Soul

name?

it's not a finish yet and the guy said he wouldn't upload it until it is (For obvious reasons) though, i don't know why he keeps taking screenshots of it if he doesn't want to get fucked.

>regional mons
that's gonna be a yikes and a cringe my dude

Overworld design is way too busy, kids couldn’t make at the characters. Gotta keep it much simpler than this. Don’t forget each Pokémon is made to be someone’s first video game. It’s not made for lame old men.

link pls. i dont find anything

Gimme a name so I can follow it

>kids couldn’t make at the characters
not true in the slightest. also the phrase you're looking for is "make out", in case you're ESL and don't know better

>those shitty fakemon
Yikes

I would say it looks piss, not shit

So leave the note to the guy. The game is still in development anyhow and gameplay is the most important part that can always be configured to the highest standard possible while it's not out yet.

Buzzword

I think the "royal" pokemon are meant to replace shinies. The others are betamons.

Who's the fucking artist because I like to see his/her work

because as far as Game Freak or Nintendo knows it's all just fan art/animations. There's nothing there that legally tells them it's an actual fan game project.

it looks like a sepia filter, like 1800s the pokemon game, which would be the greatest no more futurism, more pokemon world

Take this (You), zoomer.
I see only one and the sprite work is actually quite good.

The other ones are beta Pokémon and adaptations.

Plausible deniability. Clever girl...

They're not fakemon. The first two are the starters from the Space World 1997 leak, the next is beta Gyarados and the last is an unused betamon from pre-gen 1 back when it was still called Capsule Monsters.

>NONONO DONT MAKE ANYTHING ORIGINAL NOOO

nintendied everyone

there are other big fanmade pokemon games that are just fine
what's the problem

damn that legitimately looks really good

>betamons
could it be?

is it finally his turn?

Attached: ice sweeper.png (1000x1000, 474K)

How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, old man?
youtube.com/watch?v=hqwP6uuYOWo

Nintendo has a strong track record of CDing fan projects that get a lot of attention.

Best way to handle fan projects is to keep it on the down low with minimal info until its ready to release. Ie exactly what this guy is doing.

I will buy this if you bring back fat Pikachu

>how to go from getting a C&D to getting a genuine copyright suit against you
Great advice.

imagine if copyright laws weren't completely fucked and never ending so people would actually be able to work on their passion instead of it being held hostage by greedy and lazy corporations

I know this actually exists in motion, but this game genuinely looks like a series of made-up mockups for a pokemon game that will never exist by som random but the fact it could one day is pretty cool

Man his spritework is good. I don't like the color palette much but I wish I could achieve that level of work on my fucking game.

It looks really cool, but something about it looks dangerously similar to stardew valley for some reason.

The dev could just make a new game instead. Nintendo doesn't own the mon genre, the dev could make new ones instead.

Creating a new IP is way harder than just doing a hack.

SOUL

Attached: 1568784153011.webm (1692x796, 2.34M)

>wtf is this Pokemon ripoff? Nintendo, sue this man!

bought this from a dude 12 years ago, still havent played it

is it any good?

Because then no one will care.

I wish newer Pokemon games went back to pixel art. So much better than the newer 3D models. Leaves a bit up to the imagination instead of fake toy-looking animals.

YE

What would Pokemon look like without the perversion of copyright?
Continuing with Pokemon as an example, let's imagine for a minute that copyright worked the way a modern researcher determined would be mathematically optimal - 15 years automatically with no renewal.
arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/07/research-optimal-copyright-term-is-14-years/

It may seem crazy, but let's roll with it.

Copyright begins at publication. For Pokemon, this was 1996 - but not all of Pokemon. Some elements did not premiere until later. Therefore, certain elements would enter the public domain later than others. For example:

1996 - Pokemon Red and Blue
2000 - Pokemon Gold and Silver
2003 - Pokemon Ruby and Saphire

Hypothetically, these ideas would enter public domain 15 years later, in:

2011 - All 150 Pokemon
2015 - 235 Pokemon
2018 - All Pokemon from Ruby and Saphire

This means that, by 2018, anyone could publish their own Pokemon using every character, planet, concept from the original games (like Red and Blue, Pokemon Snap, and Stadium) and have it available for sale on the shelves of Gamestop. And any producer with the funds could greenlight any game.

Just like that, suddenly entertainment business would need to compete to bring us the best possible Pokemon they could. Bethesda, Sony, Disney would all be sending scripts to Veronica Taylor and Ikue Otani - tripping over themselves to write the best story they could create - trying to convince them to take the role. Copies sent off to Satoshi for that incredibly valuable "author approved" signature.

What did we get in 2018 instead? Pokémon: Let's Go, Pikachu! And everybody got tricked into spending $60 for it.

Which version of 2018 would you prefer? As it is, Nintendo can offer whatever quality they want - even if it's garbage. They have a monopoly on the property. They could decided tomorrow that they don't want any more new Pokemon. They could sit on the property for 50 years, publishing nothing - no new books, films, games, nothing - and there's not a thing we could do about it. A cornerstone of our culture...complete control.

Wouldn't this be unfair to Satoshi and original creators? No. Fifteen years is a long time.

>By 2018, Nintendo's annual income was $1.79 BILLION
nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2019/190425e.pdf

Not bad...an entire generation of fans had thanked them for adding to our culture by giving them a huge pile of money. And, since the property would be free to anyone there would be nothing stopping Nintendo from continuing to sell stories from the world they created. As a bonus, anything with its name attached would always have the advantage in game sales.

