Operation Rainfall

[Jagos]

Ok, I have no idea what's going on since I don't play on the Wii. However, it's come to my attention that three games are getting a LOT of attention by the hardcore Wii base because Nintendo is being a douche.

Now before I go "Humbug", I want to make it clear that I think Nintendo's always been pretty douchey. When Earthbound didn't sell, they decided not to give the US Mother 3. They've STILL yet to bring over a re-release of the Mother 2 or even mother 1. Whether it's copyright reasons or whatever, I don't care. I would buy a 3DS and play the ever loving crap out of that game, if Nintendo would publish it. So I pirate it, along with Mother 4. Their loss.


Sega is also in this boat with Shining Force 3, which I would LOVE to play. I've always loved these games, but then it's rather hard to finish them without my OCD kicking in. And if anyone saw my rage at the SoR Remake, you can rest assured... I have the game in my possession. It is AWESOME!

So, what exactly is Operation Rainfall, and how is this supposed to change the opinion of the big N?

[Kim]

There's no Mother 4. What in God's Hell are you talking about?

The problem isn't that Nintendo isn't localizing these three games. It's that they consistently refuse to localize games when the games being made in the US are either shit or non-existent. It's that at this point they aren't even remotely bothering to support the Wii, and if they're prone to abandon their own consoles like this I have no interest in supporting their other consoles.

[Bells]

Taking from Extra Credits:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3738-S-978-and-Operation-Rainfall

And their website

http://oprainfall.blogspot.com/

So, it's Nintendo giving a shoot on their own foot. I played The last Story and Xenoblade in their Japanese versions and i would love to be able to do so in their English versions too. These all seem like really good games for the wii.

But Nintendo simply doesn't see the us as a Hardcore market for the Wii... so no Games.

With the WiiU they want to aim at the Hardcore US Market... so let's see how they pull THAT out.

[Aerozord]

This is kind of equivalent to those campaigns people attempt to get cancelled shows back on the air. I agree with Extra Credit guys, this should be encouraged, but they should also be realistic. There is normally a legitimate financial reason for these choices, bottom-line is they do not think the games would sell well in the US and this wasn't enough to convince them otherwise. Nintendo might be wrong about that, but doesn't matter if they are right or wrong, long as they think it wont sell well it wont happen.

Also not to say this was futile. While rare things like this do occasionally work. If you really believe its worth the effort, then make the effort.

[Bells]

To be quite honest, these games are not really huge financial blockbusters that would shatter the boundaries of profits... they are just really good Wii Action RPG's. And with the Wii having SO FEW of them, 3 in a row is kinda of a big deal... they are all well polished, well designed products, but they are also -not- earth shattering... so there is a point to it.

On other news, there might be a decent chance that Nintend release these as ther final Big Titles alogside the new Zelda to close the Wii's life cycle, it would be a high note end

[Solid Snake]

The problem isn't that Nintendo isn't localizing these three games. It's that they consistently refuse to localize games when the games being made in the US are either shit or non-existent. It's that at this point they aren't even remotely bothering to support the Wii, and if they're prone to abandon their own consoles like this I have no interest in supporting their other consoles.

I feel kind of bad for folks supporting the Wii U because Nintendo's just basically said "Fuck you" to every hardcore gamer who purchased a Wii in hopes that the Wii would support the hardcore gamer community.

I mean I understand the Wii U is supposed to be different, but it's not like Xenoblade and The Last Story are helping Nintendo make a strong preliminary impression

It's funny because around 2008 or so, at the height of my own personal Wii-craze, I was utterly convinced that Sony was going to fall apart. Three years later and I'm more confident in Sony's current strategy than anyone else's. Maybe 'confident' isn't entirely the right word, because I'm not sure how it appeals to everyone who isn't me, but I'm certainly more personally gratified by Sony's future PS3 exclusives lineup and the Vita.

[Ramary]

The issue here is this.

Every other hardcore title on the wii that was not a Nintendo Golden Age franchise (your marios, zeldas, etc) sold like donkey poo. The way Nintendo sees it, okay yeah, there are these people who want these games, but what about the normal people who don't know what the hell these games are. They will get nothing out of them, and you will have another 3 sale bombs in NA. That is unless they advertise the games, and advertisements cost money, and if they are not feeling it from the start you sure as hell not gonna convince them otherwise. Honestly, they lucked out NOA even responded to them.

A few more factors include the following...
A. They are original IP, they almost always sell like shit unless heavily advertised
B. They are JRPG, they are not money makers in the west anymore unless you are called Final Fantasy, and even then the backlash from 13 and 14 completely soiled the reputation of JRPGs being good in the west
C. These are the types of games I can see people not buying right away, but instead getting USED a 1 or 2 weeks later. Which means NOEMONE for Nintendo, therefore bad business move.

Yes, it sucks for the people wanting to play them, but EVERYONE knows the wii has like no hardcore audience, and the casual groups won't care about the game. It is basicly like burning money to Nintendo, and if I was in charge of Nintendo, I would turn down translating the games without a second thought.

I would still make them localize the Mother games though if I was in charge, Smash Bros would make them at least a little bit more well known.

[Jagos]

There's no Mother 4. What in God's Hell are you talking about?


Link (http://mother4.andonuts.net/) - The fangame. And if Nintendo shuts it down, you can be sure the fans will revolt, given that they have yet to bring over the other 3 games. That's why I put M4 as its own separate thing, not part of the Mother series.

BTW - Fire Emblem. Nintendo always screws over the fanbase.

[Melfice]

Link (http://mother4.andonuts.net/) - The fangame. And if Nintendo shuts it down, you can be sure the fans will revolt, given that they have yet to bring over the other 3 games.

If Nintendo shuts the project down, the revolution will be beat down with a few simple words.

"Shouldn't have called it Mother 4."
I mean, seriously? I have no idea whether or not Mother 3 concluded the series, or whatever. Never even played the series myself. But placing your fangame in the series like that is never a good idea, and is asking for trouble.

[Kim]

There are other reasons to hate them calling it Mother 4. Foremost that it just seems kinda arrogant and presumptuous. I want Nintendo to shut it down just so they'll change the name and still put it out.

Also, the assumption that the majority of fans are looking forward to Mother 4 is not a safe one.

Anywho, I wrote an article on it last week or so, but Nintendo shouldn't localize the games because they'll sell well. They should localize to earn goodwill with the hardcore audience, because their goodwill is going down the shitter, and I think that the less than stellar 3DS sales are a symptom of that.

Don't localize these games to make money now. Localize them to make money later.

[Jagos]

You guys should really check out starmen.net and how much they've clamored for the Mother series. I just don't feel like arguing the piracy angle.

OT: Nintendo somehow thinks that the fans owe it to come to their offerings. It should be flipped that they see the interest these are garnering and produce the titles in some fashion.

