123 replies to this topic

[trudatman]

....for quests made in 1.9....Most of the quest makers have died of old age and can no longer work on their quests....

I know I haven't put out a demo update since the last expo, but... damn!

[Rambly]

just an addendum to my previous post:

 

i know i typed the phrase Precious Zelda Fangames in Big Ironic Initial Capital Letters (a Very Bad Habit of mine No Really I'm Not Joking Ugh) so lemme just say that i wasn't tryin to put anyone down for making a zelda fangame. (i have made several zelda fangames and may make more, maybe, who knows, but anyway i'd be a big stupid dummy if i put people down for making zelda fangames on a zelda fangame forum)

 

i'm just trying to criticize the mentality that leads toward sabotaging others' experiences to try and preserve what you feel is the preferred experience for other people to have.  i feel that position comes from a sense of self-importance which i dislike.  that's all.  (it reminds me of people that would try and keep people from right-clicking on webpages using javascript to prevent them from accessing View Source, despite the fact that there are many other legitimate reasons to right-click on web pages, and despite that there's other methods to view the source code...)

 

Zelda fangames are fine and i think if Nintendo has a problem with them their priorities are outta whack.  i would think that about any other game company that sent C&D letters to fans that wanted to have fun with a video game.  while game companies have the final say in what happens with their intellectual property, i think maybe going after people making fangames entirely for non-profit is a waste of larger game companies' resources and Lawyer Money and would just upset and alarm people.  Nintendo does not have a history of doing this, anyway, and most or maybe all instances where they've been reported to go after fans have proven hoaxes, so it's kind of a moot point.  people shouldn't feel pressured into changing their works completely for something which frankly isn't a real threat.

 

as far as my stance on my own works, just to prove i'm not a big gross hypocrite: they essentially belong to others now and it's all out of my hands, especially now that there're ways to do basically whatever you want with them.  you may all do with them what you wish -- i really do recommend playing through them legit at least once, but i can't stop you, and i certainly wouldn't wanna stop someone from doing what they think is fun.

 

finally: i've poked around inside and cheated in and toyed around with quests that i'd already had a full experience with, and i don't regret it.  i learned a lot about questmaking techniques and development cycles and it satiated a lot of curiosity.  i've said this before on these forums and i'll keep saying it: curiosity is (almost!) always good for people.  it's all part of a broader learning process, in my opinion.

 

okay i think i've said everything i wanted to. *will edit this post later or post another dumb follow-up post later*

Edited by Rambly, 31 May 2014 - 06:10 PM.

[Geoffrey]

Ah, Geoffrey ...  I don't know if you could have possibly put that in a more insulting way. Putting down people for caring about their creative projects seems so at odds with the person who so kindly encouraged me when I was feeling depressed over my writing.

I didn't initially plan on responding to this topic again, but perhaps I ought to now, if only to clarify my position.  Despite that neither my nor any other poster's opinion holds much weight in these issues, it is clear that my remarks here have caused some hurt, which does, as I see it, hold weight.  It was not my intention to cause offense.  I tend to jump on these topics from a detached and unemotional perspective; understanding that these topics do, for many people, refer to greatly emotional works of art, sweat, and blood, I think it best that I clarify what I said, with respect to the emotional atmosphere inherent in creating art.

 

From a legal perspective, our position is hard to defend.  Unless I am ignorant of something vital, permission was never given to us to use Nintendo's resources.  As such, it feels contradictory to say 'this quest is made with Nintendo's graphics, characters, enemies, items, and story, but I own the rights to it.  I may abuse (use in an unintended fashion) Nintendo's work, but you may not abuse mine.'  I understand that, having poured as much energy as we do into such projects, we may want to own them, but, sadly, we do not.

 

With that being said, you may ask what I think of truly original content, not blatantly derived of (or extracted from) Nintendo's work.  We do, as I understand it, own the rights both to our intellectual property and to our original works of art.  As Koh has stated, to claim that he owns the rights to his vast library of custom-made Link sprites is a legally indefensible position; however, if an original sprite or character is used in an otherwise Nintendo-derived game, then the sprite or character still belongs to the creator, despite that the rest of the game is in dangerous waters.

