
  

None of those are even the slightest bit original.

And that's my entire problem - finding something that hasn't been done before!

<Insert Name> Survival? Done.
<Insert Unit Name> Defense? Done.
<Insert Naruto/YuGiOh/Pokemon> Golem map? Done.
Snowball Fight? Done. (Venerable old map. I really should dig it out and play it again.)
<Name> RPG? Done. (Maybe not the exact storyline, but the ideas? Yeah.)
<Name> Bound? Done.
Naruto <X>? Done a million times.
Bunker Wars? Done.
Sand Castle Wars? Done.
Castle Wars? Done.
Custom Hero Wars? Done.
Temple Siege/DotA variant? Done.

And the list goes on.

So it all comes down to these questions:
What hasn't been done?!?
Has it all been done?
Is there no more capacity for originality in the halls of SC?
Have all the books - even the stupid ones - been checked out of the library of ideas?

[Discuss]

For me, it's all about the originality and quality of execution, not the general idea. Sure, there are thousands of RPGs, but you can still make a good one without inventing the wheel or discovering fire.

It's the main problem everyone here has. Most things have been done and it is hard to create something new.
Most of my maps are based on existing maps.

My famoust map Random Bunker Defense is visibly based on Slot TD.
My Poker Temple map is based on Thormenteur's (I guess I misspelled him) Poker TD.
My unfinished and scrapped Starcraft-Maul map is based on "Maul" defenses in WC3 (which I played on LAN many years ago).
My Diablo 1 project which I gave up is based on Blizzard's Diablo game.
-> I have no originality.

The main problems that prohibits originality are the limited possibilities of SC mapmaking and the high difficulty of complex aspects (like I've wrote more than 60k triggers for Diablo 1 untill now).

Okay, I make a parallel between mapping and music.

Long ago, in 1968 Black Sabbath got together and invented Metal.

There are TENS OF THOUSANDS of metal bands now, but none of them had the original idea of Metal.


However, there are many original bands. Being original doesn't doing something that has NEVER even been closely resembled in the past. Originality can also mean taking something that is old, and changing it. For example: In 1985, Possessed invented Death Metal. They took something that already existed: Metal and changed it to make it darker, heavier, and with (at the time considered) demonic-sounding vocals. You can say that they weren't original because Metal already existed, but they WERE original because they added something new to the mix.

To be original you don't have to re-define something in it's entirety. You just have to have a unique take on it with fresh ideas, and an approach that isn't derived from a cookie cutter.

Yeah, I understand that originality doesn't always mean something totally new. But the question that I'm asking is if there really is anything truly new out there. Have we used all the ideas? Are we left with cookie-cutters and told to put our own toppings on the cookies, or are there any new cookie-cutters to be made?

It's not worth wasting time on if it doesn't try to do something worthwhile (edit: this is a completely redundant sentence ). I'd like to decouple 'worthwhile' from 'original' to some extent, though. Some concepts just can't go any further, and little is gained from trying to kick them into doing so. Other times there's usually a precedent. Like, not sucking at basic things like gameplay.

For instance, I have a killer secret concept idea I've kept on the backburner for little over a year now (not involving liftoff CCs or fucking dark swarms for a change, too! Imagine that!) that I probably won't touch at all if I can't even get a stupid little thing like a mafia map to work for a change.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 7 2009, 8:44 pm by Tuxedo-Templar.

There are definitely new cookie-cutters to be made, but only time will tell. If people could list new cookie-cutters off the top of their heads, there would be no need for this topic.

Obviously not. But you're certain that there are new things to be thought of?

One thing that I've been contemplating these past few weeks is whether we could make a list of new ideas for games that no one has tried yet. I've decided that would be unfeasible; no one really wants to give up their originality to other people, and the list would be too short to bother with. Even if everyone participated.

I'm going to make a new god damn cookie cutter if it kills me. See, I know my shit's (my current rpg) original because it's been beating me over the head with a large wooden stick for the past 2 years, and I don't know of any other map that has the ability to beat people with large wooden sticks.

