[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Getting off-topic, I know one is The Tempest, but what's the other one?

A Midsummer Night's Dream.

If someone makes a lame fangame, why would an original game they'd make be any less lame?

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by Snarky

A Midsummer Night's Dream.

Ahh... thank you for this piece of Shakespearean trivia.

If someone makes a lame fangame, why would an original game they'd make be any less lame?

The way I see it, you're confusing the cause with the consequence. In other words, quite probably they wouldn't make the original game at all.

[After a brisk nap]

Well, then I'd rather have a lame fangame than no game at all.

[Lucien21]

Fangames.

Most of them, like Fanfiction, are complete rubbish.

It's actually pretty rare that someone has the talent to pull it off.

I suppose the attraction initially is a mixture of love of the IP and that it's an easy place to start.
All the characters and locations have been fleshed out for you and there is a legion of like minded fans who would be more willing to help you make "Monkey Island: The next generation" than "Spartan Timetraveller".

Everyone has probably wished to know more or have further adventures with their favourite characters. Do Elaine and Guybrush finally get together? Who really was the killer in Still Life?

That's not to say the creativity and origionality cannot be achieved within a licensed IP. Writers do it all the time on TV or on other official Licensed games, but I don't think it is as easy as calling you character Guybrush. You need to have a feel for the character, What would he do in this situation? You need a decent script, but sadly most fans are dreadful.

Remakes are a different kettle of fish. Apart from wanting to play a game on newer hardware I am perplexed at remakes. Whats the point? It's like all the current Holywood "Remakes" unless you are offering something new to the punter all you are doing is cashing in on the success of the origional. Therefore I don't see much creativity in remakes.

Playing with Licenses is safe and easily marketable for people starting out. It's seen as a sure thing. It's why you see alot of computer companies start out making license games before developing their own IP.

Personally I would prefer people to have the balls to make an origional game, but without a strong vision and the ability to sell people on it you won't get far.

[After a brisk nap]

It's funny. All the things mentioned by the people who don't like fangames, I see as excellent arguments for them. What's wrong with getting some experience doing something easy? And don't forget that most fangame projects live off enthusiasm. For a first-time creator, playing with an established setting might be the only way to gather enough support to actually finish the game.

As for remakes, I think the examples there are of them speak for themselves. King's Quest I: point-n-click, VGA-style graphics, digitized music, full speech. King's Quest II: all of the above, and a complete reimagining of the story and all the puzzles. Maniac Mansion Deluxe: The modern LucasArts interface and updated graphics. Leisure Suit Larry 2: point-n-click.

All remakes update some aspects of the game to make it more playable for modern gamers. Usually it's the interface and graphics. In this they are comparable to the remakes Sierra did themselves of many of their games. Some make much deeper changes to the game, and end up as original creations in their own right.

[Adventurous One]

Fans remake and/or add new chapters to a classic adventure game series to show that they like it. Didn't someone once say something about imitation being the highest form of flattery? And to those of you complaining that these games "aren't original", when you think about, everyone is copying something else. It'd be impossible to live our lives without copying someone else's actions or creations.