 

I think that that last point was the main source of contention.  I did not make it clear enough that intellectual property ought to be respected.  All of us do, as I see it, have a right decide what happens to our own creations.  Nevertheless, therein lies the contradiction: without express permission, we have ripped from, dissected, torn apart, and played Dr. Frankenstein with Nintendo's creation.  It seems to me that, as soon as we begin to play Dr. Frankenstein with another's creation, we must relinquish the right to keep our creations free of similar treatment, at least if we are to remain consistent.  This is why I have begun leaving all my quest files unpassworded.  Was Frankenstein's monster a man unto himself?  Did he own the rights to his various limbs and appendages?  It is an interesting question, to be sure, but perhaps beyond the scope of this discussion.

 

Having said that, I have no desire to use this program to circumvent the will of you or anyone else.  In fact, I will likely not use it, if only because I don't like the hosting website (seriously, people: Mediafire or Dropbox or gtfo).  My only point is that it seems both legally and morally indefensible to say 'this is my work, made of another's work, born of abuse of that work, but don't abuse it.'  It seems contradictory.

 

I encourage you to use ZC and to pour as much love as you will into it, but also to keep in mind that the product of your work shall not be something to which you own the rights.  Regardless of how much original content you make, if you use that bush from A Link to the Past, that dog from Link's Awakening, or that Goriya from The Legend of Zelda, (or arguably even the engine itself) you begin to tread on thin ice.  Your wholly original content will remain yours, but your rights end there.  There is a very good reason why no one sells quests made in Zelda Classic, why few people sell fangames at all: a fangame's existence is legally difficult in itself, but to claim rights to it is almost impossible.

 

EDIT: Man, the length and style of this post make me feel like ZoriaRPG.  Yes, I do already feel like I'm smoking a pipe while sitting on furniture of rich mahogany.

Edited by Geoffrey, 31 May 2014 - 06:30 PM.

[AviSoft]

[First post updated: new links; caution; ZG info]

 

[insert joke about "hot topic" vs the store chain]

 

Ok, after seeing a number of responses to ZeldaGrabber, I will try to tidy it up and release a version 'soon' (I'll make a thread for it).

Speaking of maps, I did try to enable maps on a quest where they weren't on. It showed up, but every screen is just blank white. I didn't poke around much further for a solution, as I thought it might be a version-limited feature, or I'd missed an important bit of "prerequisite" code.

[anikom15]

FWIW, if an IP holder fails to defend its property, it can lose rights to said property.

It's horrifically arbitrary, however.

Also, I should say that in my ethics, I believe everyone is entitled to their property, regardless of whether it's derivative or not. Saying it's okay to steal or hack illicit artwork because it's derivative is like saying that it's okay to break into a squatter's home because they don't own or pay for the rights to live there.

tl;dr: RESPECT

Edited by anikom15, 03 June 2014 - 09:29 AM.

[Avaro]

Ok, after seeing a number of responses to ZeldaGrabber, I will try to tidy it up and release a version 'soon' (I'll make a thread for it).

Speaking of maps, I did try to enable maps on a quest where they weren't on. It showed up, but every screen is just blank white. I didn't poke around much further for a solution, as I thought it might be a version-limited feature, or I'd missed an important bit of "prerequisite" code.

 

I thought ZeldaGrabber makes the maps by taking screenshots of every screen you visit, and then you could align the screens to make the map yourself.

Maybe I misunderstood your description of ZeldaGrabber in the first post though. But I won't encourage using the program if it shows screens you even haven't visited yet. Althought the F5 button basically does the same xD

Edited by Avataro, 03 June 2014 - 10:37 AM.

[AviSoft]

...Speaking of maps, I did try to enable maps on a quest where they weren't on. It showed up, but every screen is just blank white. I didn't poke around much further for a solution, as I thought it might be a version-limited feature, or I'd missed an important bit of "prerequisite" code.

 

That meant I attempted to enable the "Press spacebar for map" feature inside ZeldaClassic (trying to add a feature to ZeldaShark)...and failed.

 

ZeldaGrabber indeed works just like you originally thought.

[Timelord]

I look at thins in a very simple manner: Players will do what they please.

 

That's why the Game genie was so popular, and in fact, that's also why SMB-256W was a popular book in Japan. People enjoy breaking games, in creative ways, just to do it. People enjoy hacking games.

