I disagree with this conclusion.

1) Most games are clones of another game to a larger or lesser extent. Judging it on that basis is simply a misconception. For example, arguably DN3D is a "Doom clone" but it doesn't mean that the two games are interchangable and that the other game doesn't have anything new to offer.

2) Reiterating on the first point, lots of clones offer evolution and many of them are way better than the original.

For example, many people on this forum tend to consider TQ2 a "D2 clone" and they also tend to hold it in higher regard than D2.

I don't have a problem with calling something a clone, though I usually phrase it differently. Many games are "like X meets Y but better!" and that's awesome to me. I'm all for clones that really iterate and improve the original.

I do get annoyed when a really megapopular game comes out and there's a sudden rush of "inspiration", like the sudden explosion of one man games like CastleMiner Z and FortressCraft that are "totally different from Minecraft!" according to the developer, but generally only offer up tiny advances or iteration while copying the whole basic art style and gameplay. There's a definite market for the Minecraft model of gameplay, but I prefer unique approaches like Don't Starve and Under the Ocean, or even Terraria. You know, games that are clearly inspired but actually feel like a unique thing.

You notice the same thing with the Slenderman now. "Our game was technically in development before, and it's totally different!" Then why exactly do you have to collect eight pages just like every other Slender clone...

Then you have stuff like Zynga, which is just wretched copy and pasting. Go go EA on that one. But that's kind of a uniquely awful case.

I guess yeah, I don't have an issue with clones so long as there's still innovation. I value innovation above everything else, so a game with a lack of it is just going to be ignored even if it's "totally different".

This, the problem is that especially this gen has used the word in a negative way. I have played clones that i found better then the one it's based on and i would still use the term <clone>. First example that comes into my mind: dante's inferno (god of war 1).

I agree pretty much with OP.

What really gets me going on this subject is when people are allowed to sue each other over it. An example I'll use is a movie I like very much: Fistful of Dollars. Akira Kurosawa sued Sergio Leone because he accused Fistful of Dollars of being the same film as his samurai film Yojimbo. So, apparently he invented the plot of a lone man arriving in a town with a stalemate between two warring factions and the loner then playing the two off against each other. That's about where the similarities end and Leone admitted being influenced by Yojimbo. Red Harvest and Servant of Two Masters came before Yojimbo, just to name a couple examples.

It's discouraging.

I generally agree with you. When I still had a blog about games (to be revived soon) I wrote an article about this interesting word that "clone" is, mostly about when users and reviewers stop using the term "clone" and acknowledge a set of standards as a "genre". It's some complex stuff actually. And yeah, I understand your anger - it happens too often that I get pissed because someone is simply dubbing a game a clone because a) he either is too much of a fanboy of the "original" to acknowledge the new one's qualities or b) because it's one of the earliest games to build upon these rules. It's especially ridiculous since pretty much all genres started out this way - because of this some games never got a chance to become as successful just for being published too early. On the other hand, I also use the term occasionally when I actually do not recognize any essential creative effort put into a game. When developers simply copy an earlier title without fully understanding it or delivering brilliant contributions (or even end up breaking it) the game deserves to end up with a tombstone saying "just some clone".

Every shooter is a DOOM clone.

nuff said.

I think there's a slight disassociation between "clone" and "rip-off". Sometimes calling something a clone is a quick way of describing something to a friend, but it's usually in a negative way. Otherwise, you would probably still call a game you like "like" another game. You might call Darkstone a Diablo clone, but say Torchlight is like Diablo. You might also say one of them is a good Diablo clone as opposed to a blatant rip-off.

"Clone" could also be used to define a genre or sub-genre. Doom clone, Diablo clone, GTA clone, God of War clone, Gears of War clone (any shooter that extensively uses cover), Pokemon clone, Farmville clone (God forbid), WoW clone, CoD clone, Minecraft clone, etc. The point is, when someone says "x clone", right away, you get a clear, mental image about what the gameplay is like.

