Messages

It's kind of like one of those Buddhist meditation riddles, like "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"

But don't you see, Richie? His question is purely rhetorical. He IS stating the top ten adventures of all time, but by leaving them intentionaly blank we subconsciously fill them in ourselves. His point must be to prove that all art is subjective and that no one can provide a definitive top ten list of adventure games. Bravo, I say. I say we get rid of the "best adventures" thread in the popular forum and replace it with this. That way everyone will know that the top ten games depend upon an individual's tastes and this will be reflected through looking at the void in his example top ten. Thus, no one will ever need to answer another top ten adventures thread again.

I don't give much credit to tests like these (Mensa, Standford-Binet, etc) because they're very anglo-centric. Research shows that if you give a test like this to someone of an Western cultural background and someone of an Eastern cultural background, chances are the Westerner will score more highly. And it's not because the Westerner is more intellegent, but because the questions have a bias towards Western cultural patterns of numerecy and linguistics.

I prefer Howard Gardner theory on multiple intelligences. Here's some info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_intelligence
http://www.pz.harvard.edu/PIs/HG.htm
http://www.newhorizons.org/future/Creating_the_Future/crfut_gardner.html

I have this really cool idea for a puzzle.

The hero (you) is faced with a locked door. To unlock the door, you have to balance three chocolate digestives on your head while playing "Camptown Races" on a flute up your nose. Then the door opens and you're confronted by a group of Cheerleading Ninjas (for pictures to copy artwork, see this movie: http://www.cheerleaderninjas.com/). So, you have to get totally pumped so you can make the biggest boner in the world to defeat them. But suddenly, they morph into Mr T and the only way to stop him is to poison his milk so you, Face, Hannibal and Murdoch can fly him to South America. Once you're there, an old man tells you "these aren't the droids you're looking for". So you have to defeat him with insult sword fighting. But once you do all that, you're faced with the final task: to choose the true "Rosebud" from a collection of sleds. You must choose wisely or else the Knight of the Crusades will reveal himself to be Keyser Soze.

Whoa! That sounds like the most awesome puzzle ever am i right guys?

I think they mean Trashiest Film in a good way. But if not, HATRED FOREVER!!

OMG goldmund i will make an adventure game about that for the competition

* DGMacphee breaks down sobbing in the foetal position and cries, "Everything is going to be alright! Everything is going to be alright! Everything is going to be alright!"

* DGMacphee also teaches Jarek the Moonwalk.

I did some research and noticed this film was nominated for the Golden Trailer Award for Trashiest film. I also noticed it was nominated along with this little gem.

I never quite got what was so funny about Halloween that would cause people to make wacky adventure games. Perhaps this could have something to do with it:



Or maybe it was repeated listenings to 'Monster Mash'. Who knows? However, I have issues with some of your so-called "rules".

1. "If your game is funny but is so badly made that it is deemed unplayable you will be disqualified."

What if I make a game that's unfunny and so badly made that it is deemed unplayable? Will I still be disqualified? I don't think it's fair that people with a great talent for humour get disqualified over my entry when we make equally unplayable games. Can't you see the hypocrisy in the system? In the name of God, do your duty. In the name of God, believe Tom Robinson.

2. "Just make an OK game that my be easy or poorly drawn."

Easy or pooly drawn? Do I have to choose? Why? WHY!?!?!? MOTHER!!! FATHER!!! I LOVE YOU BOTH!!! PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME CHOOSE!!! kbvknjbserkw sbgl bnkd hu serg5ew (DG hitting head on keyboard).

3. "Please post!!!! Get this in competition forum!!!!!! Say you think its cool"

I'm all for ambiguous rules, but this one seems a little too ambiguous. Especially the "say you think its cool" part. I don't think I'm an authority on such things cool, and am therefore not qualified to speak on such matters. If I wore a leather jacket and bashed the shit of a jukebox everytime I wanted it to play "Rock Around The Clock", then perhaps yes I would be an authority on what is cool. Sadly, I'm just a lonely, sad man who just wants to be hugged.

