Hi everybody.
I don't know why I tell you this story, but yesterday I felt really disappointed when I checked my usual computer magazine websites and came across this picture.
(http://www.stubbsthezombie.com/images/agegate_logo.gif)
The font instantly reminded my of Grim Fandango and after reading the title twice I thought this would be a really cool new adventure game.
Well, I guess most of you know that I was mistaken.
However as happy as I was I downloaded the trailer right away and ran it. At the beginnig there was a prerendered distant city at night and then you saw a car with two teenagers in it who were listening to the old "Lollipop Lollipop" song.
Graphics were nice and up to that point I was really amazed. It looked to me like a very promising game.
Well next thing to happen was a green Zombie appearing in the back of the car and ripping out part of the girls brain. He kills two more people by ripping out one of his organs and using it as an acid bomb which somehow blows up a police car.
Then follow scenes from the actual game with body parts flying around and people being shot and Much Much blood shooting from peoples heads while the Zombie eats their brains.
At the end of the trailer the boy from the beginning gets overran by a car which the Zombie is driving and the Zombie burps, which I guess ment as a kind of joke.
Why why why ... is there one stupid shooting game appearing after the other?? Am I too old to find this trailer funny??
I am deeply disappointed. 10 years ago people would have made a really cool adventure game out of that title!!
Greetings,
Stefan
Did you not realise who's making that game? They were involved with HALO!
And, you're probably right.
If you say so...
The game isn't a shooter and 10 years ago there were tons of action games so I don't see why this would have been an adventure game.
Zombies don't usually run around solving puzzles and having dialog with townspeople trying to solve an ancient evil, zombies usually run around and kill people...
As far as the trailer, it's quite cute, but that's just personaly preference.
Also, while the game is kind of repetative, it is not stupid. You haven't even played it.
Eric
Times have changed. If you're not looking for a 3D action fest then you're generally not with it, is the feeling I get when I read PC magazines these days. Adventures will be back in the mainstream, but that might be after armageddon.
Stubbs is good even if it's repetitive. At least it's an attempt at originality (both the game itself and the way it was produced). Also, Wideload's mascot is a hippo.
This game looked cool to me from the previews, but then I KNEW it wasn't an adventure game...I'm not sure how you could have thought otherwise, actually, since everywhere I've looked it's described as action. The really cool part about it (to me) is being able to detach your hand and control people. I've got to get this game.
Quote from: m0ds on Fri 13/01/2006 18:13:13
Adventures will be back in the mainstream, but that might be after armageddon.
Nah... after armageddon, people will probably want to play MORE shoot-em-up games...
Well...
Seeing as the people who make these games must spend years making them, they can make whatever kind of games they want.
Of course they can. Noone disputes that. That doesn't mean someone isn't allowed to think the type of game they choose to make is a stupid decision.
I haven't seen much of Stubbs but I thought what I saw was pretty cute. Definitely made me want to possibly think of looking into the game further.
I think TheMagician is quite right to be disappointed; because the logo really looks like an adventure game.
It reminded me Frankie Goes To Hollywood, a C64 game (anyone knows this game? please PM me).
And why can't a zombie be a main character of an adventure game? ( Alright, I've read the post of MrColossal ) But I think "everything" may be the main character of an adventure game, even if they need to eat brains.
I guess you just can't tell the genre of a game by it's title! Oh no!
I don;t think it's a dissapointment at all. The idea sounds pretty cool and it's going to be lighthearted and humourous.
Quote from: MrColossal on Fri 13/01/2006 17:55:17
Also, while the game is kind of repetative, it is not stupid. You haven't even played it.
Well, I
have played it, and I found it to be quite stupid. I mean, not only is it a rip-off of
Destroy All Humans, but it's not even a
good rip-off.
I mean, yeah, it's kinna fun to be a zombie, but the first few levels are quite frankly interminable,
especially that damn canyon level with the hovercraft.
They could have done better.
Quote from: Gord10 on Sat 14/01/2006 17:03:06
I think TheMagician is quite right to be disappointed; because the logo really looks like an adventure game.
Err, what exactly about the logo? I mean, it's a goddamn logo. What the hell does a logo have to do with genre?
If anything the logo says to me "PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE!" or some other b-movie. Which I suspect is their intention.
How can you assume a game to be in a specific way based on the title designs, and then be dissapointed when this turns out untrue? It's a mere mental construction of your own wishes, you can't blame AD's for making material with resemblance to classic games of a specific genre. Gee!