[Kim]

You guys should really check out starmen.net and how much they've clamored for the Mother series.You mean a forum made up entirely of fans for a trilogy want that trilogy to be localized?

Or do you mean that a forum made up entirely of fans for a trilogy are looking forward to a game being made by themselves?

Both are pretty "Well, yeah."

Honestly, Mother 3 being localized by Nintendo is just ridiculously unlikely for all sorts of reasons before even getting into the game's content. I'd hate to think how they'd change said content to make it more okay for a Western audience.

[Jagos]

In the digital age, there's less reasons for them to change the content other than putting it up for sale on the Wii Console.

You mean a forum made up entirely of fans for a trilogy want that trilogy to be localized?

Or do you mean that a forum made up entirely of fans for a trilogy are looking forward to a game being made by themselves?

Both. They decided to make a fangame as a tribute to Itoi. Itoi isn't making anymore games, so the fans decided to continue the series.

[Kim]

As I said, just because the members of the forum are excited for the game they're making doesn't mean that the majority of Mother fans are, nor does it mean there's enough for a "revolution" of any sort. Operation Rainfall, for example, is a very small group that just got a lot of press.

It also doesn't change the fact that calling the fan game Mother 4 is a bit presumptuous and arrogant, for all sorts of reasons.

While I agree Nintendo *should* localize these games, that doesn't at all mean that the groups wanting them to are large or anything close to a size to have any meaningful influence. It doesn't even make them representative of the groups they're a part of. Please keep this in mind when discussing these things.

In the digital age, there's less reasons for them to change the content other than putting it up for sale on the Wii Console.What makes you say that?

[rpgdemon]

What makes you say that?

He doesn't know the difference in usage between fewer and less.

[Melfice]

You can be damned sure a game flops if you put it on international markets without proper localization.

The hardcore fans will look past it, but do you think Johnny Average is going to understand the obscure reference to a very rare Japanese dance?

[Jagos]

What makes you say that?

Game Overthinker has it best (http://gameoverthinker.blogspot.com/2011/07/episode-54.html#more)

The people that would play the game and buy it, would play it with Japanese subtitles and English text. For a game like Mother 3 or the heavy text intensive games, all they would have to do is take the English translation, put it on a cart, then print money.

It also doesn't change the fact that calling the fan game Mother 4 is a bit presumptuous and arrogant, for all sorts of reasons.

Maybe it's because I'm looking at the translation for Shining Force 3 as it progresses and Sega doesn't want to translate it and port it.

Maybe because I'm a huge fan of the SoR Remake (which is much better than the Sega port)

Maybe it's because I'm still of the opinion that the Crimson Echoes game had a pretty good storyline...

Maybe it's because the King's Quest: Silver Lining game looks good for those fans...

But somehow, saying that a fan game can't continue a saga outside of what a company wants just doesn't vibe with me. It's for non profit. No one is going to care outside of the fanbase, and perhaps they're getting something out of it more than a monetary value. It's a story built around what the Mother series introduced. They're doing it by themselves. Starmen.net has garnered some very dedicated fans who take time out to finish translations, make comics, and build their own game of the series. It's not arrogance, it's homage. I can understand that people don't like fangames, but damn... There's plenty of them and I doubt they're all going anywhere.

[Kim]

But somehow, saying that a fan game can't continue a saga outside of what a company wants just doesn't vibe with me. It's for non profit. No one is going to care outside of the fanbase, and perhaps they're getting something out of it more than a monetary value. It's a story built around what the Mother series introduced. They're doing it by themselves. Starmen.net has garnered some very dedicated fans who take time out to finish translations, make comics, and build their own game of the series. It's not arrogance, it's homage. I can understand that people don't like fangames, but damn... There's plenty of them and I doubt they're all going anywhere.Pretty basic misunderstanding of what I'm saying. I'm not saying anything about fan games in general. I'm saying that taking a fan game that is best described as a spiritual successor to the franchise and giving it a name that attempts to validate it and put it on the same level as the franchise is arrogant.

Part of what makes the Mother franchise so great is tied to the person who made it. I don't think you should call any game Mother 4 unless Itoi's involved, regardless of whether it's fans or Nintendo making it. I doubt Mother 4 can compete with Mother 3 at all, and to give it a name implying that it's a legitimate sequel to Mother 3 seems to carry with it an assumption that it can. It also ignores half of what Itoi seemed to mean when he said he was okay with someone else making Mother 4. They've got a lot of good ideas, and I'm more than willing to acknowledge that what I've seen of the game looks good.

Without saying anything on whether or not this is something that should or should not happen, I personally want Nintendo to shut them down simply to get the fans to change the name. After all, a name change wouldn't impact the quality of the game itself, merely the assumptions people going into it have, and changing the name would also keep the project from being something that could be shut down. Making an homage/spiritual successor to Mother isn't arrogant. Calling it Mother 4 is.

For a game like Mother 3 or the heavy text intensive games, all they would have to do is take the English translation, put it on a cart, then print money.

Nope. You honestly think Nintendo of America would be okay being attached to a game with characters like the Magypsies or the hot spring scene? What about the fact that the game has themes of Socialism vs Capitalism? For NoA, those are dangerous waters, and long-time Mother series fans aren't going to be the only ones buying it. To assume they would be is ignorant, and if you honestly thought they would that's such a small amount of people in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't be worth the effort for NoA. People outside that fanbase would buy the game, and they might make a big stink about the commie transsexual game from Nintendo where you kiss mermen.

[Aerozord]

Also most of the people pushing for this game to be released probably wont buy it. If they know its good they probably own or know someone that owns an import. Most wont re-purchase a game just so its in English.

Course if the game isn't text heavy as Jagos pointed out, well why dont you just import it? Japanese games are actually very English heavy with their menus. You can get by, if they are this popular there would be translations too. What I did when I learned we'd never get Jump Superstars

[Jagos]

Pretty basic misunderstanding of what I'm saying. I'm not saying anything about fan games in general. I'm saying that taking a fan game that is best described as a spiritual successor to the franchise and giving it a name that attempts to validate it and put it on the same level as the franchise is arrogant.

I'm kind of merging your argument with Melfice's and speaking more in a general sense. The problem is, you both seem to imply that somehow, if the game isn't coming from the company itself, it won't be as good or authentic. But given starmen's "antics" in trying for *years* to get both the Mother 1 & 2 game into the US, I would think these are the same guys that could generally understand the series, making a spiritual sequel. Hell, Itoi knows that they exist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOzVTe_mgJc). Also, Fils-Aim is a douche bag. It frustrates me to no end that he still doesn't want to put up a download of any of the games and it's been Three. Years. For the games to have been redone.

