Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

I recently got into and argument with some who claimed that the new COD was stealing its ideas from Halo. When i inquired how he claimed concepts like "future" and space battles were done in Halo Reach.

I disagree with that. There are tons of games that take concepts and ideas from other games.

For example, Darksiders is heavily influenced by God of War and the Legend of Zelda series, Uncharted takes a lot of its concepts from Tomb Raider, Titanfall is a mix of elements from Halo, Call of Duty, and Battlefield. And that's just scratching the surface.

But i never see those games get as much shit for it as COD does. So what do you thinks makes something a rip-off?

Edit: Im terrible sorry for this, i fucked up the title, and i wasn't paying attention and put the thread in the wrong category. Could a mod fix that for me?

Saying that the new COD is a Halo ripoff is like saying Star Wars is just a remake of Star Trek. They have similar elements, yes, and maybe the creators were inspired by the earlier work, but it is by no means stealing. Just because it's in space doesn't mean you're stealing from other space settings.

Where do I draw the line? Probably at fan fiction. When you are taking characters and entire settings, wholesale, out of one work and putting it into yours, without even recasting or renaming them, that's where creativity ends and fan fiction begins. Nonetheless, two works can have almost identical elements throughout, and still be entirely unique creations in my eyes. Take for instance the 1998 fighting game Plasma Sword.

Looks a lot like Star Wars, right? That's because it is. Or at least, it is heavily inspired by it. A lot of what's in Star Wars is in this game. The Force? They call it "Plasma Power." The Empire? That's here too. But its a great game nonetheless, and I consider the setting and characters unique. When you take a few elements from a particular work of fiction and add them into your own unique story you aren't stealing, you're being inspired. And that's a good thing. There isn't anything quite like a lightsaber, and if everybody acts like its the exclusive domain of Star Wars, then it will stay that way. The Plasma Sword series took a lightsaber and the force and did something fun with it, and I appreciate that a lot. Its not a ripoff.

You can't really have something that is 100% original without making purely abstract art. Maybe one or two very special things will be first seen in your work, but the entire work will be, for the most part, derived from elements that already exist in other pieces of fiction.

Original means that something is "unique", that something is "new". That something is not a clone of X, it doesn't follow X, nor is a derivated work of it. It may be similar to other ideas, and share tropes, but not downright the same.

For example, if all science fiction works showed humanity already established in space, and you made a work about humanity establishing in space instead, your work would be original. Unless another work did it before, in which case yours is technically not original, but you didn't know that.

Creativity means….pretty much the same thing, to be honest. Literally, the same thing. I personally add "not recycling the same idea over and over" to the latter, but that's just a personal addition.

For example, with CoD. "Modern Warfare", alright, cool title on it's own….but when they pick names like "Advanced Warfare" and "Infinity Warfare", it's just plain uncreative. So many names they could use, and they pick [whatever] Warfare.

Now, you mention how many other games take ideas and concepts from others. But you don't seem to realize, that just because they do, they are not necesarily uncreative. Look at Titanfall. It looks and plays like the typical military FPS….except that you can use not-Mobile Suits as well. Now, how many FPS let you do that?

Games that share ideas with another, yet play and feel different regardless, are also not uncreative, or at least, not to an untolerable extent. Tomb Raider and Uncharted, for example (the original TR games, however. Modern TR is more like Uncharted in comparison).

Now, an example of uncreativity: Sonic Shuffle, which is pretty much Mario Party with Sonic characters. The gameplay is the same, there are no original ideas in it, it rips-off Mario Party shamelessly.

Now back to CoD. Ever since MW1, the gameplay has been the exact same shit, same controls, same options, same weapons, same look, same everything. It was so bad the franchise got the reputation of "glorified updates" whenever releasing new games. Again, they're trying to change that, but too little too late for most, not in a good way sometimes, and the reputation is still there.

"But you don’t seem to realize, that just because they do, they are not necesarily uncreative. "

I don't think you read my post. And if you did, you didn't get the point. I was saying the borrowing concepts and ideas from other games is not lack of creativity.

