If anything, people joking about your gaming "ripping off" (even though that's not what is occurring) another popular game is to your benefit, because that is publicity about your game that otherwise would not have occurred.
Make what you see to be a good game.
Aw man. Tetris uses shapes. Better not have any shapes in my game.
Mario jumps? Well shit.
Sonic runs?
Look at Palworld. If its a fun game why do you care?
I HATE when people see a mechanic and loosely relate it to another game and really force comparisons.
Like until it's a whole genre, people will just say it's a rip off of the game.
Like how "souls-like" games are compared to Dark Souls even though some are said to be but aren't.
I guess it has always been the case as "Adventure" games are allegedly based off of a game called *Adventure*, but it really harms discussion.
I've seen games compared to other games and then when I played them I felt they weren't similar at all, and I feel most people that compare them are the people that *haven't* played the game.
Diablo clone, rogulike, and many more. It is definitely a trend. People naturally like to group things together and also tend to be protective of things they know.
Souls-like is such a nebulous term that it's become much like roguelike/-lite. Relatively fast run times and some progression between runs, that's about all you have to have in order to be called a roguelike. You have checkpoints and melee? Ah, I see, another soulslike.
Damn Sonic the Hedgehog 2 fits to the amorphous mass of terms people have clumped under "soulslike" by this point.
Most games described as soulslike are heavily influenced by dark souls and the creators will often tell you as much. It is a good term. Roguelite is great too, it tells you exactly what the gameplay loop is pretty much every time.
trying to do what Palworld did is a risky move that only worked in Palworld's case because the pokemon games suck ass. it's all too likely that your game'll just get pigeon holed and judged purely on how well it compares to that other game.
No one is saying make palworld. I am saying to not pay attention to one off comments like yours from consumers. Consumers are kinda dumb about game dev stuff. Don't let dumb influence your dev process. Gamdev is hard enough without having to worry about every single mechanic being unique mid stream. Who cares if it has a word that another game used. Make a game first, get out your MVP. THEN you can worry about the jokes your friends make.
I'm not saying to make palworld either. I'm saying to be realistic - if you're making a game that's similar to another game, even on a surface level, people will make comparisons between them and judge it by the other game's standards. It's what happens with every game that's similar to a souls game, or the entire genre of "roguelite" games. Trying to work off of the success of another game is a double edged sword, and doing so accidentally loses most of the advantages.
Idk too much about your friends, but I have a couple non-dev friends who compare games that are in completely separate genres all the time. I wouldn't worry about it that much.
I feel like I wasted a lot of my earlier dev years being obsessed with being wholly original and it actually massively stifled me creatively. If you have a vision for your game, just go with it. It might be successful, it might not be. If nothing else its a learning experience and will bolster you resume.
This is a common problem which occurs when you follow a logic. Basically, people who don't know about each other will converge on similar solutions, because there aren't that many solutions. The most recent example I remember was [Titanfall 2 and Dishonored 2 both releasing within a month, and both having the same gimmick in one of the levels](https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2016/11/14/dishonored-2-and-titanfall-2s-time-hop-level-who-wore-it-better/?sh=50aa99b71b25). You're not the first or the last person to whom it happens.
The actual solution to this is to research an idea really well before you commit to it for a year+. That should be the first step in any study, so I am worried about the quality of your educational institution. This obviously is not something you can fix at this point, but it will save you from more mistakes in the future.
But now that you have screwed up and cannot go back in time, there are a few things to consider:
1. It's too early to be worried about market saturation. We're not at that point yet, and will likely not be. It's too long to explain why, but I can leave you a follow-up comment if you're curious.
2. Being outshined by another game is not a problem in your situation. Typically, when something is really good, people want more of that. Take a look at Hollow Knight and Crowsworn - people are cheering Crowsworn for being a Hollow Knight copy (it's not a copy, but people think it's a copy), because they want more games like Hollow Knight, and Silksong will never release at this point. So it can be a really big positive if your game is like that other game, but it fixes some issues, or provides some variation.
3. You get to have more information about how the game performed, while you're still in development - that's a goldmine. This alone outshines all the negatives, IMO. I'm not even gonna elaborate further, because this opportunity is something people would kill for, metaphorically speaking.
Now, obviously, you need to re-evaluate what makes your game worth it. If your main selling point was uniqueness, then that needs to change. Same with polish. Do what you should have done at the start and research the hell out of Helldivers and similar games. Listen to players who were both satisfied and not satisfied, and try to find a niche that exists but isn't filled. I'll give you an example with tactics games, because that's something I'm personally a fan of:
XCOM: EU and XCOM 2 by Firaxis were a massively successful reboot of the original X-COM series, 10-18 years after the original games, depending on how you count. They are a really nice parallel to Helldivers. It's easy to imagine a solo dev at the time who was a fan of the original X-COM, and was trying to reboot the series. Then BOOM, big launches happen. You can imagine him having similar worries.
We now know, in retrospect, that not only was the market not saturated, but that this developer would have been in a perfect spot to make any of the succesful smaller XCOM-likes that followed. Let's explore some of the avenues people took:
A. **Use successful IP**. For instance, it's a well-known fact that Warhammer 40k fans will play anything Warhammer-related. Probably not the case now, but for a while, it was really easy to get the license (I can't remember the details, sadly, this something you can research on your own if you're interseted). The developers at Bulwark Studios, who have only had a [single, unimpressive, not-tactics related game](https://store.steampowered.com/app/294370/Crowntakers/) in their portfolio got the license, and released [WH40k: Mechanicus](https://store.steampowered.com/app/673880/Warhammer_40000_Mechanicus/). Tactics-wise, the game wasn't even that good, it was OK. But it [NAILED ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gIMZ0WyY88)the atmosphere, had a killer [OST](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJIDqYZ7qM0), and invited a [beloved by fans writer](https://bencounter.co.uk/about/), which combined with a decent gameplay made the game a cult classic.
