Can we please stop complaining about Originality

[twaddle]

I'm sorry to say this but to quote Sherlock Holmes quoting another fellow
"There is nothing new under son. It has all been done before"

There is truly nothing original left in the world. Every time we make a game we use the phrase "It's like..." for a reason. The truth is certain trends will alway come full circle and if we find out that cycle we can take advantage of it in life. That's the way it is when it comes to fashion, games, relationships, even history in time. Just find the patterns

 

[similar.squirrel]

Does 'Man vs. Man' encompass a man battling with his own psyche? Or would that fall under the category of 'Man vs. Nature'? Or 'Man vs. God/Religion'?

 

[BonsaiK]

There are 7 plots and that is it.
They are as follows:
1 - man vs. nature
2 - man vs. man
3 - man vs. the environment
4 - man vs. machines/technology
5 - man vs. the supernatural
6 - man vs. self
7 - man vs. god/religion

7 plots... yes, that's right and they are..hm..mmm...wait-a-minute... that's not the seven plots!
Where did you find this? Seven plots to action movies (games)?

In theory you're right, there are seven, just not the ones you mentioned.

Here are the seven plots.
1. The Quest
2. Voyage and Return
3. Rebirth
4. Comedy
5. Tragedy
6. Overcoming the Monster
7. Rags to Riches

Not sure where you found your (incorrect) plots.

Well, that's according to Christopher Booker and there's no reason why his version is necessarily any more correct that the OPs, or anyone else's. Of course, worthless junk site TV Tropes treats Booker's "seven basic plots" as the gospel truth, but in more reputable media it's certainly been called into disrepute quite a bit:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2004/nov/21/fiction.features

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

Is "man" is being used in the figurative sense? So Man v Alien is counted as Man v Man right?

Being a pedant I would change God/Religion to Deities/Ideology. That way you include the whole "man spots the society he lives in is wrong" type of plot. Also it would include fighting against higher/lower powers that aren't necessarily Gods.

 

[GotMalkAvian]

Okay... Here's an example of what people mean by "originality" and why OP's post doesn't even begin to address with issue...

The movie Terminator was released, therefore tapping the "man vs. machine/technology" plot archetype (I know the Terminator series wasn't the first, but it's a good recent example). Then The Matrix was released... Oh, I guess there were still some original stories left to tell within the "man vs. machine" framework, after all.

My basic point is that, within any given archetype, there are still innumerable stories to be told. Sure, they may all fall within one of the seven archetypes, but that's almost like lumping all of sci-fi together.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Well look at music - there are only seven notes in music but depending on their arrangement you get original compositons all the time. Just because there are only a few base scenarios for storytelling to take doesn't limit their possibilities one bit.

 

[Belated]

Actually, there's just two kinds of plots: "Going on a journey", or "A stranger comes to town". At least, if you don't mind simplifying things a bit.

Now, I do believe that there's no such thing as originality anymore. Every story that can be done has been done in some form or another already. There's only repackaging things with different art, different settings, and mixed up character archetypes. But while there's no story you can tell that won't resemble another story, there ARE stories you can tell that aren't told often enough. And there are still combinations of character/setting/art/story that haven't been tried yet. And there are also stories that can be told better than how they were originally told.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I get what you're trying to say but at this point, 'Man' should be changed to 'protagonist' since at this point in time, you play as many more things than man (like my Elves, Dwarves, Androids, Women and, Deities of Rock...etc...)

But anyway: these people are inserted into those seven basic plots and into those plots are mixed B and, C plots (in TV and movies anyway: Games will sometimes give you Z plots if you count side and companion quests)

I guess it could be argued that intermingling the 7 above plots could form new plots. A common means of extending story involves going in order. Look at Final Fantasy, those go from Vs. Man to Vs. Nature to, Vs. Self to, Vs. God in the course of their narratives.

 

[Astoria]

Well some say that there's no such thing as an original thought anymore and I have to say I think it's true. You're pretty much not gonna think of a new idea, just a new way of expressing that idea.

