Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

The Simpsons Game Tweaks Gaming Companies 61

Posted by Zonk from the grow-a-sense-of-humor dept.
While some companies have embraced their games' parodies (like SOE and NeverQuest), others are less pleased by the sincerest form of flattery. Specifically, some of the folks at Rockstar were less than pleased by the 'Grand Theft Scratchy: Blood Island' portion of the game. "'I was always under the impression that when you do parody, it's a sign of respect... If we make fun of Grand Theft Auto, we're not going to hurt the sales of Grand Theft Auto... But yeah, we've definitely had some reactions - we've had to pull stuff from the game', The Simpsons lead designer Greg Rizzer revealed to us in an interview earlier this week. 'But that's cool to me', Rizzer continued. 'It's cool to still know, I feel, that the industry's been waiting for a game like this to come along. It's been too long since we really had one, and of course [there's] The Simpsons being the perfect vehicle to poke fun at the games industry.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Simpsons Game Tweaks Gaming Companies More

The Simpsons Game Tweaks Gaming Companies

Comments Filter:

  • Typical (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MyLongNickName ( 822545 ) on Friday October 05, 2007 @09:06AM (#20867167) Journal
    The folks who scream the most about their "art" being protected by the First Amendment are the first to scream when someone uses that First Amendment to make fun of them.
    • It is about time someone took the mickey out of some of these games. They are just games for Jebus sake. The Simpsons is probably the only franchise that could get away with it as it takes the mickey out of most things.

    • The folks who scream the most about their "art" being protected by the First Amendment are the first to scream when someone uses that First Amendment to make fun of them.

      That Simpsons Hit & Run game was pretty much a GTA 3 clone set in Springfield, with the underground crime syndicates removed for Simpsons storyline institutions. If that game never came out it'd be easier to say this game is just parody.

      It's like the developers consistantly entrusted with the brand name have realized they can't make a Simpsons game that doesn't suck so they lifted the gameplay from the massively popular GTA... and no one batted an eyelash at it. Now they've taken it one step further to

    • Re:Typical (Score:5, Informative)

      by XenoPhage ( 242134 ) on Friday October 05, 2007 @09:36AM (#20867551) Homepage

      The folks who scream the most about their "art" being protected by the First Amendment are the first to scream when someone uses that First Amendment to make fun of them.
      From TFA : " At this year's Games Convention in Leipzig, someone took offence at a poster for 'Grand Theft Scratchy', one of the levels in the game, and asked that it be taken down. "

      So it looks like it was a poster that got taken down? I know they say they had to take stuff out of the game as well, but I'd like to see more info on what was removed and who requested it before I jump to conclusions..

      Again, from TFA : " "I don't know who specifically at Rockstar", Rizzer said. "I'm guessing probably more than anyone it was a lawyer. The people who work on that product, I doubt they were like, 'Stop that!'". "

      So I guess they don't even know who it was that asked for the content to be removed ... Odd... He does state that it *was* Rockstar, though... Sounds like a case of someone jumping to conclusions at Rockstar.....
    • Someone needed to make fun of Rockstar, considering the garbage otherwise known as GTA that they fostered on the public. Screw 'em if they can't take a joke.
    • Please mail all the stale donuts you can find to:

      Rock Star Games
      622 Broadway
      New York, NY 10012
      Attention: Sam Houser, President

      2 cents,

      QueenB.

    • Take2 nd Rockstar are very litigious (Score:5, Informative)

      by cliffski ( 65094 ) on Friday October 05, 2007 @10:25AM (#20868275) Homepage
      I know this to my cost. take this game:
      http://www.rocklegendgame.com/ [rocklegendgame.com]
      originally it was called Kudos : Rock Star. This is because it was a game about rock stars. Hence the name. It was always going to be a small budget indie turn-based family friendly strategy game. hardly anything that people might confuse with a game made by RockStar games.
      That wasn't good enough for Take 2, who basically threatened to sue me into oblivion, after apparently reading a blog post of mine when I mentioned that I had bought rockstargame.com in preparation for my new game.

      **Take 2's lawyers have time to read the blogs of indie game devs to look for potential targets.**

      Amazingly they thought I could cause 'serious financial harm' to their billion dollar company, yet had not spent the $25 to buy the domain name themselves.
      Even more amazingly, they didn't realise that take 2 actually had an existing biz deal with me for one of my previous games. Rather than phone me, or get the relevant dev relations guy to email me and ask me if I would change the name, their lawyers sent me a threatening letter.
      I sold them the domain at cost. As a small company, I had no choice. I renamed the game, as I had no choice.
      Good old take 2!
    • "The folks who scream the most about their "art" being protected by the First Amendment are the first to scream when someone uses that First Amendment to make fun of them."

      Yeah, but their right to bitch is also protected. :P
    • Remember, RockStar is a company of crazy rebels who buck the system. They are renegades! They take no bs from the man!

      Unless of course someone makes fun of them then they go crying to the man.