Unjokingly now, what I mean is that I've put so much time and effort into the map so far, that even if it has some of the same parts as other rpg's (like, so many people compare my map to Death Knights 3 RPG that I should probably rename it from "The Tenebrous" to "Death Knights 4"), there is still so much that is mine and is different from the way that others have done things, even if it's still just an 'item system' or 'battle system' or a piece of terrain. If a map has 4 concepts, A B C and D, and each of those concepts are present in other maps, the combination ABCD could still be unique to your map too. It's sometimes not the concept that's unique (I mean come on, every rpg since Five Samurai has had building-cast spells) but the presentation of the concept or tweaking of the concept (Five samurai spawned 8 dragoons for a spell, your new spell might be extremely complex, involving a 2 second stun along with some sort of missile attack, ect). Get what I mean?

Yes, but those are just toppings on the cookies. I want an entirely new shape of cookie. =P

I understand that it won't always be so important to make a new-shaped cookie, but it's very important for me at this point in my mapmaking. I feel that the first map I'll ever finish is one that is truly original, and after that it won't be so hard.

New/original concepts are still there to be made. For instance, Lethal_Illusion and I figured out how to use the minimap to display an interactive 3D environment where you'd literally be able to move around in a 3d world. The idea was to make an FPS out of the minimap, and even make it two player (split screen). We never made it, however, (only drafted out how to make it) because it would've been a waste of effort (minimap is too small to be practical).

About a year and a half ago I released the very limited alpha of a map called "Time Down". It was an arena map where you could stop and reverse time. I stopped making it because it's generally too much for people to follow, I lost interest after I produced the concept I cared about (time reversal) and the gameplay sucked. The curse of perfectionism mandates me to tell you that the map is terrible and juvenile in triggering, and thus don't bother looking for it.

And the underlying principle of "Harm Detection" isn't new, but the proper application of it has yet to been seen. I should show you Illos, as well. It isn't mine to show, however.

I have a few ideas that are still new to SC mapping, and haven't yet been formulated into maps, because I don't really make time for maps -except my RPG. The ideas aren't system concepts, but gameplay mechanics. Though, even my RPG is being choked out by lack of time put into it.

There are still new things you can do, it's just that, I'd say most of them aren't worth the time to create.

I thought I had a decent idea for my RPG, and hopefully I'll get a playable and fun map out for the contest. My main goal is for my RPG to be fun. I think I went overboard on my triggering systems though.. At least they will be easy to add on to from here on out.

But of course, you don't need innovation to create a fun map, and I'd rather play a fun than purely innovative map any day.

Jeez.

Everything that's purely fun will eventually get boring if you play it enough times. You're left wanting something new - not necessarily something entirely original; that's been made clear; but at least an innovative variation on the purely fun things.

But once you've played those out, what are you left with?

It depends on what makes a game new. Choice is ingrained in humans. We love variety. This is why nothing lasts forever. We are constantly changing the world around us wether it is in small chunks or large hunks.

Take games for instance. the first game was prolly something to do with physical surroundings (maybe hide-n-go seek or hunting competitions). From there we have moved on to a set of objects (like chess). Then cards were invented comign up with a new type of game. Now we are in the video game age.

Everything is based of something else. Sometimes you have to take just a little piece of something and apply it elsewhere to come up with something people would consider truely original. This is why brainstorming is very helpful. Also when you find somethign that gives you an idea write it down you never know when you will need it later. I love games and I play many different kinds. I take inspiration from everywhere and try to keep a journal to keep track of my ideas for maps, board games, and other computer games. I have a couple Ideas but sometimes you need 3-4 pieces to complete an idea that would be fun.

