"It's just like [insert game title here]" is a common reaction to many video games these days, and often used as a criticism, as if this comparison automatically makes the game in question less than what inspired it, and never mind the things that are unique to that game - soundtrack, visual style, story, characters, etc. In the minds of many, the game that did it first did it best, and all else is a pale imitation. The success of a video game - perhaps the most prominent recent example is Dark Souls, which has spawned its own "Soulslike" sub-genre - will often spawn other games with gameplay that is practically identical, and whilst a cynic may see this as a developer attempting to cash in on what was clearly a good idea, if it's a good idea, does this really matter? How important is originality in video games to you? Are you put off by "clones" of popular titles, or can you find enjoyment in any game as long as it's good at what it does? Is it more important for a game to be its own original identity, even if that idea is a "bad" one that won't measure up to other titles with similar gameplay in the genre, or for it to have good, functioning gameplay - regardless of whether or not it is practically identical to other, more recognisable games?
For me, there's not much that's "original" any more. But as long as a "clone" is out there, I only care about what's different between the "clone" and the "original". For example, take Survivalcraft. Compared to Minecraft, there are few differences - heck, the crafting recipes are all the same, even though they shouldn't! It has an extra element of being marooned on an island, and more realistic textures, but aside from that, it doesn't present anything new to the table, so I'd say it's a clone. Now, take Kirby and Mario Odyssey. There are plenty of differences that make Odyssey different from Kirby, despite both being a platformer that requires you stealing the power of enemies. Mario is built around being 3D and mostly works around crazy parkour combos you pull off, while Kirby relies on being a more combat-focused system than having to time jumps just right. The two games share a common genre and a similar "quirk", but they are very different in terms of presentation. Other games with similar ideas but different presentations include things like Angry Birds and Tiny Wings. Games that are clones include Candy Crush and nearly everything else King makes. (Don't judge the fact that I know too many mobile games for my own good.) But please don't talk to me about Super Box Maker.
In truth, as special as originality is, even I, an author who uses dreams he has, can't find any pure originality to put into a story, much less a game. In 2018, most games have already pushed through and found all the plot and game ideas. While some have added to this, usually fusing about four or so games together into a single "special" variant. While this is a good idea, it kind of brings down if they don't use it properly. Subnautica would be an exception since, well, it was it's own variant of survival, and had a great story that greatly separated it from other games. But then you look at Fortnite and PUBG. While both battle royals (I know I could include Black Ops 4, but I won't), they each have very variable art styles, and gameplay. Fortnite's not a clone, but a special variant. Geez, I feel like an idiot because I don't play games. But, well, that's all I have. Originality is great, but it's not entirely possible now. You just have to see the great and differences in games for it to really be its own. Sure, some are blatantly obvious to be clones, but try to look at the differences, and see if those outweigh the similarities.
I don't care about lack of originality as long as the final product is good. On the Souls-like example, how about Salt and Sanctuary? "It's Metroidvania Dark Souls. That's the best way I can describe it." "That sounds pretty formulaic. Is it any good?" "It's one of the best things ever! A steep and mostly steady difficulty curve, plenty of original lore, tight gameplay..." Unoriginal doesn't mean it's bad. Like Outer Worlds, when people tell me it's "Classic Fallout, but FPS In Spaaace", my ears perk up in a good way. A good project can be a lot like another good project; it's shameless ripoffs that give it all a bad name. "It's like Dark Souls, except really bad." But the difference there isn't the originality, it's the quality.
I think most of the game and story structures we can create as a species at our current state has been made in some way. We just haven’t seen all of the possible combinations or variants. The concept of a “protagonist” has been done many times before, but the number of ways you can write them is infinite. The same applies to game design.
Originality is not what people play games for. People play games for fun. To that end, originality could be fun, but for the most part it isn't the contributing factor. Its the game play that makes a game fun to play. No one's going to play a game with a good original premise, but the game sucks, (just look at anthem). I like to think about Star Wars Battlefront 2 2006, this game is considered by many to be a great game, yet its the most unoriginal game ever. Its a Star Wars game, completely unoriginal, but fabulous none the less. Originality can be good, but the game has to be good before the originality can benefit the game.
I'll start by saying that I hate the phrase "It's the dark souls of ____". Definitely becoming an overused phrase across the interwebs. With that being said, there have been many fantastic "clone" games over the years. There have also been many fabulous "original" games as well. I believe both can be great. Clone games often attempt to build upon the positive aspects of others. Clone games can be a drag if they aren't original, such as a couple of the Call of Duty games (most of them give at least decent changes). Original games can also be terrible too, considering the designers often don't have a lot to go off of.