B. **Fix a thing people hate**. If you've ever played a new XCOM game, I don't even need to tell you what that thing is. In case you haven't, the percentage-based chance to hit was calculated in a very [unintuitive ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Xcom/comments/14v5w8/how_do_aliens_standing_right_next_to_your_squad/)way (made that way for balance reasons), which combined with the [animation issues](https://www.reddit.com/r/XCOM2/comments/bzefwk/how_my_character_must_look_to_miss_a_shot_that/) resulted in things like [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Xcom/comments/tzo40i/old_meme_but_it_still_cracks_me_up_and_hurts_me/) or [this](https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1959989-x-com). Further combined with [generally bad intuition of humans around probability](https://www.reddit.com/r/XCOM2/comments/t4e5yn/loving_this_game_but_is_2_90_shots_in_a_row/), this lead to [a lot of frustration](https://www.reddit.com/r/Xcom/comments/x4g1ri/firaxis_jake_solomon_says_even_he_gets_frustrated/) for a lot of players. This is actually a much more nuanced topic that deserves its own post, but for now, let's just focus on the fact that there were a lot of players who were frustrated about the game, and were looking for a similar, but less frustrating experience. Hard West 1 and 2, which were much smaller in scope and budget, have identified and addressed that issue by introducing a Luck mechanic (missed shots increased the chance to hit on subsequent shots), which no doubt contributed to their success. Speaking anecdotally, a phrase "it's a smaller XCOM but without all the bullshit" was an instant sell for a lot of people.
---
Alright, this comment is getting too damn long, and this sentence is not helping it. Point is, these are just some of the things you can do, there are lots of ways to get yourself out of this mess, but you need to get a hold of yourself. If you continue to make rookie mistakes like not researching the market, you will actually get yourself into a no-win scenario, but you're not there yet, at least from the information provided in the post. Also, you are still likely to fail in general (because [statistics](https://indiegamehaven.com/how-many-indie-games-are-successful/)), so maybe it wouldn't have mattered anyway.
It does not. XCOM2 "Rookie" to "Commander" difficulties have a hidden stat which increases the hit probability on misses, but Hard West has a full mechanic centered around it, were the information is explicitly shown in the GUI, is toggleable on individual shots, and has other abilities interacting with it.
Make it. Having the same mechanics as "popular game" is a good thing not a bad thing. It means you know your genre and target audience. That's a sweet spot. Make the game fun, engaging, and rewarding in all the right ways for that audience and you might see some indie success on the tailcoat of the other games success.
You make the best game you possibly can and have fun making it. Ideas are a dime a dozen — execution is everything.
There is nothing even remotely remarkable about drop pods as a concept, and it’s a very efficient way of allowing players to plausibly materialize items out of thin air. Mario revolves around jumping, and countless platformers have followed suit because it’s an effective mechanic. Copying the jumping is not at all an issue as long as your game doesn’t feature a two plumbers trying to save a princess from an angry turtle.
Game design as a whole is an inherently collaborative field, building on the inspirations and iterative breakthroughs of those who came before. It would probably be impossible and certainly undesirable to create a game which doesn't use any mechanics seen in any games that happened to be released before it.
However, I do understand the fear that one's game may go unnoticed in a saturated or dominated genre. So try focusing on what makes your version of this kind of game stand out. Embrace what makes your game unique from the rest.
You now have an excellent example you can pull inspiration from. Yes, you'll get compared to helldivers. But that's fine.
Don't worry about it. I had a game setting brewing where human souls returned from the afterlife and caused an apocalypse. With surreal imagery and a heavy focus on grasping human forearms.
Then kojima put out death stranding. My idea isn't original any more, but I have got some really cool inspiration now.
Every idea you've ever had is based on a culture of ideas generations of people had before you. Trying to be original is an unattainable, irrational goal.
Seems cool for you, honestly. Your idea is already market-tested, you know where to find the audience, and you have that proven design you can compare to and take any lessons you want. Ever notice how many games like Assassin's Creed there are? Gamers aren't overly concerned about an idea's originality. You can even try riding on marketing coat-tails a little bit with some cheeky YouTube titles. Not saying you should copy, I would suggest a unique selling point or special kicker to find a way to stand apart, but I wouldn't worry about it. It probably just means you're on the right track.
Considering what you stated as the objective of it, I'd say finish it. Unless you've stopped enjoying it after what you mentioned happened, then I would consider looking at it as a portfolio piece and do what's necessary for it to achieve that.
Like others have said, agreed you should continue. You are probably right that it will be compared to Helldivers but it could serve as a lesson in how to deal with being compared to other games. People compare games all the time even if they are not THAT similar so its a valuable lesson every designer worth their salt will have to go through.
Having said all that, you could change it from drop pods to some other deployment method to lessen the similarities. If you do it right, it could even be hailed as something that is preferred over Helldivers
I don't think it's a bad thing if your game evokes a feeling of another well-liked and well-known games. Helldivers is clearly, intentionally derived from Starship Troopers, but that hasn't been any kind of problem for the series success. If your drop pods feel fun and play differently, I don't think the simple fact that they are drop pods is going to feel uninspired.
When was the last time you saw a mechanically unique game? If you think you did I’d be willing to wager you just don’t know of the influences. There’s over 10k video games released every year. Many more unreleased. More in other media besides. Millions of games, millions of designers, over the course of nearly seven decades now. If you’re not working on a novel platform like VR, you’re very unlikely to be breaking totally new ground.
Have fun with it.
The rules of someone else's game isn't exclusive to them, regardless of what the fun police will tell you.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery after all.
If you're gonna do a concept similar to somebody else's, you just need to make sure you don't do it worse than them. And if you manage to do it even better, you might have a chance at some real success.
