Message-ID: <3AC87DA3.27C44B4@csi.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 09:24:51 -0400
From: John Colagioia <JColagioia@csi.com>
Organization: No Conspiracy Here...
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en,fr,ru,es,it,ga,de,ja,gd,eu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Subject: Re: Games being forgotten (was: Nelson and Forman (was Re: Inform -
References: <zCs2IIA+pnt6Ewvl@ntlworld1.com> <3AC48EAB.D2022F8D@csi.com> <9a291602ig8@edrn.newsguy.com> <3AC5DDE7.4BDD039E@csi.com> <9a6qsc$odn$1@news.lth.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.34.37.104
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.34.37.104
X-Trace: excalibur.gbmtech.net 986217890 208.34.37.104 (2 Apr 2001 08:24:50 EST)
Lines: 55
X-Authenticated-User: jnc
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.icl.net!colt.net!newspeer.highwayone.net!newsfeed.online.be!zur.uu.net!ams.uu.net!nyc.uu.net!excalibur.gbmtech.net
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:84893

Magnus Olsson wrote:

> In article <3AC5DDE7.4BDD039E@csi.com>,
> John Colagioia  <JColagioia@csi.com> wrote:
> >Daryl McCullough wrote:
> >[...]
> >
> >> >Plus, it lets the really original stuff shine through, rather than turning
> >> >originality into a cliche, if you get my meaning.
> >> That's a great concept: originality, how cliched.
> >
> >Well, put another way (for those readers who are having major trouble with the
> >apparent contradiction), is that too many original works, and I start praying
> >for the next dungeon crawl.
>
> So you actually *dislike* originality?

No.  Just originality for the sake of being original.  Then you're still just going
through the motions, except that they're unfamiliar motions.  And it's usually
obvious in the prose when this is happening.

Uninspired originality, I guess, is what I'm typically bothered by--a nifty idea
which gets only a superficial treatment and could easily be transplanted back into
any "traditional" genre.

Mock-Example:  I write a game wherein "you play the part of a color, which needs to
interact with other colors, sounds, and smells, in order to save the universe by
learning to speak the Seven Holy Words."  Of course, having drained myself on
coming up with a nifty-sounding concept, my plot and storytelling go to pot, and I
end up with little more than a treasure hunt with "funny names," which means that
the game isn't original, but rather just the basic backdrop.


> I'd just like to state that when I wrote something about originality
> being overemphasized, I meant that people were judging games *only*
> on their originality - and often on *superficial* originality, like
> "mentions a dragon - unoriginal".

That's almost as bad:  Uninspiredly-original reviews...


> I think that a) originality is important, but not to the exclusion of
> everything else,

Exactly.


> and b) originality can be in the details; it doesn't
> have to be the first thing that jumps out and shouts "Look how original
> I am" at you.

And probably shouldn't, if it's impact you're looking for.  At least, in my
experience.


