Last Chance Leaving...

[IncarnatedDemon]

Don't mistake this as some sort of "win" on your part, IncaDemo :/

 

[TWOxACROSS]

 

[Sunaka Marién]

I just told you, if there are versions of things in the poem, then i believe that its versions in dmc1 is creatively owned by the person who made the poem.

By that logic God of War would be "creatively owned" by Capcom.

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

By that logic God of War would be "creatively owned" by Capcom.

I haven't played GoW so i don't know how similar it's gameplay is to dmc. But it's safe to say that if GoW has similar gameplay as devil may cry, it's gameplay is to some degree, creatively owned by capcom.
But GoW is also a different case as they made the gameplay they got without help or teaching from capcom.

But take Darksiders 2 as an example, the developers's objective was to create similar gameplay as dmc, and they succeeded. So what they invented for their game is partially creatively owned by capcom. Because they have looked at dmc as a framework for how the gameplay is to be like.

Well, we definitely played every combat game. It doesn’t matter if it’s considered the best game of all time or the worst game of all time. We play ‘em all. Obviously, we had the Zelda inspiration with the puzzles and stuff. But for combat, we are huge DMC and Bayonetta fans
​

 

[Sunaka Marién]

snip

​

As far as I know, GoW was also directly inspired by DMC, but I really don't think that Capcom has any rights whatsoever over neither Gow nor Darksiders. You know if you'd go on like that, you'd actually have to say that nobody owns nothing at all, because everything's been inspired somewhere somehow by something. I mean there've already been games in which you'd beat up your enemies long before Devil May Cry, so going by your logic Capcom doesn't really fully have creative ownership of that gameplay either :/

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

As far as I know, GoW was also directly inspired by DMC, but I really don't think that Capcom has any rights whatsoever over neither Gow nor Darksiders. You know if you'd go on like that, you'd actually have to say that nobody owns nothing at all, because everything's been inspired somewhere somehow by something. I mean there've already been games in which you'd beat up your enemies long before Devil May Cry, so going by your logic Capcom doesn't really fully have creative ownership of that gameplay either :/

There is difference between inspiration and making a version of something.

Plus something as general and basic as beating up enemies belongs to noone. Why? Because such basic idea is so obvious that it would happen that the question is who would do it first.
We base gameplay very often on our world.
It is gameplay that has little to no connection to real world that are unique and thus more creative.

Take Portal game as an example, it's a game based on going from one portal to another. In our world there is no such thing as using a device to make a portal and use it.
So that's more creative than making a game about racing for example, as racing is something that happens in real world, so most developers of games who like cars, would make a racing car and it would be easy for them to realize how the gameplay will be like.

Turning into a demon, and cutting demons in air and doing combos is not something you see any ordinary human do.
Its quite philosophical subject, but if you understand it, you'll realize that people can own what they make but that it depends on whether they got help or not by creators of something (e.g gameplay), they can own less or more.

 

[Lionheart]

Not exactly.

I'm in a position where I advocate that video games are a broad media that allow for more than just gameplay. It's rare to find a video game that has great everything all around but most video games have certain draw to them. When one game excels in gameplay (RE4) another excels in the story (SH2) and others might not even do that but still have a quality that makes them good or appealing, like the visual design (Alice: Madness Returns) or even a more simple form of interactivity (Unfinished Swan). That is the beauty of video games.

In this game I don't believe the story is the paradigm of the experience, nor the art direction, or the character designs, but rather the game play, that's why I'm putting such emphasis on it over the plot.

