Forums of the Megaverse®

I just got the book and I realize there is more too it than this but on the surface I see it as Terminator meets Screemers who make a matrix in real life and are fought by Guyvers. What movies do you see? Only sci-fi anyone brings up Drama they get clubbed.

A robot apocalypse is one of the staples of great science fiction. I don't consider it a rip off because Carmen put such an original spin on it. No one has ever bothered fleshing out the personality of the robotic enemy. Not even in great movies like Terminator and Matirx. He gave a face to the enemy (7 actually) and logically addressed why such a superior force has been unable to wipe out the last of the meager human resistance. Despite people's posts about hundreds of holes in his logic, I think Carmen tied all the aspects of his world together perfectly. He brought together a bunch of genres like Zero Kay mentioned, and fused them together into something unique...much like Rifts.

Shadow_otm wrote:Every shooter is a rip-off of Doom. Every video game RPG is a rip-off of Final Fantasy. Every video game is a rip-off of Pong.

*shakes head*

Every shooter is a rip-off of Doom...if they used the same engine and graphics. Every video game RPG would be a rip off of Phantasy Star (which came first on the Sega Master system before Sony was even in the game). And again every video game would be a rip off of pong if it had two paddles on each side of the screen with a square ball that bounced back and forth.
Don't shake your head at me!
I guess I can't blame you. You'd have to know what Guyver was first.

Pg 149 art looks alot like a modified version of http://www.bioweapons.com/images/ProcessingTanks/Guyver3.JPG
It also exibits the forearm blades from page 96 the multi eye facet capability from page 77 and what you can't see on this one, you can see here http://www.bioweapons.com/images/ProcessingTanks/Guyver1ExtendedData.JPG The Omega Blaster described on page 102 and 103. Take a tour around the sight it is an excellent source if your not a verry good artist and are looking for a good image for your suit or if you need some ideas.

slappy wrote:A robot apocalypse is one of the staples of great science fiction. I don't consider it a rip off because Carmen put such an original spin on it. No one has ever bothered fleshing out the personality of the robotic enemy. Not even in great movies like Terminator and Matirx. He gave a face to the enemy (7 actually) and logically addressed why such a superior force has been unable to wipe out the last of the meager human resistance. Despite people's posts about hundreds of holes in his logic, I think Carmen tied all the aspects of his world together perfectly. He brought together a bunch of genres like Zero Kay mentioned, and fused them together into something unique...much like Rifts.

As I said before it wasn't a bad thing putting all the ideas together and making them one story is akin to Carl Macek taking Macross, SDC:SC and GC:MOSPEDA and turning into Robotech. I think my largest "issue", though like I said before I don't care because it's cool is how much was taken from Guyver.

It's our ability to innovate using existing ideas as a basis for new ones that allows our society - indeed, our very species - to function, grow and prosper. We should encourage such creativity, not repress it.

Unfortunately, we have a growing problem in our society, with powerful interests twisting copyright and patent law in an attempt to squeeze as much wealth as they can from their "original ideas." In the meanwhile, they are stifling the creative society that allowed them to succeed in the first place and endangering its future.

maasenstodt wrote:It's our ability to innovate using existing ideas as a basis for new ones that allows our society - indeed, our very species - to function, grow and prosper. We should encourage such creativity, not repress it.

Unfortunately, we have a growing problem in our society, with powerful interests twisting copyright and patent law in an attempt to squeeze as much wealth as they can from their "original ideas." In the meanwhile, they are stifling the creative society that allowed them to succeed in the first place and endangering its future.

It's not innovation, innovation http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=innovate is a higher order than invent, to invent something you can develop on something else. An innovation would be the wheel or fire or glass. Not taking an idea and modifying it and just calling it new.

Though your terminology is incorrect I agree that invention of "new" material off of old is neat and good. However credit should be given where credit is due at least on the obvious part. That would be the Guyver since so much was taken from there. The N.E.X.U.S. is a conglomeration of many and therefore at the same time none of the others. It is something bigger better and more interesting. Where as the Host Armor is a set of construction rules for building your own Guyver or Zoanoid.

Oh and you'll think the way you do until somone takes any of your unpublished work and then sells it as theirs leaving you as the pretender to the works creation. They need to be carefull though.

Battletech when it was first released used art derived from alot of Robotech artwork. Sure they gave it unique twists and stats and stories. But not enough for the courts to consider it original art work. Now the art in Splicers is definately original, if not in some places uninspired, but I'm worried that it will be concept rather than art in this case. Now as I said N.E.X.U.S. is unique enough to escape it but the suits, dangerous.

maasenstodt wrote:It's our ability to innovate using existing ideas as a basis for new ones that allows our society - indeed, our very species - to function, grow and prosper. We should encourage such creativity, not repress it.

