Okay, what IS the Metroid fangame sponsored by Nintendo? It isn't mentioned by name in the article, nor is any information given on this sponsorship, which I am unfamiliar with.
More detail would be much appreciated.
I forget the name of it, but it was basically a recreation of the reactor core from Metroid Prime 1. You could click on panels and get information about various Metroid enemies/plot info. -ShadowMan
The one ShadowMan is talking about was made with Jamagic by Clickteam. You can get some info about it and view it on this page: Jamagic by Clickteam
Methinks we need to trim this down a bit before people get the idea this is the place to advertise their fangames at. Thoughts? --Shadow Hog 15:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable for me. Or at least confine them to a notable fangame list at the end. -ShadowMan
Okay, this article has practically become an advertisement for people's fangames. We need to trim down on this and either:
1. Remove all references to specific fangames from the article
2. Confine it to a list of notable fangames.
If we choose choice 2, we'll have to define what makes a fangame "notable". I definitely don't want this turning into "Luigi's Game is an example of a fangame. Sonic Time Attacked is another. Another one based on non-Mario and sonic characters is..." You get the point. -ShadowMan (also, for the record, I didn't add that little ditty about Luigi's Game to this article.
- I prefer #2 myself. Now, question is, which ones ARE notable, and why? SRB2 I think is pretty notable since it was the first 3D Sonic fangame (maybe the first 3D fangame period, but that's doubtful) and is proof as to how far these things go (completely modified version of DOOM).
- Of course, we could do 1 first, then put a list of notable fangames at the end instead. --Shadow Hog 18:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The article states a lot about various companies' thoughts on fan games, namely Nintendo and Capcom. However, it doesn't cite any sources, and I can't find anything on the claims made. If sources can't be found, we should go ahead and delete that part of the article. --DMAJohnson 19:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
No random fangames, just use noteworthy ones.
I noticed an edit saying something about the "smash hit" Paper Mario World. I come from MFGG and that one is notorious for sucking. I think there needs to be a curb on examples of fangames, there are myriads out there I'm sure and we should only talk about noteworthy ones. Toastypk 03:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I've removed most of the references to individual fangames... I think we should set a hard rule for this article that a game needs to have been mentioned in a publication to be mentioned as an example. Metroid Prime 2D might serve well in that, just as an example.
My main concern is that if we start mentioning any specific games, the names are just going to crawl back up. I haven't sorted through the External Links, but they need work too.
I also thoroughly edited the bit about which tools are used... it read a lot like an advertisement. Lankybugger 16:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- I just cleaned up External Links and added to the See Also (adding in the much needed See Also: Game Development). Lankybugger 16:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Merging with amateur adventure game
I think these two are very closely related. Maybe amateur adventure games should be a subsection of fangames, or what do you think? I also added a list of noteworthy adventure fangames based on existing games - thought a list like that would be nice to have, but maybe that should be on a different page ("list of fangames - subsection: adventure fangames/games based on previous games")? ----Nanook2 17:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. From what I read, amateur adventure games are at best a loosely-related subtopic. Less is more with this article, I think, and I wouldn't want to dominate the current article with adventure game-related material. I'm going to add a link to the amateur adventure games article under See Also, though.