Part of what makes the Mother franchise so great is tied to the person who made it. I don't think you should call any game Mother 4 unless Itoi's involved, regardless of whether it's fans or Nintendo making it. I doubt Mother 4 can compete with Mother 3 at all, and to give it a name implying that it's a legitimate sequel to Mother 3 seems to carry with it an assumption that it can. It also ignores half of what Itoi seemed to mean when he said he was okay with someone else making Mother 4. They've got a lot of good ideas, and I'm more than willing to acknowledge that what I've seen of the game looks good.

I'm not sure if you play a lot of fangames, Non, but seriously. Try SoR Remake if you can find it. Then try to play the ports that Sega is selling. The remake is ubertons better. They gave it so much more than the ports over the span of 8 years. The point is, maybe they can do a better job than the company. Maybe they can pull off the same humor style that was prevalent in Mother 2 or 3. I don't know. But I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until I play the game and see what it does.

Without saying anything on whether or not this is something that should or should not happen, I personally want Nintendo to shut them down simply to get the fans to change the name. After all, a name change wouldn't impact the quality of the game itself, merely the assumptions people going into it have, and changing the name would also keep the project from being something that could be shut down. Making an homage/spiritual successor to Mother isn't arrogant. Calling it Mother 4 is.

The reason I've named so many other examples of fangames is more or less for similar reasons that you're criticizing this one quite harshly. It's a name and Itoi stepped down. It's supposed to be what the fans themselves believes is the next step in the Mother series. It's a continuation of a story just as Mother 2 continued with Giygas and Mother 3 continued with Pokey. I believe Itoi ran out of ideas. Don't quite remember. But after seeing Crimson Echoes after it was shut down and asking that upon a team dedicated to making a good game seems quite harsh. I'm not seeing the arrogance. Maybe it's my optimism blinding me, but I'd rather see them finish than Nintendo look worse for wear right before they launch the Wii U.



Nope. You honestly think Nintendo of America would be okay being attached to a game with characters like the Magypsies or the hot spring scene? What about the fact that the game has themes of Socialism vs Capitalism? For NoA, those are dangerous waters, and long-time Mother series fans aren't going to be the only ones buying it. To assume they would be is ignorant, and if you honestly thought they would that's such a small amount of people in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't be worth the effort for NoA. People outside that fanbase would buy the game, and they might make a big stink about the commie transsexual game from Nintendo where you kiss mermen.

Putting up Mother 1 and 2 are safer than 3, I'll grant you. But they've still yet to do *any* of the games after 3 years. Again, Fils-aim is a dick for introducing it, then nixing the project.

But it's pretty safe to say that just reintroducing the first two games would get a LOT more interest to come for the EB series. It's still rather embarrassing that more people know Lucas from SSBB than from his own game.

[Kim]

Posted a big long post wherein I angrily explained to Jagos why every part of his post was wrong. Then I realized this conversation can only get more and more awful the more attention I give it, and am going to try to drop out of this thread.

Peace.

[Melfice]

The problem is, you both seem to imply that somehow, if the game isn't coming from the company itself, it won't be as good or authentic.

Never implied that, and if I did somehow: sorry.
What I DID imply was: Don't use a copyrighted name, you idiots!
More than that: Just because the original creator has no more further plans with the series, doesn't mean Nintendo doesn't want to keep holding on to the series name. Maybe somebody else will pick the series up later on.

Lulz. Mother 4: The Fangame + Mother 4: The actual game.

[...]I would think these are the same guys that could generally understand the series, making a spiritual sequel.

See above.

[Ramary]

I agree with NonCon. This has gone WAY off topic and way too nasty. I suggest we kill the thread before it gets any worst.

[Jagos]

More than that: Just because the original creator has no more further plans with the series, doesn't mean Nintendo doesn't want to keep holding on to the series name. Maybe somebody else will pick the series up later on.

Nintendo is literally sitting on the game. Everything in this thread is about how game companies treat fans who are loyal and dedicated to either a franchise or a company that doesn't even give them the courtesy of a wrap around. Seriously, since Itoi has gone on, there is no one left that would pick up this franchise. It's odd... You say you want someone to pick up the series, just not the fans... Who?[/quote]

Non

Ya know, I'm not one for the attention seeking so I'll just say this:

If Nintendo puts out this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EarthBound_(series)#Mother_1_.2B_2), everyone would be happy.

[Melfice]

Missing the point, Jags.

They can create a fan game all they want. They can create a whole series of them for all I care.

Naming it as if it's an official game (NOT a fan game!!!) is a good way of getting a cease and desist.

And yes. Nintendo might just be sitting on the series right now. Eidos has been sitting on the Deus Ex series for a good while as well. They're never going to be doing anything with that either, are they? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_Ex:_Human_Revolution) Especially since Ion Storm doesn't exist any more.

[Meister]

http://i.imgur.com/KNq1W.jpg

Don't use a copyrighted name, you idiots!

Yep, this. Basically it makes the difference between Brian Clevinger doing a comic named 8-Bit Theater for 9 years and Brian Clevinger doing a comic named Squaresoft's Final Fantasy: The Webcomic for however long it takes for Square to decide they don't want someone riding their coattails that much.

[Kim]

The following is the last I'll contribute to the thread, ideally.

Why do goddamned idiots think everything good needs a sequel?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

That's a terrible comic particular with the ridicuous claim that fanfiction is a modern idea. Balzac, Shakespeare, Milton, Goethe, Beckett, Stoppard all the greeks and romans, pretty much eery film director/writer all lifted characters for their best work off the top of my head.
Pretty much every other famous author stole ideas and themes and setting and plots.
Fanfiction has been around as long as fiction has and some of our best works are fanfiction.

The cervantes quote is particularly low. He made that quote because after he wrote part of Don quixote somebody else wrote a follow up novel because he was too lazy to do it. That prompted Cervantes to write his second partwhich we never would have gotten otherwise.
Hey look an free market produces better stuff than a ruthless monopolism. Quel surprise.
Also there have been aspersions cast on Don Quixote's originality and whether the characters are repackaged copies of older characters from sources we have lost. Their is some evidence of that.

It's good to know that we own our ideas forever though. I work with a lot of scientists and engineers- we're going to start charging anybody who references our research or does anything similar. We're going to make heaps of progress that way.

What the fuck is that comic aruging/ I don't even.

Also Critias is a long outdated philosophical text- though it has characters and a "story" it's not really the point. How would you even write a sequel/follwup?

[Kim]

ITT people turn "I wish fans wouldn't do this. I don't like the attitude it reflects and I don't think it needs to happen" with "THERE SHOULD BE LAWS AGAINST THIS"

After all, the latter is so much easier to argue against. I mean, if I just don't like something, then fuck what now.

Of course, maybe I'm wrong and Smarty and Jagos will write-up long paragraphs explaining why I'm obligated to like a fan game.

