Shining Ark: Sega Trademarks Shining Ark

[chevkraken]

there is no cannon on the right arm of the character you posted, his color is not the same too, and more of that it's not named adam.

until sega said they are not the sames, there is anything who permit to they "this is not the same adam"

It's very possibly a reference but its obviously not Adam.

or chara design is just not the same (and it been rebuild)



these art from Castlevania show the same character made by different chara designer:

http://static.minitokyo.net/downloads/18/02/317618.jpg

http://matteomazzali.files.wordpress.co ... renard.jpg

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... fart25.jpg

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... espair.PNG

As you can see, the difference can be really big.

[Prince of Lums]

there is no cannon on the right arm of the character you posted, his color is not the same too, and more of that it's not named adam.

until sega said they are not the sames, there is anything who permit to they "this is not the same adam"

Apologies, I thought you'd played SF3 Scenario 2. Robby has a cannon arm in game.

The colour isn't the same on Arks Adam so I'm not sure why you'd bring that up.

By the same logic until Sega say they are the same Adam no one can say they are the same Adam either. Feel free to make a theory but try to avoid sweeping statements.

[chevkraken]

Same thing for you. You also, avoid statment, you said it.

its obviously not Adam.

you can't say with evidence that adam is not the same adam than in the other Shining, so don't use obviously. As the character have the same name and have similarity. Thinking they are the same character is pretty logical.

If Robby was named adam, would you have not think "It's the same robot than in Shining force"?

if the story background of adam is similar to his story in Shining force and soul, it would be nearly impossible to say it's not the same Adam.

What I want to say is continiously saying "this is not the same character" just because this is not a camelot camelot is absurd.

And as you use some reference in oldschool Shining to tying game between them, why do you refuse reference coming from new Shining to lining the game with old shining?

[ehow22]

The torso kind of reminds me of a toilet....

[Prince of Lums]

Same thing for you. You also, avoid statment, you said it.

its obviously not Adam.

you can't say with evidence that adam is not the same adam than in the other Shining, so don't use obviously. As the character have the same name and have similarity. Thinking they are the same character is pretty logical.

If Robby was named adam, would you have not think "It's the same robot than in Shining force"?

if the story background of adam is similar to his story in Shining force and soul, it would be nearly impossible to say it's not the same Adam.

What I want to say is continiously saying "this is not the same character" just because this is not a camelot camelot is absurd.

And as you use some reference in oldschool Shining to tying game between them, why do you refuse reference coming from new Shining to lining the game with old shining?

That's a fair point, I shouldn't have used the word obviously.

I don't believe I ever mentioned Camelot. If Robby was named Adam I'd have likely thought "that's a pretty direct reference to the old Adam" not that it was the -same- Adam.

Perhaps it's a language barrier thing then as you used the word reference at the end there. There's a difference between a reference and it being the actual same character. I'm more than willing to accept it as a reference.

[chevkraken]

If Robby was named Adam I'd have likely thought "that's a pretty direct reference to the old Adam" not that it was the -same- Adam.

Ah, ok, me, I would have think "So this is the same Adam"

Perhaps it's a language barrier thing then as you used the word reference at the end there

actually, I said that because most of the element linking some camelot shining games between them are only reference and most of the fan just accept that without more explanation.

by example, Is there any proof than Arthur from Shining force 3 is the same than in Shining force? Most of the fan say yes, but we could say the same thing as for Adam in this game, it could be only reference.

[Century]

by example, Is there any proof than Arthur from Shining force 3 is the same than in Shining force? Most of the fan say yes, but we could say the same thing as for Adam in this game, it could be only reference.

Except that both Arthurs look practically identical. The only thing in common between these two Adams is that they are both robots. They look nothing like each other.

[chevkraken]

by example, Is there any proof than Arthur from Shining force 3 is the same than in Shining force? Most of the fan say yes, but we could say the same thing as for Adam in this game, it could be only reference.

Except that both Arthurs look practically identical. The only thing in common between these two Adams is that they are both robots. They look nothing like each other.

sames feet, sames arm and a cannon on right arm. Oh they are both build long time ago by the ancient...

they have many similarity, not like Force Exa adam which is very different.

Stop denying every similarity between design. Adam from final conflict is also very different from Force Adam, but it's still adam.

[Omega Entity]

The Adam from Final Conflict was still identifiable as the same Adam, plus the story in FC was a continuation of the story from the first Force game and the gaidens.

I can vaguely (vaguely!) see some passing similarities in the limbs, but by that logic, all human beings are the same person 'because they have the same arms and legs'. Seriously, you're not convincing anyone, and you don't know anything for certain. all you're doing, by going on about it like you can't possibly be wrong, is annoying people and making them wish you'd shut up and go away.

As for everyone else, I don't know about you guys, but I'm finding that arguing with him is like arguing with a brick wall. Let's just all put him on ignore, and be done with this nonsense.