Unfortunately, we have a growing problem in our society, with powerful interests twisting copyright and patent law in an attempt to squeeze as much wealth as they can from their "original ideas." In the meanwhile, they are stifling the creative society that allowed them to succeed in the first place and endangering its future.

The stuff about endangering its future is BS. The light bulb, phonograph, AC and DC power were all pattented. It's called all forms of pattent, copyright, trademark etc. are liscensed for a limited time after which they must be renewed or become public domain.

Zer0 Kay wrote:It's not innovation, innovation http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=innovate is a higher order than invent, to invent something you can develop on something else. An innovation would be the wheel or fire or glass. Not taking an idea and modifying it and just calling it new...
Oh and you'll think the way you do until somone takes any of your unpublished work and then sells it as theirs leaving you as the pretender to the works creation.

I'll refrain from arguing on matters of semantics. If you would prefer to substitute invent for innovate in my previous post, have at it.

On the other hand, you presume too much to tell me what I will think under any circumstance. Having studied this area of law and society, and having in that process moved from a position of copyright absolution to my current view, I can assure you that without a significant change in our society, I will continue to work for limits [note: not abolishment, but limits] to intellectual property protections.

Zer0 Kay wrote:I just got the book and I realize there is more too it than this but on the surface it is Terminator meets Screemers makes a matrix in real life and are fought by Guyvers. Anyone agree? Disagree?

Splicers may be loosely inspired by the above but it is hardly theft or copyright infringement.

Tinker Dragoon wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:I just got the book and I realize there is more too it than this but on the surface it is Terminator meets Screemers makes a matrix in real life and are fought by Guyvers. Anyone agree? Disagree?

Splicers may be loosely inspired by the above but it is hardly theft or copyright infringement.

Loosely inspired by Screamers, Terminator and the Matrix I can agree with. Heavily Inspired by Guyver though. Did you go to the websites in some of my responses?

Maybe theft was too harsh of a word. How about swipe, insperation, conglomeration, blending?

maasenstodt wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:It's not innovation, innovation http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=innovate is a higher order than invent, to invent something you can develop on something else. An innovation would be the wheel or fire or glass. Not taking an idea and modifying it and just calling it new...
Oh and you'll think the way you do until somone takes any of your unpublished work and then sells it as theirs leaving you as the pretender to the works creation.

I'll refrain from arguing on matters of semantics. If you would prefer to substitute invent for innovate in my previous post, have at it.

On the other hand, you presume too much to tell me what I will think under any circumstance. Having studied this area of law and society, and having in that process moved from a position of copyright absolution to my current view, I can assure you that without a significant change in our society, I will continue to work for limits [note: not abolishment, but limits] to intellectual property protections.

Pardon my presumptions, but I can tell you what you think, I'd just be wrong. As far as arguing semantics how can your side be argued when it is against the definition? I agree with the limits though. Your right about the ridiculousness of some assumptions people make on the laws. Like McFarlane and Nightspawn being to close to his Hellspawn. I didn't think you could copy right a common word. So is McFarlane goign to sue Alaskan Salmon every time they go upstream to reproduce?

Zer0 Kay wrote:The stuff about endangering its future is BS. The light bulb, phonograph, AC and DC power were all pattented. It's called all forms of pattent, copyright, trademark etc. are liscensed for a limited time after which they must be renewed or become public domain.

It is that "limited time" matter that is one of the key elements of this issue. Whereas upon the dawn of the 20th century, copyrights were limited to 14+14 years, they now stand at Life+70 years or, for works for hire, 95 years. In other words, today, virtually nobody who sees the creation of a work will ever have the chance to use it in the public domain. And at the rate copyrights are being extended, we may well be heading towards a society where copyrights are forever. We must ask where is the "limit" that you're referring to, and which is demanded by our very Constitution?

I hope that you can at least imagine how that kind of protectionism harms our society. We live in a much different world today than that in which "The light bulb, phonograph, AC and DC power were all pattented." If you are familiar with the information technology / software development industries, then you can surely recognize the battles that are being waged as a result of these changes. A great example is the ongoing legal contest between SCO and major Linux developers over the use of open source code.