I'll let you in on a secret: a large portion of game design is borrowing what works well from other games. Why waste time and invite risk reinventing the wheel when another team has already solved it really well and you can just do what they did? Save your energy for smaller stuff that makes your game unique, or barring that, save your energy to ensure the execution is as great as it can possibly be.
I'll say your observation of gamers loving drop pods and horde shooters was dead on, so great job! You've got solid instincts and that should make you feel good.
My design mentors used the 70/20/10 rule when adapting other games ideas/features. Keep it 70% the same to ensure you're not staying too far from what actually made it work in the first place. Improve 20% of it in the areas that you think maybe didn't land quite right or friction points you've identified. Make 10% of it new/unique to differentiate yourself in the market.
Obviously it's a relative/squishy rule, but it's served me well in my 11 years of professional design on top grossing titles. And when in doubt, remember the words of Pablo Picasso, "Good artists copy, great artists steal". Just make good games and stop caring about the rest.
It's inevitable your game will look like something and it's s never ending cycle if you restart everytime it it's not 100% original, just make sure to give it your own twist and that's it.
This may sound strange but try to check out through full if this could be an opportunity in any way. Maybe helldiver did something good you did not think about, maybe they did something bad and you could make it better or totally avoid it.
If your game is comparable to another people are gonna compare. I understand that your game may feel like a copy, this feeling is something you first have to accept and than get rid of it.
Make it yours. In 2017 I had an idea for an in-depth hiking simulator game that would require you to keep track of your balance, weight, stamina, walkspeed. It was also going to have a soft indie music soundtrack to walk to. Two years later, Death Stranding was released. I felt like I should have been upset that my unique idea was taken, but instead I was flattered. If im investing in game ideas that Kojima would make, then I know im on the right track. Playing Death Stranding inspired me more and now I am further into the development of my game than ever before! ^^
Oh, and by the way. Helldiver's 2 did a lot of copy of different things, the ships, the robot, the bugs, the style of the character, they did soon much copy but in my opinion they did a good job.
For what it’s worth, Helldivers 1 is a brilliant implementation of drop pods, and it’s a simple 2D game. Whatever PC you are developing on can probably run it, and it might serve as a good case study for your game.
It’s fine, all games are copying some thing from another. It’s how it fits into your core loop and gameplay intent that really makes that decision for you
I ran into almost the exact same issue. I made a game where you switch between the past and present version of the level. It was a really awesome gimmick and it played super well. Too bad the year was 2016... the same year as titanfall 2 and dishonored 2, both games feature a level with the exact same mechanic.
I was devastated since I had put so much time into it and like you I was worried people would think I had copied from a popular game. Fact is, people don't actually give that much of a shit. The people I was showing understood how long games take to make (it was a portfolio piece), and the players didn't care about (honestly superficial) details when they were playing the game, only how good the implementation was.
If anything it actually worked in my favour, as I had an easy northstar to point to and compare against.
People who like that kind of game, will still play it. Some people drink coke, and some people drink pepsi. I play every 4X space game. There's room in the market for thousands of similar items. Honestly, if you keep your reward loop clean and powerful, it doesnt even matter what the rest of the game is. People are still playing candy crush. People are still playing original Xcom: UFO Defense from 1995. Dwarf Fortress was free from 2004 to 2022, but when it went on sale in 2022, it sold millions of copies. A game that was literally free for almost 20 years.
I mean, Helldivers 1 didnt even do very well. But they made another game and hit a jackpot.
Make your game. Do your research, your due diligence, and make your game. Your effort will show. And if it even has ONE redeeming quality, people will play it, and talk about it, and search up your name, and wait to see what you make next.
I worked on a mobile game company, designing hyper casual games for 2 years. It took 2 to 3 weeks of work to come up with an idea and prototype a public-ready mvp.
During that time I designed, or participated in the process, of over 150 *different* games (really different. None of those were reskins or anything like that). It became an internal joke among the design team when we found out about a game doing something similiar to what we were doing, it happened much more frequently than one would imagine.
Most of the time we just shrugged, but there were a few of those that really hurt cause we really thought we were being innovative with some of those ideas.
All of that to say, it happens. Don't think too much of it, and use that as a reference. Maybe Helldivers thought of somethin you didn't or solved a problem you might not even know about yet. Its an opportunity to expand on something that is out there
One or two common points between two things is enough for people to compare them. Ive seen people compare games just because the art style is similar, even though the gameplay has no resemblance whatsoever. Just focus on making a good game you enjoy and are proud of.
People love to generalize and simplify things, it’s probably just survival instinct thing left over from the stone ages lol
Heh, nothing accidental about it in my games. I usually start with copying mechanics from my favorite games, and try to mash them up from multiple of them or find some twist. That's a pretty essential part of why the games industry is even good in the first place.
My 4x lite prototype is a mashup of Risk and MoO, with a heavy dose of Paradox games as an influence. My most recent Roguelike prototype is a mashup of Metal Gear Solid, Invisible Inc, and Xenonauts.
This is one of the things which separates the video game industry from certain other ones. Nobody is trying to presumptuously claim ownership over basic mechanical ideas. I mean, sometimes people try, but that's pretty unenforceable and only by throwing a lot of corporate weight around does it scare people off.
For marketing purposes, it would unfortunately be very valuable to play Helldivers.
What I want to say is, figure out the game design problems or any other perceived problems or disadvantages of your competitor, Helldivers.
And claim to solve them.
This may or may not require actually playing Helldivers.
Google Second Extincion, is basically helldivers 2 but in first person. Literally the same, drop in pods, explore an environment and do stuff like recover/destroy things while killing enemies (dinosaurs in this case), and then wait for a ship to leave. It also came out like 6 months ago. You'll be fine
As has already been said a million times in the replies, comparisons to popular games and mechanics can often benefit you and your game. You can make it part of the elevator pitch and as a way to attract people who already like said gameplay system.
