USING SYSTEMS/FEATURES/CORE CONCEPTS FROM OTHER GAMES?

Posts

Pages: 1
Adon237
if i had an allowance, i would give it to rmn
1743
Recently I have gotten into playing RPG Maker games, and less into making them. Some games I play blatantly use systems, features, and/or core concepts from other, most often commercial games. (This doesn't include fan games, that are supposed to do this) Some games use Final Fantasy 8's draw spell system, or some individual actor inventory's like Suikoden(i might \be wrong on which game that is), Final Fantasy 7's materia system, Final Fantasy 10's sphere grid system, etc.(other notable examples that aren't final fantasy)

Sometimes I cringe when I see their use, like WHY are you using that? Sometimes it feels okay, the feature or concept was implemented well, but it still feels like something is odd.

My question to all of you is that do you think the use of another game's system/features/core concepts is acceptable in games? More specifically RPG Maker games? Do you wish that games wouldn't use the age old systems like Final Fantasy's ATB, Sphere Grid, Materia, Draw/GF system, or countless other things from other games?
meisam
meisam your not using semicolon properly, and that's a laughing matter.
0
The only important thing is how that feature is implanted. even random encounter

Edit: I must add using very complicated systems is a big mistake, it's almost impossible to balance them, for example sphere grid is a very complicated system witch need a lot of testing to make it meaningful. since we don't have final fantasy resources to test such systems it's a lot better to avoid them.
Trihan
"It's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly...timey wimey...stuff."
3119
I think if the system in question fits with the rest of the game, is implemented well and actually adds value to gameplay, it's absolutely fine. What I don't agree with is adding a particular system just because there's a script for it or it was cool in the original game.
I think it's mostly used for familiarity and to draw from nostalgia. I've seen games where they use features from older games just to say they're using them and it works because that's all people talk about when they mention those games.

And trying new things requires time and testing and you run the risk of people simply not liking it or not really wanting to understand what you're trying to do. I saw it happen with a pretty good tactical battle system that used a lot of new ideas well, but people just kept badgering the creator to add features from other games like Disgaea, FF Tactics, Fire Emblem, even when the suggestions made no sense at all and they wanted them in because other games had them.

Short version: Use of old system/ideas allows you to bypass the human nature of being adverse to new things.
meisam
meisam your not using semicolon properly, and that's a laughing matter.
0
TDS is right,
but what cause this? people don't want to give too much attention to a RPG maker game (is it because most of them are free?) why everyone learned ff1-infinity systems but don't like to learn a thing from rpg maker game?
there is 2 reason:
1- there is always a faqs/ guide for popular game, some people are too lazy to understand a system.
2- popular game polish their system through visuals.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5236
Uh using things from other games is what makes your game approachable to players, who generally don't want to have to get a PhD to understand a new game. It's also what makes it possible to refine your game instead of going in blind, because you are perfecting things rather than just trying them. It's also the definition of a genre - genres are defined by what elements the games have in common. It's also done by every single commercial game ever made, without exception.
meisam
meisam your not using semicolon properly, and that's a laughing matter.
0
huh? I don't get the genre thing, there was a time that RPG was about killing things and customizing your character/ Shooter was about shooting things and finding new weapons/ adventure was about doing random things to make a another random thing happen.

now everything is mixed, there is no definite genre anymore, Shooter use rpg and adventure features, RPG (so called) use items to increase the player power
genre is not a definite thing and can be changed anytime, I can say there is no genre at all. every game use every feature they like then brand it rpg-shooter-strategy-simulation-adventure-crap genre
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5236
No, that's stupid.

Having experience points is part of the definition of the RPG genre, but having experience points by itself doesn't make you an RPG. The key is what your game is about.

Think of it like this. An action movie can have a few scenes with romantic tension in it. It can have a bunch of one-liners and a comic relief character. It can have a character go through a life-changing moment. But those things don't turn it into an action-romance-comedy-drama movie. It's still an action movie. The movie isn't about those things, they're just there to create a little wider appeal and to help break up what would otherwise be a single 90 minute long car chase. Action isn't the only thing in the movie, but it's the primary element that people come to the movie in order to experience, and it's the core that makes the movie what it is.

Game genres are similar. A game can have shooting in it but not be a shooter. You can play Metroid Prime, and despite the fact that you are shooting things from a first-person interface, you instinctively realize that this game is not the same kind of game as Halo. The shooting isn't what the game is about. It's a lesser feature. The game is about adventure. But the shooting serves a specific purpose in the game, and they needed something serving that purpose to make the game feel complete, so they borrowed the mechanic from other games. Nintendo took something from other games that worked well, and they used it in their own game, in a different context, because it was exactly what their own game needed to be complete.

This is okay. You can do this. It doesn't make you a bad person. I promise.
There's really no reason to nitpick whose copycatting who. Usually someone who emulates an existing system will add their own flair, further growing the RPG tree whose roots originate from text VGs and tabletop D&D.
Adon237
if i had an allowance, i would give it to rmn
1743
LockeZ and Dyhalto, your points make sense to me, but I think I am putting more emphasis on directly applying the system to your game. Of course RPGs will have features in common. Though your points probably apply to that too.