 

I have hacked Z3, to start with e Master Sword, to see what would happen; and I also hacked it, so that the rain effect played constantly. I hacked it, to bypass the sentry guards (before you rescue Zelda), and I hacked it to enter the Dark World before rescuing Zelda.

 

All of that, to determine what would happen, and to enjoy playing the game in very unusual circumstances. That didn't hurt the game developers in any way.

 

I see no point in being overly authoritative in this regard. if people want to decipher ZC encryption, to cheat; they will do that too. It's like publishing a book, and putting a mousetrap in the middle of each volume, in the event that people don't start from the beginning. In the end, people are going to do as they please; so adding extra, preventative measures, is simply pointless.

 

I am curious, as to how you (the author of ZShark) decrypted cheat codes in .qst files; specifically your methodology in producing a cypher.

 

(That stems from my personal interests in security, and cryptology.)

 

 

 

Regarding Cheat-Prevention

 

The better response, would be to evaluate why people want to cheat in a game, and try to fix any problems that are causing players to desire this.

 

(I personally don't even bother to set cheat codes, or quest passwords.)

 

I might go so far as to add a 'cheat' script into a game, that uses code sequences (button presses) to enable specific effects, in place of the normal cheat system. (Moosh Rush did something like this, for special item powers.) That's be homage to 8-bit gaming, more than anything else.

 

Some games, also have deliberately impossible difficulty, and many players can't enjoy them as-is. The developers can play them easily, mostly due to foreknowledge which is why extensive testing is usually best for game balancing. I don't know if you plan to have ZeldaShark enable cheats by type, but if you want to make something that enables cheats, I'd suggest allowing the player to select the cheat to enable.

 

As to these two programmes, Grabber would also be useful in bugtesting, and in quest development. I'd enjoy having that.

 

 

 

 

Having said that, I have no desire to use this program to circumvent the will of you or anyone else.  In fact, I will likely not use it, if only because I don't like the hosting website (seriously, people: Mediafire or Dropbox or gtfo).  My only point is that it seems both legally and morally indefensible to say 'this is my work, made of another's work, born of abuse of that work, but don't abuse it.'  It seems contradictory.

 

I encourage you to use ZC and to pour as much love as you will into it, but also to keep in mind that the product of your work shall not be something to which you own the rights.  Regardless of how much original content you make, if you use that bush from A Link to the Past, that dog from Link's Awakening, or that Goriya from The Legend of Zelda, (or arguably even the engine itself) you begin to tread on thin ice.  Your wholly original content will remain yours, but your rights end there.  There is a very good reason why no one sells quests made in Zelda Classic, why few people sell fangames at all: a fangame's existence is legally difficult in itself, but to claim rights to it is almost impossible.

 

EDIT: Man, the length and style of this post make me feel like ZoriaRPG.  Yes, I do already feel like I'm smoking a pipe while sitting on furniture of rich mahogany.

 

I have to concur with this. The majority of content that people can claim as original, is story elements; and if those story elements are tied to IP owned by a third party, then any claim on ownership, is meaningless.

 

Derivative works, cannot be claimed as original works, without a proper accord (e.g. licensing agreement) with the owner / creator of the original work. n the UK, authors own their work, even if produced for a third-party. For example, while the BBC owns Doctor Who, (the estate of) terry nation, owns The Daleks; and has both standard legal, and moral rights over them.

 

Every time that anyone uses Daleks ina  commercial production, they pay royalty rights to Terry Nation (estate), and likewise, the Terry nation Estate, can use Daleks without paying royalties to the BBC.

 

Anyone who wants to produce a work derivative of Zelda no Denetsu, and other Nintendo IP, has absolutely no legal claim, without an agreement with Nintendo Co, Ltd.; and may need agreements with creators of specific characters, and story elements in games (e.g. Miyamoto-san), beyond just the owner of the software.

 

That depends on if the creator has retained rights to their original work.

 

Anyone who feels that derivative work, is owned by them, lives in a fantasy world, where they merely desire to exert their control, rather than comprehending the nature of the real legalities involved. This is specifically why I only claim ownership of story elements, character names, and so forth, declaring exclusions (such as Daleks), and excluding the story as a whole. My reserved rights, are limited entirely to truly original content.

