They're slick! They're shiny! And each one is Oh. So. Fresh! At first glance, the current crop of computer games seems like the most diverse and varied of all time... Scratch just beyond the glossy surface, however, and what you'll find is the same, tired gameplay concepts and mechanics you saw last year (and the year before that; and the year before that; reaching back maybe 5, or even 10 years to whenever someone had the Original Idea). Developers keep rutting the same grooves their predecessors first scratched into existence, making them deeper and deeper with every "new" release.

Their reasoning is simple: by classifying a game, devs ensure it can be immediately grasped by its prospective audience. And the less time a buyer spends debating whether they will be interested in something, the faster they can get to deciding whether or not to spend money on it... Hence – computer game genres: item two on my list of things holding back game development.

Making a sale is like telling a joke: spend too much time getting to the punchline and watch the shutters roll down over a buyer's eyes. But hit 'em with "it's an FPS with RPG elements and random loot" and they can immediately skip to "sounds like Borderlands; I've played Borderlands; I liked Borderlands; I'll probably like this too." Go one step further and throw in a direct comparison ("3rd-person survival game, like Resident Evil") and the pitch is even shorter... And that's all well and good: game Studios exist to make a profit and I've got no pork with 'em streamlining the process.

But, increasingly, game design seems to be starting from the wrong end.

Instead of, ultimately, arriving at a genre based on what elements or mechanics a game includes, more and more developers seem to be starting by deciding on a genre first and then making the content fit its limitations. Not that I don't get the appeal. Consider the following scenarios:

• 1) I like submarines, so I'll be making a game about submarines; I like seeing them from the outside, but their interiors are neat as well, so I think a first-person view will be necessary; and I like crew interaction, so — maybe an RPG set aboard a submarine? one you can control as you would in a sim? that's a lot of complex 3D modeling, though, so maybe simpler visuals? like pixel-based, side scrolling aboard and then top-down when controlling the sub? but how could you present depth in a top-down view?

• 2) shooters sell and players prefer first-person perspective; character classes rate well and people like special powers, but we want to keep guns... I know: we'll set it in space — that way, we can work in regenerating shields as well; there will be random loot, so rarer items will keep people spamming the same levels over and over; we'll throw in a multiplayer component; and micro-transactions offset expenses fairly well, so we'll have some of those; and we'll call it... Schmestiny!

A case could be made for amateur vs. professional dev, but let's ignore that for now. The difference I want to point out is approach. #1 has a concept they want to focus on, but no certainty as to how. To make their game, they'll have to head up a lot of blind alleys before they arrive at their finished product. They will waste a lot of time, yes, and there's no telling if – in the end – their game will be popular, enjoyable or profitable... But in the course of their exploration, if they give it due diligence, they may stumble onto ideas and solutions that had not been explored before – because their game is not something someone else had attempted.

#2, on the other hand, will have a much easier time of it. They know, right away, where they're headed, because they are not really making a New Game: rather, they are re-arranging elements they know work into a new, cohesive whole. The only thing they'll create, really, is visuals and a story. But the game underneath will be a Frankenstein's monster of a construct cobbled together from other games That Had Good Sales (and, yes, that is an intentional dig at Bungie: Oni was a fantastic game; the Destiny series are visually-appealing Sound Business Decisions).

Stop and think back over the past year. How many games you played had elements or mechanics that genuinely surprised you? How many times were you able to say "huh – never seen that before"? Now add up all of the times you saw a game element and immediately thought "oh, that's just like so-and-so."

I'm just a pig and no scientist, but – I'll bet you a truffle the latter far outweighs the former.

The logic for this is fairly easy to follow.

New ideas pose a risk (that they won't pan out). Risks increase the chance a game won't sell. And the game selling is, in the eyes of the devs, synonymous with the game being good. And, like I said, can't fault studios for trying to stay afloat...

That's why ideas that do work are suddenly everywhere.

Street Fighter 2 introduced stringing combos together and special, over-the-top, moves and, suddenly, every fighting game was slinging fireballs (like King of Fighters, Guilty Gear or Tekken).

GTA3 gave us an open, sandbox-y world with arcade gameplay and an almost-rogue-like save system (respawn but lose your stuff) and a whole slew of "open world sandbox" GTA-likes flooded the market (Saints Row, Just Cause, Red Dead Redemption).

Morrowind imitated vast, open spaces by populating a massive map with x-amount of the same type of location or activity and that's all Bethesda, EA and Ubisoft do now.

WinBack: Covert Operations introduced sticky cover and then, eventually, a slew of better-known titles had their protagonists safely glued in place while shooting (Metal Gear Solid 2, Gears of War, Mass Effect 2).

But the games that introduced those mechanics were Trying Something New: they had no previous examples to gauge success by and no case-studies to follow. Their devs simply had an idea they thought might be neat and decided to roll the dice on it.

Nowadays, devs seem to assemble their games from a buffet of ready-made pieces: this had good level design, so we'll ape it; cover was handled well here, so we'll have some of that... Slap on some fresh visuals, make up new lore and – voila! Brand New Title (with all the originality of a faded copy of Something That Once Sold).

Without risks, all we end up doing is what we've done before – what we know works – and that well-worn groove keeps on getting deeper and deeper. Before long, it may get so deep, you won't be able to get out of it at all...

While genres are a good thing for the consumer, for a dev they should represent a box beyond the finish line their product ultimately falls into – not a design component they pick at the outset, which then shapes the development of a game.

Pig Recommends:

• -Trying Something New, every now and again (doesn't have to be a game, either); ever have something you wanted to try but were afraid to? not sure if you can pull it off, or do it justice, or just afraid you'll look goofy while getting the hang of it? try it anyway! new experiences are what keeps life interesting, after all; don't be so afraid of giving 'em a go that you miss out on something fun;