=====

Meisteredit:
[18:15] NonCon: Can you do me a favor and ban me for a week. I need to get work done and I can't if I keep letting myself get pulled into these stupid arguments.
No actual punishment going on here, don't worry.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I'm just arguing against that fucking stupid comic. I didn't even mention your posts.

ITT Noncon turns unrelated arguments into attacks on his positions.

[Aerozord]

the comic is entirely correct and anyone that is unable to make their own original art has no right to claim to be an artist. It is pure arrogance to think you can do a story better then the person who invented the story. They have a knowledge and understanding of the characters, plot, and setting that you can never learn just by reading it, often by intent.

Often writers intentionally leave out information or dont explain things to make a statement, or the information would break the flow and feel expositiony. George Lucas actually thinks up the background settings and technology to a great degree, but knew better then to try and explain it. I say knew because he did give an explanation for "The Force" and the series was lesser for it.

Though even ignoring all that, the original creator created this, he owns it, and has every right to be upset when you steal from him.

[Marc v4.0]

At best, a fan-made games can be a tribute, but labeling it a true sequel or prequel is arrogant and insulting to the original artist.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

the comic is entirely correct and anyone that is unable to make their own original art has no right to claim to be an artist. It is pure arrogance to think you can do a story better then the person who invented the story. They have a knowledge and understanding of the characters, plot, and setting that you can never learn just by reading it, often by intent.

Often writers intentionally leave out information or dont explain things to make a statement, or the information would break the flow and feel expositiony. George Lucas actually thinks up the background settings and technology to a great degree, but knew better then to try and explain it. I say knew because he did give an explanation for "The Force" and the series was lesser for it.

Though even ignoring all that, the original creator created this, he owns it, and has every right to be upset when you steal from him.

No idea is original, every idea is stolen from somewhere, this is just making arbitrary standards of what art has to confine to.
Art moves forward, like science- any field based upon ideas- by collaboration not antagonism, by sharing, my riffing on each other and by synthesis and correction.
You can't claim ownership of ideas- the very thought of it is ridiculous. YOu can own your book, you can own the manuscript, you can't own the ideas unless we want to drag us all back to the stone age and completely torpedo any advancement in anything.
Based on what you argue pretty much none of the literary canon can claim to be authors. I better go ring up some literature professors and inform them to cross them off the list.

[Aerozord]

No idea is original, every idea is stolen from somewhere, this is just making arbitrary standards of what art has to confine to.

the fact you cant tell the difference between archtypes, tropes, and cliche's and duplicating a character right down to name, appearance, mannerisms, personality, and backstory is sad.

[Jagos]

Hold the phone...

So let me get this straight. Because that comic approves of Salinger banning a book based on copyright, and somehow this is becoming an "artist's rights" thread, I have to question how an author of any work should be able to veto someone else's opinion on how a work should end.

Aero, George Lucas is a pisspoor example since everything he "created" came from archetypes made by Akira Kurosawa.

[Aerozord]

Hold the phone...

So let me get this straight. Because that comic approves of Salinger banning a book based on copyright, and somehow this is becoming an "artist's rights" thread, I have to question how an author of any work should be able to veto someone else's opinion on how a work should end.well because topic is basically over, Operation Rainfall got its answer, no. so more of a might as well

but there is a giant glaring differance between, having another opinion on how a work should end, and trying to make money off of someone elses ideas.

Aero, George Lucas is a pisspoor example since everything he "created" came from archetypes made by Akira Kurosawa.seriously how can you people not know the difference between copying and archetypes. I really dont get it. How can you not know the difference between "sharing a few broad traits" and "exact duplicate"

[Jagos]

Of course, maybe I'm wrong and Smarty and Jagos will write-up long paragraphs explaining why I'm obligated to like a fan game.



Ya know, I've been very tolerant of you being a very pisspoor opponent to everything I say so that you can be an attention seeker. I actually admitted that Mother 3 wasn't going to be a great thing for the US audience without a LOT of changes. And instead of reading my very relevant post on the subject where I try to explain without hurting anyone's damn feelings, you go over the deep end to try to attack me because you can't handle someone not seeing your side of the debate.

Melfice, Non, what annoys me greatly about your harsher words is this:

You seem to believe the companies have final say in these created works based on some type of arrogance on the part of the fan goers for wanting to continue a series. If they can do it, so be it. I sure as hell said NOTHING about you having to like a game (Non), or that somehow Nintendo should shut them down because it's a fan game that happens to have the name Mother 4 (Melfice).

I don't see it as arrogant. If they can nail down the humor and make it in the same vein, and suddenly Itoi gave it the ok when it was translated into Japanese (because eventually, you know it will be) then what, will that give it validity? It's like you all criticize the game unfairly because of a name. As I've explained in other fan game issues (Crimson Echoes, C. Resurrection) the best thing to do would be to let the game come out, see how it is, then pan it or applaud it as necessary. I am criticizing how both of you seem critical of the game until it changes its name based on being a copyrighted work of Itoi. I don't think Itoi actually cares. Hell, the Mother series is 20 years old. There's not been a chance to play any of the games in a current state except through piracy or an old SNES console. How long should they sit on a series before fans just say "let's do it ourselves?"



but there is a giant glaring differance between, having another opinion on how a work should end, and trying to make money off of someone elses ideas.
seriously how can you people not know the difference between copying and archetypes. I really dont get it. How can you not know the difference between "sharing a few broad traits" and "exact duplicate"

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110202/23230912933/star-wars-is-remix.shtml

-E- And now, Non is banned for a week. Later man... I hope next time we can have a debate without the cheap attacks.

[Meister]

As I've explained in other fan game issues (Crimson Echoes, C. Resurrection) the best thing to do would be to let the game come out, see how it is, then pan it or applaud it as necessary.
I think the best thing to do, if you like the Mother series and want more of it, is to make your own original game, heavily borrowing themes, graphical and musical style from Mother but refraining respectfully to use the actual setting or characters, and give it an original title. And then when people say "this is really good, it reminds me a lot of Mother" you reply "thanks, we're big fans of the series and we drew a lot of inspiration from it." And when Shigesatoi Itoi approaches you and tells you "your game is good enough to be part of the series" you say "oh wow, thanks, this is an honor."

How long should they sit on a series before fans just say "let's do it ourselves?"
You know sometimes things just don't get sequels. And that's both okay and a prerogative of the creator of that thing to decide.

e: well, often it's not okay for you if you really want more of that particular thing, or in general if things are left unresolved. And also it's not always the creator's decision but often a producer's, which is bollocks. But still, I resent that notion that sequels are inevitable.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110202/23230912933/star-wars-is-remix.shtml
Note how all of these comparison shots are stylistic in nature and especially how Star Wars isn't literally "Flash Gordon and Maria travel to Altair IV to search for the origins of the black monolith."