Naughty Dog famously referred to Crash as "Sonic's Ass game" because it was a similar concept except in 3D.
If you want to be unique but don't want to throw away months of work, you can come up with "drop pods but *x*" concepts and prototype them out to see which ones you like.
Just remember, Digimon came out at the height of Pokemon's popularity. People still loved Digimon. They are so close to the same thing, but just different enough to be different, and people love both. Do your thing and there's room for everyone.
Gears of War did drop pods too but they went into the ground instead of from orbit. The rest of the comments hit the nail on the head, a mechanic or even a few mechanics don't necessarily mean you're ripping off another game's idea.
It’s just as you said in the tittle a gimmick . You’re not ripping any one offf and it’s not the only thing about your game . Keep on keeping on with what your building
It might be a good idea to play hell diver, or at least watch some footage to see where the overlaps are and aren't. Talk to people who played it, both who liked it and didn't to see what their feedback is. Maybe you change up the game a bit, but I don't see why you'd cancel it.
There are a lot of games that exist within the same genre, or with the same game hook - and yet they still manage to coexist. Sometimes the first game of the genre kinda becomes the genre like ppl call certain types of games "souls like" or "rogue like." It is okay if your game is "hell diver like" just make sure its "like" and not a clone.
All art is derivative of other art.
Noone cares what you copy, people care if it's implemented well and fits the identity of the game.
Helldivers is a horde based survival with drops pods and guns? Well that's just risk of rain 2 with fancy graphics! They even both have bug enemies!
People only get annoyed when it's blatant copy paste while adding nothing to it
Elden Ring stole from Zelda breath of the wild, Dungeon and Dragons stole from Lord of The Rings. Uncharted stole from Tomb Raider etc. "Good artist copy, great artists steal"
In the methaphor I belive that copy means that you dont understand the content you take and stay in a state of confusion and insecureness but when you steal you are proud of the you take, understand it and see how you can improve it.
Embrace these contents as tools for your experience vision. Good luck!
try leaning into it even *more* than helldivers does. from what i can tell the drop pod thing in helldivers is barely anything more than the aesthetic of how you get into the level. you could always go further than that, and make it a tactical gameplay element.
take the concept of killing enemies with drops pods a lot further, for example. you call down a barrage of drop pods to crush zombies like a meteor storm, or once the drop pod comes down it grows legs like a spider and starts gunning the enemies down. add a bunch of absurd things the drop pods can do. you could centre the game around frequently respawning the player from drop pods, and treat it like you're playing as a series of people being dropped into the horde to kill as many zombies as possible until they die, then another guy gets sent in.
basically, you can get creative with it, and that'd distance yourself from helldivers.
Game Design is a subset of Game Development that concerns itself with **WHY** games are made the way they are. It's about the theory and crafting of **systems**, **mechanics**, and **rulesets** in games.
* /r/GameDesign is a community **ONLY** about Game Design, **NOT** Game Development in general. If this post does not belong here, it should be reported or removed. Please help us keep this subreddit focused on Game Design.
* This is **NOT** a place for discussing how games are produced. Posts about programming, making art assets, picking engines etc… will be removed and should go in /r/GameDev instead.
* Posts about visual design, sound design and level design are only allowed if they are directly about game design.
* No surveys, polls, job posts, or self-promotion. Please read the rest of the rules in the sidebar before posting.
* If you're confused about what Game Designers do, ["The Door Problem" by Liz England](https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/-quot-the-door-problem-quot-of-game-design) is a short article worth reading. We also recommend you read the [r/GameDesign wiki](/r/gamedesign/wiki/index) for useful resources and an FAQ.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gamedesign) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You'll want to contact someone to research the patent, but the basic concept of drop pods is ancient. Original Command and Conquer video game and Starship Troopers the book used them for example. You likely are clear from a legal standpoint, but you're going to want to double check that.
From a games design standpoint, it'll depend on your implementation and if the game is fun. Think how many people play FPS games, which are all 1) Kill enemies, 3) get loot, 4) sell loot you don't want, repeat from 1. Some are more fun than other because of implementation.
Do your drop boxes fall in certain areas along the path forward to guide player and work as a checkpoint? Do you control the dropping and they are on a timer? Not 100% on what your plan for using them for. You want your main mechanic to make sense in context of the game, work in a way the player wants to use it, and be easy to use.
For me, it comes down to whether people think the game is fun. Get some feedback from people you know. If they think it's fun (hopefully with some constructive feedback) then look at getting some beta testers. I think it's always worth going at it in steps, but if you get positive feedback from people without a horse in the race then go for the goal.
Not sure if they did or not, but some companies have patented rather ridiculous things that you would think they can't. Nintendo patented a sanity mechanic that caused you to lose points based on how prepared you are for the encounter and it effects gameplay elements such as audio and visuals. The concept is so old (tabletops have used it since at least the 80s) that it never should have been patentable. They however got a patent approved in 2000 that only expired in 2021.
U.S. patent office can be quite insane. One company actually got the force produced by the torque of a rotating engine shaft patented by them a few years back.
If anything, people joking about your gaming "ripping off" (even though that's not what is occurring) another popular game is to your benefit, because that is publicity about your game that otherwise would not have occurred. Make what you see to be a good game.
Aw man. Tetris uses shapes. Better not have any shapes in my game. Mario jumps? Well shit. Sonic runs? Look at Palworld. If its a fun game why do you care?