Thanks!
meisam
meisam your not using semicolon properly, and that's a laughing matter.
0
@LockZ you make a example of 3 scene in a movie against using a mechanic in a whole game? game mechanic define a game, you can put 3 shooting minigama in a game and it won't make the game a shooting game, but if you use shooting (I mean action oriented not shooting with ATB) as your main mechanic of dealing with enemies, you can't say its not a shooting game. Similarly If a movie is about both romance and action it become a action-romance.
I think RPG is about choices but I know a lot of game that don't even give the player a choice and most people call them RPG, they used all known RPG elements like exp - multiple character - weapons/magic. but story is linear, skills are fixed, you can only use the best equipments, how can someone call such a game a RPG (even a shooter game let you chose btw multiple weapon type). In the end it's the player that define what kind of game he is playing also developer says the otherwise.

anyway, as I said before there is no problem in using other game core system (as far as GF/draw concept) if it's appropriate. using them just because it was in another popular game (even for a nostalgic part of it) is very wrong even if you name it ff8-2, because you are missing the point ff8 (or any other ff) wasn't about their system it was about innovation and how to apply that innovation.

note that Innovation is not only about finding a new answer, it can be about how to use the old answers in a better ways.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5236
author=Adon237
LockeZ and Dyhalto, your points make sense to me, but I think I am putting more emphasis on directly applying the system to your game. Of course RPGs will have features in common. Though your points probably apply to that too.
And I'm saying that's the same thing. There is no difference between what you're talking about and what I'm talking about. You are imagining the difference. You think there's a difference between "common" and "unique" systems, but there isn't. The "common" ones are just formerly unique ones that got copied a lot of times.

@meisam: The genre argument is pretty unrelated to this thread. But if you're interested in game design you should watch this Extra Credits video on how genres of games are better defined by core aesthetics than by traditional methods and then also watch this one about combining genres. The second video is more approachable, you might want to watch it first even though it briefly mentions the first one.

then just watch every episode of Extra Credits because those guys are way way way smarter than you (or me) and they have some utterly incredible insights into game design
Adon237
if i had an allowance, i would give it to rmn
1743
author=LockeZ
author=Adon237
LockeZ and Dyhalto, your points make sense to me, but I think I am putting more emphasis on directly applying the system to your game. Of course RPGs will have features in common. Though your points probably apply to that too.
And I'm saying that's the same thing. There is no difference between what you're talking about and what I'm talking about. You are imagining the difference. You think there's a difference between "common" and "unique" systems, but there isn't. The "common" ones are just formerly unique ones that got copied a lot of times.

Oh, I understand now! Yeah, I was putting a huge divide between common and unique features, but because at MY first glance, they appear to be different.

So based on what I read out of your opinion, (know i have terrible reading comprehension) you think that using another games system is okay as long as they add something to it, and that process has been going on since the first RPG and has created the genre?

edit:

i love these extra credits episodes! :D
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5236
Yeah, that's a good way to put it, I think. A genre, especially a sub-genre like tactical rpg, gets defined gradually over time by lots of people using the same ideas in similar ways until players can point at a game and say "oh, it's one of those games."

At one point, the RPG genre wasn't even a genre, it was just Dragon Warrior and Ultima, both of which were taking 75% of their systems from Dungeons & Dragons (though they each picked a different 75%). Then Final Fantasy came along and was like "Hey, Dragon Warrior invented this unique system where you alternate between going to towns and dungeons, and the towns are made up of different kinds of shops and other helpful places for you to get supplies, and the dungeons are mazes full of random battles with a boss at the end. That was a really good idea, let's copy that. And the thing of controlling a whole party that takes turns with the enemy based on a character's speed... that's good too, we can copy that. And Dragon Warrior's idea of getting new armor and weapons in each town that you have to buy with gold you earned from monsters... that works really well, it makes the player feel like he got a big upgrade, let's use that." Those were all original concepts from Dragon Warrior! FF1 unapologetically copied them wholesale. (It's likely Dragon Warrior had copied them in part from other games that I'm not familiar with.) But then it also added enough new stuff and changed the way the things were presented enough that the end result was a different game, and a really good one (for the time). It wasn't just Dragon Warrior with different dungeons and graphics.

Then Breath of Fire copied those things too. And then Lufia did. And Mother did. And then by the end of the NES era no one doubted that a game that used those things was part of a genre of games, now called JRPGs.

Similarly, FF4 invented the ATB system, and at the time it was a unique system that only that game used. Megami Tensei's system of capturing enemies was its defining feature. Specializing your characters through a tree of talent points was Diablo's invention. At some point, features like item synthesis systems, weapon and armor upgrade systems, stealing items from enemies that you can't otherwise get just by beating them, gathering materials from dungeons for armor crafting, and learning skills from equipment through AP were all things that existed in only one game, and that game was really proud of its original new system that worked surprisingly well - so well that it got copied by everyone and is now considered generic.

This is okay. This is how we progress to making better games. We use what we've learned from other games instead of reinventing the wheel.

Ideally, however, we study those games to understand why their systems work, instead of just copying them blindly. It's okay to use a system that works like a sphere grid, but it doesn't fit in every RPG. Or even most of them. Make sure you're using systems because they add something your game is missing in a way that works well with the rest of your game, not just because FF10 used that system and you liked FF10.
kentona
I am tired of Earth. These people. I am tired of being caught in the tangle of their lives.
21227
In an attempt to inject a brief interlude in long posts, I'd just like to say that is where I start when I make a new game - taking 2~5 system ideas from other games I've enjoyed/played/read about and blending them and tweaking them (and then taking plot ideas from book(s) or movie(s) I've enjoyed to make a story). This is like my recipe for gam.
author=Adon237
My question to all of you is that do you think the use of another game's system/features/core concepts is acceptable in games? More specifically RPG Maker games? Do you wish that games wouldn't use the age old systems like Final Fantasy's ATB, Sphere Grid, Materia, Draw/GF system, or countless other things from other games?


To me, it doesn't really matter whether it's acceptable or not, though if RPG Maker games do use another game's systems, at least have originality in them. Like maybe several deviations that make a game stand out over another. That's all that matters.
Pages: 1