I hope next time we can have a debate without the cheap attacks.
Yeah that would be nice. hint accusing people of attention seeking counts as one

[Meister]

basically what I'm saying is, no one can be expected to judge a game purely on its own merits when the creators themselves fully intentionally create a strong association with other games right in the title

[Melfice]

Never said that Nintendo SHOULD shut them down.
The whole premise was that fans of the Mother series would revolt if Nintendo would ever shut down the fan game.

To which my reply was: They can't, because should Nintendo ever shut it down, Nintendo only has to say: "Don't use the Mother name. Tough luck, y'all."


And I'm sure Nintendo has no problem with homages... as long as you don't try to insert your fan game into the canon by calling it Mother 4.
(Actually, I have no idea in how far Nintendo is okay with such scenarios, but still...)

[Magus]

Hmm, for some reason I dislike the idea of the Mother 4 game almost instinctually when I didn't have a problem with the idea of a Crimson Echoes game or the King's Quest: Silver Lining game. I dunno if it's the fact that they are sticking a number in there, that the Mother games are so inextricably bound up with Shigesato Itoi's personal ideas and creativity, or simply the fact that it has only been like three years since I personally played it, and only five since it was created How is that "sitting" on an idea? I think that's a pretty poor argument for making one yourself, that Nintendo hasn't made a Mother game in five years. They seem to really be jumping the gun. So Itoi said he isn't going to make another game--that's quite possibly not true. Can we at least wait a while before getting antsy and trying to do it ourselves, internet? If it is even a good idea (probably not).

On a different note, though, regarding that cartoon, as for the "Prequel to Treasure Island", I see absolutely no problem with writing books involving historical classics of literature and playing around with them. Why is it okay to write dozens of books involving the Bram Stoker version of Dracula but not Long John Silvers? I'm confused. I know it's a minor point from that pretty long comic but there's a big difference between adding to a classic novel that has been used and abused by everyone and choosing out a mid-1900's novel whose author is still alive. Does that artist hate Alan Moore? I think "classic" characters are wide open, not only legally but pretty much ethically. Otherwise we'd have to get pissed about The Three Musketeers being adapted as a steampunk fantasy movie or Bill Murray being adapted as a modern day Scrooge.

Catcher in the Rye was written only a little while ago on the scale of things, plus Salinger still legally owns the copyright, and is clearly alive as well. People will have to wait many years before they can play around with that story and characters.

EDIT: Also, if Kanye West did want to "finish" the work of a Greek philosopher two thousand years dead, why is that intrinsically "horrible", anyway? It would only be horrible if it sucked, because it would be a poor tribute to the original philosopher. Same thing with that Treasure Island prequel.

BTW I have the feeling that cartoonist is unaware how deeply entrenched fanfiction is in the literary world. Basically every classic novel has been "ripped off" (I prefer to say "expanded upon" or "commented upon" or "deconstructed", but anyway), not only by authors but by movie studios, etc. The only difference is that the internet fanfiction writers are 1. by and large not very good writers (which is also true of all the writers in the world, it is just that the internet makes it so easy to simply put up what you have written for everyone to see), and 2. they pick more recent stories that are still legally protected.

[Jagos]

... Salinger is dead. Before he died, he banned that Catcher in the Rye sequel.

[Krylo]

You guys are missing the best part of that comic.

The part where 8-Easy Bits guy talks about how other people don't have any writing ability.

Also: Lucas is a bad example not because he took a lot of inspiration and stylistic choices from a lot of other sci-fi (this is common practice), but because he is literally the worst person to be working on his own IP.

As evidence I ask that you contrast the prequel trilogy with any of the games or the original trilogy (which has gotten progressively worse as Lucas has altered scenes which the actor's ad-libbed with his own 'vision). Or the new clone wars cartoon vs the one done by Tartakovsky with minimal input from George.

Also because books as those described in the comic actually exist and with Lucas's seal of approval.

Basically, Lucas is a poster boy for what good can happen when a creative vision is allowed to be toyed with and altered by people other than its original creator. The Star Wars franchise, and Lucas's name, have only gotten stronger by allowing it to be worked on outside of the original creator.

Edit: That said, On Original Topic: Nintendo is shooting themselves in the foot. They have, fairly or not, a reputation since the Wii came out for not appreciating their more 'hardcore' audience. Which has driven that audience to other consoles (this is after the gamecube had the same issue). This wouldn't be a problem except that the WiiU seems to be trying to appeal to that very same market, while right before release they are giving that market the finger by refusing to bend for consumer groups from that market. Like Nonsie said, it would be spending money now to make money later. By not doing so, they're hurting their next generation console. It's going to be hard to get that market back after two straight generations of Nintendo Consoles not having enough games/enough games of a quality that said market appreciates to validate their purchase. And some good will might go toward salvaging that. Nintendo's decided not to show any good will though.

And on mini-topic of Mother 4: Couldn't care less if it gets shut down. I've nothing against fan games, and don't care one whit what they name it. I also don't care about 'respect' for franchise. However, calling it Mother 4 is really like thumbing your nose at Nintendo's legal team and ASKING them to shut you down. It's a stupid move. So I'm not going to feel any pity for them if it gets shut down, but nor will I be happy about it. Just... eh.

[Bells]

I just wanted to point out my 2 cents that any game made from the point of "because the author/owner won't do it" is likely to suck more in my view.

It may SEEM a minor thing, but it's really not. I would rather see something "inspired by" or "a re-imagination of" at least shows a premise of creativity instead of spite.

[BitVyper]

I'd be more upset if I didn't know Xenoblade will just be another in the long line of Xeno games that abuse me for wanting to play them.

[Fifthfiend]

http://i.imgur.com/KNq1W.jpg

I too agree that Homer should have been beaten to death with his own scrolls.

[Aerozord]

I just wanted to point out my 2 cents that any game made from the point of "because the author/owner won't do it" is likely to suck more in my view.

plus it should probably also be very telling that if the creator himself thinks no more good stories can come of this IP, then you should probably leave it alone.

Continuing something the creator abandoned is how we got Dragonball GT

[Fifthfiend]

What on earth would it mean for Western civilization if the works of Plato were no longer protected by copyright law?!

EDIT: My bad, per the Stevenson example you do recognize that intellectual property isn't actually like an inherent law of nature, you just seem to be arguing that it should retroactively be made so.

[Azisien]

I don't see how a work is positively or negatively affected by new authorship in a way that surpasses the general mediocrity of most art in general.

I consider The Wheel of Time an excellent series in the fantasy genre, but the author died abruptly, and we would never see an end to the series if it wasn't for a talented author and huge fan of the series taking up the reins.

[Aerozord]

What on earth would it mean for Western civilization if the works of Plato were no longer protected by copyright law?!

well they aren't. so, technically nothing.
I don't see how a work is positively or negatively affected by new authorship in a way that surpasses the general mediocrity of most art in general.