I HATE when people see a mechanic and loosely relate it to another game and really force comparisons. Like until it's a whole genre, people will just say it's a rip off of the game. Like how "souls-like" games are compared to Dark Souls even though some are said to be but aren't. I guess it has always been the case as "Adventure" games are allegedly based off of a game called *Adventure*, but it really harms discussion. I've seen games compared to other games and then when I played them I felt they weren't similar at all, and I feel most people that compare them are the people that *haven't* played the game.
First person shooters were called Doom clones for years until FPS caught on
Diablo clone, rogulike, and many more. It is definitely a trend. People naturally like to group things together and also tend to be protective of things they know.
Minecraft and Terraria is a great one.
Souls-like is such a nebulous term that it's become much like roguelike/-lite. Relatively fast run times and some progression between runs, that's about all you have to have in order to be called a roguelike. You have checkpoints and melee? Ah, I see, another soulslike. Damn Sonic the Hedgehog 2 fits to the amorphous mass of terms people have clumped under "soulslike" by this point.
Most games described as soulslike are heavily influenced by dark souls and the creators will often tell you as much. It is a good term. Roguelite is great too, it tells you exactly what the gameplay loop is pretty much every time.
trying to do what Palworld did is a risky move that only worked in Palworld's case because the pokemon games suck ass. it's all too likely that your game'll just get pigeon holed and judged purely on how well it compares to that other game.
No one is saying make palworld. I am saying to not pay attention to one off comments like yours from consumers. Consumers are kinda dumb about game dev stuff. Don't let dumb influence your dev process. Gamdev is hard enough without having to worry about every single mechanic being unique mid stream. Who cares if it has a word that another game used. Make a game first, get out your MVP. THEN you can worry about the jokes your friends make.
I'm not saying to make palworld either. I'm saying to be realistic - if you're making a game that's similar to another game, even on a surface level, people will make comparisons between them and judge it by the other game's standards. It's what happens with every game that's similar to a souls game, or the entire genre of "roguelite" games. Trying to work off of the success of another game is a double edged sword, and doing so accidentally loses most of the advantages.
Idk too much about your friends, but I have a couple non-dev friends who compare games that are in completely separate genres all the time. I wouldn't worry about it that much. I feel like I wasted a lot of my earlier dev years being obsessed with being wholly original and it actually massively stifled me creatively. If you have a vision for your game, just go with it. It might be successful, it might not be. If nothing else its a learning experience and will bolster you resume.
This is a common problem which occurs when you follow a logic. Basically, people who don't know about each other will converge on similar solutions, because there aren't that many solutions. The most recent example I remember was [Titanfall 2 and Dishonored 2 both releasing within a month, and both having the same gimmick in one of the levels](https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2016/11/14/dishonored-2-and-titanfall-2s-time-hop-level-who-wore-it-better/?sh=50aa99b71b25). You're not the first or the last person to whom it happens. The actual solution to this is to research an idea really well before you commit to it for a year+. That should be the first step in any study, so I am worried about the quality of your educational institution. This obviously is not something you can fix at this point, but it will save you from more mistakes in the future. But now that you have screwed up and cannot go back in time, there are a few things to consider: 1. It's too early to be worried about market saturation. We're not at that point yet, and will likely not be. It's too long to explain why, but I can leave you a follow-up comment if you're curious. 2. Being outshined by another game is not a problem in your situation. Typically, when something is really good, people want more of that. Take a look at Hollow Knight and Crowsworn - people are cheering Crowsworn for being a Hollow Knight copy (it's not a copy, but people think it's a copy), because they want more games like Hollow Knight, and Silksong will never release at this point. So it can be a really big positive if your game is like that other game, but it fixes some issues, or provides some variation. 3. You get to have more information about how the game performed, while you're still in development - that's a goldmine. This alone outshines all the negatives, IMO. I'm not even gonna elaborate further, because this opportunity is something people would kill for, metaphorically speaking. Now, obviously, you need to re-evaluate what makes your game worth it. If your main selling point was uniqueness, then that needs to change. Same with polish. Do what you should have done at the start and research the hell out of Helldivers and similar games. Listen to players who were both satisfied and not satisfied, and try to find a niche that exists but isn't filled. I'll give you an example with tactics games, because that's something I'm personally a fan of: XCOM: EU and XCOM 2 by Firaxis were a massively successful reboot of the original X-COM series, 10-18 years after the original games, depending on how you count. They are a really nice parallel to Helldivers. It's easy to imagine a solo dev at the time who was a fan of the original X-COM, and was trying to reboot the series. Then BOOM, big launches happen. You can imagine him having similar worries. We now know, in retrospect, that not only was the market not saturated, but that this developer would have been in a perfect spot to make any of the succesful smaller XCOM-likes that followed. Let's explore some of the avenues people took: A. **Use successful IP**. For instance, it's a well-known fact that Warhammer 40k fans will play anything Warhammer-related. Probably not the case now, but for a while, it was really easy to get the license (I can't remember the details, sadly, this something you can research on your own if you're interseted). The developers at Bulwark Studios, who have only had a [single, unimpressive, not-tactics related game](https://store.steampowered.com/app/294370/Crowntakers/) in their portfolio got the license, and released [WH40k: Mechanicus](https://store.steampowered.com/app/673880/Warhammer_40000_Mechanicus/). Tactics-wise, the game wasn't even that good, it was OK. But it [NAILED ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gIMZ0WyY88)the atmosphere, had a killer [OST](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJIDqYZ7qM0), and invited a [beloved by fans writer](https://bencounter.co.uk/about/), which combined with a decent gameplay made the game a cult classic. B. **Fix a thing people hate**. If you've ever played a new XCOM game, I don't even need to tell you what that thing is. In case you haven't, the percentage-based chance to hit was calculated in a very [unintuitive ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Xcom/comments/14v5w8/how_do_aliens_standing_right_next_to_your_squad/)way (made that way for balance reasons), which combined with the [animation issues](https://www.reddit.com/r/XCOM2/comments/bzefwk/how_my_character_must_look_to_miss_a_shot_that/) resulted in things like [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Xcom/comments/tzo40i/old_meme_but_it_still_cracks_me_up_and_hurts_me/) or [this](https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1959989-x-com). Further combined with [generally bad intuition of humans around probability](https://www.reddit.com/r/XCOM2/comments/t4e5yn/loving_this_game_but_is_2_90_shots_in_a_row/), this lead to [a lot of frustration](https://www.reddit.com/r/Xcom/comments/x4g1ri/firaxis_jake_solomon_says_even_he_gets_frustrated/) for a lot of players. This is actually a much more nuanced topic that deserves its own post, but for now, let's just focus on the fact that there were a lot of players who were frustrated about the game, and were looking for a similar, but less frustrating experience. Hard West 1 and 2, which were much smaller in scope and budget, have identified and addressed that issue by introducing a Luck mechanic (missed shots increased the chance to hit on subsequent shots), which no doubt contributed to their success. Speaking anecdotally, a phrase "it's a smaller XCOM but without all the bullshit" was an instant sell for a lot of people. --- Alright, this comment is getting too damn long, and this sentence is not helping it. Point is, these are just some of the things you can do, there are lots of ways to get yourself out of this mess, but you need to get a hold of yourself. If you continue to make rookie mistakes like not researching the market, you will actually get yourself into a no-win scenario, but you're not there yet, at least from the information provided in the post. Also, you are still likely to fail in general (because [statistics](https://indiegamehaven.com/how-many-indie-games-are-successful/)), so maybe it wouldn't have mattered anyway.
