[Flyboy]

I find it strange that there are some obviously very talented people out there willing to devote incredible amounts of time to making games based on someone else's material (or simply remaking games for that matter). The only reason I would ever make my own game would be to tell an original story with original characters, locations, puzzles... I mean, isn't that half the fun?

Now I understand that people love the classics and want to add their own chapters to them, but let's face it, they've been done, and done well, and should be allowed to rest in peace (or on our bookshelves/desktops).

With such little new material out there, I feel like we should be working up from the ground to give the world something new to be excited about, rather than something old.

I like to think that the well of adventure game storylines hasn't dried up yet. Any thoughts?

i do agree with you some what, but not completely..

yes, i do think that we should start from the ground up, but it's still fun to play an old game that has been born again.

in my opnion, your comment about old adventure games should be left in peace isn't always true. i think that people remaking games is still just as fun as making your own story lines. it really depends on the person, i guess. playing old game that are touched up always gives me joy. i love the remade kings quest games and in some ways their better then the original. i know that i would not be able to make a compelling new game with great story line but I'm sure that i can take an old game an feel that i might be able to improve on it. i don't think amateurs remake games to show people what they can do to an old game. they do it to show people what they can do and they feel pride from their work they have done.

[Orange Brat]

I say let people do what they want. We need more remakes of ancient looking games.

[reno6]

I agree with Guybrush. While a fan game isn't the most original thing you can do, there's still a good degree of creativity and originality; in fact, a fan game can be just as unique as an original game.

Let's assume I was going to make a Space Quest fan game -- not a remake, but a fan sequel, if you will. I have Roger Wilco and his personality, which is well known and established, but that's pretty much the only thing I'd need to refurbish in order to continue. I can still create my own storylines, villains, worlds, puzzles, and game situations in general, and the only semblance it would have to a real Space Quest game would be the main character and the style of humor. Everything else may still be stylized to fit into the SQ universe, but I still created just about all of it. I simply categorized it into a familiar place and style. With this universe and theme already set before me, I know the kind of game I'm making and the way the main character would interact in it, and I'm free to sculpt my world around whatever I may wish with these guidelines.

Now alternately, if I were making an original game, I'd be able to control every aspect of the game, just like with a fan game. I could make this same universe, have everything exactly the same as it would be in my SQ game, but with a different main character (and maybe a different personality to go with him). This game is no more taken from my own creative pool than my fan game, but it'd be branded as an original piece instead of a fan game. While this establishes credibility for me as being able to produce a funny, original adventure game, it's a trade-off for developing a game that people associate directly with Space Quest. Having that association would certainly add a big nostalgia factor to my game, and people may potentially enjoy it more if they see it as an entry in an old favorite series.

That's not to say original games should be avoided. I definitely endorse amateur adventure developers creating new worlds and making new characters for us to meet and mingle with. I'm simply trying to say that fan games aren't necessarily just borrowing other peoples' material to avoid creating their own. They can be just as original in their own right as a brand-new adventure game. Some developers are just more comfortable writing fan-fiction and adding to the universes we love rather than making new ones. Both kinds of games are okay by me.

(And now let's assume I'm hyping up the release of my new Space Quest game. The game's being released next month... and Vivendi just sent me a cease and desist letter. Crap!)

[melancholick]

I agree. With a few obvious exceptions, the rationale for using someone else's license seems to be as much about hijacking an established fanbase for 'quick interest' as it is about a legitimate desire to expand upon those worlds. As stated in other, similar discussions on this board, it seems that the only sure-fire way to establish a dedicated team to aid with a fan project is to dangle someone else's IP in front of them.

But personally, I get more hyped about seeing something like ProgZMax's "Darkmoor Manor" than a million Monkey Island knockoffs, regardless of quality.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Orange Brat

I say let people do what they want. We need more remakes of ancient looking games.

Every year I play Quest for Glory 1, although on my screen in glorious 16 colours, I see the words "Hero's Quest." I've played the VGA remake only once and I honestly am not sure why it was ever made. If given the option I'd replay the original versions of all the classic Sierra games over their remakes because they represent not only the ideas of the time but the technology as well and that to me is an important part of the gaming experience. Not everything has to have a billion colours and 3D graphics to be enjoyable. It sort of calls to mind the recent raping of Star Wars by the man himself. Mr. Lucas couldn't help but to "upgrade" his classic films which were made perfectly the first time. Sure, technology has come a long way since then, but they were made in the 70s and it's interesting to see what he was able to do with his resources at the time. The same goes for old adventure games.

As for reno6, I can't say that I agree with your logic. If you're going to change the settings, villains, story and puzzles, why keep Roger? He's not your character. If you're going to strip a story down to one element and hold on to that, I can't help but to wonder what the point is. To agree with Melancholick, I'm more excited about the prospect of exploring something new. It's always more fun when you don't know what's around the corner. I know Roger Wilco. I know him all too well and I love him. I love his journeys, but they're not yours to tell. And I'm not saying that from a legal point of view. I'm saying that from a creative/artistic point of view.

