As game developers (what of us are left anyway), we try to please our audience with a fun, entertaining game. Originality doesn't seem to matter. Fantasy RPGs have been overdone, and Final Fantasy still goes on.
But the games that really stir people up are innovative and free of cliches (which in actuality is near impossible. Proper use of liches can actually determine the success of your game).So I noticed something lately. Everywhere you look, we have fantasy RPGs (or RPGs in general), WWII/future FPSs, more recently retro games, etc. They're getting old. E3 put this into perspective for me when 90% of Sony's announcements were generic FPSs.Juju mentioned something similar with having a grassy area for level one.Also, being the Touhou addict I am (put aside the fact that I downloaded several more games), I looked up the guy who does the franchise. Turns out, he wanted to make a fighter. But fighters were very common back then. And just around that time, shoot-em-ups were becoming more popular, so he hitched a ride on that train and became very successful. VERY successful for an indie.And on top of that, he decided there was an underused game theme: Shrine maidens. Instead of generic "spaceship shoots bullets at other spaceship," he tried something new, and got a large fanbase not only in Japan, but in the Western hemisphere too.So I ask you this.What themes are underused in games?What game genres are underused?What settings are underused in games?Which of these combinations seems the most unique?Feel free to answer for yourselves, but I didn't come here without asking myself that. I've seen some people say that pirate themes are underdone, as are ninjas, and vampires as well. Steampunk/cyberpunk are pretty rare, as are contemporary games.So as (former) game designers, or those who feel they have the right to be extremely critical of games, let's hear your ideas on this.If you need a format, answer any or all of the questions, and explain your reasoning.Examples:Team Fortress 2 - Using cartoon graphics contrasts with every other FPS, and it's set in a more or less fictional setting, though based around a dystopic world in something about the technological level of the Vietnam War (not sure, later than WWII, at least).Touhou - Already explained it. Based around Japanese folklore, and opens up a wide variety of characters who aren't mechanical.NeoSteam - Some MMO that scrapped the fantasy idea and went steampunk.Mother/Earthbound - A modern day sci-fi RPG. Not nearly as common as fantasy ones. Instead of carrying swords, you use baseball bats and pretty much whatever else you can get your hands on. "Spells" are replaced by psionics and psychokinesis.Creatures - How many life simulation games have you played? Okay, now in how many of those were you taking care of only little microscopic creatures? Sure there's the Sims, but they're so goddamned stupid. Creatures has you taking care of several intelligent, evolving species, and maintaining the world that they live in. The unique thing is that, unlike the Sims, they can actually survive by themselves and won't forget to eat.Those are just a few. I'm sure you all could come up with better examples.
I want a proper city building game. Simcity 4 has its limits.
Overall I think simulation games aren't popular enough, especially life sims. Correct me if you know of more besides Creatures and The Sims.
Roller Coaster Tycoon ftw.
@Kilin/Ferret
Any Tycoon game, really, there's a hell of a lot of them.I said "life sims" specifically. Sure I said simulations in general, but RollerCoaster Tycoon isn't quite a life sim.
No, it's not.That would really depend on your definition of "Life Sims"; which to me would include virtually all of the Tycoon games. Games where more direct influence is placed on the subjects at hand, ie Sims or Creatures, yea there is a shortage of, I'd agree.
I also enjoyed the RTS game called Majesty, where you didn't directly control your men, but had to influence them to pursue your goals with rewards offered.By "life sim," I'm referring to where the lives of certain people/things are in your hands, and that's the main focus of the game. Basically it's realistic to the point of having animals in nature (if it's not Sims or something similar), and their deaths should have some sort of an impact (instead of "mass life sims" as I like to call them, where you take care of a million ants). Essentially it requires AI and an interactive environment of sorts, I'd say, and sometimes a goal such as prosperity.
My disagreement with you on the Tycoon games is that even though you're basically taking care of their lives (you can get people into roller coaster crashes and have them killed), I wouldn't consider that a "life sim." It's a park sim. Or something.If my definitions seem off, they probably are. I'm not feeling a hundred percent today.I'm also familiar with Majesty. It was a good game, very interesting how the heroes worked. I remember getting pissed at some of them for running away, while I loved how some followed others around (monk + warrior combo ftw).Also, are you remotely familiar with Creatures? Because that's probably the best example of a life sim I can give.This conversation makes me want to finish my own.Unfortunately, I've never heard of or played Creatures. I would probably play it, I give most simulation games a spin before turning them down. I can only pray its better than Sims, I can't stand Sims, although why I can't is beyond me.
It's because it's boring.
(The only thing I like doing in that game is getting unlimited money, building a huge mansion and burning it down with a huge family inside. Preferably the family is crazy ugly)Yeah, the only thing I like about Sims is the design portion. The rest is pretty boring.
For the most part, simulations tend to be pretty tedious. Once you explore the Creatures worlds, you're pretty much breeding to get supercreatures or something. Other than that, you have to be pretty patient to keep playing it.Creatures is also a pretty old franchise, so you know. Around late 90s or so, but very, very advanced mechanics.