If you want real clones, I think the two most prominent genres are arcade and puzzle. I mean hell, Ms. Pac-Man started out as a legitimate, borderline carbon copy clone of Pac-Man. Look at how many flash versions of Pac-Man there are. I remember a copy from a 1000-games disc called Mac-Man. And I don't even know where to start with puzzle games, those are getting cloned left and right. I think the most prominent one in my mind is Snood, a freeware clone of Bust-A-Move. I even remember when my friends would describe any puzzle game as "like Tetris".

See, that's the sad thing. Before Gears of War there was Kill.Switch, Nemesis Strike and Rogue Trooper which all had a cover system in the same style as GoW (and before Kill.Switch several stealth games such as Metal Gear Solid 2 already had a simpler cover system, Vietcong even introduced a special one into FPS games in 2002). Epic Games even admitted that Gears of War was inspired by the cover based gameplay of Kill.Switch (combined with the perspective of Resident Evil 4). Basically all these games are Kill.Switch clones but screw that, let's give all the credit to Epic Games just because it was the first cover based TPS with a huge mainstream success. I don't deny that GoW set new quality standards for cover based shooters and perfected this feature - and all developers who have made cover based shooters after 2006 have obviously been mainly inspired by GoW. But it's still paradox to call them GoW clones if even Epic admits that GoW is a Kill.Switch clone, eh?

It's probably so far the best example for how the term "clone" is being misused by both critics and gamers. Now seriously, GoW was a tiny step compared to other genre-godfathers such as Doom, Quake, Diablo, Command & Conquer or even Warcraft and even with these games it's easy to prove that they weren't that big accomplishments.

Because people, as a whole, are not very clever...

I used to shit a brick every time I heard the term "Diablo Clone", I've since decided, since they were not gold bricks, that it's too stupid to worry about.

Oh yeah, and let's not forget one of the more recent examples of how a genre was born. If it wasn't for Riot Games' ingenious and successful attempt to introduce the term "MOBA" (Multiplayer Online Battle Arena) to advertise League of Legends we'd still be calling all these games Dota clones (and there'd be no way around it). That shows how fucked up the industry is. So unless someone big creates a successful clone of Dungeon Keeper and remembers to call it an "LM" (Lair Manager) or "ERS" (Evil Ruler Simulator) in their marketing campaign all games inspired by DK will remain "Dungeon Keeper" clones.

Edit: You know what? Mark my words. If I'll ever take part in the development of a DK clone I will do everything to establish "ERS" as a new genre. :P That will definitely result in tons of new games in that style since developers won't suffer from a minority complex when creating such a game anymore.

That one really, really pisses me off. I've been spending a lot of time playing arpgs recently, and the forums for every single one of them are packed with trolls making endless threads about how the game is a Diablo clone. There are even people out there calling Bastion a Diablo clone. It infuriates me.

I don't know what Clonk is, but Cortex Command reminds me strongly of Worms, which in and of itself felt very much like a Scorched Earth clone... And I love all three games regardless.

Well, that's a poor example because Fistful of Dollars lifted way more elements then you listed. It's not just that it was a lone man, but both were actually characterized by their lack of name (the Nameless Samurai and The Man With No Name) and there were dozens of shots and even a few lines directly pulled from Yojimbo. But that aside, you're forgetting the crucial similarity. The final scene (spoilers I guess?) in both films was a showdown between the hero and villain where the villain has a huge edge in terms of weapons (Yojimbo has a sword vs. a gun, Fistful of Dollars is a pistol vs. a rifle). Both scenes go down in the exact same way, with similar shots and identical pacing. The rest of the film you could chalk up as an homage, but that was straight plagiarism and Leone and co really should have either licensed it as a remake or at least approached the original filmmakers.

Homaging in film is a tricky business, and many filmmakers use it well, but this one was a bit much. Still, both are absolutely amazing films.

Yeah.

Basically, the less you know about games, the more difficult it is to pick up the smaller differences between them and realize how important they are.

Also: "The less you know, the more you think you know."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect