I start this topic because I would discuss on strange relation between developement studios and editors. Particulary on source code, and other stuff for making software on video games hardware. This topic is based on a new about the Okami convertion on Nintendo Wii. All, press and players are agreed to tell this game is a fantastic experience from beginning to end. But Capcom decided to cut game ending for very obscure legal reason... Capcom argues that Clover Studio is out of business. Therefore, it decided to delete entire staff roll because of Clover logo at the ending. Capcom talking about legal issue because Clover has been closed in march 2007 and consequently don't have developed the game on Wii... Moreover, and it's unbelievable, Capcom did not have the source code for editing the ending (just for remove Clover logo) ! Clover was a studio created by Capcom, and they would have us believe that have no source code of Okami ?! WTF ? Replacing ending in a game, is not necessarily a key point, but in Okami it take a essential place in game and final feeling. And cut a important part of game just for a logo... Strange... What is this joke ? Why Capcom decided to cut all Clover staff who have build this game. These guys worked and created a product, a game for Capcom. This creation is not only a simple game developement, but also a concept, a world and original design never seen before. Game designer Hideki Kamiya and all his staff do not appear in this ending. Worse, artistic choice of game's ending is totaly wrong, it is no longer properly integrated into the follow of game. For me it's a insult to artistic choice for all works done by Okami game staff. A big mistake from Capcom !
Speaking of mistakes, you're lucky I don't have my red pen with me Haven't played Okami on either console, so what exactly is cut? FMV?
:dance:Wii-Owners, please dont bash me for my opinion but: Since the Wii-Port was announced, i read comments like: "Whoa! I cant wait to play it!" Buy a PS2 -> much cheaper, you could play the Game many months before and there are many other good Games available for the PS2. I cant understand it, if someone says: "Hey, i own it on PS2. But i will buy it for Wii too!". Whats wrong with you? Its the same (not rare) Game with the same Graphics, Sounds and with the same Story - slightly different (SD) resolution and a different (cut) ending. So what is the reason, that so many Wii-Owners are willing to pay 40$ for a year-old-PS2-port? Maybe its only the Wii-Mote which works great in Nintendo in-house-productions and sucks so much in many third-party-games? Or maybe its because you never played this game before? (if yes, dont call yourself a "videogamer" anymore ;-) ) Please tell me. I really want to understand you! Maybe i can understand you better while i´m playing Okami... on my PS2 ;-)
I think Capcom's problem is that they do not know how to price things reasonably. They were doing good by releasing RE4 for $30, but fucked up by making Okami a $40 game (Full price as it was on the PS2). Not the first time they did this, mostly with the Resident Evil ports to the Gamecube and such. As for the cuts, I think it is sort of shameful. Even if Clover no longer exists, they can still have them in the credits for making the game. Hell, there are a number of companies that no longer exist that have their games re-released and have the full credits still intact.
It's possible that Capcom doesn't have the source code, but that's VERY UNLIKELY since it's their property, not Clovers to keep or destroy. When you work for someone, everything you do under their employment is their property, it's Capcom's right to do what they want with the credits including removing mention of their defunct studio that actually developed the game. Not having played the game yet since it's still way too expensive used for PS2, I don't' know if this is something to truly cry about, but the thread seems a little dramatic.
I dunno the details on this case. But my guess is that they didn't have the resources/funding available to recreate the English version of the staff roll. At least that would be my guess (without really checking whether or not the original Japanese staff roll was in English or not) It's a common "issue/mistake" that when someone creates localized versions of stuff that is stored as FMVs (or in audio) that they don't keep the raw assets they create and only have the original pre-localization assets and the final localized encode (and evt. a higher quality encode). Now, depending on how the original assets look (if they even have that one in pieces), the costs (and effort required, which ofcourse usually stacks with costs) of recreating the English video with any changes necessary for the Wii version... it might be a more pricey business than you could imagine. Could require a whole month worth of work for two guys and also require hardware for them to use. Where do you find those two extra guys? Where do you put their computers? When do you make the video? Or (let's just toss in another possibility) maybe the ending credits roll was outsourced to some company and they couldn't get the rights to re-use it for the Wii version? In a legal perspective, sure, the credits roll could be one of the most important things to be there. But since Capcom owns it all, unless specifically written in their contracts or part of a deal made during outsourcing of some stuff, the staff/people involved have no "rights" when it comes to crediting. Even though I've "been there" in the situation of not being credited for some of the titles I've worked on. I'd hardly consider the credits important. If the credits were to be the "most important thing" for a game, that has to be one horribly shitty game if that's the part you consider the most important (or the credits better be the most rewarding credits roll ever crafted by man. And it's gotta be bloody spectacular if it even overshadows the entire game you struggled your way through in order to get exposed to.)
You made at least one spelling mistake and some grammar errors. Conversion is not spelled convertion, which is how you spelled it. Also, the contract between Capcom and clover was that Capcom owns the full IP of the game and therefore can do whatever it wants with it.
Pretty much. I want to get it for Wii, but are you saying an entire ending is cut out of the game? Or just the credits roll? Also, Capcom did a good job with that IGN watermark business.
Supposedly, it's just some fancy designed credits roll. As for the watermark business, blame that on their marketing guys or whoever they evt. outsourced that stuff to. (Funny that they used assets from IGN's archive and not the Capcom Press Vault, though. Guess it was a temp solution that they forgot to clean out)
This is probably most likely what has happened. Infact many opening/ending credits are outsourced to companies who specialize in opening and ending credits. I'm not sure about games, but in the movie industry its a very common procedure.
Guess this is as good of a place as any for this nugget: http://kotaku.com/381846/ign-watermark-in-okami-cover-art Cheers to EOJ at gamengai for pointing out the most unprofessional blunder in recent gaming history. So laughable. Any smart company would have acquired the rights in the process.
Ah ok ! Sorry about that, english is not my native laguage;-). But I did not use any convertion tools to type this topic. Maybe a convertion tools can help me... It's not only a "credit issue" but also the feeling of game who has reduce by this cut. You can read this here
Wow... that's pretty pathetic. How could they be so careless? Looks like the cover designer just searched on the internet for a few minutes and slapped together a few pictures with photoshop.
Whatever he got off of IGNs site wouldn't have been good enough for print quality...not of a commercial product. My guess is that he got it as a favor from someone at IGN (who originally got it from Clover Studio) and they kept it on the DL. 2 minutes in Photoshop would've saved them a lot of laughs.
Yeah, you're probably right. Still, if it were me, the very first thing that would go through my mind upon getting that file would be "I need to get rid of that logo!!" Probably it was someone's job to get rid of the logo, and whoever acted as their oversight simply didn't notice that they hadn't done it because it isn't that prominent. Probably several people were fired as a result of this mess.