 

That means, the Saerosian Empire, the Zorian Empire, elements from my novels, elements from y RPG products, the character names, names and depictions of artefacts; and original characters; proper nouns, and so forth. Those are reserved as trade names, and intentionally copyrighted material that has tangible economic value; while the reserved rights are specifically declared to prevent ambiguity, whereas properties known to be owned by a third party are also declared, to the extent of information available.

 

I do however, also declare that not-for-profit derivative works are permissible. That's because the original content that I'm protecting, is from profit-based materials of my own creation; and because all of these protected ideas are previously published (worldwide) in some form. I need to protect that work, to preserve its value, as if work has no economic value, it's nearly impossible to protect it later.

 

If you fail to protect your IP, it's easy for others to later abuse it, because they can cite instances where you failed to uphold, and assert any rights you may have had.

 

A game engine, for the record, of this nature, is not subject to copyright. It;s subject to applicability to patent, but that opportunity has long passed. it would have been impossible for Nintendo to patent it in 1986, as other similar engines had already existed; and you can only patent an idea, or method; you can't copyright it.

 

As there exists no standing patent on this model, ZC isn't explicitly doing anything wrong with the game engine. Using original Nintendo graphics, and using derivative works is another matter, however, as Nintendo haven't made any action in fifteen years, they may have already jeopardised any potential future action to protect that IP.

 

I'm both shocked that Nintendo never tried to stop ZC back when it was first created; else, to buy it, and use it as a marketing tool.

 

P.S. Welcome to the world of in-depth, thought-provoking, and considered conversation.

Edited by ZoriaRPG, 18 June 2014 - 08:38 AM.

[AviSoft]

I am curious, as to how you (the author of ZShark) decrypted cheat codes in .qst files; specifically your methodology in producing a cypher.

 

(That stems from my personal interests in security, and cryptology.)

 

Oh, I didn't have to  ; ZC already has them decrypted and sitting, all in a row, in memory. (I'm pretty sure it just decrypts the whole qst file when opened and sits it in memory - I didn't scrutinize it, but that would be the simplest thing to do.) I can't help you much in methodology. For example, the way some programs do passwords/serials, a keygen writer could just "lift" the whole ASM block where an entry is encoded, then tested against acceptable passwords. Many times you might have to take the entire routine out and rewrite it to reverse the steps.

 

ZeldaGrabber update: I'm busy making a custom save file format for maps (easier to resume work on them later), and added a zoom feature. I may or may not put in an undo feature before i release an early version (the variety of changes that happens when something is modified is rather complex, and more difficult than just multiple image buffers). If I don't, or somehow breeze thru that, there may actually be a version posted soon (in the usual sense of the word  ).

I would have put that as my 'status' (or whatever is supposed to show up in my 'profile feed'), but apparently this forum doesn't have that enabled...?

[anikom15]

So passwords are completely useless. That's hilarious.

[chiefbigcalf]

After facing impassable screens in Sabotage Dragoon, I turned to ZeldaShark.  However, the "unknown version of Zelda classic" notification is highlighted.  I am using 2.10.  Any suggestions to get it to work??

[AviSoft]

After facing impassable screens in Sabotage Dragoon, I turned to ZeldaShark.  However, the "unknown version of Zelda classic" notification is highlighted.  I am using 2.10.  Any suggestions to get it to work??

 

Ok, that's weird, cause I definitely tested 2.10 -- I would've gotten it directly from zeldaclassic.com download page. If yours is from somewhere else, point me to it so I can add it. If not, check your zelda-w.exe and see that its size is 1707520 bytes (the size of the 2.10 version). It is the windows version, right, cause I didn't add any DOS versions to 'Shark.

In any case, I'll have to get a hold of whatever your version is to get the addresses.

Edited by AviSoft, 29 June 2014 - 03:50 AM.

[Gleeok]

Uh oh. You can cheat without cheating?... Hey, that's cheating! >_< So, if you are changing the value of an address in RAM, say cheat 4, why wouldn't a call to Game->Cheat return the result of that variable properly? ....

[Saffith]

There are multiple variables involved, for whatever reason. Game->Cheat checks gamedata::_cheat, but the cheat menu is actually activated by cheat and zcheats.flags.

[Frocks7Snee]

I like to use cheats sometimes, but only if I've beaten the game without them first. I played the game how the creator intended, and also got to have other experiences with the game. I think that most people would agree.