child is traumatized by how much of a rip off angry birds is of this game http://armorgames.com/play/3614/crush-the-castle

>> ^westy:

child is traumatized by how much of a rip off angry birds is of this game http://armorgames.com/play/3614/crush-the-castle
Oh, come on... Scorched Earth, Worms, and a million other physics-based games where you lob, shoot, throw, fire, or catapult something at something else were before both those games. I remember playing a Scorched Earth-like game on a TRS-80 in Computer Science when I was in high school.

*videogames *happy

Adding video to channels (Happy, Videogames) - requested by ant.

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^westy:
child is traumatized by how much of a rip off angry birds is of this game http://armorgames.com/play/3614/crush-the-castle
Oh, come on... Scorched Earth, Worms, and a million other physics-based games where you lob, shoot, throw, fire, or catapult something at something else were before both those games. I remember playing a Scorched Earth-like game on a TRS-80 in Computer Science when I was in high school.


No, no, no... Scorched earth and worms are totally different games from Angry Birds and Crush the Castle. Yes, they use physics. So do a million other games. Yes, you shoot things, just like a hundred million other games. But Westy's right. Angry Birds and Crush the Castle are set up in almost exactly the same way. Total ripoff. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

>> ^Ryjkyj:



No, no, no... Scorched earth and worms are totally different games from Angry Birds and Crush the Castle. Yes, they use physics. So do a million other games. Yes, you shoot things, just like a hundred million other games. But Westy's right. Angry Birds and Crush the Castle are set up in almost exactly the same way. Total ripoff. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
The target being physics-based (cages, boards, bricks falling and breaking things below it) is different, but the physics-based shooting is the same. Angle, power, type of ammo, possible interference of map structures; some games made you consider wind strength and direction. That's the core of the game (for me), and I've seen it hundreds... well, lots of times.



We may be talking about two slightly different things. I'm addressing the gameplay aspect, and I think you and Westy are talking more about IP copycatting. Like if RoTT had large floating pumpkins that shot fireballs similar to Doom's Cacodemons. The catapults in Crush the Castle are different than the slingshots in Angry Birds, but the targets are set up the same. I can see why that part looks like a rip-off.

Word.

Put it this way , if you replaced all the art work in crush the castle with angry birds most people would think it was angry birds.

I don't mind people taking concepts and only changing a small part but the issue with angry birds is that angry birds is so little of a change and yet they capitalized fincaily on it so much more and gets all the recognisoin.

Good Flash games consistently gets ripped off / coppied / used as fundimentals of game play , but not attributed . then as a result popular consensus is that flash games are the ass of the games industry when in reality some amazing products addictive/fun games have come from it.



>> ^Fletch:

>> ^Ryjkyj:

No, no, no... Scorched earth and worms are totally different games from Angry Birds and Crush the Castle. Yes, they use physics. So do a million other games. Yes, you shoot things, just like a hundred million other games. But Westy's right. Angry Birds and Crush the Castle are set up in almost exactly the same way. Total ripoff. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
The target being physics-based (cages, boards, bricks falling and breaking things below it) is different, but the physics-based shooting is the same. Angle, power, type of ammo, possible interference of map structures; some games made you consider wind strength and direction. That's the core of the game (for me), and I've seen it hundreds... well, lots of times.

We may be talking about two slightly different things. I'm addressing the gameplay aspect, and I think you and Westy are talking more about IP copycatting. Like if RoTT had large floating pumpkins that shot fireballs similar to Doom's Cacodemons. The catapults in Crush the Castle are different than the slingshots in Angry Birds, but the targets are set up the same. I can see why that part looks like a rip-off.

>> ^westy:

Put it this way , if you replaced all the art work in crush the castle with angry birds most people would think it was angry birds.
... with catapults.


I'm just saying that if you put them side by side, the gameplay is different enough for me that I can prefer one over the other, as the catapult adds a timing aspect. The graphics are secondary for me, and not the core of what makes a particular game.

Yes, the targets were a rip-off. Would you be satisfied if the makers of Angry Birds recognized Crush the Castle in the same way Notch recognized Infiniminer, which he totally ripped off and made a mint? What about Fortresscraft, which is a huge ripoff of Minecraft? Who's at fault if one's game isn't popular enough to make lots of money? Gameplay, marketing, luck, timing and just the intent of the developer all play a part, and any one of them can sink an otherwise quality title. Crush the Castle is free to play online and only 99￠ on Android. How much money have you given the developers?

I don't mind if a game is simular to another game or only a slight tweak , I just find it annoying when one is fincaily rewarded massively over another one when the other game accentually put the ground work down.

In the case of notch at least he admitted it was largely taken from fotress craft but the same would apply I would hope that the origonaters of an IP get rewarded fincaily to a fair extent.

my piont about changing the art work over is that focuses things on the game play and physics , if you were to come up with a bullshit % chart of how close one game is to another , I think angry birds would be very close to crush the castle be like 5% difference in game mechanics and that being only the launcher , its a bit like me taking doom replacing the guns and all the textures but keeping all the other mechanics and level designs exactly the same , where as a game that innovates properly would change the guns the ai the levels and the textures.

as I say I don't think things should be automaticly blocked or copping something largely is inherently a bad thing , the aspect I dislike is the lack of fair reinbursment and the lack of things being attributed properly , its like when you write an essay if you incoperate someone else's work into your work you attribute them.

saying that I bet ethical Developers probably don't attribute because if they did they would probably get sued for copyright infringement.

there are plenty of Games where I have enjoyed copying unreal toruniment - from quake 3 , mashed - from micro machines , worms from - original tank game. peggel from pachinko , plants v zombies form desctop tower defense.

in most of those examples sugnificant changes were made , more so than crush the castle to angry birds.

looking at plants v zombies as a good example of what I dislike you can have a very large company that has the resources to exploit a game more than the small developer and then they accentually steal the potential for that small developer to develop an IP to fruition. unlike back in the 80s when developers could come up with a new IP or mechanic typ and then gradualy develop it and build in size whalst coming up with new IP.

oh well i will stop blathering on , we probably agree on most things anyway.

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^westy:
Put it this way , if you replaced all the art work in crush the castle with angry birds most people would think it was angry birds.
... with catapults.

I'm just saying that if you put them side by side, the gameplay is different enough for me that I can prefer one over the other, as the catapult adds a timing aspect. The graphics are secondary for me, and not the core of what makes a particular game.
Yes, the targets were a rip-off. Would you be satisfied if the makers of Angry Birds recognized Crush the Castle in the same way Notch recognized Infiniminer, which he totally ripped off and made a mint? What about Fortresscraft, which is a huge ripoff of Minecraft? Who's at fault if one's game isn't popular enough to make lots of money? Gameplay, marketing, luck, timing and just the intent of the developer all play a part, and any one of them can sink an otherwise quality title. Crush the Castle is free to play online and only 99￠ on Android. How much money have you given the developers?