Clones and originality awards

Adagio · June 28, 2003, 05:47

Don't you just hate it, when somebody makes a clone of a real good game, but also takes the originality award for it?

I remember having played a lot of Dune 2, a truly unique game, then C&C was released... it was a clone of Dune 2, except that they have ripped some of the good parts of Dune 2, but still it felt just like a very bad clone of this original game... The only thing it had, that was better than Dune 2, was the graphics (Dune 2 was a pretty old game at that time)...
I started playing C&C a little, but as I read in some game magazine, some "C&C clone" is on the way, I go like "WTF!!!", since that day I had really hated C&C and all it's sequels, for taking the originality award from Dune 2

I think I also once read, Dune 2000 was "just another C&C clone"

It's also the same with Scorched Earth (released 1995)... Scorched Earth is just a clone of Scorched Tanks (released 1994)... now why does everybody refer to Scorched Earth, when talking about this type of game? Scorched Earth was just another clone, so why does it get the originality award

Sure, you can play more players in Scorched Earth, but if that was what made it original, then they should have chosen Charr, which was released before Scorched Earth, but after Scorched Tanks. It had just as many players as Scorched Earth, but more weapons...
The only other reason I can find, is Scorched Tanks and charr was never released to the PC, as far as I know

DrSpike · June 28, 2003, 06:57

Hehe you really have a thing about the competition.

I agree about the Dune2 point though..........although I would say most knowledgeable gamers acknowledge Dune2 as the innovator.

Urban Ranger · June 28, 2003, 06:58

I wouldn't say C&C is a clone, it's more like an evolutionary next step. A clone is (almost) indistinguishable from the original, which isn't really the case with C&C.

Az · June 28, 2003, 14:32

C&C is in no way a clone of Dune.

St Leo · June 28, 2003, 14:35

A clone has to be from a different outfit than the original to be considered a clone. IIRC, both C&C and Dune2 are from Westwood.

I wish people would stop cloning War2/C&C and start cloning TA.

Adagio · June 28, 2003, 15:09

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
Hehe you really have a thing about the competition.

Not really, I just hate when somebody takes the credit of somebody else... Sure, both games are from the same creator (as far as I know)...

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
I agree about the Dune2 point though..........although I would say most knowledgeable gamers acknowledge Dune2 as the innovator.

I guess I have to find a knowledgeable gamer then... I only know very few people, who actually knows Dune... but they don't know Dune 2, only 2000

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I wouldn't say C&C is a clone, it's more like an evolutionary next step. A clone is (almost) indistinguishable from the original, which isn't really the case with C&C.

Evolutionary? In which way? Sure, it has some different graphics, different units, but that's not what makes games revolutionary... it even killed the uniqueness of the different nations/houses

Ok, by looking at the latest C&C, then you might be right, there's a big difference between that, and Dune 2... but we're talking about the first C&C that was released

Solver · June 28, 2003, 15:37

Rise of Nations anyone? When I first thought of it, it seemed nothing more than an Empire Earth clone...

Adagio · June 28, 2003, 16:57

Haven't played Empire Earth, but I haven't heard about anyone making a RoN clone yet...

Urban Ranger · June 28, 2003, 23:21

Quote:

Originally posted by ADG
Evolutionary? In which way? Sure, it has some different graphics, different units, but that's not what makes games revolutionary... it even killed the uniqueness of the different nations/houses

Evolutionary, not revolutionary. There's a huge difference.

For example. Civ is a revolutionary game, while Civ 2 is merely evolutionary.

Skanky Burns · June 29, 2003, 04:59

You say "merely" as though that is a bad thing. Most people prefer evolutionary. But thats for another thread.

Yes, C&C is much more famous than its predecessor, Dune 2, but many people remember it as being the first of its kind. Some even still play it to this day.

DrSpike · June 29, 2003, 06:07

I remember playing Dune2 on my Amiga and marvelling at the originality of it.

Adagio · June 29, 2003, 06:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Evolutionary, not revolutionary. There's a huge difference.

For example. Civ is a revolutionary game, while Civ 2 is merely evolutionary.

I'm still waiting to see what it changed...

Az · June 29, 2003, 11:29

You can select a whole bunch of units.

You build from a panel, not by clicking on a building and selecting.

Much richer maps and enviroments.

Completely different story.

Much better graphics,

I'd enjoy a game of C&C on LAN to this very day.

Different sides REMAIN. unless you didn't actually play the game. Sides are much MORE different in C&C than in Dune 2.

Adagio · June 29, 2003, 13:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
You can select a whole bunch of units.

Wouldn't call that a "big step", since it "had to come" anyway...

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
You build from a panel, not by clicking on a building and selecting.

