How Do I Create a Spiritual Game Successor?

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)."

Comments

Um ...

[WrongSizeGlass]

Pray for inspiration and success?

For spiritual successor there is only.....

[3seas]

.... Lie.

Sorry friend...

[cliffiecee]

Alley Cat was indeed an awesome game.

But I don't think adding LOLcats is going to improve it.

the usual formula

[beefnog]

1) accept zero money
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

Re:the usual formula

[neokushan]

^ 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.

Re:the usual formula

[Ihmhi]

As it stands, under American Copyright Law (and many other places), the "rules of a game" as it were can not be copyrighted (or trademarked, obviously). This is why you can have a blatant Tetris clone on your cell phone, but it can't be called Tetris (as that would be a violation of trademark).

So long as the code is 100% yours (and/or is all code that is from scratch), all of the art assets (textures, models, music, etc.) are created from scratch, and you don't use any copyrighted material (character names, game name (obviously), and perhaps even the "distinctive appearance" of a character) you'll have no legal problems. Well, you might get sued, but any competent judge would throw the case out as in this situation they'd have no legal standing.

Re:the usual formula

[mdwh2]

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.

Re:the usual formula

[Blakey Rat]

Also, it's better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission. If you follow lhmhi's advice above, you're unlikely to get into trouble. However, if you go out of your way to ask permission from the original game developers and they say no, then what? You're screwed. If you go ahead and develop it anyways they could take you to court and show the judge that you anticipated possible infringement yet went ahead even after you didn't obtain permission.

If you ask, and they say "no", then don't make it. If you don't respect their wishes, and you were asking only as a formality, you're just being an asshole and the court deserves to ding you when you get sued.

Believe me, there are thousands of games that could work well if remade. Here's what you do:

1) Pick a game
2) Ask its creator if you can remake it (don't be an asshole)
3) If they say no, go to step 1.

Re:the usual formula

[Xest]

Yep, this is mostly true, if you're making a clone of a game you don't need permission providing you don't infringe on their IP.

Infringement of IP might be using the same names of characters, graphically similar enemies and so forth.

Basically, if the original game is story based you're going to struggle to immitate it without infringing on their IP because their IP is so core to the game, but if you're going for a less story focussed game, let's say something like Streetfighter 2, then clone away, just change the characters, change the moves, change the name, and there's really fuck all they can do- you can still do a fighting game that resembles it and recreate the spirit of the original game without copying their IP.

The same goes for a game like, say Desert Strike or the games in that series- it's fine to make a roughly isometric viewpoint based game where you fly around in a helicopter blowing shit up as long as you change the storyline, and use a slightly different helicopter, or give it different weapons.

So really it comes down to how closely the IP is tied into the gameplay, with Tetris there was really little IP other than the name, it's hard for them to claim coloured blocks as their IP and they cannot class the gameplay as their IP hence why as the parent said, you can clone the shit out of tetris and give it a different name. The same would go for games like Asteroids as long as the name and spaceship aren't quite the same. But then as I say, if you take an platformer like Mario or Sonic then you can copy the gameplay- game mechanics such as jumping on heads to kill, the speed characters move, how high they jump, but you can't copy the characters or enemies so by the time you're done you'll be left with a game that might play like Mario or Sonic, but is otherwise completely and utterly different and just another platformer.

So overall the answer to the question is really just how much of the original game you want to clone- if you just want to make a game that feels like the original, but has fresh characters, storyline, name and so forth then fine. If you want to clone the original characters and storyline then you're out of luck.

As an aside, in my younger days, Valve came in heavy handed against a mod team I was in for trying to create a clone of the original Teamfortress for a different engine and told us we were infringing on their IP because we used the word Fortress in the name even though we didn't use the word Team, and we used the same class names. They told us we could carry on if we removed Fortress from the name, and if we changed the class names. I was 17 at the time so wasn't going to argue, but I suspect they had very little case against us anyway, even more so when you take into account the fact the original TF mod was available free with source code and listed as free to use as you want, even though Valve later removed it and claimed that agreement was no longer valid, something I'm not sure they can retroactively take back anyway. So companies will try it on, if you believe you've done nothing wrong seek proper legal advice, they may just be trying to strong arm you when you have absolutely no case to answer at all.

