Poll: Quality or originality

[Asturiel]

In your opinion if you were to create something and you could make it either as original as possible or as quality as possible what would you choose? I personally would want to make something completly original since I'm the one who made it but as I pondered this question I was curious as to what other people thought.

PS This is my first thread and it may suck, hope you all like it.

 

[A random person]

Quality, tropes and inspiration from other series can make for an awesome work. Just look at Nanoha as the glorious magical girl/super robot hybrid it is.

That, and it would use originality at its best if it were designed for maximum quality. As the guy above me said, originality is part of the quality.

 

[3rd rung]

well I would like it to have both, but I would go for originality because I could always improve the quality later

 

[fix-the-spade]

Both damnit!

If you can only manage one your are merely slightly above average, you'll never be great without both.

 

[SonicKoala]

I say originality is overrated. I'm against blatantly copying something, but as long as something is well-made, then I have no problem if it shares similar qualities to another work.

 

[New York Patrick]

Is it too much to expect both!?!?!?

Pluto Nash was (fairly) original, and it was TERRIBLE!!

 

[Acier]

Quality.

Ideas have been borrowed countless times and if they are executed well people will still love it and it's a still an enjoyable experience

 

[Jamienra]

if it had to be one. Originality. if its poor then whatever. if it is amazing it becomes a legend among games. or the sequel does whichever is best.

Heres to Brutal Legends sequel being better than the first

 

[Snork Maiden]

I was about to say quality, but its a tough one. Lack of originality is an absolute plague on any medium, no matter how fine a polish has been put on the product. The telling argument, however, has to be that a truly original idea pulled off with no quality would be terrible, whereas a completely unoriginal product of very high quality works.

 

[Trivun]

Both damnit!

If you can only manage one your are merely slightly above average, you'll never be great without both.

Agreed. For example, I keep changing the story of a vampire novel I have in my head because I want it to be original. I'm making a game right now and although has elements in common with Pong, uses a completely different gameplay style in an effort to be original. Hell, I even try to make original threads on this site when I actually do make any. None of this affects quality for me, and I always try to make extremely high quality stuff whatever I'm doing. SXo yeah. Both are really important.

 

[RyQ_TMC]

Quality is what's gonna affect your experience most in the end. An original game with average/poor quality isn't going to be remembered too long - Mirror's Edge was certainly original, and not bad technically, but it just didn't have the quality to become a legend. And you can make a great game without attempting even a pinch of originality - just look at Dragon Age: Origins.

Of course, it's best when the game has both (Planescape: Torment, for example).

 

[Asturiel]

Thanks for posting all, I was more going for a one or the other type feel and the both dammit being a F@#% you option. If you guys think there should be more options or would like to give some constructive or angry critisim on this I would appreciate it.

 

[Cmwissy]

Original - That's why I think games like Portal are better than Modern warfare.


No amount of polish will take away the fact you have been done 1000 times before.

 

[Mr Scott]

"If you try to be original and you fail, are you being original or a failure?"
-IRON CHEF AMERICA

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Originality. I don't care how good modern warfare 2 is. I would rather buy something like assassin's creed or borderlands just because it's DIFFERENT. I already have CoD 4. MW 2 is essentially the same game with a few new bells and whistles. Sure it may be a "better" game than assassin's creed, but when I feel like stabbing Crusaders or Renaissance age Italians, the same generic war game isn't going to satisfy me. However, quality absolutely HAS to exist to a certain extent. It doesn't matter how original you are, if you make the worst game ever, you still made the worst game ever (for example, too human.) However if you make an incredibly well made fun to play genericfest (call of duty, halo, ect) yeah, it's a great game, but essentially all it does is replace the last one you bought. (The most prime example of this being madden)

 

[Quad08]

I would go for both

BUT if I was forced to only choose one...quality. As long as its good it'll be enjoyed (In theory)

 

[Asturiel]

Edit missread something, carry on...

 

[Asturiel]

Well, isn't originality a part of quality?

Yes originality is something that contributes to quality but isnt neccisarily needed to make it quality. But just having originality isnt (often) enough to make it quality. Savy?

 

[Akai Shizuku]

I think both are important; however, I value quality over originality.

 

[Veylon]

I'd say original. It definitely takes precedence. Without originality, there's nothing to improve upon. Also, the classic old-school games are those that did strange and interesting things. X-Com, Descent, Master of Magic/Orion, Dune 2, Civilization, Wolfenstein, Populous. They forged off into new and unexplored territory, occasionally founding entire new genres.