Wouldn't call that evolutionary either, since it's not necesary a good step (For some games it's good, for some games it's not)

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Much richer maps and enviroments.

...and this credit should go to those who makes the computers... Computers at that time was much better than computers at the Dune 2 time...

There already existed games, that had much richer maps and enviroment...

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Completely different story.

There's a different story between Duke 3D and Redneck Rampage also, but RR didn't become evolutionaire...

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Much better graphics,

You do know there has been many years between the first C&C game, and Dune 2? If they had made Dune 3 instead of C&C, the same thing would have happened anyway, because graphic cards was getting better anyway...

Credit can't go to C&C for this one... and there was already games with just as good graphics on the market at that time anyway...

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Different sides REMAIN. unless you didn't actually play the game. Sides are much MORE different in C&C than in Dune 2.

I might be mistaking here, but as far as I remember, one of the first things I complained about, was the lack of difference between the nations... Sure, they had different stories/backgrounds, but in gameplay there wasn't much different...

The bottom line is:
I can't see how this game was evolutionary in any way... Computers got better, which gave more options, than there was at the time of Dune 2... and C&C wasn't the first game to use these new better computers in games...

Az · June 29, 2003, 13:54

I am sorry, but you just can't be pleased.

Maybe C&C was an MMORPG you would consider it "slightly changed an improved".

Adagio · June 29, 2003, 15:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
I am sorry, but you just can't be pleased.

Sorry, but I just can't see how it have changed the gameplay from Dune 2!!!

The little it changed in gameplay, has already been done in other games at that time anyway

Btw, when I'm talking about originality, I'm talking about gameplay, not graphics and such...

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Maybe C&C was an MMORPG you would consider it "slightly changed an improved".

If it was an RPG, I wouldn't use the word improved...

But let's just leave it here, we can't agree anyway...

Let's get back to topic... does anyone have anything to say about this topic?

Dauphin · June 29, 2003, 18:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Evolutionary, not revolutionary. There's a huge difference.

For example. Civ is a revolutionary game, while Civ 2 is merely evolutionary.

And some would say Civ3 was devolutionary.

Urban Ranger · June 29, 2003, 22:48

Quote:

Originally posted by ADG
Sorry, but I just can't see how it have changed the gameplay from Dune 2!!!

Sure, on the most fundamental level, all RTS games play the same.

Grab resources...build structures...build units...fight...repeat

Urban Ranger · June 29, 2003, 22:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch
And some would say Civ3 was devolutionary.

Let me at them!

Az · June 30, 2003, 03:58

Quote:

Sure, on the most fundamental level, all RTS games play the same.

Grab resources...build structures...build units...fight...repeat

Actually, this is true for all strategy games, generally.

Urban Ranger · June 30, 2003, 04:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

Sure, on the most fundamental level, all RTS games play the same.

Grab resources...build structures...build units...fight...repeat

Actually, this is true for all strategy games, generally.

Not the first two. 4x games (e.g. MoO), probably.

Besides, not all strategic games involve fighting.

Nubclear · June 30, 2003, 05:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Let me at them!

Wanna fight?

DrSpike · June 30, 2003, 05:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Let me at them!

We already had that argument. You lost btw.

Urban Ranger · June 30, 2003, 06:00

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
We already had that argument. You lost btw.

So you claim

Skanky Burns · June 30, 2003, 06:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Not the first two. 4x games (e.g. MoO), probably.

Resources = planets and people.
Structures = factories and missile bases.

Urban Ranger · July 1, 2003, 08:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Skanky Burns

Resources = planets and people.
Structures = factories and missile bases.

Have you too much to drink, Skanky? It seems that I agreed that 4x games sort play that way.

Alex · July 1, 2003, 13:36

clones... I remember when a brazilian company developed Outlive. It is merely a Starcraft clone, and I wonder if they could not have done anything different. I mean, if you like Starcraft so much and you want to create a game exactly like Starcraft just for fun, then do it, you just don't need to release it to the world and then pretend it is somehow original...

Anyway, that Outlive game managed to get a good review at Quarter to Three. I think the reviewer lost his Starcraft copy and was delighted to find another one.

Mahdimael · July 1, 2003, 14:34

I think a lot of people are stuck in the "genre" category- i.e. "We have to make a strategy game" or whatever. Games that defy the genres are generally the most fun- like Pirates! - is it an adventure game? Action? RPG? Well, it combines elements from those games, but it focuses more on just letting you be a pirate

Insigna · July 1, 2003, 16:20

Battletech 2: The Cresent Hawks Revenge

now that is original, almost RTS and made before dune II

Mahdimael · July 2, 2003, 11:25

Even better-
Herzog Zwei for the Genesis. That's the first one I can remember