pbguy1211 Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 Originally posted by Darth Windu luke - the Death Star would be a political center, not a weapon - so dont worry. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Why don't we just call it the Fun Star? Instead of metal it can be made of mirrors! And it'll be like a giant disco in space! This one was good Windu... you always seem to amuse me in one way or another... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 Yes indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted March 6, 2004 Author Share Posted March 6, 2004 once again we see the famous pbguy wit - half of it anyway... The Death Star, for CtG would be, as i said, a political center and not a weapon. The reason for this is that it would be far too powerful as a weapon, and really, the only places of power for the Empire we ever saw in the films were the 1st and 2nd Death Star's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 No, you're not stealing ranged infantry, because every RTS has ranged infantry. The same with resource management, constructing buildings, and anything else that is a fundamental part of what makes an RTS. You are stealing Conquer the Galaxy, because only one RTS has it, and you're even using almost exactly the same name for it. If you can't tell the difference you're worse than I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 He can't be worse than I've thought... because I already think nothing of him. Seriously 'du you need a hobby or a girlfriend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Windu, there exists a fine line between building off an idea and blatantly stealing one. This is the basis for originality. How much of the same words in the same order is considered plagerism and not coincidence? You have crossed this line by far. Even SWGB was more subtle in its transformation. Your idea even has the smae name as BHG's, only with world exchanged for galaxy. Thats like as if SWGB was called the Age of Jedi. Also, the fun star should have a big smilely face where the laser is, so that nearby worlds can be sure that its not a weapon too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted March 7, 2004 Author Share Posted March 7, 2004 vostok - so you think that the second RTS to be created was stwealing all of it's ideas from the first? If that is the way you'd prefer to have it, there would be very little in the way of interesting RTS'. The whole point of evolution and revolution is that you build on the good ideas, and remove the bad ideas from whatever has come before the thing that you are creating. How, therefore, can you accuse me of 'stealing' anything? As i said, was SWGB stealing the idea of ranged infantry? or melle infantry? or armoured units? As for Conquer the Galaxy, it is called that becuase the whole point of the exercise is to...Conquer the Galaxy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Arguing with you is useless. Ripping-off the Conquer the Galaxy from RoN's Conquer the World isn't building from a good idea. Building from a good idea would be taking a certain concept and developing it further, something that you obviously aren't doing your CtG idea. It's the EXACT same thing as CtW. If LA tried to do that they get their ass sued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad Arguing with you is useless. You're only realizing this NOW?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted March 7, 2004 Author Share Posted March 7, 2004 luke - i dont see how you came to that conlcusion. If it was possible to use companies in the video game industry who used ideas similar to yours, there would be an endless number of lawsuits. As for CtW/CtG i suggest you actually play RoN before coming to conclusions. Finally, in regards to arguing with me, if you think you are right and i am wrong, then convince me of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saberhagen Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 I really don't see the problem here. Clones of successful formulas are almost as old as computer gaming itself. Developers are always "stealing" ideas from each other. I'd suggest that there isn't really much originality in games these days, but that's not necessarily a problem. A game doesn't have to be original in order to be good. For example, there's at least one level in MOHAA where the gameplay is exactly the same as Space Invaders! The real question is: is the idea that Windu has taken from RoN any good? I've only played the demo of RoN, so I don't know exactly what CTW is like, but from what's been said here, I don't see anything that would cause a problem. After all, this is something extra on top of RM and scenarios/campaigns. It wouldn't detract from anything that's already there, and the effort of implementing it would probably be very small compared to the rest of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Yes but if someone made another Mythology based RTS, including 3 civs, the norse, the egyptians and the greeks, with sub-civs being minor gods and called the game Time of Mythology, Ensemble has a hell of a good reason to sue them. That's ripping-off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Originally posted by Darth Windu Finally, in regards to arguing with me, if you think you are right and i am wrong, then convince me of that. Because you don't neccessarily see other people's points of view or listen to them. Hence making argueing with you a lost cause. No one wants to debate or argue with someone who isn't being receptive to the ideas and opinions of the other people involved. That's not really a debate or an arguement. The only thing that leads to is the person who's voice is not being heard is getting annoyed/pissed. That's not neccessarily a statement about this conversation, but most of yours. I haven't followed this one close enough to care, and I generally shrug off everything you have to say because of my previously stated reasons of not wanting to debate or argue with you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Well it all comes down to this if Windu ever had an original thought I think his head would explode how many times have we listened to his templates all ripping one game or another. Red Alert 2 Generals War Craft 3 and many more that ive prolly forgotten and now RoN has just been added to that list jeez if your gonna steal ideas at least try to disguise it...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 I seem to remember there was this one time where Windu changed one of his ideas because everyone opposed it... or maybe I am remembering wrong... Anyway, as you may have already read in one of the other threads, I now have a copy of RoN, so Windu can no longer use the excuse that no-one has played it. so you think that the second RTS to be created was stwealing all of it's ideas from the first?Well back in those days, yes, it was very much like stealing. However the second RTS ever made wasn't exactly the same as the first - it took ideas in different directions and played very differently, more differently than RTSs today play. And before you think I'm making that up I have done a bit of reading in the past on this, here's the article: http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/real_time/ Now please tell us at least one thing (apart from changing things to Star Wars civs and locations) that differentiates the gameplay of Conquer the World to the gaameplay of Conquer the Galaxy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted March 8, 2004 Author Share Posted March 8, 2004 luke - but your example doesnt apply. I'm not trying to make a game with 18 earth civs with 8 (i think) tech levels, generic unit sets etc etc. The only similarity to RoN in terms of CtW/G is the concept of an e-risk board. vostok - actually i've done that a few times. I changed my mind about merging the TF/Confederacy, merging