Quote from: RocketGirl on Sat 14/01/2006 17:50:06
Well, I have played it, and I found it to be quite stupid. I mean, not only is it a rip-off of Destroy All Humans, but it's not even a good rip-off.
How can it rip off DAH when that title is a mere child itself. A title is in production for years, you can't rip off what you do not know exist. Would you consider DAH be a ripoff of STZ if that were released first?
Quote from: 2ma2 on Sun 15/01/2006 11:38:52
How can it rip off DAH when that title is a mere child itself. A title is in production for years, you can't rip off what you do not know exist. Would you consider DAH be a ripoff of STZ if that were released first?
Titles are annouced before they are released. It happens with movies, too. Every time Disney announces a new title, every fly-by-night animation studio out there tries to cash in by releasing their own version of, say, Aladdin, direct-to-video before Disney's hits the theater. And it happens with video games as well. I've worked at three game companies over the years and I know what development meetings are like; titles and features that other companies have announced are often part of the insipiration discussions.
Wideload was founded by Bungie guys who didn't want to do another Halo... you really think they just said "hey, let's copy this game"?
Quote from: Redwall on Sun 15/01/2006 18:10:37
Wideload was founded by Bungie guys who didn't want to do another Halo... you really think they just said "hey, let's copy this game"?
The two are
disturbingly similar. Do you really think they
didn't?And considering that Halo 1 & 2 are just better-made games than Stubbs, clearly Bungie lost mostly dead wood when these guys left...
Quote from: RocketGirl on Sun 15/01/2006 18:19:46
The two are disturbingly similar. Do you really think they didn't?
It's the same engine.
Quote
And considering that Halo 1 & 2 are just better-made games than Stubbs, clearly Bungie lost mostly dead wood when these guys left...
Halo and Halo 2 had huge budgets and took years to make. Stubbs was made on a shoestring in a short time. Plus Stubbs used a small core staff and a lot of contractors to get the job done. I'm not defending it in any way since I haven't even played a demo. Just saying the situation isn't as
clear as you make out.
Quote from: SteveMcCrea on Sun 15/01/2006 18:52:51
It's the same engine.
Engine, schmengine; I'm talking about gameplay and concept being disturbingly similar.
Quote
I'm not defending it in any way since I haven't even played a demo.
Well, I
have played it, and the two are so similar that at first I thought they were made by the same company until I checked.
Quote
Just saying the situation isn't as clear as you make out.
Well, it still seems pretty clear to
me. I've worked on games that had budgets and games that were made on shoestrings, both made by the same team, and the budget had very little to do with quality in the end. Time is
certainly a factor, but the strengths and weaknesses of those games were the same, just of different degree.
I think anyone who has watched a movie made by Hollywood in the last ten years will agree that you can't disguise crap with money; it's the same with video games.
Quote from: RocketGirl on Mon 16/01/2006 00:45:15
I think anyone who has watched a movie made by Hollywood in the last ten years will agree that you can't disguise crap with money; it's the same with video games.
That might have to become my signature sometime soon! :D
Quote from: Gord10 on Sat 14/01/2006 17:03:06
I think TheMagician is quite right to be disappointed; because the logo really looks like an adventure game.
It reminded me Frankie Goes To Hollywood, a C64 game (anyone knows this game? please PM me).
And why can't a zombie be a main character of an adventure game? ( Alright, I've read the post of MrColossal ) But I think "everything" may be the main character of an adventure game, even if they need to eat brains.
Who said they can't ?
http://www.johngreenart.com/nearlydeparted/
Quote from: RocketGirl on Sun 15/01/2006 17:38:21
Titles are annouced before they are released. It happens with movies, too. Every time Disney announces a new title, every fly-by-night animation studio out there tries to cash in by releasing their own version of, say, Aladdin, direct-to-video before Disney's hits the theater. And it happens with video games as well. I've worked at three game companies over the years and I know what development meetings are like; titles and features that other companies have announced are often part of the insipiration discussions.
So basically, whoever announce their title first are original? Conceptwise, both DAH and STZ give you a protagonist which more or less wipes out entire cityblocks of puny earthlings/walking dinners. If the similarities also would be that the opponent is placed within military bases, well it is not exactly the first time that has happened. Did DAH ripoff Area 51? Or is it the cheeky humour that makes STZ a veritable copy of DAH? Heck, both games are ripoffs of Postal since that also clearly features a protagonist whacking people into smitherins. And on more than one occasion are these people accompanied by military resources.
