The ideas of who did what are fragmented but for gameplay capcom has done most. For example the Vergil vs Dante was taken from dmc3. Kat is their own idea. The angel thing is by NT, i read Tameem said it to make NTDante more special.
Last Chance Leaving...
- Thread starter OriginalOutcast
- Start date
TWOxACROSS
Hot-blooded God of Guns
On a thread announcing DmC's digital download departure? F#ckin' really guys?
Lemme just blaze through here for a moment...
Here's something people should think about, instead of b!tching over who owns what and what makes a "reboot." DmC is just another interpretation of the Devil May Cry concepts and themes. Specifically, it's Ninja Theory's interpretation, funded and supported heavily by Capcom, because they wanted to do something new with the franchise. Ninja Theory developed the game from the ground up, and Capcom produced it.
For all intents and purposes though, DmC: Devil May Cry is Ninja Theory's baby, because they made it, while Capcom threw a lot of money at it. And some knowledge about how to make a good hack 'n' slash game.
This is no different than the many different iterations of works like Peter Pan, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, or any other piece of work that has multiple angles taken with it. Who owns it? The people who made that specific work. Credit of course is still given to the original holders of the IP in some way, though.
Can we just once and for all stop about this bullsh!t about pointing fingers, and just f#cking let sleeping dogs lie? Can we quit splitting hairs on asinine details that did not, nor ever will, matter? Can we all just shut our collective cockholsters and enjoy what we enjoy and ignore what we don't?
Anyway, I'm outta here!
Lemme just blaze through here for a moment...
Here's something people should think about, instead of b!tching over who owns what and what makes a "reboot." DmC is just another interpretation of the Devil May Cry concepts and themes. Specifically, it's Ninja Theory's interpretation, funded and supported heavily by Capcom, because they wanted to do something new with the franchise. Ninja Theory developed the game from the ground up, and Capcom produced it.
For all intents and purposes though, DmC: Devil May Cry is Ninja Theory's baby, because they made it, while Capcom threw a lot of money at it. And some knowledge about how to make a good hack 'n' slash game.
This is no different than the many different iterations of works like Peter Pan, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, or any other piece of work that has multiple angles taken with it. Who owns it? The people who made that specific work. Credit of course is still given to the original holders of the IP in some way, though.
Can we just once and for all stop about this bullsh!t about pointing fingers, and just f#cking let sleeping dogs lie? Can we quit splitting hairs on asinine details that did not, nor ever will, matter? Can we all just shut our collective cockholsters and enjoy what we enjoy and ignore what we don't?
Anyway, I'm outta here!
On a thread announcing DmC's digital download departure? F#ckin' really guys?
Lemme just blaze through here for a moment...
Here's something people should think about, instead of b!tching over who owns what and what makes a "reboot."
Can we just once and for all stop about this bullsh!t about pointing fingers, and just f#cking let sleeping dogs lie? Can we quit splitting hairs on asinine details that did not, nor ever will, matter? Can we all just shut our collective cockholsters and enjoy what we enjoy and ignore what we don't?
Calm down there. Nobody's 'b*tching' or hating on NT or Capcom, we're just having a discussion. Although, I understand where you're coming from, because this thread wasn't made for what we're talking about presently. If the TS feels it's necessary to close the thread, that's his decision. Seems to me it should've been closed quite a while ago. Anyway, I still don't feel it's logical to say that DmC is mainly Capcom's game simply because the core gameplay concepts are theirs. For me, the story/plot is probably the most important aspect of a game. Aside from that, both Capcom and NT worked on it and put their ideas into it. That makes it both their games, and for a large part NT's game. I haven't been convinced gameplay is what determines ownership, so this discussion is over anyway. So can somebody please lock this thread?
I understand it's your opinion, that you may appreciate a game that emphasizes story (i love LoK), but plot or storyline being the most important aspect of a game? That's beyond logic!
A story without interaction/gameplay can not be called a game.
While a game with no cinematic or storyline can exist very well. Take Oblivion for example, when you finished certain quests, a npc approached you and it led you on a quest.
But these quests are part of the gameplay, so is the fact a npc has approached you.
If story/plot is the most important aspect of a game, then...what is the point of adding depth to a videogames gameplay? Surely a basic and shallow gameplay with a great story should then qualify as a great game if story/plot is the most important aspect?
I do like the balance of casual and hardcore games. Where the two types cancel eachother out, so that you don't overwork yourself with a hardcore game, and you don't dumb yourself with a easy game.
But no, i am afraid your very wrong in your belief.
I don't mean to be rude or insult you with what i am about to say now but it's common sense that what makes a game different from a movie or a book is the interaction, and therefor interaction must be the most important aspect of a game.