[chevkraken]

The Adam from Final Conflict was still identifiable as the same Adam

euh no, not really.

plus the story in FC was a continuation of the story from the first Force game and the gaidens.

And Blade take place 1000 years after Shining force, if Ark is around this time, the change of Design would be logical, Adam could have been rebuild.

I can vaguely (vaguely!) see some passing similarities in the limbs, but by that logic, all human beings are the same person 'because they have the same arms and legs'

And robot are not human, don't forget...
And there is also the cannon on right arm, the name and the origin of the character.

Seriously, you're not convincing anyone, and you don't know anything for certain. all you're doing, by going on about it like you can't possibly be wrong, is annoying people and making them wish you'd shut up and go away.

And you are just camelot fanboy for most of the fans. Actually, I think you give a very bad image of the Shining community. You don't accept anything from new Shining and you don't see any flaws in Camelot Shining...

Whatever Sega try, for you it's always bad.

They made a very beautiful game, used all the power of the system. The chara design is not the same of the original, and the system didn't allow a release out of japan, It's bad.

They came back to tactical RPG using one of the better SRPG gameplay with many feature coming from Shining force. It's not the gameplay of Shining force 3, it's bad...

There is many element linking new Shining and old Shining. These element are not from camelot, they are not valuable.

They introduced character from old shining (Adam, Dark Dragon...) their chara design is different (logical the chara designer are different, look my castlevania pics), so it's bad, because new chara design sucks.
And why it sucks? Just because it's not old chara design.

If you don't like news Shining, why do you come on topic about new Shining? And why are trying to convince fan who are openminded and accept the works Sega made that these games are not Shining and the character are not the sames.

What you are doing is just troll. If you don't like new Shining, let the new fan and openminded old fan like it. Stop free bashing

As for everyone else, I don't know about you guys, but I'm finding that arguing with him is like arguing with a brick wall

You are not arguing, you are just saying non stop the same thing with any proof except your opinion. But your opinion is valable only for you.
When you arguing, your argument need to be solid and proved.

actually, I have accepted Prince of Lums arguments who were solids but yours...

[ehow22]

You don't accept anything from new Shining and you don't see any flaws in Camelot Shining...

Ok...nobody said that. ALL games, series, etc... have lots of flaws. If you look through threads, you'll find we point these out ourselves.

Whatever Sega try, for you it's always bad.

I found Neo to be passable as a way to kill time, like most hack'n'slash games that's all it's good for. It wasn't a good game and it wasn't a bad game.

EXA might as well have been Neo: Take II.....I mean ALMOST EVERYTHING came directly from Neo...really felt like whoever made it was too lazy to make any real changes. I mean.....why play both when they're more or less the same game?

As for Tears... I just couldn't enjoy the game until my friend showed some interest in it(or...more specifically Mao) and we played it together....which I only enjoyed because I had somebody to suffer with me while we made jokes about how bad it was.

I gave each of these a chance and they all came up short. If I was able to play any of the titles you most frequently mention(Feather, Hearts, and Blade), I would also give them a chance. Shining Soul on the other hand, does not interest me at all so unless it's given to me as a gift or something....I'm not playing it.

[chevkraken]

Ok...nobody said that. ALL games, series, etc... have lots of flaws. If you look through threads, you'll find we point these out ourselves.

You have read Omega entity messages from the topic next to it.

I found Neo to be passable as a way to kill time, like most hack'n'slash games that's all it's good for. It wasn't a good game and it wasn't a bad game.

EXA might as well have been Neo: Take II.....I mean ALMOST EVERYTHING came directly from Neo...really felt like whoever made it was too lazy to make any real changes. I mean.....why play both when they're more or less the same game?

As for Tears... I just couldn't enjoy the game until my friend showed some interest in it(or...more specifically Mao) and we played it together....which I only enjoyed because I had somebody to suffer with me while we made jokes about how bad it was.

Actually, I think the problem is not the quality of the games, but the public.

Shining force old fan are not hack n slash public, for hack n slash these 3 game are good. And no Exa is far more deep than Neo.

but this is not the subject

[Daniel]

The original Shining Force designs are a property Climax, so while you can go all angry at the wonderful and skilled Camelot Software Planning Shining Force fans, remember that it was Yoshitaka Tamaki that designed the robot. To THAT point, he was brought back for Shining Soul and for such a reason as a Tie in to the original game. Remember, unlike Camelot, who was owned by Sega at the time as Sonic Software planning, Climax never gave up its rights to the character design. So much so that Sega had to use Climax and its team to remake the original game. Go look at the Credits of the SF: Resurrection of Dark Dragon and maybe you will be surprised.

"Tony" Adam CANNOT be SF Adam in ANY SINGLE WAY. Same as how Shining Force NEO is not the same as Shining Force Max.