Perhaps that's true; it may not be the high point of the game (not the paradigm), but I don't see how the plot is any less important in DmC than in other games. The plot and the gameplay are both important in DmC. In reality, DmC has a serious plot that can be held to a certain standard.
In my opinion, the plot determines who is the 'creative owner' of the game, in this case. That's because gameplay can be almost duplicated in a different game, whereas the plot cannot, since you'd get in huge legal trouble. I think there was a game that featured DMC's Stinger attack. Since Capcom supposedly owns every single aspect of the gameplay, does that make it Capcom's game? Nope. If Capcom owned all of the gameplay, they would also own every other H&S game in existence. Capcom can make as many DMCs as they like, all with different plots, but as soon as NT comes with its own plot and gets the go-ahead from Capcom, that makes it mostly their game.

''Why does the plot been different become the factor that makes the games separate.''

Because it's the same idea with movies - I've explained this twice or thrice already. Video games are like interactive movies. The writer ultimately owns the idea for the movie (and the game); he came up with it, it's his invention. If Matthew Vaughn is writing the new X-Men movie, that makes it his creation. Marvel simply bought the rights to developing a movie based on it, and Bryan Singer is directing it. Nothing more. I'm not going to go into the legal stuff.

Without a plot, there is nothing to have the gameplay really work up towards. Without a plot, it's one of the most basic types of games there are. Without a plot, it may be a video game in the sense that it's a game conveyed through the media of a computer screen/tv, but it's not a video game in the sense that it's a game with a movie-like plot. If a game does not have a plot, then yes, you can say the game belongs to the people who came up with its gameplay. As soon as it has a plot, you can't just say ''the people who wrote it have no ownership over it''. That's the whole idea behind plots; they make the movies/video games YOURS, in the sense that you are the one who came up with the plot. You are the one who breathed life into a lifeless husk that only had gameplay before. You are the one who used your creativity to make it your own.

Yeah, your blockbuster games but the potential for gaming extends to a more abstract possibility than straight narratives such is in film. I'll refer to the previously mentioned Unfinished Swan. I'm not saying that that isn't true, that video games are becoming like movies, and it most certainly is the case with this game, but you say as an absolute, which is not, not all video games have a narrative, not all video games need one, and there will always be video games that don't have one to be a video game.

Yes, but the subject is DmC, and DmC does have a narrative. For that reason, you have to look at who created the narrative and give them the credit for it, not the people who happen to have published the game.

They might not be original creators but they did create this and therefore it is theirs.

Yes, that's my point (sort of). NT came up with the stuff the game revolves around (the plot), so they're the ones who invented it.

Like I said, I don't think I can agree with this just on that solace. To simply give the game up to NT just because of the plot is not a strong enough argument for me. People are hired to write all the time but they don't always get to say the final product is theirs. A Steven Spielberg film is a Spielberg film, even if he didn't write the script or even if he wasn't the one that made the alterations from the original story, case and point, Jurassic Park.

But they didn't really hire NT, they gave the project to them, right? They are named the developer, not just some hired staff. Anyway, this is going into the realm of law a bit too much for me. Jurassic Park is perhaps not quite the right analogy; Jurassic Park movies are usually pretty basic; there's people who do stupid s*it and they get effed up by dinosaurs. I suppose you could legally argue that that idea is Spielberg's, and yes, I suppose the overall idea of the Devil May Cry games (beating a demon/demons and saving the human world) is Capcom's property. But they gave NT the freedom to produce their own view on it, and they pretty much even made their own gameplay around it (with some help). Saying it's based on what Capcom already had made, well, that's obvious. Most games nowadays are based on gameplay from older games. That doesn't make Osias Antediluvianman, age 125, the owner of every game in existence.

Anyway, maybe you're right. Maybe both our views are correct, I don't know. I'm just too preoccupied right now to spend any more time on this. Getting tired, too.

 

[Sunaka Marién]

There is difference between inspiration and making a version of something.

Plus something as general and basic as beating up enemies belongs to noone. Why? Because such basic idea is so obvious that it would happen that the question is who would do it first.
We base gameplay very often on our world.

