Deeply dissapointed

[RocketGirl]

It's the same engine.

Engine, schmengine; I'm talking about gameplay and concept being disturbingly similar.

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.

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.

[Akumayo]

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! 

[Candle]

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/

[2ma2]

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..

[RocketGirl]

You sound like you're arguing for the sake of arguing now...

[Kweepa]

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.

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.

[2ma2]

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--

[RocketGirl]

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.

[ManicMatt]

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.

[Kweepa]

- Both main characters are classic movie monsters

I thought you were saying Stubbs is a Halo rip-off. Doh. Carry on...

[2ma2]

- 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.

[RocketGirl]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Ashen]

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.

[2ma2]

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.

The 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....

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.

...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.

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*

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.