Hi,

Sometimes, when you search over the net you find unexpected things. So, I wanted to share with you a clone of Super Stardust that was in development until recently. For that, go to http://www.texturemind.com
You have to go at the complete bottom of the page to see the video. It's looking quite nice, running on PC/Windows.
The interesting thing we can read on the website is that this project and the other ones of the developper were develop using a custom game framework from the developer that was first started on an Amiga 1200 before to be ported to Windows platform. And to finish, the developer has a new multiplatform game framework in development.
Interesting, isn't it?

@Seblam

Gloom Space looks like a complete rip off. Bloodhouse/Housemarque should sue!!

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

and it seem a bit old :

"Gianpaolo Ingegneri
Copyright @ 2010 – All right reserved"

...

Ok guys, i'm quite surprise with such negativity

@BigD

Yes, it's really close to the original with more modern graphics but can you please tell me since when free hobbyst remake could justified to sue someone???
There are lot of remakes starting with our platform with Zelda Solarus, 1941 extreme deluxe and I think we are quite happy with that.

@Amidark
Yes, not 2012, but 2010 isn't so far away. By the way, amidark engine website is copyright 2009 but still in development, isn't it?
Anyway, not important, I hope we will be able to achieve the same results with AmiDark engine hehe

@Seblam

Well, basically any of those remakes makers could be sued. But as far as i know, no one have done so. (which doesnt mean someone hadnt)

For if I have copyrighted something, as example stardust, then you are not allowed to make stardust clone even for free.


But im sure if you make free clone of some game that was released 24 hours ago only, they would sue you.

@Bugala

You're of course totally right, in theory every free remakes or free fan games could be sued but generally, if it's not too recent, developpers take that as an honour and with sympathy. That's why I find BigD reaction quite harsh for something that is a nice remake of one of the best Amiga game.
I would have think that by posting here, people would have share the same enthusiasm and sympathy for this project, that's all

@Bugala

Well the more common practice is to issue a cease and desist order first, then follow up with more litigation if that is ignored. In general, most remakers try to contact the original IP holders to get an OK for their remakes - most are given the green light, but in a few instances the IP holders have been quite litigious and prolific in their use of C+D orders.

_________________
Test sig (new)

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: @Seblam Gloom Space looks like a complete rip off. Bloodhouse/Housemarque should sue!!

Ahh the copyright mafia resurfaces...

All games these days are just rip offs of either old games or just yet another 3D clone of all the other 3D clones that have ever been...

Why not just stop producing the same old crap and instead just pay the lawyers for each and every software house to sue each other, be much more fun and entertaining than the same old clone of a clone stuff they churn out these days...

Last edited by Franko on 17-Apr-2012 at 10:04 PM.

_________________

Asteroids is going to turn over in his grave.

_________________
Sent from my Quantum Computer.

Bloodhouse sue? Am I the only one who finds that an unusual idea? Bloodhouse themselves did little more than spruce up a game that came before. Where were the people suggesting Bloodhouse should be sued by the makers of Asteroids? I dont seem to recall that happening.

@Seblam

dunno, it looks quite... dunno.. unplayable.

And its amazing how people are talking about Sueing....
Bloodhouse said yes to the Atari Version of Stardust among others so why would this be any diffrent? ah and to top it off this is freeware.

_________________
See my blog and collection website! . https://www.blog.amigaguru.com

@Seblam

Quote:

in theory every free remakes or free fan games could be sued but generally, if it's not too recent, developpers take that as an honour and with sympathy.

Exactly. That's why it seems that most often it's the publisher that sues, not the developers (who sold the rights to publisher)

As for Super Stardust, it was developed by Bloodhouse and published by Team 17.

Actually I think Team 17 released Worms CD32 for free (maybe some other games too), and while Super Stardust brand is very much alive still, I don't think they are overprotective of the original classics (or clones of them)

@Toaks

Quote:

Bloodhouse said yes to the Atari Version of Stardust among others so why would this be any diffrent? ah and to top it off this is freeware.

I always thought that the Atari version was an official port (published by Daze Marketing Ltd. according to wikipedia), just like the horrible DOS version? Usually the original developers get their share of profits from official ports.

@Seblam

Welcome to Amigaworld! I will be surprised if I am not sued by this post.

@Jupp3

Quote:

Jupp3 wrote: @Toaks Quote: Bloodhouse said yes to the Atari Version of Stardust among others so why would this be any diffrent? ah and to top it off this is freeware. I always thought that the Atari version was an official port (published by Daze Marketing Ltd. according to wikipedia), just like the horrible DOS version? Usually the original developers get their share of profits from official ports.

I stand corrected, thanks.

Sorry, i was confusing 2 things about the same game.

The game started off as an freeware game/demo (in proper demoscene manner).
Later on the game got the green light by bloodhouse / daze (?) to be a real "stardust" game and eventually published indeed.

i have yet to see the game in action but from what i have heard its a pretty good one too :)

EDIT: wasn't the PC port only Super Stardust????
EDIT2: ah, both games was ported to pc, is both really awful or just the first?

Last edited by Toaks on 18-Apr-2012 at 01:05 PM.
Last edited by Toaks on 18-Apr-2012 at 12:36 PM.

_________________
See my blog and collection website! . https://www.blog.amigaguru.com

Ah, you learn something new every day. I never realised there was a PC Stardust. PC Super Stardust though is quite decent. Similar to Amiga Super Stardust, but with spruced up graphics and sounds. It runs in high res for starters if I recall correctly (part of why it requires higher specs than amiga version).

@Toaks

Quote:

EDIT2: ah, both games was ported to pc, is both really awful or just the first?

Both were ported, first by some third party (which sucks), and sequel was done in-house I think.

Super Stardust '96 (as it's called) is quite decent, actually had some graphical improvements. Only problems I remember is that it might have required some "specific DOS boot options" to get enough free memory (as did Doom etc.)

And of course system requirements were much higher (I think the official minimum was 486/50, tried on 486/25, and it clearly didn't run "full speed", at least with full sound quality)

One of the graphics improvements was alpha transparency for weapons etc. as seen in f.ex. this screenshot:

@Jupp3

very cool, thanks for the heads up.

i wonder how it runs in dosbox as thats the only way i would be able to run it;)

_________________
See my blog and collection website! . https://www.blog.amigaguru.com

I think this is particularly on dodgy legal ground simply because Super Stardust HD, Super Stardust Portable and Super Stardust Delta are still on sale (PS3, PSP and PS Vita respectively). Mind you I think in retrospect the only reason a case hasn't been brought against Bloodhouse/Housemarque over the years is that Atari were not in a position to protect the IP until it was too late (Atari went under, got bought by Hasbro, got sold to Infogrames etc etc...)

_________________
Sven Harvey
Amiga Mart in Micro Mart, Geekology 4M@, and other places
A1000, A2000, A1500 A500, CDTV, A500+, A600, A4000, A1200, CD32, AT A1200HD, A1-XE