Also, I have issues with entering a competition organised by a man named "poop". I don't believe people should change their names, partially because names sometimes have a historical significance or family tradition. However, I'm worried that you might get your friends fart45, booger1138, and tubgirl to judge the competition. And if I win, I don't really want to be known as the guy who won "Poop743's Awesome Shitstain Halloween Pubic Hair Humour Competition Gwenyth Paltrow".

However, I do wish you the best of luck with your competition.

It doesn't look all that "ugly" as such. It looks like a very suitable style, especially compared to a lot of Sierra games.

I think "retro" is a better way to put it.

Am I still the host? If so, I've got a camcorder.

I doubt you'll be able to read this because of Websense, but Maddox recently did an article about it: http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=websense

Ah, Laya, I'm glad you wrote. I was about to start my own thread asking "Where the hell are you?"

So let's just agree to disagree.  Agreed?

I don't agree to that.  j/k

As side note, I did know about the Copyright forms in the US, but I didn't say they were a myth. I said it was a myth that you're required to fill out such forms for copyright to take effect. The law will still recognise your copyright, whether you register or not. Registering just makes it easier to prove.

But we've both said this now and AgentLoaf can go on his merry way in making his parody.


Timosity: I think there's a legal case that shows journalists can still own copyright over their work, even if they work for a media organisation. I think the case was De Garis vs Neville Jeffress Pidler in 1990. At least, that's what one of my books says.

EDIT: Here's the case -- http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/unrep4315.html

I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV. 

No, I am actually a journalism student. Part of my studies deals with media law, so I do have a lot of training in the area of copyright law (After all, I have to know how to protect my copyright when I become a journalist).

I do think you're wrong about the seperate copyrights for music in films, because I know that the Australian Copyright Act defines copyright as exclusive rights to literary, dramatic, and artistic works, including compilations of such. A movie is one example of such a compilation, as are sound recordings, published works and broadcasts. From what I've heard, US and UK copyright definitions also follow suit.

Also...

The music requires a separate copyright form and everything

No, it doesn't, because copyright protection doesn't require "forms". This is a common myth about copyright. Copyright happens automatically when first published in a country. In fact, you don't even need to include the (c) symbol for copyright to take effect (However, it's advisable because it notifies people of the copyright).  You're probably thinking of registering trademarks or patenting ideas.

As proof, in the UK...
http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/definition.htm
Before you go any further you need to know that there is no official register for copyright. It is an unregistered right (unlike patents, registered designs or trade marks). So, there is no official action to take, (no application to make, forms to fill in or fees to pay). Copyright comes into effect immediately, as soon as something that can be protected is created and "fixed" in some way, eg on paper, on film, via sound recording, as an electronic record on the internet, etc.

This further proves my point. How can seperate copyright exist for a film's music and the film's footage when they form a "fixed"  item? And if something is "fixed" as in say a film, then that means the music is a part of that film and not seperate. If the film company decides to release a soundtrack, that soundtrack also becomes a "fixed" item (though, I prefer the term "published item").

You see, I said copyright comes into effect when something is published. Films and soundtracks are examples of such published items. The copyright doesn't end when the composer finishes recording the music. If it becomes part of a film, then its copyright is included as part of published work. Thus, the entire film including music is regarded as a copyrighted item.

As for Mario Bros and Psycho, they were just examples of such parody. But let me give you a better example of copyright fair use. Let's just say I write an article for a newspaper. I also take a photo and use it as part of the article. The photo and the article are copyright to me (and the news organisation I work for).

But let's just say the article was really shoddy and someone writes a critique on my work. Plus, they also use my photo.

Well, they are well within their rights to use that photo. There is no seperate copyright. That photo forms part of my complete published work. Thus if the critique or parody requires my photo, then legally they can use it.

Now you probably think this scenario is merely hypothetical, right? Well, it's actually more real than you think. There is a show on TV  here in Australia called Media Watch which does exactly as I described. If a journalist screws up with a newspaper article or a TV broadcast, MW acts as a critique of their work. And they use whatever materials (extracts, photos, sound bites, video clips) are published in the news article/TV show/radio show they're critiquing.