An announcement incorporates not much more than a concept. This is the game, you will play this and that. Gameplay features, level design, obstacle design, technical specifications, storyline etc etc is not part of an announcement, they're trying to sell you a game that does not exist yet, and even if gameplay seem alike in the final products, there is no way in hell anyone could rip off what they do not know about.
It's the postmodern world at its best. Everything has been done and will be redone again. Films, movies, whatever. I know that people want to cash in at other big titles; but a game development usually tries to stand out in one way or another, even though concepts may be very much alike. I can't honestly see how STZ would be a ripoff of DAH merely because the concepts and/or gameplay are similar, since the production time were more or less simultaneously.
Giana Sisters, now THAT is a ripoff, since it merely exchanged the protagonist, but kept gameplay, leveldesign, palettes, general feel etc etc..
You sound like you're arguing for the sake of arguing now...
Quote from: RocketGirl on Mon 16/01/2006 00:45:15
Quote
I'm not defending it in any way since I haven't even played a demo.
Well, I have played it, and the two are so similar that at first I thought they were made by the same company until I checked.
I'm confused. Using the same engine often makes games feel similar. Just look at id engine games.
The plot and main character could hardly be more different. And you've already said that the quality of gameplay is low on Stubbs.
Quote
I think anyone who has watched a movie made by Hollywood in the last ten years will agree that you can't disguise crap with money; it's the same with video games.
That's the opposite to my argument. Stubbs is low budget, made with a lot of cheap contractors, i.e. making something crap with no money. My point being that the people that left Bungie aren't necessarily dead wood - it could be that the contractors and the short time span to get it finished pulled the quality down.
Doesn't matter how I sound. The core issue is that you claim a specific game is ripping off another game and I disagree. Therefor I present the arguments that makes me disagree. I would appreciate you attack my arguments rather than my methods of argumentation. I might very well be wrong, but I have not yet seen a satisfying argument on how STZ is ripping of DAH. Both titles pays homage to popcultural phenomenas, which ties into my views on postmodernism, and gameplay can not be plagiated without the developers actually playing what they rip off.
Enlighten me, please--
Quote from: SteveMcCrea on Mon 16/01/2006 23:58:29
I'm confused. Using the same engine often makes games feel similar. Just look at id engine games.
The plot and main character could hardly be more different. And you've already said that the quality of gameplay is low on Stubbs.
See, this is where I have to disagree. It felt
exactly the same to me:
- Both main characters are classic movie monsters
- Both games have a retro feel, one because it's set in the 50's, one because it's set in a 50's-style vision of the future
- Both games allow the conversion of ordinary humans into your evil minions that do your bidding
- Both games feature humans as your enemy
The differences are almost entirely cosmetic; the underlying premise is the same in both games. This is why I say Stubbs is a rip-off of Destroy All Humans; that they both use the same engine is gravy but not even evidence I was considering.
Reminds me of the whole "Our game has this new TK feature in it!"
Coming out around the same time as each other, the two games "second Sight" and "PSI Ops" both featured a new floating objects and people feature. (Like in DAH!)
They both swear it was a coincidence... I wonder! However the second sight game was more brainy and stealthy and the psi ops game was an all out actioner.
Quote from: RocketGirl on Tue 17/01/2006 20:44:20
- Both main characters are classic movie monsters
I thought you were saying Stubbs is a Halo rip-off. Doh. Carry on...
- Both main characters are classic movie monsters
- Both games have a retro feel, one because it's set in the 50's, one because it's set in a 50's-style vision of the future
These are kind of tied together; since the first point gain its definition tied into 50's style sci-fi. I think both games here adress a nostalgia trend of modernist sci-fi that has been around for quite a while, especailly in the independant scene (Sky Captain, Signs, Code Red). I can see how STZ unwantingly cashes in to a trend here, since I'd rather put zombies in late 60's, but since the sci-fi of that era was more Flash Gordon and Barbarella, I can see how this was undesirable.
- Both games allow the conversion of ordinary humans into your evil minions that do your bidding
To control your opponent has been a gaming feature for quite some time (Abe's Odyssey one of the more obvient ones). And, as mentioned, Psi-Ops and Second Sight took it on. I'd rather see it as different aspects of gaming comes and goes in trends; right now, the idea of manipulating your foes instead of just shooting them comes up in actionbased concepts, and people find it interesting. "Hey, I know a different way we can do this.."