 

[Fetzenfisch]

Also, women.

I figured you of all people would avoid the obvious joke on "man vs whatever" of saying something in place of man. Man is a catch all term for the story telling tropes.

"Man" isn't considered a "catch-all" these days, and in fact hasn't been considered such for several decades. In the childlike fantasy world that people who contribute to TV Tropes inhabit, they're probably not up to speed with developments in language and culture (or choose to ignore them out of the kind of willful ignorance and stupidity that is typical of that site), hence the propogation of this myth that saying "man" when you're actually referring to both sexes is an acceptable practice. It is not. This is not recent - it has not been for a long time. It's the 21st century and we simply don't do this stuff anymore in western society. It wasn't even acceptable in most of the latter half of the previous century. Therefore it's very appropriate to pass comment on such instances when they occur these days, because it's such a startling anachronism. It would be like driving down the street and seeing someone in front of you driving a Model T Ford. Sure, Model T Fords have a certain charm, but their day is gone, and therefore it would be difficult not to make a comment when you saw one.

And where and why shouldnt it be acceptable? AFAIK its still a linguistic fact that man="human beings in general; the human race" Its just as sexist as the terms Dog or Cat. Everything else is pseudoscience rubbish.

 

[JustOrdinary]

It is truly a pathetic day when I can refute an argument about unoriginal stories with 'Borderlands'.

Newsflash: Certain games have stories that don't revolve around conflict between two archetypes. There's plenty of games exploring themes of exploration, self discovery, and capitalistic ventures. Which category of yours does Animal Crossing fit? What of freakin POKEMON RED, where villains are merely subplots to the overarching plot of becoming the overall 'best there ever was'? Dozens of Racing/Sports games certainly lack your precious villain archetypes too, but every so often one includes the threadbare framework of a story (one ignored often, but still there).


Besides, everyone knows stories get rehashed fairly often. Every batman game to date has had the same Hero vs X number of super villians as the basic premise. But Arkham Asylum was the first to present the game in such a satisfying new light, adding a gorgeous amount of polish to a worn-out story.

We clamor for originality because it gets tiring to see the same formulaic pattern game after game. Its why sequels get backlash for not improving on old concepts. It's why 'franchises' like CoD are seen as repetitive and boring. It's why Silent Hill 2 is one of the most celebrated games today, despite having mediocre gameplay watering down the experience.

TL;DR

OP's list is inconclusive. He's missing a few story types. Also, originality of story can also refer to a newer presentation of an older concept. OP seems to be aware of this already, so I guess he was arguing semantics only.

 

[BonsaiK]

Also, women.

I figured you of all people would avoid the obvious joke on "man vs whatever" of saying something in place of man. Man is a catch all term for the story telling tropes.

"Man" isn't considered a "catch-all" these days, and in fact hasn't been considered such for several decades. In the childlike fantasy world that people who contribute to TV Tropes inhabit, they're probably not up to speed with developments in language and culture (or choose to ignore them out of the kind of willful ignorance and stupidity that is typical of that site), hence the propogation of this myth that saying "man" when you're actually referring to both sexes is an acceptable practice. It is not. This is not recent - it has not been for a long time. It's the 21st century and we simply don't do this stuff anymore in western society. It wasn't even acceptable in most of the latter half of the previous century. Therefore it's very appropriate to pass comment on such instances when they occur these days, because it's such a startling anachronism. It would be like driving down the street and seeing someone in front of you driving a Model T Ford. Sure, Model T Fords have a certain charm, but their day is gone, and therefore it would be difficult not to make a comment when you saw one.

And where and why shouldnt it be acceptable? AFAIK its still a linguistic fact that man="human beings in general; the human race" Its just as sexist as the terms Dog or Cat. Everything else is pseudoscience rubbish.

Don't take my word for it. Take that worldview into an interview for a government or academic job, and see how you go.