I understand it's your opinion, that you may appreciate a game that emphasizes story (i love LoK), but plot or storyline being the most important aspect of a game? That's beyond logic!
A story without interaction/gameplay can not be called a game.
While a game with no cinematic or storyline can exist very well. Take Oblivion for example, when you finished certain quests, a npc approached you and it led you on a quest.
But these quests are part of the gameplay, so is the fact a npc has approached you.
If story/plot is the most important aspect of a game, then...what is the point of adding depth to a videogames gameplay? Surely a basic and shallow gameplay with a great story should then qualify as a great game if story/plot is the most important aspect?
I do like the balance of casual and hardcore games. Where the two types cancel eachother out, so that you don't overwork yourself with a hardcore game, and you don't dumb yourself with a easy game.
But no, i am afraid your very wrong in your belief.
I don't mean to be rude or insult you with what i am about to say now but it's common sense that what makes a game different from a movie or a book is the interaction, and therefor interaction must be the most important aspect of a game.
''Take Oblivion for example''. Not a great example, as it did have a main quest (a plot). The side quests also had plots, they weren't just made up of walking around slashing at things. I agree that there's games that don't have a plot, but those are usually games like Candy Crush, not works of art like the video games that are released on the Xboxes and PlayStations.
I'm not going to argue with you all day long. Besides, I think we both mean different things. The fact is, without a story, games/movies etc are nothing. The same goes for gameplay, except movies don't have gameplay, and gameplay does not make something one's intellectual property. Just like with movies, the director is not the maker of the movie. He didn't come up with it, the writer (of the plot) did. The director just directs how the actors should act/what they should say, and he directs lighting and such. If NT came up with the plot, then that pretty much makes it (mostly) their game. Doesn't matter if the gameplay 'was invented by Capcom'. By that logic, Halo 4 would be Bungie's game, not 343 Studios'. Games shouldn't be held to totally different standards just because they include gameplay. Gameplay acts as a bridge between different points of the plot. Without a plot, there is no sense in making Dante travel, or jump and slash around. End of story.
Now to go on with this thread's actual purpose, I hope.
i disagree. i think different games have different appeals. for some the draw isn't nessesarly the gameplay, it might be the story, case and point, sh2.
in this case, however, i don't think DmCs story is good enough that it can really ever be the draw. it's its look. DmC is a game made for people that hate DMC. it's designed to tackle all those complains people had of the original, i'd wager mostly 4.
in this case, however, i don't think DmCs story is good enough that it can really ever be the draw. it's its look. DmC is a game made for people that hate DMC. it's designed to tackle all those complains people had of the original, i'd wager mostly 4.
True, but I mean, the question is whether DmC is mostly Capcom's game or mostly NT's game. I'd say they both are responsible for the product, they both own it. It's just that Ninja Theory came up with the plot and tweaked the characters (supposedly). That makes it mainly their game, as Wikipedia seems to agree with. It lists NT as its developer, instead of listing both Capcom and NT as developer.
Like I said, the writer of a movie (NT) has more of a hand in how the product turns out than the director (Capcom). If DmC were nothing more than brainless hacking and slashing without any plot, then I guess it would be mainly Capcom's game, as they invented the gameplay. Gameplay acts as a bridge between different points of the plot. Without a plot, there is no sense in making Dante travel, or jump and slash around. It would revert to some sort of game like Candy Crush, which is a game you can't compare to DmC, because it has no plot. There was nobody responsible for making the plot like NT is.
no. under that logic platinum games owns metal gear rising. nt was paid to make the game, that means just that, like an architect paid to make a house or any other commissioned job. none of the other developers that capcom outsourced get to claim they own the games they made for capcom, why should nt?
as to how much is whose responsibility? i'd say nt was mostly responsible for art, concept design and story department, including scipt, casting, mocap, editing, and music. basicly the feel of the game. capcom was probably involved in financing, gameplay, production. i'm assuming that nt did ingame animation and coding under capcom's supervision along with other things so we'll say that was them together.
as to how much is whose responsibility? i'd say nt was mostly responsible for art, concept design and story department, including scipt, casting, mocap, editing, and music. basicly the feel of the game. capcom was probably involved in financing, gameplay, production. i'm assuming that nt did ingame animation and coding under capcom's supervision along with other things so we'll say that was them together.
How can NT own DmC? They didn't pay for first game, second, third , fourth NOR the reboot. And why do you trust Wikipedia more than what i linked to? Capcom did help develop the reboot especially when it comes to the gameplay. And for most parts by develop i mean produce. Help produce stinger, Jump cancel, high time, etc.
And i think Lion your confusing a objective/motive with a story. Take chess in real life for example. You don't need a plot to play chess. It's game in real world, and it can exist in a viritual enviroment as well.
