User blog comment:Clee1989/Comparisons and "clones"/@comment-1419519-20130910024919

Yet more proof that we now live in a world where gamers no longer understand their own terminology. 'Clone' is not a derogatory term. For example, basically EVERY real time strategy game you've played is a Command & Conquer clone. Every hack 'n' slash action RPG you've played is a Diablo clone, and Diablo is itself a 'roguelike', so-called because of its similarity to the original dungeon crawler, Rogue. When a game successfully establishes a new and enjoyable genre or style of gameplay, would you prefer that it remain the only game of that type, thus allowing everything you enjoyed about it to slide into obscurity, never to be seen or played again?

The simple answer is no. It is, therefore, counter-productive to argue that any developer who produces something similar that picks up elements of another game and runs with them to build something of their own around it is simply "cashing in" by churning out a haphazard ripoff.

I almost forgot to add that no, GTA really is not a clone of anything. GTA is an example of the genre-defining type of game that establishes itself as the 'head of the pack' above similar games that are casually labelled, as you say, clones. When GTA 1 came out in 1997, it turned heads because it was something special. Something new. When GTA 3 came out, it was the first game to do what it did, as part of a trilogy that was already doing something unique.