Track7 INTRODUCTION!

[Bad Sector]

And its a name that if you talk about it, people can get the clear picture on what our game kinda looks like. Regarding it being like tomb raider, basically we are not original?

Well, that's the problem you have when you try to give a clear picture on your game based on the fact that another very popular game can give to others that clear picture: it makes your game looks like a clone of that other popular game. It's so common in gaming industry to see small and unknown companies to copy (make clones of) big successful games that, like it or not, people will think that your game is a Tomb Raider clone. I don't say that it is a TR clone or not. What i'm trying to say is that by comparing it to TR, you're making people think that it is (or it may be - because the comparison can be done in the first place).

Think about comparing Quake 3 with Unreal Tournament, for example. One can say that these two games are the same because they're both multiplayer first person shooter games. However, the gameplay in both is very different and targeted towards different FPS gamers. Moreover, Quake 3's levels are very abstract and have a technogothic style, while Unreal Tournament's are a little more realistic and have a futuristic style.

They were different, but the people at Epic decided to avoid any comparison with Quake 3 both because their game was different than Quake 3, but more important, the Quake franchise and the id Software name was way much bigger and known than Epic (who before Unreal was making 2D pinball games for DOS) at the time they were developing it, and they didn't wanted people to believe that Unreal Tournament was just a Quake clone.

Which is logical if you think about it: if the games know that game A is a clone of game B, then why buy and play game A when there is that game B which is so great to make others invenst in making a clone of it? They will buy game A instead. The only reason to do so is that they already own game A and have played it many times, got bored of it and all it's possible extensions, expansions, sequels, prequels and whatever else game B's authorsmay think to produce in order to keep these gamers in their franchise.

This is why the PR people at big game companies are always saying that "our game is so innovative, you won't believe it - it just sets grounds for everything following" even if their game is as innovative as creating a new circular transportation facilitation device (wheel). They simply don't want gamers to think that "our game is a clone of XYZ". They don't want references to any game. They dislike it when people ask them to compare their game with someone else's game and they have a reason to do so: they want gamers to buy their game instead of that -usually known and successful- XYZ game.

And here goes another example: SPORE. Have you ever saw or read anywhere that any gamer compared SPORE to anything else saying that "this is like <something>"? I haven't, but even if you have i bet everything that the volume cannot be compared to the volume of people saying that Unreal Tournament is like Quake 3, or to the people saying that Worms is like Scorched Earth.

The reason is that SPORE is a truly innovative game that looks like nothing else and the people behind it didn't even tried to make others avoid comparing it with something else. However, UT look like Q3 and Worms look like SE and the gameplays are very similar.

Think that, even if the companies do not compare their games with others' and even if they try to avoid that comparison, the gamers will compare it and they will say that a game A is a clone of game B, even if there are differences, as long as both games have many similarities. Now think what would happen if the author of game A actually compared it with game B himself. People are very happy to make quick conclusions and the easiest of them is that game A is a clone of game B. By comparing it, you just help them to make that conclusion.

From what i've seen, your game no matter how innovative is, it is not as innovative as SPORE and it has elements that will drive people to not only compare it with Tomb Raider and similar games (you did it by yourself), but also to conclude that it is just a Tomb Raider clone. In fact, only by viewing the screenshots you game, someone in an IRC channel said that this looks a lot like Tomb Raider.

By having Tomb Raider as the only game that looks like yours in people's mind, will actually make them believe that if it looks a lot like Tomb Raider, it will be like Tomb Raider.

Again, giving another example, think that at mid-90s, all first person shooter games were called "Doom clones", even if they were very different than Doom itself (System Shock comes to my mind), only because they looked like Doom:

Doom clone is a term used to refer to a computer game with similar gameplay as the 1993 first-person shooter Doom. That is, the player explores a three-dimensional world seen through the eyes of the protagonist, and uses various weapons to kill usually monstrous enemies. Due to the widespread popularity of Doom, many games that featured a similar first-person gameplay style were compared to it, usually unfavorably. During the 1990s, most such games were generally considered to be merely clones of the original Doom.

(from the Wikipedia article on the term Doom clone - read the text in bold font)

I think i gave you enough material to think about comparing your game with Tomb Raider (or any other game) :-).

[track7]

Well Bad Sector,i'm sorry you got the impression that it's a clone when in fact it's not, i guess people will take it as they want to take it, and i'm sure your mind will change when you eventually get to play the demo and decide for yourself. Best Regards

[koyima]

it is common pratice in the game industry to borrow elements from other games
working on an idea and improving it is the way everything (everything in the world)
is made u don't invent the wheel again and again

i think that demanding a completely origianl idea from a company just starting out, is not
fair, ea makes sequels, upon sequels and they r the biggest company

(spore: i have heard and seen that spore is something betwween
sims and civilization, the idea is not new the concept of it being
from cellular organism to complete civilization is what is new,
which is an extention on an iexisting dea
basically it reminds u of an rpg, where u evolve ur character through gameplay
so don't bet ur life on spore's innovation (also an ea game))

theseis has elements of magic and fantasy tomb raider never had, it is
mentioned:

creatures from the greek mythos presented as never before (not tigerss and grunts),

u also have 2 playable characters with different abilities (magic plays an important role in the game),

a storyline (which means playable dialogue and plot twists, where tomb raider is: take me to the next level to shoot stuff),

a new inventory system where objects r manipulated in 3d (not present in any adventure i know of)

vast diverse cast of complex and evolving characters (which means emotions (complex) and emotion driven decisions)


the comparison to tomb raider is only to communicate visually what the camera and controls feel like
ur imagination didn't allow u to make a picture where graphics r changed by ancient magic,thousand year
old mechanisms r put to work and creatures appear to destroy or help u(some of them never seen before)


pretending u don't have common elements with other games isn't the way to go,
i prefer honesty, obviously u would like track7 to say:"our game is so innovative, you won't believe it - it just sets grounds for everything following".

he is modest in that respect, when u r new in the industry, u don't go around saying u r the best, u let others decide
(that's why they pulled down a video saying something about the future of adventure)