Imagine you and your team developed a adventure game where motive or motto of the game was "EXPLORE!", then you would use that motto to shape the game.
Then there would be a point for your custom character to explore, find items, kill monsters, meet npcs and get to know the world that you have entered.
Yet there is no story that dictates what you should do.
You decide what you will do based on the objective of the game, which is to go around and explore the world.
It's a tough subject, and i feel philosophical when thinking about it. To point that i question my own thinking. But one thing i am very adamant about, games most important aspect is interaction and it happens because of gameplay.
Games can have emphasize on storyline and cinematics but no videogame will ever be appropriate to call great game if it only has a great story but a shallow gameplay. Ninja theory did not win a award because gameplay, but because of script. And you don't see anyone saying "Enslaved was a great game", at least not anyone that isn't biased. Only from people who i suspect loved Enslaved more for it's story and what it did for them than the gameplay. This comes from fact that i keep reading on this forum people saying "I hope NT uses what they learned from dmc and apply it to Enslaved/HS".
Why is it that IGN, Gamespot and Metacritic both gave Bayonetta high score, a game that many critize for it's unserious story (even i), but a score thats lower for Heavenly Sword? Surely HS story was better, so why?
Metacritic users gave Bayonetta lower score than HS, but i think that's just bunch of people who voted so high because they prefer story over gameplay.
Though i dont think IGN is worth anything, i just think it's odd that if story is most important aspect that three known sites have given Bayonetta with it's unserious story a significantly higher score than HS that had a better story.
Kamiya: We are focusing on a story that will let players be even more excited when fighting these battles
And i think Lion your confusing a objective/motive with a story. Take chess in real life for example. You don't need a plot to play chess. It's game in real world, and it can exist in a viritual enviroment as well.
Imagine you and your team developed a adventure game where motive or motto of the game was "EXPLORE!", then you would use that motto to shape the game.
Then there would be a point for your custom character to explore, find items, kill monsters, meet npcs and get to know the world that you have entered.
Yet there is no story that dictates what you should do.
You decide what you will do based on the objective of the game, which is to go around and explore the world.
It's a tough subject, and i feel philosophical when thinking about it. To point that i question my own thinking. But one thing i am very adamant about, games most important aspect is interaction and it happens because of gameplay.
Games can have emphasize on storyline and cinematics but no videogame will ever be appropriate to call great game if it only has a great story but a shallow gameplay. Ninja theory did not win a award because gameplay, but because of script. And you don't see anyone saying "Enslaved was a great game", at least not anyone that isn't biased. Only from people who i suspect loved Enslaved more for it's story and what it did for them than the gameplay. This comes from fact that i keep reading on this forum people saying "I hope NT uses what they learned from dmc and apply it to Enslaved/HS".
Why is it that IGN, Gamespot and Metacritic both gave Bayonetta high score, a game that many critize for it's unserious story (even i), but a score thats lower for Heavenly Sword? Surely HS story was better, so why?
Metacritic users gave Bayonetta lower score than HS, but i think that's just bunch of people who voted so high because they prefer story over gameplay.
Though i dont think IGN is worth anything, i just think it's odd that if story is most important aspect that three known sites have given Bayonetta with it's unserious story a significantly higher score than HS that had a better story.
Kamiya: We are focusing on a story that will let players be even more excited when fighting these battles
What about Visual Novel type of games, though?
Because that was the point. Capcom basically told NT to make it their own, to go as crazy with it as they want, to really completely re-make DmC as if they had just invented it. I'm not too familiar with most Capcom games, but I believe the other outsourced projects weren't done with that mindset, but more like Capcom saying "Ok, we want you to do this and that, and EXACTLY this and that, not what YOU want to do, but what WE want to be done.", while with DmC it was more like "Here are some very basic basics you have to implement, put apart from that, just do whatever you please.".
About MGR, well, Platinum might have written the strory(?), but they didn't re-invent the whole franchise/character cast, but worked with what already was there.
I am not familiar with such games, can you give me an example plus explaination of their nature?
1. PG did not write the story.
2. PG suggested alot of characters in MGR
3. tweaking characters does not mean they have been "reinvented", it means they have been changed. There is nothing inventive about changing a character.
The Ace Attorney games are pretty much visual novels, then there'd be 999 and Virute's Last Reward for example, Saya no Uta and Dangan Ronpa are visual novels aswell. Even though these are still regarded as games, gameplay is almost non-existing. It pretty much only ivolves clicking text boxes to make decisions or to get to the next text box, in case of AA & 999 you'd also get to screens where you'd just click around in order to find items that help you progress in the story and/or sometimes solve little puzzles. The story really is the only driving force in those games.