Of course it is possible to be original. If you don't mind creating something "weird", it's perfectly possibly to be original without even having to resort to high-level triggering. If you're okay with a bit more complexity, then you'll realize that we've barely even scratched the surface of what Starcraft can do with a bit of "outside-the-box" thinking. For instance, it is certainly not required that a Starcraft-based game fit within the boundaries of one hosting of a .scm or .scx file; though we have had campaigns, which break that limit, since the very beginning, so little has been done in terms of exploring alternative boundary-breaking game structures. Just the other day, ws-Tank and I were discussing a plan for a 4x-style, turn-based game with support for well over 8 human players, using a mechanism not any cruder or harder to use than (and in fact, quite similar to) that built into some of the non-Starcraft games that we were inspired by. Trigger-wise, it wouldn't even be massively difficult to implement. The greatest part of the challenge is taking the first step outside the traditional limits.

So yes, it's certainly possible to do something that hasn't done before. It's not even required that you give up on the idea of a fun map, since there is so much territory yet to be explored. But the possibility of originality isn't really the issue. The real problem is this:

For the most part, if presented in anything other than the smallest degree of magnitude, originality is a negative.

I mean yeah, sure, for SEN, it's always nice to see a truly new idea. But having a map catch on and reach higher levels of gameplay requires a community of players; even a very fun map will stagnate and die if only a few people play it. SEN popularity-- of the creator, though, far more than of the map itself-- can help here, by getting you some decent players early in the map's life so that you're not trying to get good games with yourself and a whole bunch of idiots. Having other decent players increases the frequency with which random joiners will actually learn to play the map, through imitation, at a halfway decent level; then other players will learn by copying them, and so on. In my observation, how good a map is is generally less important to it becoming popular than it:

1) Having a great deal of initial support that then "seeds" a player community;
and 2) Having an initial creator, or other original host, who battle.net dwellers get along well with in game.

The problem with originality is that it prevents the accomplishment of both (1) and (2).

It prevents (1) because it is not merely the case that battle.net residents are too stupid to develop their own strategies and must learn by copying. Even their ability to imitate is limited to frameworks that they understand. In a defense map, for instance, they can learn that unit X is better than unit Y, and then infer to buy unit X and not unit Y. But put them in a totally new environment, and they don't even know what to look for in order to imitate. For a truly original, full-scale map (i.e. not a minigame), unless you have massive levels of outside support, the player community simply won't develop, because battle.netters will never pick it up from the "seeds".

It prevents (2) because a more original map will necessarily involve more specialized skills, which the creator will develop naturally as a consequence of designing and testing the map. The initial difference between the creator and joiners will thus be greater. One thing that battle.net players hate is losing; some of them will play a losing game, but only insofar as they see some hope of victory. If you have a great advantage in specialized skills, then assuming you're not the sort of slimy manipulator who will back down for the sake of popularity, there is no such hope. Even if you made a map, say, 5 years ago and have been practicing it ever since, battle.netters will still hate you when they lose on their first time. Hating you for beating them at an original map that they go into having no idea how to play is far from a stretch, for such "people".

In other words, having originality makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for a map to develop a community, and not having a community, in turn, makes it very difficult to have good games of the map.

No. There is still PvP-RPG, the closest thing to come to this so far is Where's Waldo.... yes that's how untapped this type of game is.(Tux's Mafia map might be actually, I'd have to play it first to say)

The trouble with a PvPRPG is that the story has to accommodate the possibility of one or more of the main characters dying. In different combinations. In different circumstances. And it introduces a ton of problems aside from the storyline that you have to deal with.

Anything else that hasn't been done?

You think this is a bad thing?
Again. And this really isn't that hard.
You don't have where/how they die make a difference, especially since you seem to like the easy way out of things.
What you call 'problems' I call possibilities for originality. I getting a vibe that you don't have any passion for game design.


Maybe you should change your criteria to "Something that hasn't been done before..... and is super easy"

Already taken. By me, when I finish The Tenebrous. Of course, the PvP part is only an option, the storyline allows for it but it isn't dedicated soley to PvP.