Yandros on 26/5/2009 at 20:12
Quote Posted by Albert
R u telling me that Eidos could easily sue when it's obvious that a similar project (T2x) was already made and nobody (nobody as in Eidos) had reacted over that, when Truart (though heavily modified as separate canon for sure) had made an easily noticeable appearance and played a minor role in the game?
T2X was just a T2 FM campaign, not any more illegal than any other FM. Big difference between that and a remake of T1 using a completely different engine. Technically, even porting a T1 OM to the T2 engine is illegal, which is why some FM hosts don't carry those missions.
Renny on 26/5/2009 at 21:20
There is one difference between Valve allowing Black Mesa Source and Eidos saying no to a remake of TDP using the dark mod. To play Black Mesa Source you need a working copy of Half Life 2; now Valve owns the rights to HL2 and so are making money for each person playing BMS. Eidos on the other hand do not own the rights to the Doom 3 engine, and hence they would be allowing the remake to be made at no financial gain to themselves, which of course they arn't going to do.
incal on 26/5/2009 at 21:38
I tend to think Valve allow black mesa because they plan to make people pay for it :mad:
but that's the world we live in ...
Maybe with thief 4, thief 1 and 2 could be recreated without Eidos getting angry about it.
Won't stop me from trying to recreate some missions on the dark mod when I get around to truly learn how...
Anyway, who are we hurting porting thief 1 to thief 2 right now ?
Does eidos still make that much money from thief 1 ?
It's like some people mind coagulate at the the thought of something, anything, being "illegal".
Xorak on 26/5/2009 at 21:42
Quote Posted by Albert
(
http://www.blackmesasource.com/) Black Mesa: Source
Hel-lo! Valve still exists? Could easily sue, but hasn't? Freedom of Speech? The large number of similar projects to make fan sequels/redux of other popular cult games? Simcity, LBA (Little Big Adventure, a game which I'm certain none of you guys have heard of), Lemmings, Quake, Half Life, Sonic (ugh) the hedgehog ((
http://www.srb2.org/) 1, (
http://sfghq.emulationzone.org/) 2), even more games than that: Boulderdash, Pacman, Abuse (a bad example, considering its own creators made it open source), and countless others...
Honestly, (this is a minor quibble) I take offense to the fact that you think nobody has heard of Little Big Adventure.
Different companies just have different ideologies. Perhaps it very well may be that Eidos is planning to remake Thief themselves. That's why they don't want the public to do it. If you notice, Nintendo never allows their games to be remade in this manner, because their ideology is to release their old games again and make people pay for an updated version of them. They can sell the same game on four or more platforms, over and over again.
Other companies are less stringent because they want that free marketing. If you look at CounterStrike and the popularity of that, Valve just wants to carry over all the players in their modding community to their next project. In this case, they can use the Black Mesa mod as a free tool to do it, with absolutely zero expenditure on their end.
The other thing is, some of those old companies are not around anymore, and the specific people who made the games want the recognition they never got. In some cases, the designers give tacit approval to allow the game to be remade, because it's like their little piece of creation that even after all these years they're still proud of.
Queue on 26/5/2009 at 22:17
Quote Posted by Albert
:erm: :tsktsk: :nono: These debates are lopsided at best...
And ridiculous.
Renault on 26/5/2009 at 22:19
Quote Posted by Queue
And ridiculous.
I disagree, it's a good discussion, especially if you're using Black Mesa: Source as an example of these types of things being done with other games.
Stath MIA on 26/5/2009 at 23:14
It could not be done legally. Eidos would have to authorize it and they probably won't. Actually the best chance for this to be allowed would be for T4 to fail miserably enough that no company would ever dare to make a Thief game again. Kind of a hollow victory if you ask me. But if you want to do such a thing on your own (illegally) then go for it, just don't expect anyone to (publicly) support your actions.
sNeaksieGarrett on 27/5/2009 at 18:26
Quote Posted by Albert
(
http://www.blackmesasource.com/) Black Mesa: Source
Hel-lo! Valve still exists? Could easily sue, but hasn't? Freedom of Speech? The large number of similar projects to make fan sequels/redux of other popular cult games? Simcity, LBA (Little Big Adventure, a game which I'm certain none of you guys have heard of), Lemmings, Quake, Half Life, Sonic (ugh) the hedgehog ((
http://www.srb2.org/) 1, (
http://sfghq.emulationzone.org/) 2), even more games than that: Boulderdash, Pacman, Abuse (a bad example, considering its own creators made it open source), and countless others...
...
Countless! :mad:
R u telling me that Eidos could easily sue when it's obvious that a similar project (T2x) was already made and nobody (nobody as in Eidos) had reacted over that, when Truart (though heavily modified as separate canon for sure) had made an easily noticeable appearance and played a minor role in the game?
And your telling me, even with these plain-as-day references, that it's simply not possible to recreate an otherwise easy-to-recreate game?!
Calm down. What people (particularly Subjective Effect) are saying is that you can't recreate a game in a new engine without permission from the copyright owners. In this case, you can't just remake TDP in doom 3, which is why The Dark Mod is an
inspired thief game, not a thief clone. Your point about T2X is invalid, because, as New Horizon pointed out, it's allowed to do that sort of thing.
Also, I don't think people are saying that it's not possible to recreate a game in and of itself, just that it would be
illegal to do so without permission.
Also, I think misunderstandings are too easy around here, so ask for clarification instead of outright getting angry over it. Just a bit of advice.:)
Quote Posted by Albert
You must've misread the direction I'm now taking...
If such an occurrence like you just stated did occur, it's best likely that if any remake were to be made, it would rethink the entire thief universe (Not a modern remake, but something a little different), in a way that we could easily extend the environments of the game and meet the level of creativity that only game companies like Croteam and Valve have been renown for so far, and keep the spirit of the original series in mind... none of that sissy TDS crap here...
And yes, it wouldn't pain Eidos to know that it exists.
Also, to take this topic into the new direction that you started in regards to a thief inspired game, um hello,
the dark mod?
SubJeff on 27/5/2009 at 23:07
Can I just remind everyone, because I've seen this misconception here and elsewhere, that the Dark Mod is not a game.
It is a toolset (an editor and assets) that will allow people to make FMs. It is not a game, it is not the new T2X. It may come with some FMs because there are beta mappers working with it and the team may want to give us some FMs so we can see what can really be done. But TDM is not a game and you should not expect a full 10, 13, 15, whatever campaign with it when it is released.
If you want to see what can be done with it play The Tears of St Lucia. If you don't love it you are dead inside or should be playing Halo 1, 2 and 3 back to back whilst whooping and cackling; you're alive but...
Jilly The Taffer on 28/5/2009 at 00:15
Eidos remade Tomb Raider 1 into the awesome-graphiced Tomb Raider: Anniversary.
They should do something similar with DP. But, keep the sounds and music, and cutscenes, and briefings.
Just gameplay-wise, make the graphics like those on Tomb Raider. Realistic, atmospheric.
Imagine the Bonehoard as dark, dingy, and immensely huge as it should rightfully be.
Imagine the Maw of Chaos as deep, forboding, and absolutely strange as it should be.
WOW :eek:
