We need more parody games, people!

[Kweepa]

the computer "Twiggy"

Shurely "Ziggy"?

I find that parodies are generally best when unexpected.

[Unknown_Terror]

the computer "Twiggy"

Shurely "Ziggy"?

I find that parodies are generally best when unexpected.

Yes Ziggy Thats it..Wouldn't believe i actually watched it Today.....Whoops. You are probably right about that, but by the time i finish the game i'm working on people would have forgotten all about it

[nulluser]

-

[Ashen]

Shurely "Ziggy"?

I find that parodies are generally best when unexpected.

Surely 'Surely'? 

'Twiki' was the robot in Buck Rogers, maybe Unknown_Terror was just confusing his sci-fi a bit? I think TerranRich doing a (non-parody) Quantum Leap game, many moons ago. Not sure if it's been abandoned since, though.
And yes, any parody games made in the next few weeks will lose something because of this thread. Take your time, people.

But seriously, what happened to El Ammo? I'd rather play that than the 'original'.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I don't think Mind's Eye would work in a parody environment (and not just because I created it).  Some games are clearly set up to work better than others for such things, but I didn't have time to make the characters in Mind's Eye fleshed out enough or the world real enough to make a parody really worthwhile or interesting. 

A game like Ben Jordan has had several sequels now and people are used to Ben and understand him more or less, so creating a parody can work (though I still see no reason for it).  The same is true of the Trilby series, since enough information has been laid out to base a parody from.

Also, I would recommend not doing parodies of games without the permission of the original author, whether you think you need it or not.  Buloght actively pursued permission to do his Ben Jordan parody, and I would recommend the same behavior from everyone else -- otherwise you run the risk of creating bad feelings and insulting the creators, and that's just not cool at all.

The important question here is really: why?  If you can take the time to borrow someone else's ideas to make a parody you can certainly invest the time to make something new and interesting, so why not just do that?  I know I'd much rather see a unique game from someone than a parody of something someone else made.

[Unknown_Terror]

Yea i agree with what you're saying about making parody games. I would say that they should only be made if they are actually good, you're probably right about insulting the original creators of a parody too. So it could be a good idea to contact the original authors.
I don't know if theres a legal requirment to contact the author to get permission if you  copy/Edit a TV Series into the style of an adventure game. I would imagine that would be the case if you use some of their trademarks as logo's or even character names etc...

Can anyone shed a light on this?

[Radiant]

I don't know if theres a legal requirment to contact the author to get permission if you  copy/Edit a TV Series into the style of an adventure game.

No. In most countries (including the US and all of western Europe), parody is protected, in that you may use parts of a work for making a critique on that work and parody is a form of that. There's a bit of legalese involved, but it boils down to that.

The best example I know of is the Jack Chick case. Chick is a religious kind of guy who makes tracts (basically, comics) with strong religious themes, such as the idea that rock music and new age thingies are Bad for your Soul. One of his most (in)famous tracts is called Deep Dungeons, and explains how playing D&D leads to suicide, mind controlling your parents, pacts with the devil and lack of fashion sense (no, I'm not kidding...) and how you can Save Yourself by prayer.

Obviously, on the internet, people have drawn several parodies of this. Chick has tried his hardest to get those shut down calling them copyright infringement or libel, but he can't, because you're allowed to make parodies. Other examples include Weird Al Yankovic (who does ask permission since he's a nice guy) and the Jack Thompson case (which is also very funny).

One caveat is that this doesn't necessarily work this way against Big Corporations in America, because you cannot financially afford a court case against them even though it would be a foregone conclusion that you'd win it. But most companies don't particularly care that you parodize them unless you're actually making money out of that (hence, fangames tend to be tolerated), in part because it could easily turn into a public relations disaster to shut you down (there's a very funny case about that involving MacDonalds). If you would specifically ask them, they would either not respond or tell you not to; but they won't generally do particularly much to stop you (e.g. the Garfield game).

Hope that helps!

[Unknown_Terror]

Ahh okay mate, Thanks for the info. People who want to make parodies are safe then.  Thats good news.

[nulluser]

-

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Lighten up because I said if you're going to expend energy on a parody why not just make an original game?  In light of your statement I 'could' tell you to grow up, but I won't.

[Akatosh]

Parodies gather more attention. Full stop.

[Stupot]

Parody's are also easier to make becasue you've already got a structure and some plot elements to be recycled and all you have to do is draw the graphics.  Although some imagination is needed to make it funny.  I think it has to be obvious that it is a parody, otherwise it could look like you're just trying to copy the game you are basing it on.

[blueskirt]

It can be made for various reasons, to pull the plugs of the giants who have enough support that a little parody is unlikely to hurt them at all. It can also be made for the opposite reason, to show how much you loved one person's work, how much it marked your life and your imagination and it inspired you enough to make a present to the author or the community. Then the game is just like fan art, except an overkill one, with backgrounds, animations, programmings and musics. It's not because it isn't original that it isn't constructive.

[biothlebop]

Even when one creates original works they borrow from others. The magazines you read as a kid, the movies you watched, the books you read, that one time you fell from a tree and got three stitches in your jaw.

All these things never really leave you, they are somewhere in your psyche. Even if you forgot about a certain event, it (along with others) directed your path through life and wound you up sitting in front of a computer screen reading this. So even when we create original things, we are really creating a parody of our experiences, of life, since we cannot ever reproduce the perfection of a single second we experience, we cannot take in all of the world through our senses.

Everything we create will be a parody or imitation of something, and I don't see anything inferior in fan-fiction/art/remakes/parodies by this definition.

Just be aware that you will be creating a copy of a copy, and that every copy loses something along the way so you must put a piece of yourself and how you experience reality into that copy so it can reach for greatness.

This will be incredibly hard if you are creating a good-willing parody (i.e. fan-game/fiction/art true to what is canon),
but a (possibly spiteful and undermining) parody which recognizes it's idol as a copy of reality (like a stupid computer game), not as reality itself (like a fan-game attempts to reach reality through the previous copy) is closer to attaining perfection, it is closer to reality. You are the creator of this (spiteful) parody, examining the world through your senses, not through suspending your disbelief and mistaking another work for reality.

I do not agree with ProgZmax on asking for permission when creating a parody, I think the best parodies are the ones that tear their idols to shreds and feel no remorse over doing so, but this does usually result in drama, so know what you are getting into.

Every aspiring artist/creator should have to live knowing that their work is only a bad copy of something magnificent,
have rotten tomatoes relentlessly hurled at him/her. Otherwise, that person will stagnate, stray further away from greatness, create copies of copies of copies.

If you want to create something outstanding, you have to keep yourself open to the world.
Take in impulses raw, unfiltered.
Want to write a book about whaling? Go whaling, don't read Moby Dick.

[Unknown_Terror]

Nice speech, it made a hell of alot of sense. You are totally right.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I think the best parodies are the ones that tear their idols to shreds and feel no remorse over doing so, but this does usually result in drama, so know what you are getting into.

This is an opinion.  One I do not share.

Every aspiring artist/creator should have to live knowing that their work is only a bad copy of something magnificent,
have rotten tomatoes relentlessly hurled at him/her.

Do you actually believe this rot?  Thinking that you have to live in the shadow of greater works is really warped.  While I agree that it is good to maintain a perspective and to continuously strive to improve, believing your work will never reach a level of greatness and individuality is completely counterproductive.

Want to write a book about whaling? Go whaling, don't read Moby Dick.

This is akin to the old line 'If you haven't experienced something firsthand you can't write about it'.  Melville wasn't a whaler, unless you've read more about his time aboard the Acushnet than is typically known.  A healthy portion of creativity is the imagination we inject into our creations.  Tolkien certainly never visited Middle Earth, but he created such a rich volume of history that some people almost think it was real.  While it often benefits an author to possess a working knowledge of what they're writing about, most of the time that's just not possible.  We haven't encountered aliens, fought monstrous white whales, or wielded mythical swords of flame; our imaginations have.  Note that I am distinguishing fiction from non-fiction, since the latter implies a personal connection and factual content (which would support your idea to experience firsthand). 

[mkennedy]

Somebody was working on a Quest for Glory parody if I remember correctly, But they were issued a "Cease and Desist" order by the creators (Sierra I think). From a legal standpoint they may be able to nail you for copyright infringement if you rip any of thier game's graphics or sounds. But if you make a pardoy based on something and make your OWN original graphics and sounds you may be safe even if you use the same names and places.  If you are doing a parody of a non comercial product then you should probably get the author's permission just to be polite, But if it's a parody of  a comercial game then just make sure you don't directly rip any graphics or stuff.

[Radiant]

Not really. Copyright is also about the ideas, country, characters and their distinctive likenesses, and so forth. As the King's Quest Nine team found out, making your own graphics does not in any way protect you from cease-and-desist orders. See my earlier post - it doesn't matter if you're legally correct (per parody clause), it matters whether (1) they don't mind, or (2) you can afford the huge legal fees.

Regarding the QfG parody, you're either talking about Quest for Glory 4.5 (a full-length game using graphics from a wide variety of Sierra games) that to my knowledge is still fully available, or you're talking about Quest for Orgy (one demo and a short but complete game) that got ceased-and-desisted because Vivendi (owner of Sierra) considered them to be in poor taste.

