Is it just me, or does the first screenshot look dirty?

Look, in Dark Wizard it's just fight, fight, fight all the time. Sometimes Prince Armer just needs a little lovin'.

Guesst: at least under U.S. copyright law, you're absolutely wrong about them not infringing Pixel's copyright if all they do is take his game and add a few new things. Why? Because they copied, and individual elements within a work like this get their own protection. Even if all they did was take the main character and put him in an entirely different game world (say, 1960s Soviet Russia) in a different genre (say, a match-3 puzzle game) with a different plot (say, he has to save the USSR's stockpile of ice cream by collecting 1000 magic ice cream cones)--even if one character was all they took, guess what? It's still copyright infringement! They certainly wouldn't save themselves from that result by taking the whole game and changing a couple of things.

The reason they won't be infringing Pixel's copyright is because, presumably, he's licensed it to them. (Hopefully, he's not so stupid that he signed away his copyright without getting a promise of good compensation in exchange.)

In copyright law, original doesn't mean "new"--it just means anything you created without directly copying from something else. The storyline from the freeware game is original, and using it again in a derivative work (the Wiiware version) doesn't change that.

Although really, even if they muck it up on the Wii, it's not like the changes are going to retroactively show up in the computer version and screw that up too. Some folks are being kind of dramatic here.

The ugly is nicely complemented by the worst acting you've seen since your little sister's middle school performance of Romeo and Juliet.

Oh, just remembered:




Dark Wizard! It was a tactics game for the Sega CD with great music played by a real orchestra. It predated FF Tactics, and for its time, it was pretty fabulous. I still have the game, though when I tried playing it recently, I just couldn't get into it. The controls are cumbersome, the graphics ugly, the gameplay imbalanced, and there's a load time before every little thing you do. The idea behind it is awesome, but it's just not very well-executed.

This IGN blogger has fond memories of the game, though.

That and having a monetary incentive makes some people work harder to improve their game than they otherwise would, because they know that it has to be the absolute best they are capable of if they hope to have it sell well.

Totally true. Just look at Laxius Force.

A few of the atmospheric animations and effects in there are nice (the mushroom's cloud and the bubbles beneath the waterfall in particular), though I think the character animations are a bit stiff and lacking in frames. Also, what's with the girl

for like half a minute straight?

Though skimming his site did produce some evidence that he has something against TIGs (or NIGs, intentionally misnamed for some reason). I don't understand why he makes fan art of Derek's games while ripping so hard on Derek himself.

I noticed that too. Seems to me like his ego has been bruised, and he's lashing out. But maybe it's all in good fun and I just don't get the joke.

EDIT @CraigStern: It's probably that Flash games aren't indie enough.

Heh.

Did anyone else look at their library of games and think "these games aren't that old". I mean, they have games from 2005. 2005! Old? I like the idea of the site and all, but I just wish they had actual old games for sale, instead of games a few years out of date.

Fair enough, except that a few years is usually enough to render many PC games incompatible with Windows. I still remember how mad I was when Dungeon Keeper wouldn't run anymore once I upgraded to Windows XP.

I think it's pretty good. What exactly is wrong with it?

Ogmo has no attacks, as far as I know. What would he actually do?

It find it inadequate to create sub-forums for some developers, I find that elitist and arbitrary, as if Derek, the community, or whoever was in charge decided who is good and who isn't.

As if this community wasn't engaged in that practice anyway.

Congrats! It's too bad they only threw $250 your way, though.

O.o ... OMG .. i thought the only creatures can do that are the Americans

:D

Those owls are awesome. I wish I could understand what they're saying about them.

EDIT: I think these are them.

EDIT 2: This explains what's going on.

Ad revenue is what makes the world go 'round in Flash game development. A sponsorship is up-front money you get in exchange for driving traffic to a sponsor's site and (consequently) earning them ad revenue. I've done this several times in the past--it can be a good tactic if you need money fast, or if you don't have the means to collect ad revenue yourself, though in the long-term it's probably not a great tactic for maintaining a stable flow of income.

There are a few things you can do if you don't want a sponsorship, though. One is to embed an ad in your games (e.g. Mochiads, Gamejacket, or something custom-made if you strike up an agreement with a particular site) that plays while they load. Another is to direct traffic to your own website, where you will make money through (guess what?) ad revenue.

[not]

Nope--that's the indemnification clause you're thinking of (Provision 6). Look at Provision 8 in their Game License Uploading Agreement:

8.  Limitation of Liablity.  KONGREGATE SHALL NOT BE LIABLE, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, IN TORT, OR IN ANY OTHER FORM OF ACTION, FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, EXEMPLARY, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT OR ITS PERFORMANCE OR FAILURE TO PERFORM HEREUNDER.  IN NO EVENT SHALL KONGREGATE'S LIABILITY TO DEVELOPER FOR DAMAGES EXCEED $5.00 USD.

Actually, now that I look at it again, this reads like both an exculpatory clause and a limitation of liability clause wrapped into one. First they say they won't be liable to you for breaching the agreement, and then they say that even if they are, they won't be obligated to pay you more than $5.

The California courts have upheld limitation of liability provisions in the past, but so far as I know, never a limitation this low, and never outside the context of construction contracts. My unlicensed, unprofessional opinion (which you should definitely not rely upon) is that the courts could go either way with a provision like this.

When I was looking for a sponsor for Telepath RPG Chapter 2, I negotiated with Kongregate and attempted to get them to waive this provision. It went all the way up the chain to Emily Greer, who ultimately refused to waive it. This convinced me to go with a different company for sponsorship. My feeling is, regardless of whether it would ever be enforced in court, why would I ever want to deal with a company that knowingly buries a provision like this in its boilerplate game upload agreement?

Wow--now that's dedication. Nice work!

So ... maybe he can still be a laywer in maine or california or something?

I think he'd have to re-enter the bar exam.

Right. And passing the bar in any state is a huge, huge, HUGE pain the butt. That goes double for California, which has a less than 50% bar passage rate.

If I didn't post what I posted, there would be no post at all!

Fair enough. I still think this game looks stupid though.