I'm currently at the design phase of my next project, and the same question keeps come up: "Where's the fine line between A new game and a Copy?" and I won't even bring up the shame of people calling your game a clone.

I'm talking about both moral and legal questions. Consider yourseld as a painter who draws the mona lisa. Go ahead and copy it with slight modification and you've made an illegal act. Take the same lady and do the same (as other 10000 did) and you'll lose any professional dignity you had. If you'll take (lets say) Saddam's face and sell it, take another lady in the same concept - then you are in the right spot.

When I just started to design Goose Chase (http://www.gilzu.com/), I knew I wanted to do a platformer. Doing one of a hedgehog/tazmanian-devil picking up apples/coins/rings would have made me either a clone artist or a copyright infrigmenter. So I took a (not so) quick look and did a list of all the games in the genere. Goals, Obstacles, Characters, Bonuses - I did a list of the whole bunch - you can probably do the same for puzzle games.

It helped me understand the following:
1. Platform games are a genere as i can define it with specific characteristics that exist and define each and every game thats in my list (or called a platform game).
2. The most basic differences between those games are Characters (and their abilities) , Bonuses , Enemies and Goals (and sometimes graphics).
3. Those games in my list that shared the same points mentioned above were often considered clones.
4. When you write alot, your hands tend to hurt. Use your computer more.
5. Coming up with a new point/concept that wasnt on the list is more than welcomed and contribute more to a game (check out Super Mario's coin machine in gameboy, where you could gamble points in some place on the world map for extra life or other bonuses).

So sure, coming up even with a clone is legit. But when do you pass the line? I remember Dexterity took off a game for it being too similiar to its original. And now I'm checking out their latest - Gold Sprinter (http://www.dexterity.com/gold-sprinter/) and see superbly done (its not sucking up, try it for yourself) renew of the Loderunner concept and Implementation.

So I have a method of finding what's the genere scope of design for my next project (actually, I'm well deep into it). But whats your "rules" of considering what's an original game, a clone or a complete Rip-off?

My general criteria:

The problem with cloning is related primarily to content, not mechanics.

Don't put an italian plumber in your game even if he looks somewhat different than Mario and has a different name. Don't have the main character primarily jumping on turtles.

[This is also a good practical point, because if you stray too close to established characters and settings your game will invariably be compared to the originals; and if your platform game isn't as amazing as the Super Mario Bros games, the player will be at least slightly disappointed, whereas they are apt to cut you a lot more slack if you give them the same game mechanics with totally different characters/settings.]

Don't remake levels from other games, even if using new graphics. If you can't create unique, custom levels, why bother remaking the game? Even if your graphics are better than the original, people won't really care because it'll still feel same-old-same-old and their nostalgia for the original game will supercede any advanced graphics you have anyway.

Do feel free to rip off the game mechanics as much as you want. Collecting something, like coins/rings/gems? Sure thing! 100 of that thing equals a free guy? Sure, why not? That rule has become something of a standard by now anyway. Jumping on the heads of things to kill them? Sure.

Also I think you should always consider a settings/theme change if you are basing your game off an existing game. There are a billion and one Asteroids clones that take place in space but if you take the same basic mechanics and transplant them, say by making the player's ship a polar bear and having him slide around an iced up pond destroying incoming giant snowballs, the game will not only seem more original than it is, but the change in setting might also suggest new ideas that allow you to bring even more originality to the game -- for instance, maybe the ice has weak spots denoated with cracks and if the bear slides over those spots too often the ice will break and he'll fall in.

As far as using game mechanics, you still have to be careful. Hasbro sued someone for basically having an Asteroids clone that was too similar to Asteroids.

But yeah, using completely different characters/settings are fine even if you use the same gameplay. Speedy Gonzalez for Gameboy was basically Sonic the Hedgehog on Sega Genesis.

Not too long ago I got together with a few friends to make a game. We were going to make a Pac-man clone just to get used to working together. Well, politics kind of threw that idea out the window...we ended up going straight into development on an RPG.

From experience and from reading about plenty of newbies ending up with nothing but a walking demo, I got out of the project. While I wish the others luck, I just know that they just don't have enough experience to work on what they want to make.

Oh crap, I am getting off-topic...Anyway, getting back to the Pac-man clone, everyone wanted to just make Pac-man. I suggested making Pac-man gameplay but with different graphics...Say with an explorer in the jungles or caves, or with spaceships and aliens instead of a yellow sphere and ghosts.

No one listened to reason then either. Another reason for me to leave the ever changing project.