- Cheers, Lankybugger 18:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I removed the merger... The proposer has been on the page since I've replied and not responded to my comments, so I can only assume he or she agrees with me. Lankybugger 13:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
can ROM hacking be considered a Fangame ? andrewkeith80 09:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- It would depend on the severity of the edit, but it certainly can. I think I'll be reflecting that in the revision I'm about to do. Lankybugger 13:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
just stating the obvious , but a video game article should have a nice video game pic. Something old school but not offensive like most porno rom hacks. andrewkeith80 02:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- If you put up a single picture, should it be a sprite hack, Game Maker-type game, or 3D FPS mod? If any pictures need to put into this article, they should relate to the games mentioned in the text. Not to mention the murky fair use status. --SevereTireDamage 02:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm a bit hesitant to put up a picture, but if we're going to do anything I'd vote for a screen from the original Counterstrike. It's really well known and also demonstrates very effectively how extensive the modifications of games can be. 22.214.171.124 13:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the Legal issues part is quite confusing and might be misleading: It is said that "In the vast majority of cases, the original copyright holders have full legal justification to order a cease and desist upon fangame projects, as by definition, fangames are unauthorized infringing uses of copyrighted property" (1). Having in the original definition "but it is equally common for fans to develop a unique game using another only as a template" the previous statement is not so self-justified "by definition" (2). It should perhaps be also written somewhere, that copyright law may vary from one country to the other. And to take perhaps the most common case, as most old games have been designed in the USA, I think it would be appropriate to include the following reference to US copyright law extract. I am not a layer, and this extract seems primarily written for any game, not only video games, but I think it can be applied to video games as well. And if it is the case, then (1) does not apply in the case described by (2). Balint42 (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've just tagged this line as dubious. I find it hard to believe that the definition of a "fangame" includes the unauthorized infringing uses of copyrighted property. "Infringing" is a loaded legal term of art and shouldn't be thrown around lightly. Works that are created under a fair use rationale, for example, are putatively non-infringing. Works that are created by fans of a public domain topic can also not be described as "infringing" any copyright since such a copyright will have expired. From the lede of this article, it appears that a "fangame" is "a video game made by fans based on one or more established video games." Unless sources can be located to demonstrate that fangames by definition infringe on the IP rights of others, I suggest that this sentence be removed. IF sources for this claim can be located then it's time to tweak the lede to match this important alleged quality of fangames. -Thibbs (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- No. Saying something is "fair use" is not some blanket exemption to copyright laws. Fair use is something you have to prove in court is legitimate if there is ever a dispute, and without that it is still an infringement. About 99.99% of the people claiming fair use do not know what the term even means. Also, as far as "public domain" topics go, sure, if you make your own game on a public domain topic and do not use any of the soundsw, graphics, game engine, etc. of a copyright game while doing so, then you have the complete legal right to do so... but nobody uses "fangames" to refer to these kinds of works. Fangames are based upon existing games. And that based upon implies copyright infringement. If you want to remove the only sentence in that section accurately describing the actual legal state of such games because you don't like it and want it to have sources, then all the other parts of it which make dubious and ridiculous arguments with no sources also would have to be removed, which would be the whole section. You don't get to object to a statement you disagree with and remove it under a rationale that if applied fairly would remove all the parts you agree with. That's selectively enforcing policies for the promotion of your POV, which is a violation of WP:NPOV policy. DreamGuy (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
This section was horrible. After my edits it's still could use work, but at least the most awful parts have been removed. A big part of the problem was the argument in the article without any reliable sources that fangames are a free speech issue. That's just crazy talk. I also find it odd that tags in the article and the comments above were mostly complaining about a legal principle that is pretty straightforward - unauthorized fangames that are for distribution instead of home use are extremely obviously copyright infringement. I also removed reference to "abandoned" since it was a slanted word harking to the concept of abandonware, which is a completely bogus legal argument. Copyrights cannot be abandoned an can be enforced for the full length of a copyright term, which is almost any case for video games is going to be far longer than anyone would ever want to make a fangame. I also removed examples with unreliable sources - fan game makes claiming to have permission doesn't prove the copyright owners gave them permissions, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
"Fangames are video games made by fans based on one or more established video games. Many fangames attempt to clone the original game's design, gameplay and characters, but it is equally common for fans to develop a unique game using another only as a template. Though the quality of fangames has always been variable, recent advances in computer technology and in available tools have made creating high-quality games easier."
Wouldn't it be better to indicate that fan games owe their popularity due to an established intellectual property or franchise since not all fan games had a game to be based off? I've seen dozens of crappy games based off comic books anime manga and even movie characters, in addition to game franchises like final fantasy. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure Flash should be compared to things like GameMaker and Unity like they are. Flash is a general purpose tool, not specifically designed for video games and would hardly be considered a "game engine." There are numerous game engines that use the Flash platform such as Flixel or FlashPunk, but Flash itself is more in line with C++ or any of the other visual studio products because you have to create games 100% from scratch. Thoughts? DesiredUsernameYES (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)