I consider The Wheel of Time an excellent series in the fantasy genre, but the author died abruptly, and we would never see an end to the series if it wasn't for a talented author and huge fan of the series taking up the reins.
doesn't automatically make the work bad, its just not the same. Whatever the original authors vision, whatever his intent, sad fact of the matter is when he died it was lost forever. But thats not the point, the point is you are a fan. This is your idea, dont imply that it is the same work. Its not, its your work which you are tacking onto someone elses. Morality of that depends on situation. If author was cool with it, more power to you. But stealing it because you think you can do better is not cool

[Azisien]

We could list anecdotes all day. I think in the end, most works are just going to fall at an average. I think people get too prissy about average works touching their masterful ones in any way.

I mean it's not like Avatar: The Last Airbender got rui---.................................................. ffffSDFSD

http://files.sharenator.com/rage_face_RE_Finite_Picdump_1-s442x418-175726-580.jpg

[Fifthfiend]

I mean it's not like Avatar: The Last Airbender got rui---.................................................. ffffSDFSD

This actually is a pretty excellent example of a work getting trashed fully legally with the full blessings of the owners of the intellectual property in question.

[BitVyper]

Continuing something the creator abandoned is how we got Dragonball GT

It's also how we got the Invisible Woman as anything more than a designated damsel in distress.

[Krylo]

It's also how we got the Invisible Woman as anything more than a designated damsel in distress.

Wait... we got what now?

[Aerozord]

As Azisien said, we could list anecdotes all day about good and bad examples, but here is the bottomline.

an artist should have the right to ensure their vision remains as they intended if they so wish it. Not to say they cant forsake this right, but if they dont want it changed we should respect that.

[Lumenskir]

an artist should have the right to ensure their vision remains as they intended if they so wish it. Not to say they cant forsake this right, but if they dont want it changed we should respect that.
Well, yeah, but shouldn't that only apply to 'visions' that they've actually written/produced? The guy who wrote a 'sequel' to Catcher in the Rye is not overwriting or changing Salinger's words, he's creating a new story based off of old characters, for example.

[Fifthfiend]

but if they dont want it changed we should respect that.

I absolutely agree that anyone going back in time and rewriting authors' original manuscripts is an awful person indeed.

I still haven't seen an explanation for what this has to do with the creators of new works, however.

edit:

Well, yeah, but shouldn't that only apply to 'visions' that they've actually written/produced? The guy who wrote a 'sequel' to Catcher in the Rye is not overwriting or changing Salinger's words, he's creating a new story based off of old characters, for example.

Which is to say basically this.

[Aerozord]

Well, yeah, but shouldn't that only apply to 'visions' that they've actually written/produced? The guy who wrote a 'sequel' to Catcher in the Rye is not overwriting or changing Salinger's words, he's creating a new story based off of old characters, for example.

because a good story, has an ending. Or to be more exact a point in which the storyteller shuts up. Stopping is an aspect of storytelling, it says this story is complete and its up to all of you to imagine what happens next. Problem is by writing a "sequel" and saying this is what happens canonically, it invalidates all those other possible interpretations. Giving it legitimacy says that this persons interpretation of the original work is the correct one and if you have another one its wrong.

Thats the difference between harmless fanfiction and ripping off someone elses story.

Stories are not something you can just add onto. A story is a completed telling of events fictional or otherwise, adding to it alters it.

Lets talk about a form of art besides writing. Lets say music, you cant tack on an 5 extra minutes onto mozart and claim you haven't altered the song.

Things left unsaid, for better or worse, are part of an artists work.

[Lumenskir]

Giving it legitimacy says that this persons interpretation of the original work is the correct one and if you have another one its wrong.

Thats the difference between harmless fanfiction and ripping off someone elses story.
Wait, so this is about 'legitimacy' now? Legitimacy derived from where?
Lets talk about a form of art besides writing. Lets say music, you cant tack on an 5 extra minutes onto mozart and claim you haven't altered the song.
Uhm, as long as the guy hasn't actually altered any of Mozart's original notes/isn't claiming he came up with the original notes, and created the five extra minutes all on his own, you could totally say that. People can still listen to the original Mozart.

I mean, unless there are legitimacy police going around enforcing which interpretations of things people have to acknowledge?

[Aerozord]

but you are altering the original work. You are taking the characters and setting and adding events that weren't there, you are changing them.

[Lumenskir]

but you are altering the original work. You are taking the characters and setting and adding events that weren't there, you are changing them.
??

How, exactly? You seem to be presuming that authors have rights over every possible use of their characters, even if they never explored those uses. I don't get how that's right.

Again, I think we're running into a "What original creator actually did" v. "What latecomer creatively expounded upon"

[Aerozord]

??

How, exactly? You seem to be presuming that authors have rights over every possible use of their characters, even if they never explored those uses. I don't get how that's right.

Again, I think we're running into a "What original creator actually did" v. "What latecomer creatively expounded upon"

yes rather then go through a back and forth I do agree there is a matter of definition as to what constitutes a work.

But I think it should be the person solely responsible for the pieces existence, the one that put in all that time, effort, and creativity, that should define what that is.

[Jagos]

an artist should have the right to ensure their vision remains as they intended if they so wish it. Not to say they cant forsake this right, but if they dont want it changed we should respect that.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with how someone else envisions a work.

Also, there's no "artist's rights" in copyright law

[Aerozord]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with how someone else envisions a work.

you mean the work that they couldn't have envisioned in the first place? if you are a writer then write your own story, dont rip off someone else

Also, there's no "artist's rights" in copyright lawthats exactly what it is, a copyright is the right that protects an artists intellectual property from being used without compensation to the original creator. It is the end all be all of an artists right. Without a copyright they have no ownership of their creation and it can be reproduced and/or altered without any repercussions.

[Jagos]

you mean the work that they couldn't have envisioned in the first place? if you are a writer then write your own story, dont rip off someone else

So you don't know the difference between inspiration and plagiarism?

We already have the George Lucas idea here so let's pull a few extra ideas into here.

Let's pull up orcs. Or Orks. Anyway, Tolkien thought them up kind of similar to Japanese samurai IIRC. That was an inspiration. Later on, the orc(k)s became a part of Warhammer. Now here's a question. Should the Tolkien estate profit off of the creation of their dead master?

The correct answer? No.

Let's pull up a few more to drive this "ripping off" thing into the ground. Grey Album (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grey_Album) - Merging of Jay-Z and Beatles. Caused a shut down. Fans reacted. It's still being downloaded and listened to today.

girltalk (http://www.myspace.com/girltalk) - Makes money off remixes

Pogo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs1bG6BIYlo&feature=player_embedded) - Remixes Disney music and ??? Profit

Since I've already gotten into fangames, I won't pull up more games save to say that people are constantly modding games despite copyright law.

a copyright is the right that protects an artists intellectual property from being used without compensation to the original creator. It is the end all be all of an artists right. Without a copyright they have no ownership of their creation and it can be reproduced and/or altered without any repercussions.

