Amysaurus

I wasn't rooting for him to win, but here's to hoping The Donald can do some good while he's in office. He's not ideal, but he's earned the chance to try. 

It's about time something happened about her. Hopefully things get better for you.

Saw that yesterday, mhmmm. KilloZappit already knows my feelings, but if some games had altered their settings/characters a bit they'd have been good to go. It sucks to have to do that, especially when you're really passionate about a series/character, but it's all we can do to protect our creations atm.

I can't really get mad at companies/creators wanting to be the only ones using their characters, but I hate seeing so much hard work getting tossed right into the bin.

Sorry, had to sleep a bit!

I don't think the idea of a character/setting should be owned, so I'm with you there. I'm more inclined to think the specifics can be owned. I'll clarify:
 

Going back to that last example, I don't think anyone should be able to own the name Sonic, the idea of a hedgehog as a main character, or a game based on running fast, but the title Sonic the Hedgehog (as attached to the character/design), sure. Pretty much the same thing, but as a non-character example: I don't think anyone should be able to own the name Hyrule Castle, the idea of it being a castle town, etc., but the specific maps/artwork/what have you, sure. 
 

It's a brand-recognition thing. You see those names, you associate them with that company/that game. And I think that's why a lot of companies fear fan works so much - the more that's out there with those names, the less likely a customer is to strictly purchase their product. So yes, it’s absolutely about the money. 
 

And yeah, "real" or "true" really weren't the words I was looking for, and honestly the correct ones still escape me. "Authentic experience" is about the closest I can come up with, and that still sounds wrong lmao. Anyway, I think you understood what I meant in that regard. (＾＾)ｂ
 

As far as things being canon/non-canon, I have a bit of an odd view of things. I think games directly linked to each other (in the same series, continuity, whatever you want to call it) should stick to the same interpretation of a character/event/setting. Things can change due to plot, but they should stem from the same basic premise. Once a game isn’t directly linked to something (whether it’s a reboot, spinoff, what have you), I think interpretations can be a bit less stiff. I get where you’re coming from, though. 
 

As far as a solution, I see yours as a possibility out of many. We could let things be mismanaged, or we could start making those games we want ourselves as new series. Maybe a fan can’t make a Sonic the Hedgehog game, but they could take that inspiration and create something new from it. 

Haha, like I said, there are always exceptions. And, if you don’t think Nintendo is doing a good job representing their own character, that’s ultimately just your opinion on the matter (though *ahem* I completely agree about Other M). If it’s their character, and they’re choosing to represent them a certain way, then that’s an official representation unless stated otherwise. Our opinions/preferences as fans (sometimes unfortunately, sometimes thankfully) don’t make something canonical. 
 

Sonic is a good example for what you’re talking about, yeah. I think many fans out there could do (and probably have done) a better job than the company is capable of (or willing to) at the moment, but that doesn’t take away the fact that he’s their IP. As the owners, they shouldn’t have to give up being seen as “real Sonic games†or “true Sonic games†for wanting to explore different gameplay styles and interpretations. Because then, and let’s cross our fingers that Sonic Mania will be an example of this, actually good titles they come out with won’t be taken as seriously. 

I feel pretty similar about this, really - I would love fan works and official products to be appreciated on the same level. I think the difference for me is that I’d prefer people to take inspiration from the game or franchises they love and create something new out of it, rather than use what's already been made. I guess I'm more of a fan of spiritual successors, lol.
 

Anyway, that’s my two cents on the matter.  

I’m cool with most derivative works, but this is basically why I’m not totally on board with fan games:

          - Most fan games do a poor job of representing the characters/settings/events. (This is not limited to games only, and I repeat: most.) This is rarely intentional - it’s just a natural consequence of working with material you aren’t experienced with. At its absolute worst, this comes off as insulting the source material rather than paying homage to it.

          - At times, the ideas in fan games overlap too much with those of the company. Take Pokémon Uranium, for example. I highly doubt it, but say Nintendo had had a similar idea in progress when Uranium had started getting big. That whole concept would’ve had to get thrown out, lest they be accused of stealing that Uranium's ideas. As well, any future attempt at that concept would also be looked upon as theft. 

Don't get me wrong, I 100% understand the appeal of making fan games. Not only are they great teaching tools (you have characters, setting, etc. from the start) - they also allow you to add onto a story you're passionate about. It's just the problems for the copyright holders that I don't like.