Inoda can be called original only in terms of the fact that he was not in the original SAO, but from the point of view of literary originality - firstly, Inoda is Masaru from Scars of Summer(the appearance, image and plot of the first part are completely the same), and secondly, it is a collective image of NTR ugly bastard.
View attachment 5255211
So, it cannot be said that Inoda is a completely fictional Fujino and a completely original (there are no analogues in other sources) character.
As for the story in this game, if Fujino had taken a time period that would completely exclude the events of the original novel, for example, Asuna and Kirito went to America, and developed his own completely fictional story, then it could claim some originality.
But Fujino boldly uses locations, markers, characters of the original SAO, one way or another using what we know - who this character is, where this house is located, or what happened 2 years ago. So, Fujino's story doesn't pretend to be any special originality either. The story itself doesn't work well. Who hasn't watched or read SAO, doesn't understand - what kind of Aincrad? What kind of Oberon? What is remarkable about the hut on the 22nd floor? Are Asuna and Kirito really a pair of lovers? With so many plot gaps that rely on knowledge from the plot of the SAO novel, how can this story be called original? The characters have no idea, no backstory-how do we know who Liz is and why she communicates with them? Ahhh, we should have at least watched the first season of SAO to understand who Liz is, who Yui is, who Klein is, who Agil is? Then, just in case, watch Fairy Dance and GGO to understand who Suguha and Sinon are. Without a backstory, all these people are just not very convincing characters who are pretty badly woven into the story.
You might say that the Council is a completely original idea by Fujino, but what the hell is that enough to call the story original? I don't think so...