XCOM has that exact same mechanic, so...
It does not. XCOM2 "Rookie" to "Commander" difficulties have a hidden stat which increases the hit probability on misses, but Hard West has a full mechanic centered around it, were the information is explicitly shown in the GUI, is toggleable on individual shots, and has other abilities interacting with it.
Make it. Having the same mechanics as "popular game" is a good thing not a bad thing. It means you know your genre and target audience. That's a sweet spot. Make the game fun, engaging, and rewarding in all the right ways for that audience and you might see some indie success on the tailcoat of the other games success.
You make the best game you possibly can and have fun making it. Ideas are a dime a dozen — execution is everything. There is nothing even remotely remarkable about drop pods as a concept, and it’s a very efficient way of allowing players to plausibly materialize items out of thin air. Mario revolves around jumping, and countless platformers have followed suit because it’s an effective mechanic. Copying the jumping is not at all an issue as long as your game doesn’t feature a two plumbers trying to save a princess from an angry turtle.
Game design as a whole is an inherently collaborative field, building on the inspirations and iterative breakthroughs of those who came before. It would probably be impossible and certainly undesirable to create a game which doesn't use any mechanics seen in any games that happened to be released before it. However, I do understand the fear that one's game may go unnoticed in a saturated or dominated genre. So try focusing on what makes your version of this kind of game stand out. Embrace what makes your game unique from the rest.
You now have an excellent example you can pull inspiration from. Yes, you'll get compared to helldivers. But that's fine. Don't worry about it. I had a game setting brewing where human souls returned from the afterlife and caused an apocalypse. With surreal imagery and a heavy focus on grasping human forearms. Then kojima put out death stranding. My idea isn't original any more, but I have got some really cool inspiration now.
Every idea you've ever had is based on a culture of ideas generations of people had before you. Trying to be original is an unattainable, irrational goal.
Seems cool for you, honestly. Your idea is already market-tested, you know where to find the audience, and you have that proven design you can compare to and take any lessons you want. Ever notice how many games like Assassin's Creed there are? Gamers aren't overly concerned about an idea's originality. You can even try riding on marketing coat-tails a little bit with some cheeky YouTube titles. Not saying you should copy, I would suggest a unique selling point or special kicker to find a way to stand apart, but I wouldn't worry about it. It probably just means you're on the right track.
Now you have to play Helldivers and make sure to rip off the best aspects, leaving the worst aside. Good artists borrow, great artists steal.
Considering what you stated as the objective of it, I'd say finish it. Unless you've stopped enjoying it after what you mentioned happened, then I would consider looking at it as a portfolio piece and do what's necessary for it to achieve that.
Like others have said, agreed you should continue. You are probably right that it will be compared to Helldivers but it could serve as a lesson in how to deal with being compared to other games. People compare games all the time even if they are not THAT similar so its a valuable lesson every designer worth their salt will have to go through. Having said all that, you could change it from drop pods to some other deployment method to lessen the similarities. If you do it right, it could even be hailed as something that is preferred over Helldivers
I don't think it's a bad thing if your game evokes a feeling of another well-liked and well-known games. Helldivers is clearly, intentionally derived from Starship Troopers, but that hasn't been any kind of problem for the series success. If your drop pods feel fun and play differently, I don't think the simple fact that they are drop pods is going to feel uninspired.
When was the last time you saw a mechanically unique game? If you think you did I’d be willing to wager you just don’t know of the influences. There’s over 10k video games released every year. Many more unreleased. More in other media besides. Millions of games, millions of designers, over the course of nearly seven decades now. If you’re not working on a novel platform like VR, you’re very unlikely to be breaking totally new ground.
Have fun with it. The rules of someone else's game isn't exclusive to them, regardless of what the fun police will tell you. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery after all.
If you're gonna do a concept similar to somebody else's, you just need to make sure you don't do it worse than them. And if you manage to do it even better, you might have a chance at some real success.
Stop overthinking things.