  • Can't wait for Sitar Hero (Score:5, Informative)

    by SpeedyDX ( 1014595 ) <speedyphoenix&gmail,com> on Friday October 05, 2007 @09:10AM (#20867191)
    FTA:

    "I don't know if you've seen Sitar Hero? We did Apu playing this 60-button controller and songs like Pour Some Curry On Me - we made this wonderful parody poster and the guys from Harmonix loved it and we sent them 20 copies of the poster. They just loved it so much."
    Nice to see Harmonix embraced the parody. I hope they release the "Pour Some Curry On Me" track as part of their marketing campaign.

    Anyway, this might be the first time since Jack Thompson came on the scene that anyone's going to have anything bad to say about Rockstar! They shunned the Simpsons! THE SIMPSONS! That's worse than blasphemy around here!
    • Can be found in this video [google.com].

      • Can be found in this video [google.com].

        So we get like one brief glimpse of the top of the poster, the "Sitar Hero" text, and that's it? I had to skim through the video 'cause I couldn't stand listening to that woman impersonating Olive Oyl impersonating Laura Petrie impersonating Marge Simpson, so I don't know if I missed anything...

        I wonder if HMX has their Sitar Hero posters up in their offices? Maybe I can get in to help play-test a game sometime and find out. :D

  • huh? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by wellingtonsteve ( 892855 )
    "we've had to pull stuff from the game"

    Are parodies not protected under USA law?

    Or that only apply to music.. Weird Al seems to do OK..

    • Re:huh? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Friday October 05, 2007 @09:16AM (#20867269) Journal
      Parodies are protected by law, but your life will be a whole lot easier if you don't have to defend yourself in court. So most people who do parodies professionally try to get permission. If you look around a bit you'll find a number of people who have even refused Weird Al permission to parody them. Coolio springs to mind. I can't imagine why they'd object though, it would be an honor to be ripped on by Al.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by hedwards ( 940851 )

        Coolio springs to mind. I can't imagine why they'd object though, it would be an honor to be ripped on by Al.

        Sometimes an artist will be touchy about a single track being parodied, especially if it is some sort of tribute.

        Coolio and Weird Al are normally on good terms, Coolio was just upset that that particular song was parodied. Mostly because it was a tribute to all those that have fallen due to inner city violence.

        That isn't always the case, some artists will object just because they aren't being paid for it.

        • Or do you simply know WAAAAAAAY too much about Coolio and Weird Al?

        • Coolio got bent out of shape that Weird Al did a parody of "Gangster Paradise"? Huh? Coolio just took Stevie Wonder's "Pastime Paradise" and changed one word from the chorus, and rewrote the verses. Weird Al did the same thing. He's pissed that Weird Al did the same thing he did?

          Of course, Stevie actually sang, and the drums and bass were actual instruments played by real musicians.

          Stevie should be the one who's pissed.
           

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by MyLongNickName ( 822545 )
      Al gets permission first even though he doesn't need it. Eminem, also known for his "my stuff is protected by free speech so bite me" has refused Al the right to make videos spoofing him and his appearance. this despite Eminem spoofing many other famous folks in his videos.

      Coolio once refused Al a video, but it somehow got mixed up in the translation, and Al got an "okay".

      Prince also refused Al, shortly before he baceme known as the "artist formerly known".

      • Al gets permission first even though he doesn't need it.quote>

        It also helps that all the parodied songs get a cut of profits. The "polka" mixes pay out residuals literally in preportion to the percentage of the whole track devoted to parodying their song.

        Coolio once refused Al a video, but it somehow got mixed up in the translation, and Al got an "okay".

        That whole "Al gets permission" is an abstraction: his people call the parody target's people and cut the deal. While Coolio may have said no, his people said go ahead. IIRC, Al's people still sends the checks out for his cut of profits and they all get cashed anyway.

  • from tfa (Score:1, Redundant)

    by theMerovingian ( 722983 )

    I don't know if you've seen Sitar Hero? We did Apu playing this 60-button controller and songs like Pour Some Curry On Me - we made this wonderful parody poster and the guys from Harmonix loved it and we sent them 20 copies of the poster.

  • Hot donut (Score:2, Funny)

    by joaeri ( 583880 )
    I wonder if they are going all the way in this so we will get a 'Hot donut' section in The Simpsons game? Homer getting freaky with his favorit donut and a good 'adult only' rating.
  • For some sweet cat/mouse lurving!!
  • I thought Rockstar was the cool game company. The one that says "Dude, don't worry about it. It's OK to step on a few toes."

    • Re:Rockstar, I thought you were cool (Score:5, Funny)

      by Shadowmist ( 57488 ) on Friday October 05, 2007 @09:23AM (#20867359)
      .... As long as it's not ours."

      I finished your quote. :)
    • Rockstar lost their cool when they started charging over $2/song for Guitar Hero II, including songs that were already available for GH1.

      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Rockstar lost their cool when they started charging over $2/song for Guitar Hero II, including songs that were already available for GH1.

        Excuse me? What?

        Rockstar??? Guitar Hero???

        I believe Harmonix released GH2, while Rockstar has done (mostly)GTA and Table Tennis.