Please understand that I'm not advocating the elimination of copyright, patent or trademark law. Rather, I'm simply reacting to an assault on the way that our society operates by entrenched business interests. Their weapon is the legislation that they have bought. Having weighed the concerns of all sides, I have decided to fight back - not to wipe out those businesses, but rather to live in a free society.

Intellectual property protection is important, but no less essential are the limitations that must be placed upon it.

Zer0 Kay wrote:Pardon my presumptions, but I can tell you what you think, I'd just be wrong. As far as arguing semantics how can your side be argued when it is against the definition? I agree with the limits though. Your right about the ridiculousness of some assumptions people make on the laws. Like McFarlane and Nightspawn being to close to his Hellspawn. I didn't think you could copy right a common word. So is McFarlane goign to sue Alaskan Salmon every time they go upstream to reproduce?

Regarding presumptions, I suppose that you are correct. I would simply prefer, for your own benefit entirely, that you didn't make incorrect statements.

As for the Nightspawn issue, I think you've identified a good example of a problem in the RPG industry resulting from this increasingly litigious, protected society in which we live.

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Tinker Dragoon wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:I just got the book and I realize there is more too it than this but on the surface it is Terminator meets Screemers makes a matrix in real life and are fought by Guyvers. Anyone agree? Disagree?

Splicers may be loosely inspired by the above but it is hardly theft or copyright infringement.

Loosely inspired by Screamers, Terminator and the Matrix I can agree with. Heavily Inspired by Guyver though. Did you go to the websites in some of my responses?

Maybe theft was too harsh of a word. How about swipe, insperation, conglomeration, blending?

I prefer coincidence. As to the artwork, it's not at all unusual for artists to be inspired by and emulate the styles of their forebears.

Plenty of Kevin Long's old mecha designs greatly resemble those in MADOX-01. That doesn't mean he ripped them off, just that he imitated the techniques of Japanese mechanical designers so that his designs were stylistically identical but nevertheless original.

Tinker Dragoon wrote:I prefer coincidence. As to the artwork, it's not at all unusual for artists to be inspired by and emulate the styles of their forebears.

Plenty of Kevin Long's old mecha designs greatly resemble those in MADOX-01. That doesn't mean he ripped them off, just that he imitated the techniques of Japanese mechanical designers so that his designs were stylistically identical but nevertheless original.

It's possible, though I think unlikely, that they have similar styles purely by coincidence. Likewise, I think that calling them swiped or any word with an air of negativity is inappropriate. To me, they are, in all likelihood, simply derivative. That makes them neither good nor bad by their nature but instead places the focus on their own quality.

My own view is that the art in Splicers is fine. There was nothing that wowed me but nothing that I found to be a waste of space. In short, the artwork served its purpose adequately, though not exceptionally.

I thought the art was great actually. I think Palladium artwork has been slipping lately and this book was a major redemption.

maasenstodt wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:The stuff about endangering its future is BS. The light bulb, phonograph, AC and DC power were all pattented. It's called all forms of pattent, copyright, trademark etc. are liscensed for a limited time after which they must be renewed or become public domain.

It is that "limited time" matter that is one of the key elements of this issue. Whereas upon the dawn of the 20th century, copyrights were limited to 14+14 years, they now stand at Life+70 years or, for works for hire, 95 years. In other words, today, virtually nobody who sees the creation of a work will ever have the chance to use it in the public domain. And at the rate copyrights are being extended, we may well be heading towards a society where copyrights are forever. We must ask where is the "limit" that you're referring to, and which is demanded by our very Constitution?

I hope that you can at least imagine how that kind of protectionism harms our society. We live in a much different world today than that in which "The light bulb, phonograph, AC and DC power were all pattented." If you are familiar with the information technology / software development industries, then you can surely recognize the battles that are being waged as a result of these changes. A great example is the ongoing legal contest between SCO and major Linux developers over the use of open source code.

Please understand that I'm not advocating the elimination of copyright, patent or trademark law. Rather, I'm simply reacting to an assault on the way that our society operates by entrenched business interests. Their weapon is the legislation that they have bought. Having weighed the concerns of all sides, I have decided to fight back - not to wipe out those businesses, but rather to live in a free society.

Intellectual property protection is important, but no less essential are the limitations that must be placed upon it.

I had never realized it had changed. Wow that is way too freakin long. I can understand a copyright that long only to give credit to the creator, but to disallow anyone from altering the work for fear of law suits requireing monitary reperations is ridiculous. To whom with that much time you'd be paying it to his children. Though his children may have the right to any money made off of his original works there should be nothing stoping others from making modifications or adaptations off of the concepts. However I would still disagree with any modification that would allow someone to take the same work slap a new cover on it and call it theirs.