 

[Fetzenfisch]

Don't take my word for it. Take that worldview into an interview for a government or academic job, and see how you go.

The only thing that counts for my job is a philologist's stance and for that the symbol "man" and the associated content of that symbol is clear.Go to the library, check the Oxford's, there you go.
Or to take a more modern linguistic approach, take a notepad and a pen, go out there and ask 10.000 people what definitions of "man" they know and you got a representative and empiric bit of data about the meanings the symbol contains at the moment. (like in "Children of Men" ""In the year 2525, If man is still alive" and whatever other pieces of literature to be found)
Everything beyond this is not science but politics, which is in only little connection to the truth.

 

[BonsaiK]

Don't take my word for it. Take that worldview into an interview for a government or academic job, and see how you go.

The only thing that counts for my job is a philologist's stance and for that the symbol "man" and the associated content of that symbol is clear.Go to the library, check the Oxford's, there you go.
Or to take a more modern linguistic approach, take a notepad and a pen, go out there and ask 10.000 people what definitions of "man" they know and you got a representative and empiric bit of data about the meanings the symbol contains at the moment.
Everything beyond this is not science but politics, which is in only little connection to the truth.

So what you're saying is that because your employer doesn't require you to think about these things, then you don't think about them?

I'm pretty sure that in the dictionary, when you look at "man", the idea of "man" representing a "male" comes up. Let's check:

1.
an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.
2.
a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex: prehistoric man.

Note which definition is number 1 and which definition is number 2.

 

[Fetzenfisch]

Don't take my word for it. Take that worldview into an interview for a government or academic job, and see how you go.

The only thing that counts for my job is a philologist's stance and for that the symbol "man" and the associated content of that symbol is clear.Go to the library, check the Oxford's, there you go.
Or to take a more modern linguistic approach, take a notepad and a pen, go out there and ask 10.000 people what definitions of "man" they know and you got a representative and empiric bit of data about the meanings the symbol contains at the moment.
Everything beyond this is not science but politics, which is in only little connection to the truth.

So what you're saying is that because your employer doesn't require you to think about these things, then you don't think about them?

I'm pretty sure that in the dictionary, when you look at "man", the idea of "man" representing a "male" comes up. Let's check:

1.
an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.
2.
a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex: prehistoric man.

Note which definition is number 1 and which definition is number 2.

The one that is used more often.
Like red is 1) a colour 2) a name.

But thanks for supporting my argument.

My employer needs me to be a philologist. A scholar of anglistics. And the methods used to define a symbol are very clear.
In mathematics you cant change a result just because superstitious people could be repelled by the number 13 either.
Language is a tool of politics, but they dont have the authority to change it however they want to.Language is changed solely by the people using it. So if we all agree that from now one man does not mean "mankind" anymore and dont use it like that and all forget that it can mean exactly that, then yes the meaning of the symbol changes. But not before this.

 

[Geekosaurus]

It's just a broad excuse that encompasses are variety of issues. Obviously each game or film is different, but that doesn't stop them from being similar to other superior games/films.

 

[Roganzar]

Well I'm glad to see you all realize that the word "man" and its various offensive implications was the whole point of this exercise. Quick lets raise George Carlin from the grave so he can add it to his list of "Words you can't say on TV."

That by the way is sarcasm, a dying art I know but I still maintain it.

To clarify my point:
1. Stop complaining about "originality."
2. Innovation and presentation are what we see when a new twist is put on one of the basic plots.

Additionally,

Here are the seven plots.
1. The Quest
2. Voyage and Return
3. Rebirth
4. Comedy
5. Tragedy
6. Overcoming the Monster
7. Rags to Riches

These are genres of storytelling not plots. Plot is what underpins the entire story, often involving some form of conflict(s). You can write/tell/present a story that is completely lacking in conflict, but it would probably be dreadfully boring and short. Mainly because its impossible to go through even a day with out some little conflict occuring.

And now I'm going to use our new swear, MAN!!! MAN!!! MAN!!!