        As for Rockstar not being favorable to this, they can go take a flying leap. I liked the GTA3 series of games. I will not be playing the GTA4 series as I do not think I will be buying a next gen console. However, Rockstar, needs to grow up in
        • Perhaps he was confused by the name. It certainly is quite ironic, to me at least, that a company called, "RockStar Games" would be almost completely devoid of any offerings featuring music as a main theme.

  • Pot vs Kettle (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Friday October 05, 2007 @09:23AM (#20867351) Homepage Journal
    For those unfamiliar with Rockstar, they're the company that make those GTA games featuring mass quantities of pop-culture parody in the background of just about every scene.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by masticina ( 1001851 )
      I agree I mean why should rockstar, who self parodies realities on their radio and in their missions. And pretty much whole of the game actually has to have troubles with something that parodies merily a minor part out of the what they self do.

      I mean listen to the radio in GTA games..it is not only cracking but in ways it is horribly accurate of the feelings of the time the game plays in!
  • "I was always under the impression that when you do parody, it's a sign of respect...

    That's an interesting point of view. I don't agree with it, though. Most parodies are not respectful, and I don't think they should be.

    • parody vs. satire (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I feel satire is disrespectful, as it implies presenting something you don't like in a negative (but humourous) way, so as to highlight its faults. On the other hand, you can very well parody something you like very much. Putting Rugrat characters in a Star Wars setting would be parody, and I don't think it could be seen as disrespectful.

  • Rockstar vs EA (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Floritard ( 1058660 ) on Friday October 05, 2007 @09:40AM (#20867597)
    I don't think it's necessarily that the Simpsons are doing the parody. I think it has more to do with the game's publisher. EA is quite the behemoth, and if I were Rockstar I wouldn't want them anywhere near my IP either. I'm pretty sure anyone at Rockstar with human blood coursing through their veins (read: everyone sans legal/corporate) is honored to have the Simpsons pay tribute, and everyone knows there's plenty of parody in the GTA games themselves of all sorts of pop culture. I'd almost think they wouldn't mind such a thing from a lesser company, but you certainly don't want something as big a competitor as EA thinking they have free reign.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by seebs ( 15766 )
      That's stupid. Letting someone do a parody (which you have no real choice about, ultimately) has no impact on your IP rights.

      This is like saying that it makes sense for Rockstar to demand that people from EA not drive within three miles of their building, because there's so many EA employees that if they all parked in the Rockstar parking lots, there wouldn't be any spaces left.
  • Perhaps the issue is that The Simpsons: Hit And Run already ripped off the core GTA gameplay and satirized it, and Rockstar think it's time for The Simpsons to do something different.

    • Re:Simpsons: Hit And Run (Score:4, Insightful)

      by wpegden ( 931091 ) on Friday October 05, 2007 @10:01AM (#20867925)

      Perhaps the issue is that The Simpsons: Hit And Run already ripped off the core GTA gameplay and satirized it, and Rockstar think it's time for The Simpsons to do something different.
      Sure. Except that the whole point of the freedom of speech is that other people don't get to decide for you what you should be saying.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Peyna ( 14792 )
        Copyright was in the Constitution before the freedom of speech.
        • Possibly because freedom of speech is only in the bill of rights to make absolutely clear that we citizens are not giving the government that authority. The right comes from us not the constitution and we've elected to keep it for ourselves rather than make it subject to government authority. The first amendment doesn't give you freedom of speech, you already had that. It says we refuse to give the government any authority to interfere with what we already have. In theory it's unnecessary but the framer

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Peyna ( 14792 )
            Of course, there was no absolute guarantee what would be in the Bill of Rights when the Constitution was signed, and the wording of it changed quite a bit and many proposals never saw the light of day.

            If you're really interested, you should read the early Annals of Congress containing the debates on the Bill of Rights. There was some discussion about whether the Bill of Rights should be incorporated into the document as it stood, tacked on at the end in a list, or added at the beginning. In the end, they
        • So what?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mog007 ( 677810 )
          But the right to freedom of speech existed long before the concept of copyright.
    • Itchy & Scratchy cartoon [youtube.com] exclusive to that game.

  • "I don't know who specifically at Rockstar", Rizzer said. "I'm guessing probably more than anyone it was a lawyer. The people who work on that product, I doubt they were like, 'Stop that!'".
    So it seems as though the people who MATTER at Rockstar had nothing to do with it.

  • PC (Score:2)

    by mqduck ( 232646 )
    Anyone know if there's any chance of this being released on PC? Please, EA?
  • Gee.. ROCKSTAR is doing this? The same Rockstar that has borrowed from numerous sources for their games (Cluckin' Bell, LIPS FM, etc. just off the top of my head.. ) and of course, the obvious parody of Jack Thompson..

    Rockstar should be the LAST ONES bitching about people doing parodies..
  • Look at http://www.losdisneys.com/ [losdisneys.com]
    Its free for Linux, Mac and Windows.
    The important part is still "free".
    And open source :-)

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close