[blueskirt]

Want to write a book about whaling? Go whaling, don't read Moby Dick.

This is akin to the old line 'If you haven't experienced something firsthand you can't write about it'.

No, I think what biothlebop meant was that if you wanted to write a book about whaling, then you should go whaling because if you read Moby Dick for reference, you will be inspired, consciously or unconsciously by Moby Dick. On the other side, if you never read or heard a single thing about Moby Dick, or any other fiction about whaling, then what you will create will be original because you will have thought about it all by yourself, without any outside influence. A friend of mine who write novel does the same. Basically he thinks if he ever read a book again, he'll discover everyone already wrote everything he ever wanted to write about every subjects.

[biothlebop]

This is an opinion.  One I do not share.

I never meant it to be more than that. The rest of my post was not meant to attack or set up straw-man arguments against you,
but I apologize if it came out that way since you were the only one named out.

Do you actually believe this rot?  Thinking that you have to live in the shadow of greater works is really warped.  While I agree that it is good to maintain a perspective and to continuously strive to improve, believing your work will never reach a level of greatness and individuality is completely counterproductive.

That's why I included aspiring there, as meaning a person who wishes to improve, not meaning an amateur or beginner.
I did not mean thinking that your work lives in the shadow of greater works by others, but in the context of your own works and what you were aiming for.

If I have outdone myself, I usually feel satisfaction, perhaps even pride, and relax for a moment.
This feeling of satisfaction wears off, and I begin to create again. I know I will never reach perfection, but if I don't try I won't reach the next or third best thing either.
So I believe my work will come closer to greatness (as long as I put effort into it), but I doubt I will ever be fully satisfied with anything I do.

This is akin to the old line 'If you haven't experienced something firsthand you can't write about it'.  Melville wasn't a whaler, unless you've read more about his time aboard the Acushnet than is typically known.  A healthy portion of creativity is the imagination we inject into our creations.  Tolkien certainly never visited Middle Earth, but he created such a rich volume of history that some people almost think it was real.  While it often benefits an author to possess a working knowledge of what they're writing about, most of the time that's just not possible.  We haven't encountered aliens, fought monstrous white whales, or wielded mythical swords of flame; our imaginations have.  Note that I am distinguishing fiction from non-fiction, since the latter implies a personal connection and factual content (which would support your idea to experience firsthand).

I am not saying that if you haven't experienced something firsthand, you can't write about it, but that personal firsthand experiences are the preferable thing. You can entirely well write a book about whaling and your only connection to be that you read Moby Dick once. This is what most fan-remakers/parodiers do.

What I am saying is that the end product is diluted if you do not succesfully put in some of your own firsthand experiences.

If you must rely on your imagination and do not have any closely related firsthand experiences, you will be worse off and face a greater workload having to create something through lateral thinking, cutting and pasting your own experiences until it resembles what you were aiming for to a satisfactory degree. This is even worse if you are trying to depict something that can be experienced firsthand in this world since some expert will eventually call foul.

Even imagination sterns from experiences and just like we can't visualize what an entirely new color would look like,
Tolkien's fantasy world is based on his experiences, cut, pasted together through imagination over and over again until we cannot recognize his sources and call what he has created truly original.
Likewise, I'd imagine that if Melville hadn't spent 18 months on that whaling boat, Moby Dick would have been worse off or had a different setting.

Somehow, I often feel that fiction is inferior to non-fiction. The most interesting books I recently read were non-fiction, or at least contained very little fictious elements. I see fiction/entertainment still relying on the grounds that art/non-fiction attempt to portray.
Fiction and entertainment usually just simplify reality in exchange for easier accessibility and a more epic scope,
but this is not a black-and-white fiction/non-fiction definition for me, more of a spectrum where both extreme ends are incomprehensible to mankind, reality being infinitely complex, pure fiction being like the previous example of imagining what a new color would look like.

So what I am saying is:
Take in impulses (whether from books or aboard a boat), learn, unlearn, be aware of the vast sea of data you have in your head and the millions of stories, paintings, games that can be created by combining those pieces in various ways together.

Recognize that a book is just a book, it is not even close to the truth even if it says so on every page.
Keep producing, see what others think of your work. Whether they throw tomatoes or praise you, it makes little difference, you should be your own worst enemy and biggest fan.
Save your old work, see if you are happy with the direction you are headed, turn around if you have to but don't ever stop.
If you do a fan-game/parody (hopefully following the law), do it prepared to take responsibility for what you have created. Don't do it because you are feeling lazy, it will still have your fingerprints all over it.