Posted by G Fatal

Lmao GOAT ruled this thread

Even if this "GOAT" charter did help program some of the original client as he claims—he was not a participant in Graal. Being one of the original developers of Box2D does not make one an historical contributor to Angry Birds.

Posted by rickclops

Is this a paid advertisement for Graal? o.O

As a developer I'm simply over all this talk about Graal originally being Zelda Online. They're two separate titles, and it's insulting to continually compare Graal to it, or Zelda for the matter. It's its own game. Time for people to accept this  

lol it feels so weird. antago, contego, clops all here...  

cringing  

GOAT is a troll.

Also, antago, how does it feel to have a building named after u in destiny?
Edit: lol I put contego instead of antago whoops sorry  

There's antago's house/boot shop an antago's tower that's not open to the public right?  

Posted by SouthernZombie*

There's antago's house/boot shop an antago's tower that's not open to the public right?

Please open  

Damn  

Posted by antago

As a developer I'm simply over all this talk about Graal originally being Zelda Online. They're two separate titles, and it's insulting to continually compare Graal to it, or Zelda for the matter. It's its own game. Time for people to accept this

As a player playing zelda online and the first version of graal in a row. How do you detect a difference in gameplay? The most obvious difference is the tileset slightly changed. The buttons used didn't change, the hearts/yinyangs stayed in the same place? You still use sword with the exact same slash animations and errors in animation and the same bomb with the plus shaped explosions from Stefan's old bomberman game. It really feels like a graphical change only (which wouldn't have even happened without a cease and desist order), not a gameplay change.  

One would assume that the fact Nintendo didn't pursue Graal is evidence enough that it is in another category to Zelda Online, legally speaking.  

Posted by rickclops

As a player playing zelda online and the first version of graal in a row. How do you detect a difference in gameplay? The most obvious difference is the tileset slightly changed. The buttons used didn't change, the hearts/yinyangs stayed in the same place? You still use sword with the exact same slash animations and errors in animation and the same bomb with the plus shaped explosions from Stefan's old bomberman game. It really feels like a graphical change only (which wouldn't have even happened without a cease and desist order), not a gameplay change.

1) I did not say gameplay distinguish titles.
2) Even if the changes are slight, a developer reserves the right to recycle his own technology & gameplay into entirely separate titles.
3) Zelda inspired the original Zelda Online knock-off; it was from this inspiration & reproduction that inspired Stefan to develop the technology & gameplay—it was not until the cease & desist that he decided to use this inspired technology to release his own game.
4) As a professional game developer & marketer, I have never in my life encountered another professional who literally programs everything from scratch, nor enlists updated versions of programming software engines as "versions" of end driven products.

Albeit the cease & desist on Zelda Online drove Cyberjoueur to create their own title—and they certainly didn't feel like being much more original—Graal is its own title and its own game built using the software engine developed while copying Zelda; it is not a sequel or continuation, and legally it has been modified enough to quantify (or at least morally enough) to not be sued "again".  

2005 here if that's any use to anyone.  

Super weird since a lot of people on this game were born after 1998.  

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graal_Online

Scroll down to Graal Versions.

Zelda Online listed as first version and 2nd version starts in 2001.  

Antago sounds as if he's been sued for copyright infringement before with how much he's pushing this game being legal. It is a zelda clone. The "zelda online" game was actually called Graal already when I first played it and still called Graal when they changed the tileset to not look like zelda a link to the past. Stefan never made a public statement saying they are two separate games. He made enough changes to not get sued (considering it used zelda's exact graphics in early versions of Graal).  

Posted by contego

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graal_Online

Scroll down to Graal Versions.

Zelda Online listed as first version and 2nd version starts in 2001.

I'm well aware of what is listed on this wikipedia page which is definitely one of the reasons I am posting this; I simply disagree. You do not get ordered a cease & desist, recycle your game development tools, rename the game and then continue to include the previous illegal title as a version of the new title. From the vernacular, I also feel it severely diminishes the magic, potency, & purity of Graal as it is when it was erected.

This is a game about the Holy Grail at the dawn of the Age of Aquarius; Zelda Online is a tribute to Zelda:ALTTP which is a ripoff from the 90s. Technically speaking, as well, from an HONEST marketing & cultural perspective—it doesn't make any sense to attempt to call a new game a continuation of a previous cease & desist which was a knockoff of another title.

Posted by rickclops

Antago sounds as if he's been sued for copyright infringement before with how much he's pushing this game being legal. It is a zelda clone. The "zelda online" game was actually called Graal already when I first played it and still called Graal when they changed the tileset to not look like zelda a link to the past. Stefan never made a public statement saying they are two separate games. He made enough changes to not get sued (considering it used zelda's exact graphics in early versions of Graal).

Do you think Graal is illegal? What are you saying? lol