I would say in the face of modern strengthening of IP laws, the laws surrounding computer game development are actually some of the fairest and most liberal, and I'd argue this is why computer games technology move so fast- we'd probably never have had Call of Duty MW games if Valve had been able to use say Counter-Strike to claim rights to modern warfare FPS games for example.

Re:the usual formula

[HungryHobo]

Far better:

1:Just make the game.

Don't take their artwork or story or character names and you're fine.

there are enough games out there anyway which are carbon copies of each other.

Asking the creator of the old game is stupid unless you want to use their code or artwork.

if you really feel the need to reference them then you might want to add an "inspired by" section and just make sure there's a decent list of other games in there too.

Stealing from one source is plagiarism.
Stealing from many is art.

Re:the usual formula

[I cant believe its n]

I wonder how much is lost because of creative people's fear of the U.S. legal system. Sound businesses that never existed. Lost dreams.

Here's what I did...

[drenehtsral]

If it is an individual who wrote the original game, ask them for permission. Both times I've asked, I've received permission.

If it is a faceless mega-corporation, avoid using images, music, or names from the original game, but unless they have a patent on the look-and-feel or game mechanics (never heard of the later), you can just code away.

For my platman (old Amiga game) remake for the GBA, you can get it on my web page. (www.greasybastard.com)

Also see freeciv, and any of the two-or-so decent Wing Commander Privateer remakes.

The fun is in the doing

[moteyalpha]

I have more fun making the games than I do playing them.

Duke Nukem Forever and a Day

[Shinmizu]

Well, you can just tell people you're working on Duke Nukem Forever and a Day. As long as you never finish, you've succeeded at making a spiritual successor.

You don't.

[gillbates]

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:

1. If it looks like a copy, it will be compared to that other game, and no matter how good you make it, there will be people who pan it because ${GAME} did X, and yours doesn't do X, or does Y instead and they liked X better.
2. Even a poorly implemented or incomplete game will garner interest if it is NEW and INTERESTING. If you plan to open source this ever, and want to take it beyond the initial stages, it will be helpful to have a community supporting you, i.e. submitting bug reports and patches. Trust me, no one's going to even care to submit a bug report for a Yet Another Tetris Clone.
3. Originality is good. Seriously, we have too many games which are essentially copies of each other with different texture maps. Do something that will challenge other game developers to rethink their gameplay.

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:You don't.

[icebraining]

I don't really agree with this. The best OSS games I've played are all "successors" of older games, with improved but not so original mechanics: OpenTTD, Freeciv, Hedgewars or any of the Quake3 clones.

I was also pretty excited to see development around a Theme Hospital OSS clone, but alas, it seems the movement lost some steam nowadays.

Re:You don't.

[NotQuiteReal]

invent something new

That's like the old joke on how to carve a ship... "Start with a block of wood, and carve away anything that doesn't look like a ship".

Re:You don't.

[tepples]

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.

Don't use their IP and don't worry about it...

[Dahamma]

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.

Get it in writing

[mykos]

Get everything CLEARLY in writing if you get the IP owner on board with it. They can act enthusiastic now and screw you over later.

Re:It doesn't hurt

[Garridan]

Go with Hopper. It's better to ask forgiveness than permission.

Spiritual games

[ignavus]

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.

Wisdom Tree

[tepples]

Wisdom Tree's games weren't licensed by Nintendo. They were licensed by God.

Re:A lawyer

[tepples]

Slashdot is not a lawyer. Ask one.

Ask Slashdot about the law typically means "What should I know first to make the most of my first consultation?"

Copyright 101

[tverbeek]

"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.

Re:Copyright 101

[Sir_Lewk]

Authors can chose to release works into the public domain ahead of time, and sometimes things fall through the cracks, even though they are not all that old (see 'Night of the Living Dead').

Copy just the essence

[steveha]

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)

steveha

The next one is the first one

[rcharbon]

I look forward to the next new game that does not use any concepts that appeared in a previous game.

Two modes: classic and "revamped"

[kikito]

The Curse of Monkey Island I and Street Fighter II have recently experienced "remakes" on xbox live.

They both offer the option to "stick with classic view" or "shiny new remade graphics". They also offer the possibility of switching from one to the other.

I suggest you do the same: a "classic mode", with gameplay conserved from the original, and a "new mode" with improvements.