When you put it that way I must agree.

maasenstodt wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Pardon my presumptions, but I can tell you what you think, I'd just be wrong. As far as arguing semantics how can your side be argued when it is against the definition? I agree with the limits though. Your right about the ridiculousness of some assumptions people make on the laws. Like McFarlane and Nightspawn being to close to his Hellspawn. I didn't think you could copy right a common word. So is McFarlane goign to sue Alaskan Salmon every time they go upstream to reproduce?

Regarding presumptions, I suppose that you are correct. I would simply prefer, for your own benefit entirely, that you didn't make incorrect statements.

As for the Nightspawn issue, I think you've identified a good example of a problem in the RPG industry resulting from this increasingly litigious, protected society in which we live.

It is unfortunate that we live in the most litigious country on the planet. With many of the law makers show no use of common sense. People who spill hot coffee on themselves are still able to sue companies. In England they have passed common sense laws where this can not happen. I guess with a court of peers though, if the "peers" are stupid enough to find for the plaintiff then it is still better than the judge being judge and jury.

Zer0 Kay wrote:

maasenstodt wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Pardon my presumptions, but I can tell you what you think, I'd just be wrong. As far as arguing semantics how can your side be argued when it is against the definition? I agree with the limits though. Your right about the ridiculousness of some assumptions people make on the laws. Like McFarlane and Nightspawn being to close to his Hellspawn. I didn't think you could copy right a common word. So is McFarlane goign to sue Alaskan Salmon every time they go upstream to reproduce?

Regarding presumptions, I suppose that you are correct. I would simply prefer, for your own benefit entirely, that you didn't make incorrect statements.

As for the Nightspawn issue, I think you've identified a good example of a problem in the RPG industry resulting from this increasingly litigious, protected society in which we live.

It is unfortunate that we live in the most litigious country on the planet. With many of the law makers show no use of common sense. People who spill hot coffee on themselves are still able to sue companies. In England they have passed common sense laws where this can not happen. I guess with a court of peers though, if the "peers" are stupid enough to find for the plaintiff then it is still better than the judge being judge and jury.

Hey now, what other country would let you patent the combover? That's got to count for something

thagema wrote:

slappy wrote:A robot apocalypse is one of the staples of great science fiction. I don't consider it a rip off because Carmen put such an original spin on it. No one has ever bothered fleshing out the personality of the robotic enemy. Not even in great movies like Terminator and Matirx. He gave a face to the enemy (7 actually) and logically addressed why such a superior force has been unable to wipe out the last of the meager human resistance. Despite people's posts about hundreds of holes in his logic, I think Carmen tied all the aspects of his world together perfectly. He brought together a bunch of genres like Zero Kay mentioned, and fused them together into something unique...much like Rifts.

Ditto. Well said slappy!

Ha! I Ditto your Ditto!! I speak to you with this ridiculous French Accent!!!! I fart in your general direction!!!!!!

Its completely probable that between all 6 billion of us, that somebody, somewhere, somewhen, has already thought of everything we humans can imagine, in one form or another...and we therefore are all stealing, after a fashion, whether we are conscious of it or not.

That 6 000 year old book of the Old Testament called Ecclesiastes was ahead of its time. It's the book which coined the phrase "...there is nothing new under the Sun....."

Zer0 Kay, there may be things similar between my Host Armors and the armor shown in Guyver (now that I took the time to rent it, after reading your posts) but my armors dont disappear, they dont come from some space thing and the armor I use are the shape they are because they are trying to mimic power armor with biotech. Since we are all humans - two arms, two legs and a head, the armors will have some similarities, but the Host Armors only have to look like a Guyver suit if you the player wish to. You can add arms, tenticles, wings, a snake body, etc., etc., etc. if anything I would say that Guyver stuff is way limited and simplistic.
Thanks Carmen.

Zer0 Kay wrote: Pg 149 art looks alot like a modified version of http://www.bioweapons.com/images/ProcessingTanks/Guyver3.JPG
It also exibits the forearm blades from page 96 the multi eye facet capability from page 77 and what you can't see on this one, you can see here http://www.bioweapons.com/images/ProcessingTanks/Guyver1ExtendedData.JPG The Omega Blaster described on page 102 and 103. Take a tour around the sight it is an excellent source if your not a verry good artist and are looking for a good image for your suit or if you need some ideas.

check out the Aptom pics here for how the insect wings might look.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stephen.da ... DF/VDF.htm

Alot of the Zoanoids could be used to base some carnivore armors on, or even a few new War Mounts.