Anyway, I still plan on making my own Pac-man clone. I will do so on my own, since I did make one in QBasic before. This time of course it won't violate copyright as blatantly as my old clone did. B-)

NPR had an interesting report today and they talked about artists and how they come up with their artistic "ispiration". Apparently in the art world they don't believe in "inspiration". For example they were talking about one of the great American composers who said that he copied one of his works from another great work. They also talked about one of John Lennon's songs being a copy of an early tune. Lennon even admitted to it in a later interview. My point is that everyone copies others works, and in the process they add their own flavor to a work and help it to evolve. They also develop technique and eventually pave their own road. Here's the link to the story: http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1583370.html

Originally posted by GBGames
[B]As far as using game mechanics, you still have to be careful. Hasbro sued someone for basically having an Asteroids clone that was too similar to Asteroids.


Personally I think Hasbro was wrong to sue, but in most cases the games *were* frightfully similar to Asteroids, including just slight variations of the name (like 'AzteroidZ!', though I'm just making that one up as an example). Many also used the setting and feel directly too, not the original artwork but artwork that was way too similar -- triangular spaceship, etc.

That is (one of the reasons) why I think changing the theme/setting of the game is a good idea. Very few people (especially of the set of casual players) really care that Asteroids was based in space and involved shooting rocks -- it was the gameplay mechanic that got them hooked, so why not take that and place it in a completely different setting (virtually any low-friction setting will do)? It makes your product more distinct which is good for legal reasons as well as marketing.

I don't believe Hasbro sued anyone whose gameplay mechanic was Asteroids-like but the game took place in a completely different setting (feel free to let me know if this isn't correct).

In short I think:

Stealing gameplay 'feel': Fine

Stealing artistic 'feel': Problematic, even if there are some differences.

Stealing both: Really bad idea, not just legally but because you're likely creating a game that doesn't need to exist.

Originally posted by gfm
Stealing gameplay 'feel': Fine

Stealing artistic 'feel': Problematic, even if there are some differences.

Stealing both: Really bad idea, not just legally but because you're likely creating a game that doesn't need to exist.

Why call it stealing?

when blizzard made Warcraft I, did they "steal" Dune II ideas/feel/gameplay?

sure, they used it, but does "Steal" is the term to use here?

You can call it whatever you like.

But as a wise man once said (not sure who, I've seen it attributed to virtually everyone):

"Bad artists copy. Great artists steal."

My general rule of thumb is, if your game is inspired by just one game, and you are only changing stuff to disguise this fact, then you've got problems. Steal all you like but don't steal it all from one place. The collision of different stolen ideas fom different games (even different genres) will make your game unique and will also cause problems that you'll have to solve in creative ways.

A person that can not easily add own unique ideas to another game's design is not a game designer. How many indie game developers that can't design games will be able to make it in this business?

It is very easy to add enough original content gameplay-wise to have nothing to worry about when it comes to copyright infringement, so unless you have no faith in your own creativity, you should not worry.

Apparently in the art world they don't believe in "inspiration".
That's an interesting perspective, and one that I've heard before. It's certainly true in many cases. I don't think it's true in all cases though. I still think there are original ideas around, even if they are contained in works that are otherwise adaptations of pre-existing ideas.

The problem is that original ideas are very hard to create, but that's also what makes them so valuable. Just my opinion, but I think many people who claim there are no original ideas left wish that was the case, so they don't have to put in the hard work to create one. (Apologies if I have offended anyone with that statement, it's an untested hypothesis I've had for a long time now).

Surely there is an origin to an idea, if everyone is copying it? That someone must come up with the idea in the first place? The only example I can think of right now is Auguste Kekulé who had a dream about snakes biting each others tails, and hence derived the structure of a benzine ring... though there is doubt that even he was first to come up with the idea. And that isn't an artistic example either :)

Well I don't think you can ever fairly describe any creation as 100% original. However any good creative work will draw from its influences, yet have little nuggets of originality liberally sprinkled through.

Anyone remember "The Great Giana Sisters"?

Ripped off exact level design from mario and everything.. and it was a published game!

How they escaped nintys wrath is beyond me even to this day.

Well wonder no more - they didn't. In fact, Great Gianna Sisters was successfully clamped down on very early on by Nintendo and it was literally taken off the shelves. I betcha the version you remember was a pirate copy right?

Look out, Super Angelo!

It was a pirate version that replaced the Giana sprites with Mario :)

I read an interesting interview last night in The Game Inventor's Guidebook, which is about board games, but there's some interesting carryover to what we do. It was with Alan Moon. One of the questions was essentially about inspiration:

Brian: "Where do you start when inventing a new game?"

Alan: "Let's see. A new game can come from playing a bad game with a good idea at its center. Or from playing a game I like and can maybe take in a different direction. Or it can start with a theme. Or with components. Or with a game play mechanic I like. I believe most games come from other games."