The great artists and storytellers of the world forge their own path. They don't simply re-frame what's been done.

I think the real reason I find this issue to be such a shame, is that there is obviosuly a lot of talent that goes into these fan games. I would just rather see that talent go towards something fresh and new. The 90's are over. The golden age of adventure gaming is dead. We've moved into a new era of sorts and we should embrace that instead of trying to step backwards.

[Wormsie]

I think the real reason I find this issue to be such a shame, is that there is obviosuly a lot of talent that goes into these fan games. I would just rather see that talent go towards something fresh and new.

So would I, but those people WANT to make fangames, not create a wholly original vision. At the moment there's both plenty of original titles and plenty of fangames being made, so I think everyone's satisfied - both the gamers and the developers.

Of course it won't be nice to see, for example, the character of Guybrush being treated wrongly, but then again, LucasArts already did that...

[Dasilva]

I think there are a big lack in original ideas out there, every original game out there always resembels some other adventure game I played 5 years ago.

[Jeysie]

Flyboy: So... you've never been curious about exploring or continuing any aspect of an existing creative universe? Never wondered after playing SQ4

Spoiler:

about the whole backstory of Roger Jr. and the Time Rippers fighting Vohaul and rebuilding after Roger Sr. saves the day?

Or after playing SQ5,

Spoiler:

Roger Sr.'s stint at StarCon Academy between SQ4 and SQ5?

Maybe after KQ6 and KQ7 you wondered

Spoiler:

what King Alex was doing in the Green Isles while Rosella was off getting kidnapped by Trolls?

Never looked at a cancelled series and wished for some kind of closure?

Furthermore, while the ability to create every aspect of an original story from scratch is its greatest asset, it's also its greatest problem. You have to start from the beginning, and your choice of plots is limited to the amount of backstory you can believably put into one game. To further my previous example regarding KQ3 and KQ6,

Spoiler:

a story about an original-made young king trying to rule an original-made kingdom is a very different story from former-slave-boy Alex trying to rule a kingdom whose islands have been quarreling with each other and whose Vizier has just been convicted of murder and treason.

You *could* try cramming the backstory from the second story into the first if you wanted to play with those dynamics, but it'd be a lot more awkward and harder for the audience to care about. And the second story can still be just as creative as the first, it simply is building off from a different point.

Original ideas are great when either you *want* to start at the beginning, or it's a simple story that can stand without a lot of buildup. But sometimes it's just as fun to look at an existing character or story and see where you can take it further. I don't think I can really explain it, I just know it's something that fascinates me and many other people.

Besides, it's hardly a phenomenon limited to computer games. Why do people like J. Michael Straczynski, who has created an entire original SF series and universe, not to mention his own original comic book universe, nevertheless spend time writing Spiderman comic stories? Why does Peter David, who's written several original novels, play in the Star Trek Universe with his New Frontier series (which, despite being grounded in Trek concepts, has a lot of original ideas)? It's a fun, creative, and original practice in its own right.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

Why do people like J. Michael Straczynski, who has created an entire original SF series and universe, not to mention his own original comic book universe, nevertheless spend time writing Spiderman comic stories? Why does Peter David, who's written several original novels, play in the Star Trek Universe with his New Frontier series (which, despite being grounded in Trek concepts, has a lot of original ideas)?

Good point.

I suppose it's just a personal thing then. When I draw, I find it incredibly satisfying to look at the final product and think about the blank page it once was. Taking nothing at turning it into something is the ultimate creative experience.

I've played one or two fan games and although they're generally well done, I far prefer games like No-Action Jackson or Emily Enough because they don't feel like just another sequel.

I suppose I do understand the desire to expand on someone else's universe - it makes sense that people want to complete what was so abruptly cut short. Remaking old games though is another story. That, I just don't get. Maybe it's just me though.

[Jeysie]

Hmm. I forgot to address remakes, didn't I?

It's a bit harder for me to guess since I don't have any personal experience (I've written fanfic, which is the same spirit as fangames, but never tried to "remake" anything).

But, if I were going to remake something, I think my motivation would be to see what would happen if you took yesterday's story and tried making it with today's experience/resources. How would having today's graphics, sound, and interface capabilities change the game?

More importantly, even beyond simple "facelift" features, how does knowledge of what's come after the original story create new possibilities to add to the original story? It can be something as small as the nod in SQ1VGA to the later game SQ4 where

Spoiler:

Roger's time pod shows up just as you're leaving Ulence Flats

or it can be something very large like in AGDI's KQ2 remake where

Spoiler:

they use events from the past, present, and future KQ games to explore Graham's character and tie in the main villain.

Even changing society can have an effect. For a random possibility, a story which in the past might have been constrained by an overly sensitive audience, the creators might nowadays be able to explore in more depth because people are more willing to accept "harsher" stories. (I am really having trouble thinking of something off the top of my head, but someone can probably think of a TV series or movie remake or two that fits the bill.)

