BloatedGuppy said:Two people are having an argument over the use of the word "clone" as a descriptor for video games. I.E. Game X is a clone of Y.
The specific trigger in this case was the statement:
"Bastion is a low-rent Diablo-clone."
Position A: Any major points of similarity between two games supports calling the later title "a clone". IE Dragon Age Inquisition was a Skyrim clone. Going on at length about nuance and separation between the way games play and feel qualifies as pedantry. "Clone" is typically used in a descriptive fashion with no inherent judgment.
Position B: Stating that simple mechanical convergence, as in the case of Bastion and Diablo, makes one game a "clone" of the other is hopelessly reductionist, and does a disservice to both games. "Clone" is typically used in a derogatory fashion.
As a general rule I think for something to be a "clone" there needs to be more than a few major points of similarity. When your dealing with top down, action-heavy, clickers using waves of enemies, and which randomized loot and money drops from the defeated (and chests) to lay on the ground and be picked up for example it's fair to start talking about clones when games converge on all those points and more.
The whole "clone" thing got started when you say had people duplicated old Atari games for shovelware, and you might say see someone make "Snack Man" instead of pack man, where you run away from monsters collecting things in a maze, exactly like Pac Man which even the name points out. Sure "Snack Man" might have a few twists and differences of it's own different lay outs, maybe an extra kind of power up, more or less "ghosts", etc...) but it's pretty obviously something duplicating a famous property VERY closely and wouldn't have existed without it.
Diablo as a successful game wound up spawning an entire genera of games, Torchlight, Fate, X Hero, Sacred, Darkstone, Bastion, and others are all fairly defined as being clones of Diablo, even though they all involve their own little spins on the formula. This by no means makes them bad, as many clones can wind up being superior to the original as they cater to people who liked the original idea but wanted specific differences.
In the case of "Dragon Age" it would rightfully be called a "Baldur's Gate" clone, as the entire series started as, and was promoted as, a homage to that game series. Albeit it's not as recognizable in it's later iterations.
Pretty much all games are clones, eventually someone WILL come up with something new, and then people will start cloning that, but it happens very slowly. We're lucky if we get something new, and good enough to clone, once or twice in a generation.
That's my thoughts at any rate.