Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Could Halo have come up with something a little less GW-ish than "Forgeworld" for it's level builder? This might just be coincidence, and it might just be that I don't like the Halo games, but it seems like a lot of things rip off of those few nuggets of originality that GW has. See virtually anything that Blizzard has ever produced. Now I'm not saying that GW has never ripped off of anyone. They do it all the time. Sometimes it's a bit tongue-in-cheek, such as naming all the Lizardmen special character mounts after the Dinobots, and sometimes it's a bit more overt, like Tyranids, Space Marines, and half of WHFB. But I am tired of people getting into the hobby and saying "Man, those Orks are totally just a rip-off of WoW."
I dunno, just my $.02.

I see your perspective and I agree, but it reaches farther back than that.

Older players will know MANY references from Warhammer that were homages, or rip offs, or lifts or whatever you want to call them that predate examples of people lifting GW work (like forgeworld).

I think 'kid kyoto' (perhaps ???) once posted a thread with side by side artwork that predated many codex covers and basically showed nearly lifted designs for most of the GW concepts from gurps covers, and other pre dated sources, especially for Necrons and Tau.

Also fiction lifts borrow very heavily from a variety of sources that predate the entire GW lexicon, for example:

Warhammer wasn't on the scene till 1983:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_Fantasy_Battle

This is often credited to be the father of the Space Marines Concept:

Starship Troopers by Robert Hienlien (1956)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers

The entire Concept of Chaos may have been borrowed from the Elric Saga and the Tales of the Eternal Champions by Michael Moorcok:

Storm Bringer by Michael Moorcok (1965)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elric

Of course Lord of the Rings Generally paved the way for the Entire Fantasy Genre, including DnD and of course Warhammer much later, including High Elves, Wood Elves and Especially Orks (depicted as brutish and un intelligent.

Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien 1954 (started in 1937)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Rings

These are just some of the big and obvious ones, there are a lot more.

Its interesting to learn the history check these works out if you haven't already they are all great reads! Hopefully everyone is already familiar with them.

In final comment, please understand the humor in a claim like 'Halo ripped off GW for Forgeworld', or 'Warcraft ripped off Warhammer' in a scope that includes homages to original fictional works that are over 50 years old. Which could be interpreted as comical in it's short sightedness.

I prefer to think that each generation revisits great stories and puts their own fresh perspective on them, and we as gamers and lovers of the art should welcome these fresh interpretations!

Warcraft did rip off Warhammer though. That and the Starcraft ripoff(oh sorry, "homage") have been well-known for awhile now.

However, what else should you call a level builder where you're literally forging worlds from scratch?

"Level Builder"? "World Maker"? Those all sound pretty trashy.

Ok, halo made this feature called "Forge" where you could edit maps etc. Now they have expanded it into an actual "world" so they just went.. Well we have a forge in a world.. lets call it "Forge World".

Shouldn't really get fussed out about it.

I'd say the Halo bit is coincidence. Could be a loving homage from a 40K fan on the dev team, but I rather doubt it. If GW had never started using the term, it's not unlikely that someone would've tried to put "scifi" and "creation" together and came out with "forgeworld." You know how GW is - if they haven't sued, it's because Bungie's legal dept. is bigger than theirs is. But they'd still throw a hissy fit.

I'd say that both scifi and fantasy works are about 60% derivative, 35% coincidentally similar, and 5% utterly ridiculous (due to a quality-slaughtering insistence on total originality). Of course Blizzard and GW draw inspiration from common sources, as well as each other. However, each company has injected a dose of personality into their respective races and, while there is a good deal of commonality, the personalities are distinct.

Everyone wants to be the cool kid who did it first (or, in this case, the cool kid who plays the game that did it first), which is exactly why they're claiming first rights. Sure, you could show them dated material and steal their thunder, but that makes you an even bigger nerd-elitist tool. Might still be worth it, though. Sometimes I'll assume unnecessary levels of pomp (to my own detriment) just to shut down someone that bugs me.

Then again, you could always carry a stack of decades-old scifi and fantasy novels around with you to the FLGS. When anyone scoffs at derivative works, just shout "Get your head out of your " and throw the whole stack at them.

Worldforge would have done just as well.

Everything in science fiction and fantasy plagiarizes everything. This is hardly anything new.

Because GW did it first amirite

Murray wrote:Ok, halo made this feature called "Forge" where you could edit maps etc. Now they have expanded it into an actual "world" so they just went.. Well we have a forge in a world.. lets call it "Forge World".

Shouldn't really get fussed out about it.

Murray has it right. And fwiw, it's "Forge _ World"... if that makes any difference . They already had the forge, and now it's in a map I think? But "Forge _ Map" doesn't sound nearly as cool...

Ordo Dakka wrote:Because GW did it first amirite

GW and Forge World USA.


Waaaaiiit...

Space Marines - Starship Troopers, Robert A. Heinlein
Chaos - inspired by the Book of Revelations. Khorne is the Red Horse, Nurgle is the White Horse (both incarnations, really), Tzeench is the Black Horse, and Slaneesh is the death of the Eldar. A nod to Lovecraft and Moorcock thrown in, obviously.
Orks - oh come on. JRR
Elves/Eldar - Yep, him again
Tau - reasonably clearly Karl Marx, and basic communist ideology.
Imperial Guard - World War I/II (mostly I). Hive cities basic dystopian futures.
Necrons - basic man vs. machine Terminator stuff. I'm sorry, reasonably clear grab at the entire idea of the Terminators, because Terminators were 'cool.' Later expanded to get actual plot and stuff.