No idea exists in vaccuum. Everything concept that exists in this world only exists because it built off ideas and concepts that were established before it

"Ever since MW1, the gameplay has been the exact same shit"

No it hasn't

"same controls"

Well i would expect a call of duty game to play like a call of duty game, i don't see how using the same controls mean the game never changes. I guess Ace Combat, God of War, Infamous, Prototype and multiple other series that use a similar control scheme across all its titles lack creativity too.

"same options, same weapons,"

That is so not true its funny. I'm starting to doubt that you've played that many Call of duty games

"same look,"

What, you mean in terms of Graphics? Also not true, The Black Ops Series and the Modern Warfare series, don't look the same, similarly Advanced Warfare and Ghosts, do not look the same.

"I don’t think you read my post"

Yes I did. But all you say in it, is basically "new CoD gets shit thrown at it for "stealing" ideas from Halo, yet many games do the same and I never see them get as much shit, if any, thrown at them".

If that's not what you meant, then fix your words. Not my fault you didn't word it better.

"Ever since MW1, the gameplay has been the exact same shit”

I meant exactly what I meant when I said that, and if you think it's not a fact, you either have only played a handful of CoD games, or are just a moron.

The weapons, always the same, not counting DLC. Alternate options like weapon upgrades and killstreaks, always the same, with maybe a new one or 2 in the next game. Graphics, all CoD games look the same unless you compare games many years apart. MW2 looks and feels just like MW3, while CoD3 doesn't look or feel like MW3 does.

Then again, I guess I should congratulate them for not focusing on graphical improvement. Though, since everything else is literally ripped off the previous game, I end up wondering just what do they focus on instead? Maps, maybe? Cause I don't see what else.

When people say all CoD games are just a glorified update of the previous one, they're not exagerating. They had barely more changes in-between than each FIFA or Madden game did. Hell, the biggest addition the franchise ever had was the addition of Nazi Zombies.

I do admit they have been getting better since BO2 however, when they finally admited it, and started to remedy it. Truly new weapons, upgrades and killstreaks, some even creative compared to the rest available, if also OP at times.

An original idea for the campaign: Multiple endings based on your choices, multiple ways to finish levels, not to mention choosing your weapons before each level. And a change to the Nazi Zombies level design that made them feel new without being completely different. Following games have followed it's steps, with varying success.

But it's reputation has been present for decades, so despite all the creative improvement, it still gets some shit thrown.

"Alternate options like weapon upgrades and killstreaks, always the same, with maybe a new one or 2 in the next game"

Ah, So MW3 only had 2 or 3 more killstreaks than MW2 did? BO1 had only 2 more killstreaks than World at War did. Because when i played them, they had more. A lot more

I've played Every main Cod since Cod4, and no, i'm not a moron.

I can name plenty of games that felt very similar to their predecessors

Halo 2 and Halo 3 felt very similar to me. But Halo 3 was more improved, had more content. The same can be said for MW3 and MW2 seeing as though MW3 included entirely new game modes and streak systems.

I don't see those as being glorified updates.

"and no, i’m not a moron."

If you need to clarify it….

"I can name plenty of games that felt very similar to their predecessors"

Then do it. But bear in mind, 2 things: 1-Whether they are part of the same franchise & sub-franchise, and 2-For how long has said franchise been guilty of it and to what extent.

You mention Halo 2 and 3. Let's count the not-minor changes:

1-Forge Mode (the big one).

2-Customizeable armor for both Spartans and Elites in multiplayer.

3-More vehicles, about 6 (technically 7, but one is just an alt. warthog).

4-More weapons and equipment. Specifically, about 11 new weapons and a half-dozen new equipment (like bubble shield).

5-Player 2 now uses Arby instead of a Player 1 Character clone in Campaign mode. Player 1 always uses Chief.

6-In Halo 2, only 1-2 of skulls could be found outside legendary. In Halo 3, all can be found outside legendary (but never in Easy).

7-Some skulls affect your campaign score.

8-Custom Game Types, giving you a great amount of freedom. You can alter movement speed, shields, give everyone active camo, deal higher damage, take less damage, make vehicles indestructable, can't pick weapons up, and many others.

Now, the not-minor differences between Modern Warfare 2 and 3:

1-Can get killstreaks by doing more than just killing (though in most modes, that's the one thing you'll do 90% of the time).

2-About 4 new killstreaks.

