Well again, it was something that I've only heard and not actually tried, unlike Genshin and Honkai Impact 3rd. But quickly looking at Star Rail gameplay, Ultimates being able to be used at any turn is just like S-Crafts in Trails, and I wouldn't be shocked if it lifts even more things from that series.
Yeah I don't know about that guy smashing his console, but Genshin Impact was waaay more blatant than One Piece Odyssey. Did you play Genshin Impact at launch? They even ripped stuff like climbing. They knew exactly what they were doing.
Is this a real comment? I wish I didn't read it.
Wholeheartedly agree, and I don’t accept that it’s a “slippery slope” at all. There will always be ideas inspired by something else, and using them is fine and well - Nobody is saying not to do that. But there are articles of trust and good faith. I come back to Aonuma saying they wouldn’t copy other developers - This was not him being “up himself”, as some tried to frame it, but rather out of respect for fellow creators, and not far removed from how universities view plagiarism. I do creative work, too, and I also know others who have had to take legal action because they’ve had their designs copied and straight-up stolen. It’s horrible.
You loosen patent requirements, or try to add legal protections to something as vague as an idea, and companies would 100% abuse it. No ifs or buts. The people you talk about who only take inspiration would be sued to hell and back. Anything vaguely resembling anything else will be quashed. The people harmed most will be the little ones who can't fight back. Have fun getting your fanart actioned against if a company doesn't like how you're using their properties. Or your indie game if it's even vaguely an homage. Anything done to try and increase a company like Nintendo's rights to their ideas will have the exact opposite effect of what you think it will.
I'm not entirely sure what some people meant when they said Nintendo should protect aspects of their works from getting stolen, so maybe I misinterpreted, but when you look at Genshin Impact, the part that jumps out at you as a BotW copycat is the art and world design, not the mechanics. While it cribbed a few mechanics too, the big inspiration is the art. So I thought that a couple of people were saying Nintendo should be able to "copyright" the visual direction of the game or something. In which case we would have a lot of games getting filed against lol
Others in this thread have agreed with my stance... as do the laws in place that prevent people from stealing. Perhaps instead of drive-by quips where you take the time to comment on posts you feel aren't worth your time you could elaborate on why you're good with plagiarism?
Game mechanics shouldn't be patentable. All it does is make the gaming industry worse and invite judges to decide what kind of games people are allowed to make.
Show me anything you've created and I'll show you how you've "stolen" from others.
Can you cite me any example where this has ever happened in all of gaming history?
We were deprived of loading screen mini-games for 20 years because of Namco patent-squatting the idea.
don't know how to tell you this but patent laws don't exist for the benefit of consumers
Operating under this line of thought is, quite frankly, an absurdity to me. I'm sorry to be so blunt about that, but everything is derivative, and inspiration is not plagiarism. If Nintendo (or any other corporation) was within legal right to come down on things in the way some would suggest they should be, nobody would be allowed to make Metroidvanias anymore (especially considering the genre has "Metroid" in the name, which Nintendo would surely use to their advantage). Breath of the Wild certainly would've gotten clapped (legally speaking) for its Ubisoft towers, in addition to every other open world trope that fans insist are absent from or de-emphasized in the game, but that whatever relevant corp who "did it first" decides is just close enough to their thing to pursue legal action against. It wasn't good when Warner Bros. patented a gameplay mechanic (Nemesis System), and it'd be equally as not good if Nintendo was allowed to do similar to that degree, in my opinion.
www.gamesindustry.biz
I'm sure there are many thieves out there who would argue that not being allowed to rip-off department stores doesn't benefit them as consumers either, but stealing is stealing and laws exist for a reason.
That’s how they should work. But yeah sometimes stuff like the Nemesis System patent slips through the cracks.
Software patents, particularly around gameplay concepts, are often on an implementation level. They are about coding. So the "creativity" aspect that you're using to defend Nintendo's honor makes no sense and is just fanboy nonsense to try and play up their innovation and creativity against "imitators". It has nothing to do with "creativity" that would actually be noticeable to consumers in any way, it's just code.
Yeah, it's become incredibly toxic in here. I'd like to stick around for this discussion but it seems like a lot of people in here are not very well versed on patent laws so I'm going to dip.
Mostly so wealthy and powerful corporations can exert their influence as they please.
Except in the same post, I mentioned the articles of trust and good faith for a reason, while acknowledging that people will always draw inspiration from something, once more, which is fine and well. Nowhere in that post did I say that inspiration and plagiarism were the same. Most creators, of all sizes, understand all of that, then somewhere within it, you have an unwritten code, context, etc. But there are lines between that and stealing/plagiarism, which is also understood. There would be protections against stealing, and protections from obvious patent abuse - Indies would still be able to create their work. Students could write the same essay topic for homework and even draw similar conclusions - a teacher understands that, and nobody is in trouble there, unless they’ve copied each other word for word, or copied a book without crediting the source. The towers example wouldn’t work here, either, because they exist in varying capacities in the real world. They, like many things, could exist in multiple games. In the case of BOTW, they serve entirely different purposes, AND affect the game in different ways in terms of gameplay design, mechanics, and player choices. Many people seem to think it’s as simplistic as serving legal notices because another game has a jump button or a world map or whatever else, when it’s far more complicated - Clearly, that shouldn’t be allowed, and there would be all sorts of protections from that. I also don’t think anybody here would find that acceptable. There’s another relatively new element to this, which is the age of AI - Creators of all sizes have had their work stolen and/or uncredited there, while many others have strong feelings and deep concerns about it. How this might take greater shape within the industry remains to be seen, but it does seem to be another understandable reason why some might look at protections, or seek reassurances. I guess what I’m trying to say is I’m not against the idea or principle of any creators wanting to or trying to protect their creations/work, certain likenesses, source material, etc., and being someone who does creative work, I feel quite sympathetic to that, especially as I know art students and small-time creators who had their work stolen by multi-million chain stores (there is a history of this). But once more, I return to the articles of trust and good faith. So, multi-million companies also wouldn’t be allowed to breach the same articles by engaging in obvious anti-competitive practice.Operating under this line of thought is, quite frankly, an absurdity to me. I'm sorry to be so blunt about that, but everything is derivative, and inspiration is not plagiarism. If Nintendo (or any other corporation) was within legal right to come down on things in the way some would suggest they should be, nobody would be allowed to make Metroidvanias anymore (especially considering the genre has "Metroid" in the name, which Nintendo would surely use to their advantage). Breath of the Wild certainly would've gotten clapped (legally speaking) for its Ubisoft towers, in addition to every other open world trope that fans insist are absent from or de-emphasized in the game, but that whatever relevant corp who "did it first" decides is just close enough to their thing to pursue legal action against. It wasn't good when Warner Bros. patented a gameplay mechanic (Nemesis System), and it'd be equally as not good if Nintendo was allowed to do similar to that degree, in my opinion.
Warner Bros finally secures patent for Shadow of Mordor's Nemesis system
Warner Bros Interactive Entertainment has been issued a patent for the Nemesis AI system found in Middle-Earth: Shadow …
Now that you've elaborated to this extent, I feel your perspective is largely pretty reasonable. I still have a couple reservations, but I understand where you're coming from, and I'm comfortable leaving it at that.
Very well said. Thank you for adding some context and sanity to this discussion.
I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea in principle. The problem is where you draw the line. Corporations abuse loopholes all the time because laws are really complicated. Trusting companies to uphold good faith is a losing battle.