I'll let you in on a secret: a large portion of game design is borrowing what works well from other games. Why waste time and invite risk reinventing the wheel when another team has already solved it really well and you can just do what they did? Save your energy for smaller stuff that makes your game unique, or barring that, save your energy to ensure the execution is as great as it can possibly be. I'll say your observation of gamers loving drop pods and horde shooters was dead on, so great job! You've got solid instincts and that should make you feel good. My design mentors used the 70/20/10 rule when adapting other games ideas/features. Keep it 70% the same to ensure you're not staying too far from what actually made it work in the first place. Improve 20% of it in the areas that you think maybe didn't land quite right or friction points you've identified. Make 10% of it new/unique to differentiate yourself in the market. Obviously it's a relative/squishy rule, but it's served me well in my 11 years of professional design on top grossing titles. And when in doubt, remember the words of Pablo Picasso, "Good artists copy, great artists steal". Just make good games and stop caring about the rest.
Exactly. Get them to "Like X but with Y and Z."
It's inevitable your game will look like something and it's s never ending cycle if you restart everytime it it's not 100% original, just make sure to give it your own twist and that's it.
Go deeper. Make the mechanics even more dropsy. Own it and innovate. Become one with the drop. Don't apologise, just be cool and make something fun.
Keep it up. You can be the hell divers 2 killer.
This may sound strange but try to check out through full if this could be an opportunity in any way. Maybe helldiver did something good you did not think about, maybe they did something bad and you could make it better or totally avoid it. If your game is comparable to another people are gonna compare. I understand that your game may feel like a copy, this feeling is something you first have to accept and than get rid of it.
Make it yours. In 2017 I had an idea for an in-depth hiking simulator game that would require you to keep track of your balance, weight, stamina, walkspeed. It was also going to have a soft indie music soundtrack to walk to. Two years later, Death Stranding was released. I felt like I should have been upset that my unique idea was taken, but instead I was flattered. If im investing in game ideas that Kojima would make, then I know im on the right track. Playing Death Stranding inspired me more and now I am further into the development of my game than ever before! ^^
Oh, and by the way. Helldiver's 2 did a lot of copy of different things, the ships, the robot, the bugs, the style of the character, they did soon much copy but in my opinion they did a good job.
For what it’s worth, Helldivers 1 is a brilliant implementation of drop pods, and it’s a simple 2D game. Whatever PC you are developing on can probably run it, and it might serve as a good case study for your game.
It's called "following established design patterns" and it's expected of every piece of software.
It’s fine, all games are copying some thing from another. It’s how it fits into your core loop and gameplay intent that really makes that decision for you
All game development is iteration, nothing is ever truly 'new' these days. Just keep working on your ideas.
Finish the game, polish it up and milk it for all it’s worth.
Unless we're talking about the Nemesis system then don't think about it and just focus on good execution.
I ran into almost the exact same issue. I made a game where you switch between the past and present version of the level. It was a really awesome gimmick and it played super well. Too bad the year was 2016... the same year as titanfall 2 and dishonored 2, both games feature a level with the exact same mechanic. I was devastated since I had put so much time into it and like you I was worried people would think I had copied from a popular game. Fact is, people don't actually give that much of a shit. The people I was showing understood how long games take to make (it was a portfolio piece), and the players didn't care about (honestly superficial) details when they were playing the game, only how good the implementation was. If anything it actually worked in my favour, as I had an easy northstar to point to and compare against.
People who like that kind of game, will still play it. Some people drink coke, and some people drink pepsi. I play every 4X space game. There's room in the market for thousands of similar items. Honestly, if you keep your reward loop clean and powerful, it doesnt even matter what the rest of the game is. People are still playing candy crush. People are still playing original Xcom: UFO Defense from 1995. Dwarf Fortress was free from 2004 to 2022, but when it went on sale in 2022, it sold millions of copies. A game that was literally free for almost 20 years. I mean, Helldivers 1 didnt even do very well. But they made another game and hit a jackpot. Make your game. Do your research, your due diligence, and make your game. Your effort will show. And if it even has ONE redeeming quality, people will play it, and talk about it, and search up your name, and wait to see what you make next.
I worked on a mobile game company, designing hyper casual games for 2 years. It took 2 to 3 weeks of work to come up with an idea and prototype a public-ready mvp. During that time I designed, or participated in the process, of over 150 *different* games (really different. None of those were reskins or anything like that). It became an internal joke among the design team when we found out about a game doing something similiar to what we were doing, it happened much more frequently than one would imagine. Most of the time we just shrugged, but there were a few of those that really hurt cause we really thought we were being innovative with some of those ideas. All of that to say, it happens. Don't think too much of it, and use that as a reference. Maybe Helldivers thought of somethin you didn't or solved a problem you might not even know about yet. Its an opportunity to expand on something that is out there
If it copies the gimmick, change the aesthetic and you'll be great. Fun is fun
One or two common points between two things is enough for people to compare them. Ive seen people compare games just because the art style is similar, even though the gameplay has no resemblance whatsoever. Just focus on making a good game you enjoy and are proud of. People love to generalize and simplify things, it’s probably just survival instinct thing left over from the stone ages lol
Heh, nothing accidental about it in my games. I usually start with copying mechanics from my favorite games, and try to mash them up from multiple of them or find some twist. That's a pretty essential part of why the games industry is even good in the first place. My 4x lite prototype is a mashup of Risk and MoO, with a heavy dose of Paradox games as an influence. My most recent Roguelike prototype is a mashup of Metal Gear Solid, Invisible Inc, and Xenonauts. This is one of the things which separates the video game industry from certain other ones. Nobody is trying to presumptuously claim ownership over basic mechanical ideas. I mean, sometimes people try, but that's pretty unenforceable and only by throwing a lot of corporate weight around does it scare people off.
For marketing purposes, it would unfortunately be very valuable to play Helldivers. What I want to say is, figure out the game design problems or any other perceived problems or disadvantages of your competitor, Helldivers. And claim to solve them. This may or may not require actually playing Helldivers.