Look, you can argue this all you want but its just a serious waste of time.

[ShadowDragon]

I can see a SLIGHT resemblence to the Adam in the 16-bit Shining Force games. But only a very *small* resemblance.

[chevkraken]

"Tony" Adam CANNOT be SF Adam in ANY SINGLE WAY. Same as how Shining Force NEO is not the same as Shining Force Max.

Adam from Neo and Exa are not the same Adam only because these two game(as Feather) are set in an alternate universe.
there is no reason for adam couldn't be the same, Climax have no right on Shining they was just third party develloper.
Oh and Tamaki worked on Neo.

The original Shining Force designs are a property Climax, so while you can go all angry at the wonderful and skilled Camelot Software Planning Shining Force fans, remember that it was Yoshitaka Tamaki that designed the robot.

It's not because someone draw a character, that the character is his propertry. all the Marvel character are only the property of Marvel.

He friend of me writed a novel, but for publish it, the editor buy the rights of the novel. My friend said me that if the editor want it, he can fire my friend and publish the sequel without him.

It's the same thing for Shining. Climax ans Sonic software were just third party studio doing game for Sega they don't have any right on the games or the character. It's like Bayonneta, Vanquish, Madworld for platinium Studio. Sega can use everything from these licence even without Platinium.

So Sega can reused Shining character as they want, if they could'nt, they could'nt even rerelease the original Shining force on new system (like PS3, 360, Wii and PC)

So much so that Sega had to use Climax and its team to remake the original game. Go look at the Credits of the SF: Resurrection of Dark Dragon and maybe you will be surprised.

They reused 2 perso from the original staff and ask advise to a third, Climax is not involved, just old member of climax who leave the compagny. but it was not an obligation for them to do this. they just wanted to be faithful to the original game.
It's also why Tamaki worked on Soul, Sega wanted him as charadesign for keeping the soul of the saga, it's was not an obligation.

Look, you can argue this all you want but its just a serious waste of time.

It's you who don't understand how work marketing

[Daniel]

I'm going to assume you are not only new to the site, but the series in general.

Shining and the Darkness was created by Climax and Hiroyuki Takahashi.

As far as the game goes, yes, Sega owns the copyright to the game, but not the character design and not the characters.

I think the creators of Superman would have words with you over the difference between characters and stories. DC publishes Superman and even has lots of people who draw that series. But DC is having MANY legal troubles over the rights of the character itself. Even that Jaggo Ken Penders seems to have enough of a case to sue Archie over characters he created being infringed on even for a series he didn't own. Copyright is a funny thing my good man.

For Example, the makers of Ecco the Dolphin gave all rights to its character to Sega when it made the game; As such they need Sega's permission to make any more Ecco related anything.

You know, I don't even know why I'm bothering with this. No matter what anyone says to you it just is pushed aside because of your DESPERATE desire that new Shining series would have even a Smidge of the old series' charm. And yes, Tamaki did lots of work on other Shining games. And to say that Tony was inspired by Tamaki is a joke. Tony's art is the absolute worst kind of Anime out there: Bland fetish and no character. Its so dull and generic that ETHAN WABER looks dynamic against his art.

[ShadowDragon]

LOL at Daniel's post.

Tamaki's art has more life and uniqueness too it. Tony does look generic and kinda bland hahaha.

[Daniel]

A LOL for me or a LOL against me is always good. At least someone gets a laugh outta this thing.

[chevkraken]

And to say that Tony was inspired by Tamaki is a joke. Tony's art is the absolute worst kind of Anime out there: Bland fetish and no character.

However, it's the case, Tony said he was inspired by Tamaki. I love tamaki art, but Tony's too.
And no Tony is not generic anime. If the artist is popular, it's because his still is really particuliar. You just don't like it.
oh, and it's not the only generic style working on the saga, Force CD, Wisdom, final conflict and 3 also had generic anime style from 90's.

As far as the game goes, yes, Sega owns the copyright to the game, but not the character design and not the characters.
As far as the game goes, yes, Sega owns the copyright to the game, but not the character design and not the characters.

No, they are not.
If it was the cas, Shining soul 1 and ROTDD would have the the world climax or Takahashi name in their credit, they are not.

Shining soul 1 use Zeon, Iom and Bulzome created by Camelot staff, and Takahashi or member or other member of the staff are not.

For Example, the makers of Ecco the Dolphin gave all rights to its character to Sega when it made the game;As such they need Sega's permission to make any more Ecco related anything.

You give me reason, here, you know?
It's the same for Shining force, Sega is the owner of the serie . The creator must to ask sega permission to make new games, but Sega don't have to ask climax or takahashi for the use of character or game.

[Matasumori]

Jesus, these kids are twelve, and I'm fairly sure English isn't their first language. Overall it's a pretty lame argument entirely. They're robots. In a game.