3-Killstreaks divided between Assault (classic, powerful), Support (Not reset by death, kinda lame), and Specialist (get perks instead).

4-New game modes: Survival, Team Defender, Kill Confirmed, and on private matches: Infected, Team Juggernaut, Drop Zone, Gun Game, One In The Chamber, Juggernaut, total: 9. Players can customize game modes, but to a severely smaller extent than in Halo 3 (though it does have some creative stuff, like a TPS mode).

5-Hybrid Scopes.

In total, Halo 3 has about 8 additions compared to Halo 2, while MW3 has about 5 compared to MW2. Do note that I did not include some changes for either being expected, or minor. These being:

-Better graphics.

-Different campaign.

-Bug fixes.

-Different soundtrack.

-Different multiplayer maps.

Things added via DLC were ignored for both games.

(Also, if you wonder about the wait between your post and the response: Power went out).

Socom 1 and Socom 2
Socom 3 and Socom Combined Assault
Assassins Creed 2 and Assassin's Creed brotherhood
Ace Combat 5 and Ace Combat Zero
Uncharted 2 and Uncharted 3

I think this debate should be ended, the more and more i look at it. The more i realize how subjective it is. What you view as different and unique is different from the way i see it. So we're are probably not gonna agree, or significantly change each others minds on the issue.

"Nothing Under the Sun is New"
- possibly paraphrased Bible quote

Pretty much every single idea, trope or cliche is used to the point where originality is no longer defined by their mere inclusion, but their execution and context with other conventions, especially in comparison to their contemporaries. For example, most recent anime seems to have a bent towards Moe, leaving the More shonen work (Attack on Titan, Boku no Hero Acaemia) or those that used it only as a mask for the real story (Madoka Magika) could be seen as original or creative, because they are more unique then their peers.

The same applies to other contexts as well. The Final fantasy Franchise relies on their self-contained installments and since VII, changes to Gameplay. XII, plays like a pseudo MMO, XI and XIV actually are MMOs pre and post-WoW eras, VIII took leveling out of the equation, XIII and its sequels became closer to Action RPGs an XV is an Action RPG. All of these games try to creative and original, whether to their detriment or success.

I have a different take on Fanfiction then Syndic though, as those can at least be used to explore ideas the writers cannot do themselves and the line between fanfic and canon blurs over time in certain media (especially comic books). But I say I draw the line at stories that are nothing more then a mess of cliches with no attempt to deviate from the standard use of these cliches (or in other words, very generic and bland stories).

Originality died a long time ago mate.

Influence is the way things move forward, hence how games of similar genres are becoming so similar now through aspects such as aesthetics and mechanics.

In the gaming industry, I feel we have a long way to go until we really run out of ideas, but as I say, FPSs for example are automatically similar through gameplay and so the idea can become stale, requiring influence from similar sources (i.e. futuristic tech like in Halo and the latest CoD games, even Battlefield).

People harp on CoD because it is popular and people don't like the elements within it. They see similar stories, tropes, and ideas constantly being reused over and over in the game series. In the same way CoD is a clone of itself every time, Mario is in a similar situation. Almost every main series Mario game is the same as the previous ones with only minor touch ups. The fans of Mario may agree that this happens but they will defend it because they like the core ideas and mechanics of a Mario game so they don't want it to change.

CoD's fanbase on the other hand is regarded as toxic and filled with annoying children. So when you hate the fanbase and don't care for the game, it becomes easy to start noticing patterns and growing to hate those patterns whenever a game is released.

People just don't like CoD and will look for ways to constantly trash talk it even if the game itself is at least halfway decent. The newest CoD has some shared elements from Halo: Reach, but plenty of other science fiction games before Halo had these kind of elements to them. But people like the Halo series (at least 1-Reach). So they forgive it borrowing elements from other games and ideas.

Originality never died, it never existed. People have constantly been reusing the same tropes, ideas, and story elements from the very beginning since story telling began. What people want is for creative retellings of these stories and slight twists on these old Tropes.

CoD, Mario, Civilization, Assassin's Creed, and plenty more series all reuse their older elements to keep fans around. They don't try to experiment anymore because so much money gets poured in and nowadays one bad game in a series can sink your company if you don't have the money to back it up.