A story that's being told at any given time is always constrained to some extent by the talent and resources available to tell it with. Revisiting a story later down the road when the available talent and resources have changed can be an interesting creative exercise, and maybe even can get the story more true to its intended spirit than was originally possible.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Dasilva]

I think Space Quest is the series that needs the most closure, there are so many knots that need to be tied.

You've got the golden points there Jes.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

For a random possibility, a story which in the past might have been constrained by an overly sensitive audience, the creators might nowadays be able to explore in more depth because people are more willing to accept "harsher" stories.

It's funny you mention that because I can think of a number of examples on the exact opposite end of what you're saying. Take ET for instance. It was recently released on some sort of platinum-director'cut-limited-collector's edition 20th anniversary type DVD. In the scene where the kids are biking towards a police barricade, right before they start flying, the officers' guns have all been changed to walkie talkies, because, well, it's more PC I guess. Also the word "terrorist" was changed to "hippie" (refering to a halloween costume) or something silly to that effect. And then there's the old "Han shoots first" bit in Star Wars. It seems like a lot of these revisitings of classic films has resulted in crummier, safer versions of the originals. Which pisses me off. I'm not saying that's the same case as adventure games, it's just what came to mind when reading your post.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

The great artists and storytellers of the world forge their own path. They don't simply re-frame what's been done.

All but two of Shakespeare's plays are versions of already existing stories. James Joyce based his novel Ulysses on The Odyssey, and of course Homer's epic poem uses an all-star cast of characters from famous myths, and tells a story that was already well established. William Faulkner wrote the film adaptation of Raymond Chandler's The Big Sleep. Celebrated playwright Tom Stoppard was a script doctor on the third Indiana Jones movie. The list of mystery writers who have done Sherlock Holmes stories--or horror writers who have done Cthulhu stories--is too long to include.

[Dasilva]

Its a hard choice, if you think you're good enough to make the next big hit, or you might have some new ideas to add to somthing that exists already. As mentioned before many famoush writers use other peoples work. Bill Gates is the perfect example, he took ideas from other DOS programmers and marketed the idea.

Bad example.

[reno6]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

As for reno6, I can't say that I agree with your logic. If you're going to change the settings, villains, story and puzzles, why keep Roger? He's not your character. If you're going to strip a story down to one element and hold on to that, I can't help but to wonder what the point is. To agree with Melancholick, I'm more excited about the prospect of exploring something new. It's always more fun when you don't know what's around the corner. I know Roger Wilco. I know him all too well and I love him. I love his journeys, but they're not yours to tell. And I'm not saying that from a legal point of view. I'm saying that from a creative/artistic point of view.

The great artists and storytellers of the world forge their own path. They don't simply re-frame what's been done.

Don't get me wrong, I know where you're coming from. What I'm trying to say is, it's not being a total rip-off just because it re-uses the name and a character or two. Many sequels venture into new areas with new villains without linking much to the previous games. King's Quest 5 featured King Graham wandering around a previously unseen Daventry, chasing after a brand new villain who only had a little relevance to an older villain in his motivation. Everything else in the game was original and new. You could play it without ever seeing a previous KQ game. Same for King's Quest 6; they took Alexander, then sent him off to an entirely different land with nothing at all to hold him to the rest of the series except his name and ring. These are still sequels and entries in the series, but neither game used much content from previous entries and instead told its own story. They, as you put it, only held on to a small element of the rest of the series, but sculpted new worlds and stories around these elements. And these are just two examples.

That's what I'm saying about fan-made games. You can take a single element or two and still make a wholly original experience. You're not necessarily ripping off somebody else's idea, you're simply expanding with your own creativity and putting your spin on the theme. It's the same as in an original game, except with an established character.

[Flyboy]

Points well made.

I'm surprised how much resistance I faced with this topic, but you've all made pretty solid arguments. I guess what it comes down to is a matter of personal taste. I'd still rather play something original, but I understand why many people look forward to fan games. Fair enough.

[AFGNCAAP]

I'm not a fan of fangames, either, Flyboy. Suffice to say, I've made a long rant about them once on these forums. Of course, I think everybody has a right to play what they wish, but in my opinion the a typical fanmade sequel/remake is inferior to one with an original idea - on average. Bringing up the unquestionable quality of Tierra's KQs as counterexamples is as legitimate as using Desperate Housewives to prove that soap operas as a genre are well-made and intelligent - it's not the same league as the majority, really.

Originally Posted by Snarky

All but two of Shakespeare's plays are versions of already existing stories.

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

[Kolorabi]

I'm with Flyboy and AFGNCAAP, though can't seem to be able to explain why without writing a bunch of stuff that I'm sure fans of these things would find offensive. So instead of starting a flamewar or something, I'll just myself (so you don't have to) and say that I think fan games are pretty lame.

[Dasilva]

Originally Posted by Kolorabi

I'm with Flyboy and AFGNCAAP, though can't seem to be able to explain why without writing a bunch of stuff that I'm sure fans of these things would find offensive. So instead of starting a flamewar or something, I'll just myself (so you don't have to) and say that I think fan games are pretty lame.

Specially KQIX, they were the lamest.