Let's Talk About Games

The setting doesn't matter for me - I determine a severe letdown initially by how many game breaking bugs it has. If the intended path cannot be followed. If the game cannot be completed. Then I look at the gameplay, mechanics, engaging systems - if it is all repetitive or the solution is too simple, e.g. for a puzzle pick up A, slot it in B, press C, repeat; for combat stand still and spam A to win - then there is little engagement and no catharsis for completion.

Sometimes a pretty landscape is all that's needed for catharsis - there may be shit mechanics, but breathers in between sections and cool distance art will probably be all it takes to please me

forgetting to use the words "inspired by" or "homage"

Developers can - and should - lift systems, mechanics, and whatever the hell else they want from any other title (occasional sticky legal protections aside). The problem arises when those things are copied uncritically.

Good games are intricate systems of interlocking mechanics, and good game designers put a lot of work into designing those things to create the specific play experience they have in mind.

If you want to reuse some or all of those aspects, you need to also understand how and why they work, so that you can apply them correctly in a new context. If you don’t, and instead just lazily copy with no plan or vision? That’s when people start calling things out as rip-offs.

A lack of a distinct identity, that leaves the player feeling like it's just trying to piggyback off another game's success rather than sell itself on its own merits. It's gotta bring something new to the table to set itself apart, something to justify playing it over the original game it's copying homework from.

I would say that it's a hive-mind feeling of laziness about the effort put in, starting with mechanics-copying. I don't think anyone would ever say X is a ripoff of Y if X uses totally different Z mechanics, even if the graphics are similar. It's when the mechanics are recycled that it'd better be more original in other aspects.

I think its (usually) a bad idea in that its very hard to outdo the original. Often times games don't quite nail what makes the original work and changes to the formula usually aren't consequential enough to matter. Sometimes its great for a stagnant or platform locked genre though.

I consider a game a 'rip-off' if it blindly follows mechanics or the art style in an attempt to get the player to buy in thinking its whatever game its trying to copy. That is you're not trying to sell it based on what it does differently or the game itself, but merely piggybacking another game's design and marketing.

Games that are inspired by other games, even if they are pretty similar, are totally OK. (Stardew Valley or Lords of the Fallen for example)

I have made games in the past that were basically copies of other games, but those were made for fun or for learning

I feel like the difference should be caused by the reason the game is made

If there's next to nothing to differentiate the new game from the one that inspired it it's a rip-off, likely trying to gain sales solely by counting to the coat rails of the successful predecessor.

If you make meaningful changes or improvements that alter the play experience, That's iteration, progress.

I would call that a "knock-off" or a "clone", not a "rip-off"; a rip-off is when the purchaser feels like they're being cheated out of their money. e.g. movie theaters, airports, and anywhere else with "captive audiences" charging outrageously higher prices for food are classic examples.