- Both games feature humans as your enemy
This point loses all relevance excluded from the others. Even if the foes are regarded foes merely because they are human, the horde of games adressing this feature, whether it be merely to change the veiwpoint or for a laugh, are to immense to ignore.
So basically, I can see how STZ takes on the 50's theme somewhat unmotivated, a conceptual design most likely based on trendscanning, but as a whole, I still disagree that STZ rips off DAH.
Quote from: 2ma2 on Wed 18/01/2006 14:11:16
These are kind of tied together; since the first point gain its definition tied into 50's style sci-fi.
Not at all.
Aliens and zombies can be found in many time periods. Medieval times, present day, the far future. Neither of these games
had to have a retro style. The fact that they
both do is a very telling point.
Quote
To control your opponent has been a gaming feature for quite some time (Abe's Odyssey one of the more obvient ones).
The relevent point, however, is that
both games have this feature just as
both games are set in a retro style.
Quote
This point loses all relevance excluded from the others. Even if the foes are regarded foes merely because they are human, the horde of games adressing this feature, whether it be merely to change the veiwpoint or for a laugh, are to immense to ignore.
Taking each point individually and trying to explain them away is missing the forest for the trees. Where each game intersects with the other and how many intersections there are between both is what is convincing that one game ripped off the other.
Quote
So basically, I can see how STZ takes on the 50's theme somewhat unmotivated, a conceptual design most likely based on trendscanning, but as a whole, I still disagree that STZ rips off DAH.
...
Forgive me, but it sounds as if you're doing the debating equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears ang going, "La la la la la...!". You're essentially saying that you see the points and even agree with them on their own, but you
still don't think the overall point is valid? *boggle*
Like I said, missing the forest for the trees.
Quote
Not at all.
Aliens and zombies can be found in many time periods
But they only become 'classic movie monsters' (your first point) in the context of the retro style (second point) - otherwise they're just aliens or zombies (not exactly original game characters). I think that was 2ma2's point, anyway - it's what occured to me. And the retro theme of both most likely comes from a 'trendscanning' (to steal his word - hopefully I understood it) as to what was likely to appeal to gamers / hadn't already been done to death. That both games came up with it could simply mean they both had access to the same research.
It could also be that the STZ team, looking for a quick game idea, heard the early announcement of DAH, adapted it and ran with it. The obvious points of comparison (and I'm not arguing that they're not there) stem from lazy and generally limited thinking as to what would make for a marketable game (in fact this could be true in either case). Which would be a rip, yes, but not on the one-for-one scale you seem to be suggesting.
However, I don't know anything about how the industry works behind the scenes, I could be being unfair to all involved.
Quote from: RocketGirl on Thu 19/01/2006 01:52:20
Not at all.
Aliens and zombies can be found in many time periods. Medieval times, present day, the far future. Neither of these games had to have a retro style. The fact that they both do is a very telling point.
Ashen made a good explanation on my point.
QuoteThe relevent point, however, is that both games have this feature just as both games are set in a retro style.
Here we have the main issue where both games are very much alike since....
QuoteTaking each point individually and trying to explain them away is missing the forest for the trees. Where each game intersects with the other and how many intersections there are between both is what is convincing that one game ripped off the other.
...taking each point individually makes you judge each point by itself. This point being not very original, infact, featured in a buckload of games, and should therefor be excluded from the other points. It is not how many intersections there are, but how many of those intersections are quite unique gaming-wise; and would therefor be warranted as ripped off material.
QuoteForgive me, but it sounds as if you're doing the debating equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears ang going, "La la la la la...!". You're essentially saying that you see the points and even agree with them on their own, but you still don't think the overall point is valid? *boggle*
No, I agree on one of the above points, which is a 50's retro sci-fi scenario, with a playable classic monster added to it, not as a point itself, but part of the relevance of the original point (Again, see Ashens post). This is not unique for DAH nor STZ, but infact a nostalgia popcultural phenomena that has been in the air since the millenia shift. I don't think I phrased it that poorly. I rather think that you found the gameplay itself, rather than conceptual designs, to be very similar, and therefor thinks STZ rips off DAH - even though actual gameplay is impossible to mimic without playing the game itself. And since both games were created simultaneously, I strongly doubt this happened without some heavy industrial espionage.