the Nabo/Gungans (temporarily) and have only just changed my mind and accepted a suggestion from saber about CtG free-for-all. As for the differences between CtW and CtG there are quite a few. Obviously, there are the differences in number of civs, unit sets, buildings, art etc. Also, while the concept of 'national borders' would stay, there would be no 'attrition' applied to enemy forces in your territory or vice-versa. You will also note that in CtW, regardless of the region you are fighting in, if you take the capital city, you win that region (or empire if it is the capital region). In CtG however, while you can still take cities, you actually build Command Center's that can be destroyed, with you winning that region only once you have destroyed all of your opponents forces. For cities, they would be on the map (like Theed if you are fighting on Naboo) and would give economic and territorial bonus' to the player who owns them, but they are unbuildable and not necessary to win. Can't really think of anything else right now, but i'll edit this post if i do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Ah that's right, you changed your mind about the Confederacy/Federation merger. I knew there was something. Did you really change your mind about the Naboo merger? Why oh why did you change it back? That hardly counts as a mind change. And yes, with taking on saber's suggestion about random homeworlds, that makes twice you've changed your mind, though it was only once when I last posted. As I said in the other post I think attrition is one of the better feature of RoN, though I can see how it doesn't necessarily relate to Star Wars, so i can be gotten rid of. But if you get rid of attrition, what's the point of keeping national borders? They don't really work for Star Wars either. I quite like your cities idea now that I understand it... so you can't build cities, they are just already on the map waiting for you to capture them? That could work... However you have really described how your SWGB2 is different from RoN, not how the Conquer the Galaxy game mode is different to the Conquer the World game mode. These are still pretty much the same if I'm not mistaken... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saberhagen Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad Yes but if someone made another Mythology based RTS, including 3 civs, the norse, the egyptians and the greeks, with sub-civs being minor gods and called the game Time of Mythology, Ensemble has a hell of a good reason to sue them. That's ripping-off. They would have a good reason to sue if it was called "Time of Mythology" because that is very close to their trademark "Age of Mythology". However, none of the other things you mentioned are likely to count as infringement of copyrights or trademarks. The Norse, Greeks and Egyptians were real civilisations in real history. Nobody owns the rights to history. Similarly, I don't believe that game concepts count as "original works" for the purposes of copyright law. "A mythology based strategy game involving Greek gods" is a pretty good description of Populus II, but I don't see Bullfrog (if they still exist...) sueing Ensemble. There are very many games which are "rip offs" of other games, but this very rarely leads to court cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 I guess you're right. Nevertheless, we shouldn't rip-off another game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted March 9, 2004 Author Share Posted March 9, 2004 vostok - well, with cities, i would love to keep them on the map so that when you fight, you can actually capture cities like Theed, Mos Espa etc. However, i also think that unlike RoN, where you build a civilisation, we are fighting a war in this game, so it would seem odd to me to have the civ's building cities all over the place. As for attrition, i just dont like it. The reason i left national borders in though is in terms of building structures. In SWGB and a few other RTS' you can build anywhere on the map, and i think that when you are building turrets inside someone else's base or resource collection area, that is bad for gameplay and realism. Hence, i would keep national borders to stop that going on, and also to define which resources you can tap and which you can't. Other than that, i really can't say how my CtG is different from CtW, although really, how is CtW different from 'Risk'? PS: the reason i changed my mind about not merging the Royal Naboo and Gungans was because when i had them seperate, i have 100% navy, 0% air force, 100% infantry and 50% mechs for the Gungans, and 0% navy, 100% air force, 100% infantry and 50% mechs for the Royal Naboo - apart from that, it also made sense to me realistically that they would fight together after Ep1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 I agree completely about the cities. While I think attrition is a great part of the game, it doesn't really have much significance in Star Wars, so it's best to leave it out. I see your point about the forward building, though. Perhaps all we need is a better name than "National Borders" so it is more Star Warsy. Again though it doesn't really fit in Star Wars that well, there better ways we could effectively decrease forward building. And no, CtW isn't different to Risk (or is that game called Diplomacy... or is one a rip-off of the other?) but the thing about copyright law is that it isn't necessarily binding when the concept is transported to a new medium (pc games). Since you're keeping it in the same medium instead of ripping off a board game, their are problems. And we don't need to get into the Naboo thing here as well as elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 I disagree totally about forward bases and I know why you dislike them you haven't ever played online long enough to learn about now great fwds are it unlocks so many possibilties in the game. Why do you think nearly all the RTS have them cause its great for gameplay. Hey if your enemy is stupid enough to let you steal there resources near there land they deserve it. This national border thing will just cause problems the defensive team will win they have a homefield advantage and it is not good youll have top outnumber them to much and if too power players come head to head I bet the defensive player wins but with forwards any can win you the game if its destroying thw forward and moving on to there main base or getting destroyed by quick replenishing units flowing into you base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 If he's never played online he has no reason to even continue this discussion. And he can officially quit pretending like he knows what he's talking about in terms of what's best for a new game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted March 10, 2004 Author Share Posted March 10, 2004 Vostok - with national borders, i only meant keeping the concept rather than the name, obviously that would have to be changed froz - you wouldnt be saying that if you had actually played RoN pb - ah, so my opinion only counts if i have done things that you approve of? Oh please, spare me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 No Windu, your opinion only counts when you know what you're talking about. This is not the case. MP is everything in terms of reputation. If the MP game is unbalanced or pointless (lets go sit in our bases and play Simcity!), then the game sinks into obscurity (RoN's MP sucked, there are 100 people online, even we beat them, and the game doesn't have the legs to sell well, even with all the acclaim lathered on it for being sold in an RTS off year). The one thing that drives me crazy here is trying to have a discussion about the dynamics of a game with someone who has yet to beat the learning campaign. Saberhagen, pbguy, behind you 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.