Anyone who claims 40k got ripped off is pretty much clinical.

RisingPhoenix wrote:A nod to Lovecraft and Moorcock thrown in, obviously.

Far more than a nod. I'd say the basic concepts are more or less directly lifted from Moorcock - including the very symbol of chaos, the eight-pointed star.

The current 40k universe is Warhammer John Blanche more than anything

Oh yeah Lovecraft features pretty heavily too, I agree with the guys above.

Augustus wrote:
I prefer to think that each generation revisits great stories and puts their own fresh perspective on them, and we as gamers and lovers of the art should welcome these fresh interpretations!

HEY! you just stole from the Dropkick Murphys!

What's so new about what you're saying?
It's a new generation with the same sad song.
What's so new about what you're saying?
Just another generation with the same sad song.

But yes, I agree. Every "new" idea someone has, is either coincidence, or influenced by something else. There are very few original idea's or thoughts. If you think of something, someone else has probably had the exact same thought as you have, perhaps in a different order, or different context. It's all the same.

If anything, be upset that one of the emblems you can have is called "Chaos" and is an 8 pointed star.

obviously the real thing we should be watching is if GW does anything about it. They're pretty quick to push around smaller fish, but will they take a swing at Bungie who have Microsoft's money to hide behind?

Athera wrote:obviously the real thing we should be watching is if GW does anything about it. They're pretty quick to push around smaller fish, but will they take a swing at Bungie who have Microsoft's money to hide behind?

No.

There is no logic behind GW wanting to do anything to Bungie.
Its not even about money.

The only reason why Gw would want to defend and IP/trademark/copyright is to threats within the wargaming industry.

Video Game industry is much different, and a different genre/medium.

But even that - there is no case here, period.

Just think about it for a moment.

Kaptajn Congoboy wrote:

RisingPhoenix wrote:A nod to Lovecraft and Moorcock thrown in, obviously.

Far more than a nod. I'd say the basic concepts are more or less directly lifted from Moorcock - including the very symbol of chaos, the eight-pointed star.

Psst.

Look up Citadel Miniatures and "Eternal Champion".

Back in the early heyday of Citadel, they actually produced an Elric of Melnibone game series, under license.

Supposedly Moorcock's lawyers, however, weren't very good at their job...and basically everything that Citadel made for the game(including the source material and vague descriptions of Chaos, etc) ended up becoming Citadel's IP since they filed for protection on the depiction presented by their models as standard.

Even YOU can't be OK with that, if it is true...

GalaxyGames wrote:

Athera wrote:obviously the real thing we should be watching is if GW does anything about it. They're pretty quick to push around smaller fish, but will they take a swing at Bungie who have Microsoft's money to hide behind?

No.

There is no logic behind GW wanting to do anything to Bungie.
Its not even about money.

The only reason why Gw would want to defend and IP/trademark/copyright is to threats within the wargaming industry.

Video Game industry is much different, and a different genre/medium.

But even that - there is no case here, period.

Just think about it for a moment.

Umm. blood Bowl pc game remind you of anything?

Alpharius wrote:Even YOU can't be OK with that, if it is true...

Of course he can, that's what being a fanboi is all about!

Alpharius wrote:Even YOU can't be OK with that, if it is true...

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

If GW blatantly steals stuff, it's very different than how they are now with the vague "inspirations".

Anyways, that's just what I've heard pop up from time to time about why Moorcock is so zealous in refusing licensing now. Supposedly, the man learned how to draw from scratch just so he could keep artists out for whenever they do covers for reprints of his books.

But considering there's also a rumor that Moorcock sat in and helped them flesh out the Warhammer Fantasy world back in its heyday...it's a weird situation where I don't have all the answers.

However, I do have to say I like Gav Thorpe far more than Moorcock as an author. Even if "Aenarion" kept bringing up in the front of my mind "The White Wolf"...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Platuan4th wrote:

Alpharius wrote:Even YOU can't be OK with that, if it is true...

Of course he can, that's what being a fanboi is all about!

Fanboi implies I like everything they do.

I loathe the Marine centricism of 40k.
And I hate with the passion of a thousand fiery suns that they still let the Morrisons sculpt.

Space Marines take a lot of background ideology from Dune - Sardukar and Fremen!

Lies! Dune ripped off Halo!

Kanluwen wrote:However, I do have to say I like Gav Thorpe far more than Moorcock as an author.

Manchu wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:However, I do have to say I like Gav Thorpe far more than Moorcock as an author.

Have you read "Shadow King" or "Malekith"?

They blow away pretty much all of Moorcock's "Eternal Champion" series away.

I like Gav Thorpe. But that's ridiculous.

Manchu wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:However, I do have to say I like Gav Thorpe far more than Moorcock as an author.

yeah. +1 to that picture. even though I should be mad at you for pushing him through my ignore list.

Manchu wrote:I like Gav Thorpe. But that's ridiculous.

And I like Michael Moorcock, but still. As time went on, Moorcock's stuff became so incredibly formulaic that it's not even funny. I can't even finish the last compilation of Elric novels("The Dreaming City" is the compilation, not sure what 3 books it is right now) simply because I've read it all before.

Kanluwen wrote:As time went on, Moorcock's stuff became so incredibly formulaic that it's not even funny.

Yeah, that's a good point. But this goes back to our Abnett v. Watson disagreement. I'm more impressed with writers that produce worlds, even if they can't keep up the quality over time. You're more impressed with writers that can consistently tell great stories in those worlds.