Well, and there's obviously been someone who did it first. It doesn't matter how obvious a thing is to do, because if nobody ever takes the initiative to do it, it holds no significance. Let me give you an anecdote called Egg of Columbus:
"Columbus was dining with many Spanish nobles when one of them said: 'Sir Christopher, even if your lordship had not discovered the Indies, there would have been, here in Spain which is a country abundant with great men knowledgeable in cosmography and literature, one who would have started a similar adventure with the same result.' Columbus did not respond to these words but asked for a whole egg to be brought to him. He placed it on the table and said: 'My lords, I will lay a wager with any of you that you are unable to make this egg stand on its end like I will do without any kind of help or aid.' They all tried without success and when the egg returned to Columbus, he tapped it gently on the table breaking it slightly and, with this, the egg stood on its end. All those present were confounded and understood what he meant: that once the feat has been done, anyone knows how to do it."

It is gameplay that has little to no connection to real world that are unique and thus more creative.

Take Portal game as an example, it's a game based on going from one portal to another. In our world there is no such thing as using a device to make a portal and use it.
So that's more creative than making a game about racing for example, as racing is something that happens in real world, so most developers of games who like cars, would make a racing car and it would be easy for them to realize how the gameplay will be like.

The concept of portals and/or instant teleportation/transportation is such an incredibly common concept in fantasy and science fiction that you could aswell argue that it is just as obvious to make a game around the idea of 'transportable portals', so to say. It might take more creativity to come up with the exact concept of Portal than to procuce a game of an already established and common genre, but in most cases this has nothing to do with something existing in real-life or not, simply because there is already so much work of fiction that it is difficult if not close to impossible to come up with something truely original. Originality lies in the details nowadays. Also good job on just discrediting every developer of every racing game ever of their creativity :/

Turning into a demon, and cutting demons in air and doing combos is not something you see any ordinary human do.

It doesn't matter if you can do it in reality or not, if it is something that has been done before in some kind of media, especially if it has been done often. Turning into a magical being is hardly original *cough*magical girls*cough*, as is doing combos in video games (I mean that's the essence of, like, every fighting game ever) and I'm pretty sure that beating on your enemies while airborn is something that's been done somewhere somehow before DMC (and if not, well, congrats Capcom, you did something original).

Its quite philosophical subject, but if you understand it, you'll realize that people can own what they make but that it depends on whether they got help or not by creators of something (e.g gameplay), they can own less or more.

Hmm, depends. If you get 'active' help by someone in doing something, then that means that you worked together on that project, so of course the person who helped you also owns part of the project, as they actively worked on it. But the way I understood it, Capcom didn't exactly 'help' NT in making DmC's gameplay, but rather tought them (like a teacher) what really makes Devil May Cry gameplay Devil May Cry gameplay. But damn, we haven't been there when they made DmC, so who knows how exactly it went down?

 

[Demi-fiend]

But it's safe to say that if GoW has similar gameplay as devil may cry, it's gameplay is to some degree, creatively owned by capcom.

Sunaka, why are you even arguing with this stillborn anyway?

 

[Sunaka Marién]

Sunaka, why are you even arguing with this stillborn anyway?

It's good English practice, lol. And it's more fun than university homework, tee hee.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

I like how IncaDemo sets up these very stringent and "philosophical" rules of thinking we all have to follow, but then when we point out how that thinking works for the other side of the argument, there's all these provisos.

"It's like this, except when it's not, despite how it's the same."

And before you ask IncaDemo, you can find it all where everyone is arguing against you. You can have your own philosophical reasoning if you want, but it does not hold up against everyone else's. I can have a philosophy that it's totally okay for me to punch people in the d!ck, but that's not going to go over so well when I put it into practice.

It's honestly embarrassing watching you fight tooth and nail to deny Ninja Theory anything positive for DmC, especially since you do so quite adamantly despite having not ever played the game for yourself. It's so difficult to take so much of what you say seriously because all that you say is cursory knowledge and learnt with such an unbelievable bias.

At least people like Lionheart1991 here have actually played the game in order to form their opinions. I may disagree with him at times, but goddamn do I respect his opinions for being his own.