Another example to look at would be J.K. Rowling. Fifteen years after she published Sorceror's Stone, Rowling was already so tired of being a billionaire
businessinsider.com/jk-rowling-is-no-longer-a-billionaire-booted-off-forbes-list-2012-3 that she donated $160 million to charity. Again, not a bad trade for enriching our culture by sharing her idea. Fifteen years is a long time.

Copyright, in modern times, has been perverted so extensively that it now causes the opposite of what it was originally intended to.

So here is how it started, way back in 1790:
>The Congress shall have Power...to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

As you can see, the intent of copyright was to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" which includes art like painting, music, and film. By granting ownership of an idea, the creator of that idea is able to profit off of it. This, in turn, creates a financial incentive for artists to create new ideas.

But, unlike physical property, there is no practical reason for "intellectual property" to be protected. Physical property, for example, is a shirt. It is important to know who a shirt belongs to. If you and me disagree about who owns a shirt, there's a problem because only one of us can wear the shirt. If we both tried it would tear in half. Physical property is a house. If we disagree about who owns a house, we need to find the answer. We can't both live there with our families, setting our own schedules. Thus, shirts and houses are physical property that need to be protected by law.

Intellectual property is different because an idea can be shared. I can tell you the idea of a superhero I had, and I don't lose an ounce of it. A thousand people can have the same idea and it does not break. It does not need to be protected.

Thus, the sole purpose of granting ownership to an idea is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." By offering ownership to ideas, Congress hopes that I will make my idea a reality by writing a story, making a film etc. - thus adding to the commonwealth that we all enjoy. So does modern copyright do this? Yes, sometimes...but it usually does the opposite instead.

Over the past two hundred and thirty years, a critical perversion to copyright law was the loss of "limited terms." To show you this, here is a timeline of major changes to copyright law:

Copyright Act of 1790 – established U.S. copyright with term of 14 years with 14-year renewal
Copyright Act of 1831 – extended the term to 28 years with 14-year renewal
Copyright Act of 1909 – extended term to 28 years with 28-year renewal
Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 – removed the requirement for renewal
Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 – extended terms to 95/120 years or life plus 70 years
Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) – criminalized some cases of copyright infringement and established the Section 512 notice-and-takedown regime.

As you can see, the original duration of copyright was 14 years with an option to renew once (for a maximum of 28 years total.)

This is almost unimaginable compared to today's concept of copyright, which can last for 120 years or more automatically, and 70 years at a minimum. Yes, the minimum duration is now two and a half times longer than the maximum was originally. Wow!

What does this mean?
Established brands are much easier to market, and therefore less risky. This makes everlasting copyright an important tool for the giants of modern entertainment like Disney. Why fund a director's new idea for a superhero when you can just pump out Spider-Man 17? Or Toy Story 5? Or Star Wars Episode 21?

Ironically, this means that copyright has been twisted to now lead to less creativity and new ideas making it to film.

On the other hand, it also robs the commonwealth of the ability to express their own culture. The children who grew up with A New Hope turned 41 this year. Think about that...they were born into a world where Star Wars has always existed (from their perspective), they got education, careers, their own families. Some went to film school, or became writers because they were inspired by Star Wars. But sadly, they will most likely retire and die in a world where they never got to make a dollar adding to the thing they loved.

So who gets to make a Star Wars film instead? Only whoever Kathleen Kennedy (CEO of Lucasfilm) feels like...Rian Johnson and JJ Abrams, I guess. Out of an entire generation and culture.

You might mention fan films or fan fiction as a counter-point but this is irrelevant. By removing the ability to profit, these writers would be foolish to spend the time and energy (for writing) and the money (for filming) necessary to bring those stories to life. People need to eat, they can't go into crippling debt just to express their culture. So, without a way to profit, fan fiction and film will always be a very low tier of art - rushed out, passion projects or just for practice/experience - meaningless in the large scale of things.

Good posts.
Copyright laws are fucking cancer, thanks to Dinsey & Co.

So how did this happen?
Well, in short, because nobody cares. Or, at least...they didn't. The problem of copyright is extremely complicated, and the victims are hard to notice.

Who cares if a thousand great Star Wars books are never written, because there's no money in it? Who cares if a thousand directors and screenwriters never film a single scene in that galaxy they grew up imagining? It's an abstract ailment.

On the other hand...who cares if all we get is garbage from here on out - and the Star Wars brand dies because it's being run by a corporation that has no creativity or love of the source material? A corporation who sees Star Wars, not as a cultural cornerstone, but an asset to be squeezed of every last dollar. And when it finally disappears some pundit will say "This is how it had to be. It was all just nostalgia from the beginning." and everyone will go back to sleep. This sounds more familiar. Seems to become more concrete by the day, doesn't it?

I look especially to the DC characters like Batman and Superman. A viable live-action version of Superman flying hit theaters in 1978 but, because of everlasting copyright law, Batman and Superman didn't meet on screen for another 40 years, and then the result was a complete corporate embarrassment. Despite this, DC has yet to fix their course, and why should they? It's not like anybody else can make a competing film with the characters...

So maybe we're finally nearing the breaking point. Maybe Axanar was the canary in the coalmine. Maybe Aperion was the shot across the bow.

I guess we'll see.

>So maybe we're finally nearing the breaking point.
Lol, not even remotely. Brands are worth much more than nations and corporations at this point, and there are huge forces in place to protect the status quo.

>upscaled
soulless

Why can't we crowd fund this with cryptocurrency yet? nintendo can't do shit against decentralized money.

Wow arexs game is getting popular

He also posts on rheg on vp

They're shitty posts, it just culminates to "why can't i make money off of someone else's ideas and have to make my own?" and trying to spin it in a heart warming way by going "Damn.. It's crazy that people can grow up and end up not contributing to something they've loved since they were a child"

You'll probably get scammed sometime in the future, watch out.