Aero, don't do this... You know not enough about copyright law and economically speaking, there's a lot more here that you're ignoring to come to your conclusion. Quite frankly, it's almost as if you're forgetting the fact that copyright law is too long in the tooth, based on Mickey Mouse law, all about enforcing a copyright instead of finding new ways to make money, and always retroactive in punishments instead of about progressing the arts and sciences as stated in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8.

-E- Further, copyright is a statutory right, not a natural right. The natural right to express your views in the 1st Amendment trumps any and all copyright.

[Aerozord]

Aero, don't do this... You know not enough about copyright law and economically speaking, there's a lot more here that you're ignoring to come to your conclusion.

dont know enough about... do you have any idea how extensively I have studied copyright laws? How many hours of formal education I have taken in regards to its usage and legal definitions. I have even talked with lawyers that specialize in civil law to confirm my understanding of copyrights, as well as business consultants, business owners, and investors about its affect on modern economics and business practices.

These aren't my guesses, these are things I have checked with people that have been to court over these matters.

Do not insult me by saying I do not understand copyrights and their affect on media industry.

[edit]if copyrights didn't exist me, and nearly all my contemporaries would be screwed. You are the one that shouldn't be talking about things you dont understand when it messes with the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people in this country alone.

[Jagos]

Have you read Media Piracy yet? (http://piracy.ssrc.org/)

How about the effect of piracy on the quality of information goods (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1868659)

Watched Channels and Conflict by Michael D Smith? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4VsTm3TPj4)

How about the suppressed report from the movie industry saying pirates are good consumers? (http://torrentfreak.com/suppressed-report-found-busted-pirate-site-users-were-good-consumers-110719/)

And just for added measure, meet the IP attorney that is an anarcho-libertarian, Stephan Kinsella (http://mises.org/daily/5029/Rethinking-IP), who helped me to rethink IP completely (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=280262988255234681).

My thought stands. Copyright law isn't about protecting the artists. All IP law is broken to make lawyers and attorneys rich. Our patent office is a literal minefield (http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/?tag=patent+thicket). Copyright law isn't much better because it's cheaper to sue than innovate (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110624/01393814836/kind-blue-using-copyright-to-make-hobby-artist-pay-up.shtml).

Finally, we have people pushing for copyright in industries where it is NOT needed (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110713/02573415076/its-baaaaaaack-yet-again-totally-pointless-unnecessary-damaging-fashion-copyright-bill-returns.shtml). I will make the argument that copyright is no longer needed in the digital era. The push for more and more copyright law, when it's over 70 years, when statutory damages are beyond the bank accounts of normal people, when there are far better ways to make money through economic growth rather than the regulatory capture of copyright law, is a push for the worst possible scenario for innovation and cultural relevance in the US today. So if you honestly make money by being a copyright bully, in any way, shape or form, then yes, you lose my respect.

-E- By the way, this:

dont know enough about... do you have any idea how extensively I have studied copyright laws? How many hours of formal education I have taken in regards to its usage and legal definitions. I have even talked with lawyers that specialize in civil law to confirm my understanding of copyrights, as well as business consultants, business owners, and investors about its affect on modern economics and business practices.

I started reading copyright law before Bill Clinton signed the DMCA. I've been following up on it through dmusic.com when the RIAA was having the sue em all strategy. I've since moved on to other sources. I used to read Copyhype until it became so bad with strawman logic in support of the same vague artist's rights idea that you're pushing now. I read a lot of Techdirt because the community is pretty good along with the stories they find. Torrentfreak, Ars Technica, Escapist, TechCrunch, hell, even the MPAA can have my attention to understand the arguments they put forth.

I didn't pay much attention to the NET Act until recently, but I have watched the chilling effects of the takedown procedure in action on Youtube. I've read copyright law through the eyes of Lawrence Lessig's three books, and remember when he unsuccessfully argued against the extended terms of Eldred v. Ashcroft. I've watched the Grokster inducement cases, and saw Napster go down the shit hole. I'm interested in picking up the book "Moral Panics" among a few other copyright books. The best money I spent was on "Media Piracy in Emerging Economies", debunking a ton of ideas about how supposedly artists need copyright to distribute. A new argument, that people just don't pay attention to, is that the consumers now are also creators.

If anything, all patent and copyright law affects me greatly so you're damn right I'm concerned about it. If you want to argue from on high, be my guest. But don't be surprised in the fact that I know about fair use and it's vague four factors actually strengthening copyright law by allowing it to be flexible instead of snapping in twain similar to what Protect IP and the Six Strikes litigation does to it.

[Sifright]

Just going to say that any one that thinks copyright is to protect the artist is full of shit and living in denial of the reality of what it's used for.

[Lumenskir]

dont know enough about... do you have any idea how extensively I have studied copyright laws? How many hours of formal education I have taken in regards to its usage and legal definitions. I have even talked with lawyers that specialize in civil law to confirm my understanding of copyrights, as well as business consultants, business owners, and investors about its affect on modern economics and business practices.

These aren't my guesses, these are things I have checked with people that have been to court over these matters.

Do not insult me by saying I do not understand copyrights and their affect on media industry.
I thought the point of having multiple relevant degrees was to help inform your argument, not be your argument?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Guys I've copywrited forum posting as Lumenskir, Sifright, Jagos, SMB and Aerozord. You'll be hearing from my lawyer.

[Sifright]

Could I Settle now? It would be much cheaper than trying to fight the claim, also I promise not to post as Sifright again!

[Jagos]

I'm taking this to the Supreme Court of Nintendo!

[Azisien]

This actually is a pretty excellent example of a work getting trashed fully legally with the full blessings of the owners of the intellectual property in question.

If by "fully legally with the full blessings of the owners" you mean it in some kind of twisted "Sauron [M night] forged an evil One Ring in secret in the fires of Mount Doom" I would be inclined to agree!

[Fifthfiend]

If by "fully legally with the full blessings of the owners" you mean it in some kind of twisted "Sauron [M night] forged an evil One Ring in secret in the fires of Mount Doom" I would be inclined to agree!

Nah I mean how the people who own this Property of the Intellect and have any and every legal right to do whatever crazy thing they want to do with it, forever, and that will always be the Legitimate and Real Version of these characters, gave M Night a bunch of money to make a shitty live-action movie.

But Legend of Korra looks hot to death so who even gives a shit, you know?

Guys I've copywrited forum posting as Lumenskir, Sifright, Jagos, SMB and Aerozord. You'll be hearing from my lawyer.

I was going to advance a claim of prior art but then I looked at their posts.