Tinker Dragoon wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

maasenstodt wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Pardon my presumptions, but I can tell you what you think, I'd just be wrong. As far as arguing semantics how can your side be argued when it is against the definition? I agree with the limits though. Your right about the ridiculousness of some assumptions people make on the laws. Like McFarlane and Nightspawn being to close to his Hellspawn. I didn't think you could copy right a common word. So is McFarlane goign to sue Alaskan Salmon every time they go upstream to reproduce?

Regarding presumptions, I suppose that you are correct. I would simply prefer, for your own benefit entirely, that you didn't make incorrect statements.

As for the Nightspawn issue, I think you've identified a good example of a problem in the RPG industry resulting from this increasingly litigious, protected society in which we live.

It is unfortunate that we live in the most litigious country on the planet. With many of the law makers show no use of common sense. People who spill hot coffee on themselves are still able to sue companies. In England they have passed common sense laws where this can not happen. I guess with a court of peers though, if the "peers" are stupid enough to find for the plaintiff then it is still better than the judge being judge and jury.

Hey now, what other country would let you patent the combover? That's got to count for something

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
That is just wrong now there needs to be an emote for a combover or a bad hairpice :ratwig:

cornholio wrote:Its completely probable that between all 6 billion of us, that somebody, somewhere, somewhen, has already thought of everything we humans can imagine, in one form or another...and we therefore are all stealing, after a fashion, whether we are conscious of it or not.

That 6 000 year old book of the Old Testament called Ecclesiastes was ahead of its time. It's the book which coined the phrase "...there is nothing new under the Sun....."

That's all nice but there is a difference. Yeah and out of those 6 billion I'm sure they see their idea in print and say "you know I thought this up two years ago", but they don't then release the same idea with a bunch of others and then deny they have any corrilation.

Beast-Guyver wrote:the only direct simularities i can find between host armor and the guyver is the omega blaster/chest cannon any of the other simularities are simply part of human nature. BTW carmen the guyver suit is stored in subspace. . there is a pod of some sort in the back of his neck that opens the hole into subspace allowing the suit to move back and forth.

as for the siularities to multipule sorces ' taking from one source is plagerisim takin from multipule sources is reseach' . . god i love that quote

wear did that quote come from? besides I thoght it was plagerism if you didn't give credit to the author.

TechnoGothic wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote: Pg 149 art looks alot like a modified version of http://www.bioweapons.com/images/ProcessingTanks/Guyver3.JPG
It also exibits the forearm blades from page 96 the multi eye facet capability from page 77 and what you can't see on this one, you can see here http://www.bioweapons.com/images/ProcessingTanks/Guyver1ExtendedData.JPG The Omega Blaster described on page 102 and 103. Take a tour around the sight it is an excellent source if your not a verry good artist and are looking for a good image for your suit or if you need some ideas.

check out the Aptom pics here for how the insect wings might look.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stephen.da ... DF/VDF.htm

Alot of the Zoanoids could be used to base some carnivore armors on, or even a few new War Mounts.

I like that web page alot better. Here is a picture with Enzyme III's wings http://www.bioweapons.com/images/ProcessingTanks/Enzyme3.jpg
Thanks! Oh don't forget the description of the forearm blade too though I could understand how that could be coincidence since many fighting styles will use a sword or knife held along the forearm.

Again I say I used to harsh of words. I should have done the post as "Does anyone see simularities between splicers and Terminator, Screamer (insert rest of movies here). What movies to you relate this too?" But once the topic goes up...can it be changed?

Yes, if you are the one who started the thread. Simply go back to the orignal thread and click on the word "edit" in your post (top right corner of the post), then simply edit your "subject" line.

check this out

http://www.hlj.com/images/max/max06009.jpg

new guyver toys/action figures
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stephen.da ... oy/toy.htm

The Deific NMI wrote:

Again I say I used to harsh of words. I should have done the post as "Does anyone see simularities between splicers and Terminator, Screamer (insert rest of movies here). What movies to you relate this too?" But once the topic goes up...can it be changed?

Yes, if you are the one who started the thread. Simply go back to the orignal thread and click on the word "edit" in your post (top right corner of the post), then simply edit your "subject" line.

already did but thanks.

TechnoGothic wrote:check this out

http://www.hlj.com/images/max/max06009.jpg

new guyver toys/action figures
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stephen.da ... oy/toy.htm

To quote Cartman "Hella' cool"