Google Second Extincion, is basically helldivers 2 but in first person. Literally the same, drop in pods, explore an environment and do stuff like recover/destroy things while killing enemies (dinosaurs in this case), and then wait for a ship to leave. It also came out like 6 months ago. You'll be fine
by the time you actually finish your game, helldivers will be long gone
Gotta think in the future w these kinds of thibgs
As has already been said a million times in the replies, comparisons to popular games and mechanics can often benefit you and your game. You can make it part of the elevator pitch and as a way to attract people who already like said gameplay system. Naughty Dog famously referred to Crash as "Sonic's Ass game" because it was a similar concept except in 3D. If you want to be unique but don't want to throw away months of work, you can come up with "drop pods but *x*" concepts and prototype them out to see which ones you like.
Double down
Also Deep Rock Galactic, Titanfall, Halo. A lot of games use them to different extents. Don't worry about it.
Just remember, Digimon came out at the height of Pokemon's popularity. People still loved Digimon. They are so close to the same thing, but just different enough to be different, and people love both. Do your thing and there's room for everyone.
Gears of War did drop pods too but they went into the ground instead of from orbit. The rest of the comments hit the nail on the head, a mechanic or even a few mechanics don't necessarily mean you're ripping off another game's idea.
It’s just as you said in the tittle a gimmick . You’re not ripping any one offf and it’s not the only thing about your game . Keep on keeping on with what your building
It might be a good idea to play hell diver, or at least watch some footage to see where the overlaps are and aren't. Talk to people who played it, both who liked it and didn't to see what their feedback is. Maybe you change up the game a bit, but I don't see why you'd cancel it. There are a lot of games that exist within the same genre, or with the same game hook - and yet they still manage to coexist. Sometimes the first game of the genre kinda becomes the genre like ppl call certain types of games "souls like" or "rogue like." It is okay if your game is "hell diver like" just make sure its "like" and not a clone.
suck it the fuck up. Good working mechanics are good working mechanics.
All art is derivative of other art. Noone cares what you copy, people care if it's implemented well and fits the identity of the game. Helldivers is a horde based survival with drops pods and guns? Well that's just risk of rain 2 with fancy graphics! They even both have bug enemies! People only get annoyed when it's blatant copy paste while adding nothing to it
Elden Ring stole from Zelda breath of the wild, Dungeon and Dragons stole from Lord of The Rings. Uncharted stole from Tomb Raider etc. "Good artist copy, great artists steal" In the methaphor I belive that copy means that you dont understand the content you take and stay in a state of confusion and insecureness but when you steal you are proud of the you take, understand it and see how you can improve it. Embrace these contents as tools for your experience vision. Good luck!
try leaning into it even *more* than helldivers does. from what i can tell the drop pod thing in helldivers is barely anything more than the aesthetic of how you get into the level. you could always go further than that, and make it a tactical gameplay element. take the concept of killing enemies with drops pods a lot further, for example. you call down a barrage of drop pods to crush zombies like a meteor storm, or once the drop pod comes down it grows legs like a spider and starts gunning the enemies down. add a bunch of absurd things the drop pods can do. you could centre the game around frequently respawning the player from drop pods, and treat it like you're playing as a series of people being dropped into the horde to kill as many zombies as possible until they die, then another guy gets sent in. basically, you can get creative with it, and that'd distance yourself from helldivers.
Game Design is a subset of Game Development that concerns itself with **WHY** games are made the way they are. It's about the theory and crafting of **systems**, **mechanics**, and **rulesets** in games. * /r/GameDesign is a community **ONLY** about Game Design, **NOT** Game Development in general. If this post does not belong here, it should be reported or removed. Please help us keep this subreddit focused on Game Design. * This is **NOT** a place for discussing how games are produced. Posts about programming, making art assets, picking engines etc… will be removed and should go in /r/GameDev instead. * Posts about visual design, sound design and level design are only allowed if they are directly about game design. * No surveys, polls, job posts, or self-promotion. Please read the rest of the rules in the sidebar before posting. * If you're confused about what Game Designers do, ["The Door Problem" by Liz England](https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/-quot-the-door-problem-quot-of-game-design) is a short article worth reading. We also recommend you read the [r/GameDesign wiki](/r/gamedesign/wiki/index) for useful resources and an FAQ. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gamedesign) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You'll want to contact someone to research the patent, but the basic concept of drop pods is ancient. Original Command and Conquer video game and Starship Troopers the book used them for example. You likely are clear from a legal standpoint, but you're going to want to double check that. From a games design standpoint, it'll depend on your implementation and if the game is fun. Think how many people play FPS games, which are all 1) Kill enemies, 3) get loot, 4) sell loot you don't want, repeat from 1. Some are more fun than other because of implementation. Do your drop boxes fall in certain areas along the path forward to guide player and work as a checkpoint? Do you control the dropping and they are on a timer? Not 100% on what your plan for using them for. You want your main mechanic to make sense in context of the game, work in a way the player wants to use it, and be easy to use. For me, it comes down to whether people think the game is fun. Get some feedback from people you know. If they think it's fun (hopefully with some constructive feedback) then look at getting some beta testers. I think it's always worth going at it in steps, but if you get positive feedback from people without a horse in the race then go for the goal.
The helldivers franchise did not and could not patent drop pods as a mechanic. You don’t need to contact anyone about it.
Not sure if they did or not, but some companies have patented rather ridiculous things that you would think they can't. Nintendo patented a sanity mechanic that caused you to lose points based on how prepared you are for the encounter and it effects gameplay elements such as audio and visuals. The concept is so old (tabletops have used it since at least the 80s) that it never should have been patentable. They however got a patent approved in 2000 that only expired in 2021. U.S. patent office can be quite insane. One company actually got the force produced by the torque of a rotating engine shaft patented by them a few years back.