A poll: Are fangames bad, by definition?
 

We all know from which thread this poll spawns... So, do you think it is absolutely impossible for a game to be good if it is released as freeware and made by dedicated enthusiasts?

EDIT: I apologise for the use of the term "fangame" as a term meaning all amateur adventure games. Shouldn't have been so hasty.

I voted other...well when i voted i had a reason but Ive kinda forgot it now...:crazy:

Ill post when I remember what it is

I have enjoyed some of the amature adventures based on the authors own ideas (i.e. 5 Days A Stranger, the Apprentice series, Out of Order), but I'm not so much a fan of amature games based on existing adventure game franchises, I think they can come off kind of...tacky.

Most of the time they can be, but when they dont take themselves seriously like MI:2 Lechucks revenge they can be great :D

Fan games are the sould of the community.

So does this mean that Fan art is shit? Is fan fiction shit?

Same thing applies to fangames. Art & fiction can be bad, and it can be amazing too, same with fan games.

People dont seem to realize the farmiliarity and throw the name 'fan' around too much.

What are you on about?
MI2 wasnt a fangame!!

Noooooo not MI2, MI:2

Noooooo not MI:2, M:I-2.

Dale

Ugh, silly me...wait M:I doesnt make sense!

Wait, are we talking about Mission Impossible now? :crazy:

So.. yes.

I cannot make a qualified statement on what is "good" and what is "bad". I can only have an opinion as to whether or not amateur adventure games are pleasing to myself and myself alone. That being said, I consider the majority of ALL games to be "bad", and it doesn't matter if they're made by a huge team in a studio or by one person in a basement. However, I do like quite a handful of games of both categories as well. :)

If we are using the true definition of "fangame", which is a game based on an already-existing franchise rather than one with an original premise and characters, then I can honestly say that I've never played one that I liked. I've never read any fan fiction that I've liked, either.

Fan art, however, is a different story.

I take issue with the name "fangames" as defined by AudioSoldier. It implies games based on extant commercial franchises. Most of those are bad, but even so, they're good for the genre, as I theorized in another thread, because sometimes they can gather a great group of talent, the kind an original project rarely could.

Original amateur titles also have a lot to offer. Nuff said.

Please, please don't make me say this again; Fan Game ≠ Amateur Game.

http://www.game-brains.com/images/fe...sly-deniro.jpg

[De Niro] Are you talkin' to me? [/De Niro]

'Cause, you know, that's exactly what I said. :shifty:

So there arent original Amateur Games?:crazy:

That symbol is does not equal.

Fan Games, Amateur Games, whatever...

Evil. All Evil. Destroy them at once. Destroy them now. This instant. Yes, Including mine.

No. No. Pull the plug. Switch me off.

:shifty:

:crazy:

I'd just like to point out that the term "fan game" can be interpretted to mean "game made by a fan of the genre", ie, it can just mean adventure games in general. It doesn't have to mean a specific series or character. Many people have made original adventure games because they are fans of many other adventure games.

In that respect, I suppose you could say that Cubert Badbone was a fan game, seeing as it was very much The Neverhood Meets Grim Fandango in the way I developed the style of the characters...

Still, when it comes to fan-made creations, the best ones tend to be the ones that have more original content in them.

That's a valid interpretation. I like gaming definitions to be more precise though.

I don't think ANYTHING is bad "by definition". You can't rule out quality in anything.

Off the top of my head, the indie/free games I've really enjoyed (there may be a few more that I don't remember now):

1. Apprentice I
2. Apprentice II
3. Ben Jordan I-IV
4. Gaea Fallen
5. No Action Jackson
6. Out of Order

You've enjoyed them to the degree of the enjoyment a commercial game could give you, or simply because the thought of those games being free made them absolutely worth playing?

Perhaps you *shouldn't*, but when you continually play poor "fan creations" you begin to doubt the emergence of a good one.

I just liked them. At the time, I didn't have a ton of money to buy new games so I found these, read the descriptions and tried them. They were fun. I liked the stories. The graphics in the Ben Jordan games are simplistic in comparison to even No Action Jackson (which kind of has a Day of the Tentacle vibe to it) or Out of Order but the stories were interesting (they got better with each Ben Jordan) and the puzzles were fun. Being free certainly helped at the time. :P It made me take a look at them certainly but it wasn't the only factor.

oh.
yarreet then.

To be realistic, there are commercial games that, for all their graphical prowess, sound quality and impressive cut-scenes, aren't worth your time and money. I daresay there are amateur games out there from which you can glean more enjoyment, character and story-wise than from certain commercial releases. Limiting how entertaining a game can be based on whether you have to pay for it or not is just narrow-minded. The exchange of monies does not equal quality. From what I've heard, the best sex is free. ;)

And what it comes down to in Audio-soldier's mind, methinks, is: If you had a choice between getting a pretty commercial release with a bad story and a homely amateur release with a good story, both of them free, which one would you pick? And we all know there are ways out there to get commercial games for free, so it's not such a far-fetched question. I, for instance, dropped Runaway very early in the game. I'd venture to say that Circe du Zale (which I finished, albeit in a short time), was much more entertaining, and a far better investment of my time. :P

I'd say that about quite a few of the amature adventures Iv'e played.

Fair enough. But that's like saying Half-Life 2 was a Wolfenstein fangame and that Wolfenstein was a Midi Maze fan game. Nonsensical.

"You talking to me" - sorry, I posted in an old window before I read your post. Check the times :)

I finished playing "Enter The Matrix" today. That game was unfinished and slapdash in places, and I can honestly say I would rather have played another "Galaxy of Fantabulous Wonderment" or "Phleurgburg". Which one did gullible fan-boy me hand over shiny pennys for? Was it the original, well made and entertaining games, or the commercial game that was like a bad movie tribute "Max Payne" mod (With, not forgetting that ultimate indicator of gaming quality, fancy cutscenes)?

Tell me about the Matrix game sucked so much. The graphical glitches were constant, the gameplay was clunky and horrible. And the missions were crap.

I supose that could be a definition of a fan game, but I find it generally isnt used that way. A majority of the time the term "Fan Game" is used specifically to define unlicensed games made by a fan of a specific title,franchise, or character. The attempt is made to "further the adventures of...". The same goes for fan fiction.

This certainly does not make Fan Games bad by definition. Still, the original property usually has it's large fan base because the developers were able to skillfully use their talent and knowledge to create a memorabe experience. "Fans" rarely have the same level of experience and training to achieve the same results. Occasionally a gem does appear. Not often, but enough to say that not all fan games are crap, but you will have to sift through alot of sewage to find one that shines!

Agreed, friarphil. Apparently the poll is meant to refer to both fan-games as well as original non-commercial titles.

In order to avoid the somewhat negative connotations of "amateur game", I sometimes use "home-made adventure game". Don't know if it helps, but it should be reasonably accurate, at least.

I like that. Like home-made cooking, it implies a touch of love in what you produce.

By that logic, AudioSoldier must spend a lot of money at restaurants...

Just a thought:

Adventure Games (and video games in general) are or at leasting ar approaching Art. Art isn't judged by how much it's charged.
Van Ghogh for example couldn't support himself by painting...

'Professionalism' has (actually) nothing to do with Art (or even art).

You'd have to be pretty pretentious to pass off a viedogame as art.

*Kisses AudioSoldier*

How come you never post in Chit Chat?