[Magus]

All I can say is that Gone with the Wind has like, five sequels written by totally different people, including one from the perspective of one of O'Hara's slaves (The Wind Done Gone, which met with quite a bit of trouble getting it published but I believe they argued it was a "deconstruction" or "satire" on the original to get it published), and some of them are appreciated as being better than the original.

[Azisien]

Nah I mean how the people who own this Property of the Intellect and have any and every legal right to do whatever crazy thing they want to do with it, forever, and that will always be the Legitimate and Real Version of these characters, gave M Night a bunch of money to make a shitty live-action movie.

But Legend of Korra looks hot to death so who even gives a shit, you know?

I don't even know what you're talking about anyway there was no Avatar in any title of any movie made by M Night Shambamawow. Thank you, James Cameron

Legend of Korra looks incredible and I can't wait.

[Fifthfiend]

I don't even know what you're talking about anyway there was no Avatar in any title of any movie made by M Night Shambamawow.

Much as there wasn't in any of my posts.

[Kerensky287]

The 8 Easy Bits guy has no idea what the fuck he's talking about. If someone picked up 8 Easy Bits where he left off, but made no effort to profit off of it, I don't see where or why he'd have an issue with it, as long as the new shit was firmly and obviously separate from the old shit.

Like, let's say somebody decided they'd take it upon themselves to write an 8BT sequel/continuation. Same characters, different characters, whatever - they're continuing Brian Clevinger's interpretation of the universe, one way or another. If they try to sell it, then they will more than likely have several hammers dropped on them from every direction. But if it's a free-to-read endeavor, and the author makes it clear that he is NOT Clevinger, nor is he affiliated with Square Enix, I don't see where the trouble arises.

Sure, people will be upset at the different humor and/or brand of wit in the new material, but they're allowed to be. If Clevinger himself has a reason to be upset about it, then he obviously should be allowed to put a stop to it, but I can't think of a GOOD reason that an author would want to shut that stuff down. If it's bad, people won't read it, and they won't associate it with the original author. If it's good, people will take it on its own merits and may even decide to check out the work it's based on if they haven't already.

Now, it's different with some other cases, like the Catcher in the Rye sequel. In that case, the author tried to make money off of another author's characters and universe. It's pretty cut-and-dry - name association is a powerful thing. If the new guy had asked Salinger for permission first, it would have been a sequel with the author's blessing. An unauthorized sequel is just a ripoff. I agree on that point.

But several people in this thread have made the claim that using someone else's characters and settings is terribad, copyright infringement, etc. and I strongly, strongly disagree. Hated Twilight (and why wouldn't you, you're sane)? Try reading Luminosity (http://luminous.elcenia.com/chapters/ch1.shtml)! Same characters, setting, and genre, but the protagonist has been reimagined and the author has some talent. Luminosity isn't being sold or published, so it won't compete with sales of Twilight, but if you're a person who read Meyer's books and felt there was something missing, you might find it in Alicorn's re-imagining.

Really, this could easily turn into a discussion on the merits of fanfiction. I'm of the opinion that the medium itself has no inherent flaws except that anyone can access it. There's so much trash that it's hard to find the treasures. But there is definitely some gold in there, and for people who found themselves wanting more from Command and Conquer (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/3654039/1/Tiberium_Wars), Firefly (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/4099993/1/Forward), or Harry Potter (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_bMethods_b_of_bRationality_b) , for example, I find it highly preferable to have that stuff available than for the author to shut it down because it "doesn't agree with their vision", regardless of how it actually affects their profits.

[Overcast]

I can't read through all this but I'll state what I think.

New media based off of old media does not change the effect of old media. Due to the fact that the person who makes the new media will never be completely applied to the old media, and most certainly will not be recognized as the producer of said media, it can be allowed to happen with little trouble of if they do it badly. And in fact will often be thrown to the wayside and forgotten forever if they do, but will be wholeheartedly accepted as a proper addition if they do.

Anecdote. Avatar the Last Airbender. There is no argument that the movie was a fairly expensive shit. It's creation has done nothing to depreciate the original animated series or the possible future. The fans will continue to watch and await what happens with it because they recognize that the abomination was not created by those who made what they love. And this is looking at something incredibly short term.

Switching to something more long term. Frankenstein. The original Mary Shelly story has not changed despite the massive influx of B-horror films that have been based off of the story. Most if not all have been considered forgettable or amusing in the way bad films only can be, but have done nothing to depreciate the fact that the story is still considered a literary classic.

Now to something neutral. Comic book canon. Read any ongoing comic character and it has been taken from the original artist and has been slowly shifted over time into many different forms. Some of which have been enjoyed and accepted as official, others which have been so positively lauded that we NEVER TALK ABOUT IT EVER AGAIN. I will admit the massive crossover plots have done a lot to create moments of damage that are nearly incapable of simply tossing dirt on, but otherwise we can usually forget what we consider mistakes.

My favorite positive example(if we stick exclusively to the comic medium) is John Constantine. Formerly just a side note off of Swamp Thing he developed over time to a complex and intriguing character that in my opinion far overshadows his origins. If we had let him just stay where he started rather than being loosely affiliated we may have been left with your typical DC comic asshole, or even nothing at all. The ability for someone to expand upon the character is what made Hellblazer the longest running Vertigo comic.

The effect of allowing a new person to use old characters, ideas, settings, ect can cause a negative result. But it won't always.

If these kids want to try for Mother 4 then they can try, if Nintendo stomps down on them that is understandable. This is because the author is still alive and it is alright for it to remain his decision as long as he wants to control his own work. And if they go for a spiritual successor they must always be forced to reckon that if they fail to make par they will be recognized as nobodies. Ignored and perhaps incapable of doing anything like this ever again.

[Kim]

Anywho, just stopping in here to say that as much as Jagos kept trying to reinforce the idea that my reasons against Mother 4 had something to do with Nintendo as a company or ownership of intellectual property or whatever, my main point was only ever, "Hey, I think a lot of what made these great is inseparable from the guy who made them. You can't be a better Itoi than Itoi, so perhaps you should just do a straight-up homage." Of course, if you tell people they're arguing a point enough times, the argument inevitably becomes about that, as shown by the current subject of the thread. So congrats, Jagos, on convincing people to argue a point they can't really defend instead of a much more understandable one they could.

If you at all ever doubted I support fan games now, I will go out of my way to say their plan to faithfully remake Mother 1 out of Earthbound sounds awesome, and will likely do a great job of introducing people who couldn't tolerate Mother 1 before to the game, and I might also add that I'm a big fan of the Merry Gear Solid games. I just don't think they should call their game Mother 4, for the reasons I've explained. Put simply: It just wouldn't be the same, even assuming they're really good writers, of which there is no guarantee.

So yeah, I just wish they'd change the name and go for homage over sequel. I also wish they'd quit misinterpreting stuff Itoi says to support their making a sequel because that is just irritating. You may all go back to your incredibly awful incredibly pointless argument now.