RPGs set in the Wild West are few and far between these days. With Wild ARMs missing in action, Experimental Gamer has stepped up with Boot Hill Heroes.
Ripping off Mother's artstyle/interface to the point where your game could pass for a Mother fangame is pretty uncool. Just saying.
Last edited by Drav; 04-18-2013 at 09:31 AM.
Seriously though, why is it OK to have a generic visual style inspired by any Squenix/Capcom/Whatever game, but "uncool" to have a fresh take on a visual style that's very rarely seen, and generally well regarded?
The game is looking pretty good and has some interesting some interesting new directions. Can't wait to see how it turns out.
This is not a "visual style"; this is the distinct look of a particular series. I've never seen a game that looked like it was aping Final Fantasy VI to the extent that this game is aping Earthbound/Mother 3, except for other Square-owned properties. Not even that Black Sigil game, which everyone complained about at the time as well.
Fair warning disclaimer above poster may be associated with Experimental Gamer.
Because it's Nintendo's IP, and why should anyone else make any money off it? There's always a grey area with this sort of thing, but I don't think it's hard to look at that video and see why I'd think this falls on the black. Especially if you've played both Earthbound and Mother 3.
Firstly a visual style IS a distinct look, and last I checked, you don't get to own a visual style and prevent others from using it.
BHH very clearly takes on the "Distinct Look" of the Earthbound games (of which we've seen ONE in the states), and I think that's awesome.
And to allay Paws' concern, I'm not affiliated with Experimental Gamer. I do speak with Dave Welch (the Writer/Programmer/Artist) on occasion via Twitter and at XNAChat.com but do not know him beyond that.
Yeah, there is nothing about Earthbound that gives it a lock on no one else being able to use a similar style. There'd be issues if assets were being straight up stolen and reused, but this is just a style and it's not even in the same setting. That'd be like saying no one can use turn-based battles because older games have already used it.
I have no idea if it could actually "claim ownership" in a legal sense, and don't really care, but I'm sure that at the very least if you were to, say, start selling artwork that looked exactly like Akira Toriyama's style most critics would scold you and tell you to stop being such a hack and come up with your own ideas.
There's a big difference between not liking something because you find it too derivative and claiming no one else should be able to create something using a similar style.
There's a new post in the thread, albeit edited. Also corrected your typos while I was in there.
Personally, I have nothing against this game. In fact, I'm looking forward to seeing what they come up with. And honestly, I think they changed the characters and tilesets enough to where I don't think they'll get in trouble with this particular game. But I just wanted to point that out, because if people start copying other art styles that ARE patented or copyrighted, they can end up in serious legal trouble if they don't do their research first.
Last edited by SBaby; 04-19-2013 at 02:25 PM.
Yes, but what I am trying to differentiated here is "visual style" at a high level (16-bit, isometric etc.) which is of course ok copy, and the visual style of a particular game. Said another way, taking a few visual elements from a game is fine, but the more elements you take the less ok it becomes and the more it errs on the side of plagiarism. When you reach the point where your game look like a fangame for whatever series your "referencing", you've taken a lot.Originally Posted by Alturos
lol, I forgot about this game. I don't know whether I said anything back then but I was definitely thinking it. I guess to Zeboyd's credit they stopped flying so close to the sun by the time Cthulhu was released.Originally Posted by Alturos
What about my hypothetical situation makes you think it's more about the former than the latter?Originally Posted by Macstorm
While there are similarities in the aesthetic, I don't find it particularly derivative. There are a dozen different websites they could have grabbed every frame of animation from the Earthbound sprites, created sprite dolls from that and just filled it in with their own pixels for different characters. They clearly didn't do that here. Their sprite work is a lot more busy, not to mention the different character proportions, while Earthbound's is clean, and sharp. This work was inspired by, not derived from.
Vanillaware’s 2D is, once again, shaming their competitor’s 3D. It’s like, what are you even doing with your extra D, jerks? Maybe we should hold that extra D in reserve for you, like a trust, until you are ready. - Tycho, Penny Arcade
I said that they copied the art-style, not that they copied the sprites down to the pixel. I think you're setting the bar too high for what constitutes a "rip off". On top of the sprites themselves there are also numerous other aesthetic similarities, like the way numbers bounce off enemies when you attack them, the way characters pop up from behind their menu boxes when you select an attack, and the more-than-passing similarities between the cowboy dude and Flint. Most of them are innocuous by themselves, but taken together? If all they wanted to do was make something "inspired by" Mother they didn't need to take anywhere near this much; the creators clearly wanted to give the game a look such that the only thing you'll think when you see it is "this game looks like Mother". I find this irksome, not just on the level of morality, but also in terms of what is good for the artform.
Well obviously I think it is more than just "similar", but this is, more or less, what I am claiming.Originally Posted by Macstorm
Last edited by Drav; 04-22-2013 at 05:02 AM.