How Do I Create a Spiritual Game Successor? 125
An anonymous reader writes "I've recently been on a legacy video game binge, reliving the nostalgic days, when I realized that one of my favorite old games can be vastly improved with a few tweaks. This game is pretty much made for a controller, so I would love to get it done on Xbox Live, but doing it on the PC is just as viable. Unfortunately, I am pretty sure the game is not in the public domain yet. Based on previous stories covered here, some companies are all for community made successors while others choose to give them the crushing blow from the start. My question is: how far is too far when one is trying to make a spiritual successor? I do not intend to copy any materials, but it would be lovely if I could incorporate some game design ideas (very general level design, movement, and just one or two game features)."
For spiritual successor there is only..... (Score:3, Insightful)
.... Lie.
the usual formula (Score:5, Insightful)
2) gpl / lgpl
3) funky name that barely hints at the original
4) original artwork
unless the company happens to be in an IP troll mood, you'll probably be fine
The fun is in the doing (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't. (Score:5, Insightful)
So you played this game. You thought it was cool. You want to give others that cool experience that you liked so much.
Instead of copying the game concepts, invent something new. Go a level beyond the original. Give other people that "Wow - this is really cool new game" experience, not the "Wow - this is a really cheesy knockoff of ${GAME}".
I understand that learning to write games well without copying someone else's game is like learning to play guitar without _Stairway to Heaven_. That's fine; we've all got our Asteroids copies wasting bits on our hard drives. But copying games doesn't really bring anything new and good to the community:
If game writing is your passion, do it well. The big studios are not going to produce the creative, fun-to-play kind of games that an independent developer can. You are not competing with them - you have a range of freedom the professional game developer can only dream about. Use it. Be a blessing to other gamers, not the studios.
Re:the usual formula (Score:3, Insightful)
^ This
The most successful "spiritual sequels" I've seen have generally been Open Source equivalents. Obviously you wont be able to open source anything from the Xbox360 SDK for legal reasons, but if you wanted to do it in XNA to get it on the 360, there's no reason why you couldn't.
However, a good ol' C++/OpenGL PC version would be ideal, that way if it's successful enough, it can live on through various homebrew ports to past, present and future games consoles alike.
Don't use their IP and don't worry about it... (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not intend to copy any materials, but it would be lovely if I could incorporate some game design ideas (very general level design, movement, and just one or two game features).
If you aren't going to use any of their art assets or written copy, you don't use any of their trademarked names or characters, and you don't violate any patents they may have received on features (probably not an issue) then I don't see what the problem is in the first place.
They can't do anything to you just for imitating the general game play. Commercial games do that all the time. Look at something like Dragon Age - the engine and game play feels a LOT like a spiritual successor to Neverwinter Nights - Bioware just dumped their D&D license and created all of their own story line and assets.
Re:the usual formula (Score:1, Insightful)
Or;
1. Just make it however you see fit.
2. Don't add your name or any reference to yourself.
3. Release whatever the fuck you want to.
4. Let the users, not the lawyers, define the artistic merit.
Guess i'm a dreamer.
Get it in writing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You don't. (Score:1, Insightful)
I disagree. I'd be perfectly happy to get yet another pacman clone, if it was the best pacman of all time.
original != good
unoriginal != bad
Re:the usual formula (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree entirely. If creating a "successor" of a game - any game that was similar to existing games - was illegal, than the vast majority of commercial games out there would be illegal.
Unfortunately it seems to be a common myth in indie game development circles that rules and ideas are covered by copyright.
Spiritual games (Score:4, Insightful)
I am still trying to picture a spiritual game.
Do you steer a character up into the mountains to assume the Lotus position and meditate on the oneness of the world?
Are you attacked by demons, but instead of shooting them (Doom) you cast them out with prayer (obviously a movie spin-off from The Exorcist)?
Do you pass through increasingly higher levels of virtue as your avatar accumulates Love, Peace, Hope, etc?
It is an interesting idea anyway - spiritual enlightenment through game playing: the 21st century religion.
Re:You don't. (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you point to me how many commercial games out there are totally original new ideas, as opposed to borrowing from previous games?
The most recent genre-launching video game was probably Parappa the Rapper in the mid-1990s. Parappa begot Beatmania, which begot Frequency and Amplitude, which begot Guitar Hero and Rock Band. Even a game like Katamari Damacy is just Bubbles (1982) redone as a 3D platformer.
Copyright 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
"Unfortunately, I am pretty sure the game is not in the public domain yet. "
Since there are no video games I'm aware of that pre-date 1923 (US copyright law), I'd say that's probably right.
Copy just the essence (Score:3, Insightful)
Figure out what it is that you really like about the game. Then make a game that does something similar, and conveys the essence of what you like.
For example, the essence of "Asteroids" would be a game where you pilot a space ship in 2D, with a simplified physics model (if you stop firing the engines, your ship will actually slow down and eventually stop due to some sort of highly unrealistic "friction" in space) and you busily dodge and shoot things. You could make a game that isn't called "Asteroids", doesn't have vector graphics, and has somewhat different rules, but it would still capture the essence. It doesn't matter if your rocks are kind of ugly or your sound effects are lame, but it does matter if the controls for the ship are sluggish to respond, or the game animation is jerky, that sort of thing. Sound effects and rock graphics are easily upgraded later; focus on the soul of your game. (I used to play Asteroids, and it wasn't because the graphics were so good or the music was so great. In fact, there was no music, although that sort of "heartbeat" sound effect was kind of cool for the day...)
Once you have your core gameplay, you may start having original ideas that may take you in a new direction. Suppose you added gravity to your spaceship game, and the player has to fly in and out of cave networks, shooting little bases and collecting stuff? (That one is called "Gravitar".) Suppose you shoot rocks, but they don't blow up, and little crystals come out and you collect them? Then add a giant lion-faced robot boss... (That one is called "Sinistar".) So, don't call your project some lame name like "Asteroids Clone"; it may not end up being a clone. You could call it some goofy name like "Nexuiz" and thanks to the miracle of the Internet, people would still find out about it (if it's worth finding out about).
Also, here is a meta hint that applies to any free software project: focus on what you are good at, and make something that is usable even if limited. If you make a game that is quite playable, but just has one level that repeats over and over, you may attract a fan base and someone may volunteer to write a new level for it. If your music is weak, someone who is a musician may donate some better music. But nobody will volunteer to take a broken mass of code that doesn't even compile, and help you sort it out. Successful free software projects build a community and some momentum, but you won't get a community or momentum without making something that actually works.
I suggest an informal "agile" approach. Get something working, no matter how limited and lame. For example, a ship that flies around. Then add some feature, and get that working too. Say, rocks. Then keep adding things: collision detection (ship must dodge), ship gun, rocks splitting when hit, a score counter, etc. At each step, get something that works and check it in to a source control system before you go on.
I use an informal agile approach on just about everything I do. If you are making a truly complicated game that needs crazy amounts of design, even then I suggest doing the agile thing... just design the broad outlines, then pick some easy corner of the project and start there.
Especially in a project you are doing in your spare time for fun, this style of developing is a good idea. And in true open source style, consider making all your little incremental releases publicly available. If you are lucky, you may start to build a little community even while you are still at the pre-alpha stage.
P.S. If you are looking for a project, please consider the Activision "Battlezone" game. It was an odd hybrid of a real-time strategy game and a first person shooter, and I enjoyed it thoroughly. If I ever tackle a game project like you are proposing, it would be this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlezone_(1998_video_game) [wikipedia.org]
steveha
Re:the usual formula (Score:3, Insightful)