 

[berto]

Well, and there's obviously been someone who did it first. It doesn't matter how obvious a thing is to do, because if nobody ever takes the initiative to do it, it holds no significance. Let me give you an anecdote called Egg of Columbus:
"Columbus was dining with many Spanish nobles when one of them said: 'Sir Christopher, even if your lordship had not discovered the Indies, there would have been, here in Spain which is a country abundant with great men knowledgeable in cosmography and literature, one who would have started a similar adventure with the same result.' Columbus did not respond to these words but asked for a whole egg to be brought to him. He placed it on the table and said: 'My lords, I will lay a wager with any of you that you are unable to make this egg stand on its end like I will do without any kind of help or aid.' They all tried without success and when the egg returned to Columbus, he tapped it gently on the table breaking it slightly and, with this, the egg stood on its end. All those present were confounded and understood what he meant: that once the feat has been done, anyone knows how to do it."

That is an excellent interpretation, very good. Consider me impressed.

Anyway, maybe you're right. Maybe both our views are correct, I don't know. I'm just too preoccupied right now to spend any more time on this. Getting tired, too.

It seems I didn't make my stand on this too clear. As it stands I'm undecided, I don't just want to say it's Capcom's because there is so much of NT in this game, just look at Phineas, but I also see so much of Capcom there that I don't think that it shouldn't be handed the credit ether.

 

[Lionheart]

It seems I didn't make my stand on this too clear. As it stands I'm undecided, I don't just want to say it's Capcom's because there is so much of NT in this game, just look at Phineas, but I also see so much of Capcom there that I don't think that it shouldn't be handed the credit ether.

Well, exactly my point! I was arguing that DmC wasn't just Capcom's, but that it was also - for a very large part - Ninja Theory's. It's not really a matter of 'whose game is it' as it is a matter of 'whose mind is most responsible for DmC': whose brainchild is it? In that respect, DmC would be mainly NT's, though Capcom helped out too.

 

[Demi-fiend]

Hey, I can't get into other sections of the site (and someone else has most likely already started a topic on it), so I'll say it here.

The new look: Awesome.

 

[Alittleacorn]

Hey, I can't get into other sections of the site (and someone else has most likely already started a topic on it), so I'll say it here.

The new look: Awesome.

I know, I clicked on here and I thought "Hoooly muffins what just happened!?" the new look is awesome :3 I love how it's got all the 5 Dante's at the top and the background is from the main hall of the castle in the first game woiwoejowjtorrpfk. Nice job whoever made it!

 

[Chancey289]

Hey, I can't get into other sections of the site (and someone else has most likely already started a topic on it), so I'll say it here.

The new look: Awesome.

Caught me off guard. We go from a really bright color pallet to this really dark one.

Looks cool but I was like this....

 

[berto]

Well, exactly my point! I was arguing that DmC wasn't just Capcom's, but that it was also - for a very large part - Ninja Theory's. It's not really a matter of 'whose game is it' as it is a matter of 'whose mind is most responsible for DmC': whose brainchild is it? In that respect, DmC would be mainly NT's, though Capcom helped out too.

thats what we were saying when we were saying 'who owns it,' its not who holds the copyrigh but who holds the largest ammount of responsibility for the final product.

i still think that capcoms hand still has a prtty heavy presence all over it.

 

[Lionheart]

At least people like Lionheart1991 here have actually played the game in order to form their opinions. I may disagree with him at times, but goddamn do I respect his opinions for being his own.

Same here, btw!

 

[Chancey289]

IncaDemon just isn't even on the same planet as everyone else it seems. Like, she legitimately just doesn't understand the discussion. Like she's speaking her own language.

And just the way it's always worded is just pretentious and annoying as hell. Maybe we should just keep this between us ladies and gents?

 

[Demi-fiend]

And now... some music to celebrate the new layout! XD