Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Antioch]

Why is it that new games that derive from a game in a genre that has few other games in it are often labelled mere 'clones' (often with a negative meaning)?

While on the other hand we have genres that literally churn out hundreds of virtually identical games each year, like shooters football games or racing games?

It seems people will only accept games deriving from genre defining ones after there have been several other games doing the same.

Dwarf fortress also suffered from this badly. Every game derived from it was instantly branded a ripoff and now it seems to become less as more similar games are made.

[itisnotlogical]

I wouldn't call Dwarf Fortress a genre yet, there aren't enough examples. So, for lack of a better term, Dwarf Fortress clones.

It was like that with Doom: While there were certainly 3D games back then, they were few, far between, and certainly none were on Doom's level. Thus, first person shooters post-Doom were initially called "Doom clones".

So, when there isn't a name for the genre yet, the most easily-visible example is used instead to give a general idea of what the game's like.

[Antioch]

I wouldn't call Dwarf Fortress a genre yet, there aren't enough examples. So, for lack of a better term, Dwarf Fortress clones.

It was like that with Doom: While there were certainly 3D games back then, they were few, far between, and certainly none were on Doom's level. Thus, first person shooters post-Doom were initially called "Doom clones".

So, when there isn't a name for the genre yet, the most easily-visible example is used instead to give a general idea of what the game's like.

Yes but where does the negativity come from towards the first games to derive from those genre defining games?

[rubberduck]

Well, when I think clone, I'm thinking a game that copies another popular games gameplay, but does it worse. Extrapolating from that, it seems to be a blatant cash grab, trying to earn money of the popular games success, without bothering to try to improve upon or vary the concept. Any changes would be either because the original game performs some technical feat that the clone team is incapable of, or a feature that is thrown in haphazardly to try to avoid the clone reputation.

So say you have bejewelled. And somebody makes a game where the gameplay is exactly the same as bejewelled, down to the individual bonuses, but it has worse graphics and sound, and a cheaper price-tag. That is probably a clone. And it and the other fifty bejewelled clones are bloating the stores, without adding anything worthwhile to the gaming market, while stealing revenue from the people who came up with the idea in the first place. That is why there is a negative attitude.

Of course, not every game that is labeled a clone necessarily deserves that negative reputation. And there are edge cases. Take GTA vs Saints Row. Saints Row could be called a GTA clone. There are definitely similarities in the overall gameplay. But, Saints Row has a decidedly different tone, especially once you get into The Third and IV. So probably inspired by GTA, but not a clone, since it adds its own worthwhile twists and feel to the formula.

[IronyOwl]

Yes but where does the negativity come from towards the first games to derive from those genre defining games?

Same place it comes from with every game. If you don't like something and there's not a term for it yet, you call it a Doom knockoff. If you don't like something and there is a term for it, you call it a generic FPS, or call it a Halo wannabe anyway.

Some people also seem to have an aversion to copying in general, which is easier to claim when there's fewer possible sources to assume it came from, but I'm not sure if that's actually its own thing (waifuism, maybe?) or just another excuse to attack things they don't like for other, less expressed reasons.

[miauw62]

I wouldn't call Dwarf Fortress a genre yet, there aren't enough examples. So, for lack of a better term, Dwarf Fortress clones.

It was like that with Doom: While there were certainly 3D games back then, they were few, far between, and certainly none were on Doom's level. Thus, first person shooters post-Doom were initially called "Doom clones".

So, when there isn't a name for the genre yet, the most easily-visible example is used instead to give a general idea of what the game's like.

Yes but where does the negativity come from towards the first games to derive from those genre defining games?

Genre defining games are often extremely popular. Clones or early examples of the genre, whichever way you want to look at it, are often seen as uninspired money grabs, adding nothing to the genre and instead just copying the gameplay as closely as possible in an attempt to cash in on the popularity.

[Sensei]

I would say that a clone is usually defined by a lack of improvement, innovation or changes upon the game it borrows from, especially if the prior game was seen as new/inventive. I have also seen people use "clone" more neutrally on occasion, as in "It's like an X clone but with Y feature." For example I recall when Overlord was released, people called it a Pikmin clone (which is kind of was) but were okay with this because there hadn't been a pikmin game in ages.

[Neonivek]

A long time ago there were games that really were clones of one another... But that isn't important because they were usually... almost exactly the same

For the important deciding factor we have to go into the DOOM clones! and indeed Doom had a lot of clones of varying quality, many which are still considered great to this day.

Thus, first person shooters post-Doom were initially called "Doom clones".

No that is specifically not how it happened. What actually happened is that several games used the Doom engine and made a Doom-esk game sometimes with no alteration in the formula.

So... those Doom Clones? Yeah they were actually "Clones" they were created using Doom DNA. In fact you could swap them around if you really wanted to (and one Doom mod does exactly that)

This is also ignoring that many games outside of these copied Doom quite directly.

There were plenty of first person shooters at the time not given the Doom clone title. It wasn't the go to.

[Kruniac]

A long time ago there were games that really were clones of one another... But that isn't important because they were usually... almost exactly the same

For the important deciding factor we have to go into the DOOM clones! and indeed Doom had a lot of clones of varying quality, many which are still considered great to this day.

Thus, first person shooters post-Doom were initially called "Doom clones".

No that is specifically not how it happened. What actually happened is that several games used the Doom engine and made a Doom-esk game sometimes with no alteration in the formula.

So... those Doom Clones? Yeah they were actually "Clones" they were created using Doom DNA. In fact you could swap them around if you really wanted to (and one Doom mod does exactly that)

This is also ignoring that many games outside of these copied Doom quite directly.