Their website is here: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/

You see, the whole reason there's no precedent is because no one can sue for seperate copyrights on one published item. No lawyer has ever taken such a case and no lawyer in his right mind will, because they'll lose.

This also means (after studying up a bit more) you're entitled to use the Wagner music in a parody of The Dig, since The Dig as a whole is a complete published item. I admit I was wrong there. But my point still stands.

Now, I'm not saying all this to debate with you, Alun_Clewe. But I am saying this so AgentLoaf knows what his rights are. But, if you, or anyone else here, find any examples of someone successfully suing for seperate copyrights on a single published item, then I encourage you to post them here. If not for AgentLoaf's benefit, then for mine. Perhaps there's something I've missed. I'm always open to people pointing me in the direction of fact.

You Brits and Americans are very lucky. Australia doesn't have any fair use/fair dealing laws in regards to parody.

There was a recent High Court case involving a comedy TV Show called "The Panel". They took broadcast segments from another network (Channel Nine) for jokes and so forth. The Panel's network (Channel Ten) won, claiming they were using it for criticism. However, there was debate as to whether it constituted parody or criticism (as well as debate over the actual definition of a "broadcast").

We are very behind when it comes to parody-protection laws. However, in most cases people just allow such parodies to take place without legal action. It's kind of considered un-Aussie to start suing when someone pokes a bit of fun. (Case in point, Pauline Hanson suing Pauline Pantsdown for defaming her with the song 'Backdoor Man').

BTW, CJ that's a damn funny website, especially the survey!

Alun_Clewe: That isn't the case here.

Since the music is used in part of the parodied item (the parodied game in question is copyright as a complete item, which includes music), the fair use still applies.

There have been lots of examples of parody to illustrate this. For example, look at the many parodies of Psycho and subsequent use of the shower scene music. The shower scene music was written specifically for Psycho and the copyright exists as part of the film. That's why no one has been sued for making a parody of Psycho shower scene.

You see, the purpose of parody is, in part, a critique of a certain work (or more so a mockery of a certain work). If the music contributes to a copyright work, the music is included in the copyright for that particular item. Thus, the music is also being parodied too.

Since fair use allows reproduction of reduced portions of a copyright work (such as the music), it's fine to use the music in a parody. The case would be different if the music was produced as a seperate entity to the game, like song (The best examples I can think of are the 80s songs in GTA: VC, which are all licenced. Even though GTA: VC is a parody, the songs exist with their independent copyright)

By your logic, if the music had a seperate copyright (which as I said it doesn't), then that would mean that the sprites, backgrounds, and sound effects have seperate copyright. But they don't. Why? Because all are elements of a complete copyrighted work.

And from what Agentloaf has described, it sounds like the music is an aspect of the game, rather than a licenced song.


EDIT: To give an example of what I'm saying, I had a look at the manual for The Dig. The music, as any good adventure gamer knows, was by Michael Land. However, there are exceptions: The excerpts from Wanger's Overtures and Preludes, which were recorded by EMI Records and the rights were licenced to LucasArts.

The copyright at the end of the manual says:
"The Dig game (c) 1995 LucasArts Entertainment Company. All Rights Reserved. Used Under Authorisation. (yadda yadda yadda)."

This means that, aside from the Wanger recordings, the game as a whole is copyright. Thus, if someone was to make a parody of The Dig, they could use Land's music, but not the Wagner recordings unless they got permission from EMI. This is because Land's music doesn't have its own exclusive copyright (and thus a part of the game's copyright) whereas the Wagner recordings have exist as an entity independent of The Dig (which means they aren't actually a part of the Dig's copyright and thus not a part of the parody).

I'm not completely sure on the Wagner excerpts, mainly because laws become murky when dealing with licenced music and parody. However, I know for a fact if you parody a game, you can use the game music. If you believe otherwise, name one person who has been sued for using the Mario Bros theme in one of countless Mario flash parodies.

Not Me.

DG I'm glad someone else remembered international talk like a pirate day.

Yeap, it's not even the day and I'm already pumped. Though I'm still waiting for "International Talk Like a Gunnery Sgt Day".



"LET ME SEE YOUR WAR FACE!! RAAAAAGHGHGH!!!!1!!1!"