1. I see. Then that's a totally different case alltogether :/
2. Then those characters are 'their' characters, in a way.
3. Uh, then, in my book, "tweaking" characters can mean re-inventing them. For example, Dante has also been 'tweaked' for his DMC4 incarnation, but in this case, has not exactly been re-invented, as he was still supposed to be the Dante we knew from previous games. In DmC's case though, it is different. DmC Dante is not the exact same character as DMC1, 2, 3 & 4 Dante, he is his own character in a re-invented Devil May Cry universe, as a re-invented Dante. Not to mention that they did more than just tweaking, if you ask me, it was more like searching for the essence of what makes Dante Dante, take all of that and re-built the character from the ground up with a more realistic feel etc. to him. But ok, maybe re-invented is a word that might be misleading a bit, you could also say 're-imagined', but I feel like this isn't completely fitting here, as Capcom themselves often refered to DmC as a "rebirth", rather than a "reboot" - and a rebirth pretty much is a re-invention.
actually, i think all the outsourced games were pretty much just conceptualized by each studio and approved by capcom, there was no "do exactly this," more like "ok, what do you think?" "great, go for it."
just the same, though, what makes you think that capcom telling them to make it their own equates to "here, you can have this?" just because they redesigned and altered characters doesn't mean it's theirs, that not it works. it doesn't matter how much they made it their own nt doesn't own the intellectual property, capcom does. it's a commissioned work, nt can say they made it all they want, it's the truth, but they can't claim they own it,
Wowwowow there, I never said that NT were the copyright holders. Of course Capcom own the intellectual property, yet, it is still NT's game, because they made it. Just how when you commission and artist to draw your characters/story, the artwork is still the artist's work, not the artwork of the one who commissioned it. Of course, that artist -or in our case NT- can't just use the characters etc. and do with them what they want without the copyright holders permission.
And here comes Batman again: Nolan doesn't own the copyright to that character, yet, when talking about the The Dark Knight triology, everbody referst to him as "Nolan's Batman", because it is the way Nolan envisoned Batman in his work, it's Nolan's take on the character, just as DmC is NT's take on Devil May Cry.
And about the other 'outsourced' games, well, first of all, if that really was that way, I wouldn't even call them 'outsourced', as that term implies that work of a non-creative nature is being handed to someone else because that person/collective can do said work for a lower cost. And then I really don't understand why those studios don't get any credit, I mean, everybody would also refer to No More Heroes, Lollipop Chainsaw, Killer Is Dead, etc. as Grashopper's games, not as the game of whatever publisher published the games :/
Oi, thanks for reminding me that I still need to check that one out! It's free, isn't it?
This is rather hard conversation to follow. I understand what you mean by that now, however, I still don't think that it's NT's game to that extent. Sure, they are in charge of creating the universe and they did all the grunt work and creative work but Capcom didn't just leave them to their own devices, they had their hands on the dough all the way through approving and disapproving designs, concepts, and decisions. In terms of who made it Capcom is anywhere from %40 to %50 at fault. This is, after all, an international endeavor and they have through out the campaign established constantly the fact that it was a Capcom/Ninja Theory
collaboration.
Yep.
That is pretty much it. Capcom used the word 'outsourced' themselves and it's been accurately used. They wanted to make more games in less time of lesser quality to raise profits. That is pretty much how they said it, a quantity over quality approach.
The studios get full credit, no question of that. They made the games and they get the credit.
When it comes to Grasshopper's games it's a bit different because they created the games and it's their invention. The other studios did not create Resident Evil, or Dead Rising, or DMC, they just made games based on another's IP. That's the difference there, who the creators are.
TWOxACROSS
Hot-blooded God of Guns
Yeah, that's why I said earlier that it'd be best to call it Capcom's and NT's game, because after all that's what it is. They did give them quite a lot of freedom as far as I know, though, as far as that's possible to have without moving away too much from the originals.
Idk, but that dosen't really apply to DmC methinks.
Uh, now you've got me a bit confused. You said earlier that those games where conceptualized by the studios who made them, and only approved by Capcom...?
And wasn't it more like that, in case of Resi for example, those studios only did, dunno, programming and stuff?
Edit: I wouldn't compare Resi 6 and Dead Rising to DmC, since the work done by outside studios on those two fanchises didn't involve re-envisioning the series, but making sequels to them, which is quite a difference if you ask me.
Not as far as I know. I'm pretty sure the studios pitched the ideas to Capcom and then made them.
RE6 was made by Capcom in house, it was Operation Raccoon City that was the outsourced project and so was Dead Rising 2 and one of Lost Planet's sequels. Capcom allowed other studios to do works of their's and, from what I understand, they were concepts developed by the developers they outsourced from and Capcom financed made cheaply and quickly.