There were plenty of first person shooters at the time not given the Doom clone title. It wasn't the go to.

No.

While you aren't wrong about "literal" clones, the term "Doom clone" was widely used during the 90s to describe games like Heretic, Duke Nukem, etc. It was a way of saying "First-Person Shooter", before that was commonplace, and held fame for quite some time.

Source: I was actively gaming during the 90s.

[Neonivek]

I was actively gaming in the 90s too.

and... Heretic yes was also a game that used the Doom engine.

[Kruniac]

I was actively gaming in the 90s too.

and... Heretic yes was also a game that used the Doom engine.

Duke Nukem is arguably more popular than Heretic and used the Build engine, along with blood.

Again, I'm only refuting your claim that "Doom-clone" wasn't a term used to describe FPS games which were similar to Doom, but rather exact clones which used Doom's engine/assets/whatever.

Regardless of the specifics, all games from that era will be "Doom clones", all games of our era akin to DF will be DF clones.

[Flying Dice]

I wouldn't call Dwarf Fortress a genre yet, there aren't enough examples. So, for lack of a better term, Dwarf Fortress clones.

It was like that with Doom: While there were certainly 3D games back then, they were few, far between, and certainly none were on Doom's level. Thus, first person shooters post-Doom were initially called "Doom clones".

So, when there isn't a name for the genre yet, the most easily-visible example is used instead to give a general idea of what the game's like.

Yes but where does the negativity come from towards the first games to derive from those genre defining games?

Genre defining games are often extremely popular. Clones or early examples of the genre, whichever way you want to look at it, are often seen as uninspired money grabs, adding nothing to the genre and instead just copying the gameplay as closely as possible in an attempt to cash in on the popularity.

This right here.

Most of the DF clones were lazy dumbed-down copies of the core gameplay concepts meant to make a quick buck. Notably, there are games which are inspired by and somewhat related to DF which aren't clones because they make an effort to do their own thing. Like Rimworld.

This phenomenon has been really visible in the whole survival-construction-shooting melange of late. DayZ got popular, suddenly ten million zombie-survival-shooters on large maps with random item spawns and shitty playerbases, ranging from literally unplayable garbage (WarZ) to mostly shit (DayZ standalone) to actually quite good (some of the ArmA III iterations of the concept, amusingly enough).

Minecraft is obvious, but yeah. Look how many crappy voxel-based survival-gathering-building games came out in the past few years. Look how few did anything even remotely original.

That's the gist of it. Someone has a good idea, or figures out how to combine several earlier good ideas, and then a bunch of lazy talentless hacks jump to be the first to cash in on the new flavor of the month. Like War of the Roses and that other one when people figured out that you could dumb down M&B into an arena fighter and sell it to CoD players.

[Shadowlord]

I remember seeing someone on this forum call Minecraft a "DF clone." (Years ago, IIRC)

[Cthulhu]

It's important to remember with the Doom Clone thing that the only Doom Clones we still remember are the ones that were good enough to stand on their own merits.

Duke Nukem, Wolfenstein 3d, Quake, etc.  But there were tons of straight up ripoffs too that sank into obscurity. 

There's the answer to the main question.  There's a lot of kneejerk hostility to games similar to DF on these forums, but there's also a lot of praise and enthusiasm for games that end up doing something good with it.  Rimworld is the most obvious example.  It's very obviously inspired by DF and wouldn't exist if it weren't for DF, but it has enough of its own ideas and flavor that nobody's gonna call it a clone, at least in a pejorative sense.

I don't think "doom clone" was necessarily a derogatory term anymore than "roguelike" or "dota clone," two more terms invented for emerging genres defined by a prototypical example. 

DF is pretty unique but I dunno if it's unique enough for "DF clone" to be a genre the way "Doom clone" or "roguelike" is.

[MasterFancyPants]

I wouldn't call Dwarf Fortress a genre yet, there aren't enough examples. So, for lack of a better term, Dwarf Fortress clones.

It was like that with Doom: While there were certainly 3D games back then, they were few, far between, and certainly none were on Doom's level. Thus, first person shooters post-Doom were initially called "Doom clones".

So, when there isn't a name for the genre yet, the most easily-visible example is used instead to give a general idea of what the game's like.

Yes but where does the negativity come from towards the first games to derive from those genre defining games?

Genre defining games are often extremely popular. Clones or early examples of the genre, whichever way you want to look at it, are often seen as uninspired money grabs, adding nothing to the genre and instead just copying the gameplay as closely as possible in an attempt to cash in on the popularity.

This right here.

Most of the DF clones were lazy dumbed-down copies of the core gameplay concepts meant to make a quick buck. Notably, there are games which are inspired by and somewhat related to DF which aren't clones because they make an effort to do their own thing. Like Rimworld.

This phenomenon has been really visible in the whole survival-construction-shooting melange of late. DayZ got popular, suddenly ten million zombie-survival-shooters on large maps with random item spawns and shitty playerbases, ranging from literally unplayable garbage (WarZ) to mostly shit (DayZ standalone) to actually quite good (some of the ArmA III iterations of the concept, amusingly enough).

Minecraft is obvious, but yeah. Look how many crappy voxel-based survival-gathering-building games came out in the past few years. Look how few did anything even remotely original.

That's the gist of it. Someone has a good idea, or figures out how to combine several earlier good ideas, and then a bunch of lazy talentless hacks jump to be the first to cash in on the new flavor of the month. Like War of the Roses and that other one when people figured out that you could dumb down M&B into an arena fighter and sell it to CoD players.

U h8ing on Chivalry boi?