Features Hub‎ > ‎

Taking 'The Croods: Prehistoric Party' to Court

10th April 2013; By KnucklesSonic8

It's not unusual for some party games to project feelings of déjà vu, as similarities do cross over. One innocent execution is reminiscent of another, perhaps less creative, effort, even one done in the same series in a previous entry. But as I played through The Croods: Prehistoric Party's 30 mini-games, this question of having seen things before not only lay beneath the surface. It came to the fore. And it is these striking resemblances (if you prefer the term "knock-offs," feel free to insert the word there) that served as the basis for a fun little experiment. The following is a satirical court exchange between Mario Party 9 and The Croods: Prehistoric Party -- the offended and the offender, the plaintiff and the defendant. Let's see how things play out.

Exhibit A: Lava Bath vs. Hexagon Heat

Plaintiff: "Your Honour, I'd like to call Mario Party 2 to the stand as my first witness."

Defendant: "But...but...but... he's immediate family! Your Honour, there's a very clear bias here!"

Plaintiff: "Oh contraire. Let's look at the evidence, shall we?"

Defendant: "What evidence? You can plainly see the arena isn't in the shape of a honeycomb as in the case of your sibling. They platforms are not even colour-coded!"

Plaintiff: "And the number of platforms? The surroundings?"

Defendant: "Well, there's that..."

Plaintiff: "The only thing missing is someone to raise flags! That's what you have ruptures for, I suppose."

Defendant: "I'll bite. But where are your other witnesses?"

Plaintiff: "No need. I have more than enough photographic evidence to make sure your actions see to justice."

Judge: "I'll be the judge of that." (Sorry.)

Plaintiff: "Very well. Have a look at this, Your Honour..."

Exhibit B: Shell Sweeper vs. King Boo's Puzzle Attack

Defendant: "Hahaha. Really? This is your conclusive evidence? The grids don't even match! And you mean to tell me that match-three gameplay is isolated to a single property and not allowed to be reproduced in any other form?

Plaintiff: "To address your first concern, examine the--"

Defendant: "Way ahead of you. There's 50 on my end against your 30. Your Honour, this isn't getting us anywhere. He's trying to make a mockery of the court!"

Plaintiff: "Your Honour, please take note of the grids. You can verify for yourself that both are proportioned almost identically, with one exception being the two rows added to the defendant's. Had these two rows not been present, the after-effect of combined items in my case would be the only point of differentiation in setup.

Defendant: "But they are there, so you can't really base a case around this."

Plaintiff: "Ah, so you'd think! But in a composite light of all the material I intend to present today, all becomes clear! Which brings me to my next point..."

Exhibit C: Creature Counter vs. Goomba Village

Defendant: "You really are grasping at straws, y'know? This is precisely the same case as before!"

Plaintiff: "That's the idea."

Defendant: "I might as well use the same expressions as before! What hogwash is this?"

Plaintiff: "Well, the setting and the characters are different, that much is true."

Defendant: "Got that right. Those Goombas would cower upon hearing the chilling cry from a single Mousephant."

Plaintiff: "But neither of these points are the real focus of me bringing this up."

Defendant: "Oh? Do tell."

Plaintiff: "Notice, Your Honour, the number of hiding places available in these situations. Five houses. Five cave openings. Exactly the same amount. How intriguing... If you please, keep this in mind as we move forward. This is a key detail that will come to light again later on."

Exhibit D: Corn Rocket Ride vs. Ring Leader

Plaintiff: "About this next piece of evidence, Your Honour, the first example--"

Defendant: "I'll stop you right there and tell you I'm in the clear on this one. For starters, the transportation is completely different. Plus, I don't recall dolphins being able to adjust their height mid-jump, nor do I recall increasing speeds in your own iteration. So I fail to see the similarities.

Plaintiff: "Well, you are correct about one thing. In my case, timing is the emphasis versus position. But it does not change the fact that they are both linear activities set up in a very similar fashion."

Defendant: "You don't say..."

Plaintiff: "I do. Mine simply offers less control. That's all."

Defendant: "Surely you don't take this seriously?"

Plaintiff: "Your Excellency, if I may continue, I do have more substantial evidence to support my case."

Judge: "Proceed."

Exhibit E: Cave Painter vs. Flinger Painting

Plaintiff: "With this set, Your Honour, you'll see that the task is exactly the same in both cases -- to cover the canvas with as much of your colour as possible within the time frame."

Defendant: "Yet you'll notice I didn't get my hands on newfangled devices to help me drive the activity, so that's where your argument falls apart. Related to that, there are bursts of different sizes in his case versus a set stamp in mine."

Plaintiff: "Be that as it may, this isn't a case of details -- although the base colours do match also." 

Defendant: "Then what?"

Plaintiff: "It's the idea itself. While I don't claim complete ownership, the executions are near-identical."

Defendant: "I object! Your Honour, this is ludicrous."

Judge: "On what grounds? Objection overruled."

Plaintiff"The point I was trying to get on with is this: The accused has made offenses both in concept and in the details surrounding the executions of these ideas. This is one example of the former. Here is another..."

Exhibit G: Cloud Bounce vs. Buddy Bounce

Plaintiff: "If you'll indulge me for a moment, count the number of collectibles in my example. If your math lines up, you should arrive at 13 -- six along the bottom row, five in the middle, two at the top. And--"

Defendant: "Annnnd, in looking at mine, the numbers don't match. Hardly your strongest point, I must say."

Plaintiff: "You're correct about the numerical values, but that's not what I was getting at."

Defendant: "What are you getting at?"

Plaintiff: "Besides just the fact that, once again, the activities are strongly similar, what has essentially taken place with the layout is a reversal, where the top row contains the most instead of the least, and vice versa.

Defendant: "I fail to see your point."

Plaintiff: "It strikes me as odd that while everything else has been duplicated, the details have very slight differences, as if to escape liability. I'll let the jury come to a conclusion on that one...but not before bringing up one more example..."

Exhibit F: Smashing Good Time vs. Logger Heads

Plaintiff: "What do you make of this?"

Defendant: "Four characters situated around a table, ready to clobber the item in the middle. But what does this have to do with you?"

Plaintiff: "I would now like to introduce this next piece of evidence to the court for comparison purposes. Let me repeat verbatim what the defendant just stated: 'Four characters situated around a table, ready to clobber the item in the middle.' Now, do these two not look alike?"

Defendant: "I... Oh."

Plaintiff: "Swap out axes for clubs, wood pieces for shells, and Bob-ombs for eggs. This rendition is an imitation in every way!"

Defendant: "Whatever you say, bub. Mine came first."

Plaintiff: "Only in your world! Quite literally..."

Judge: "Order! That's quite enough."

Plaintiff: "I do have one final piece of evidence, if I may?"

Exhibit H: Caveman's Best Friend vs. Manor of Escape

Plaintiff: "This is perhaps the most vital piece of evidence for the reason that, like the previous example, it isn't a case of one or the other -- the two match both conceptually and in detailing, to a blatant extent. To demonstrate how this is so, count the floors of the mansion in my example here. How many entrances are there? Now, would you measure the same two variables in the other example. Notice the similarities?"

Defendant: "That's all well and good, but you've made a critical oversight -- the direction is reversed."

Plaintiff: "Aha! So not only do you confirm that the layout has been flipped yet again, but you also don't deny that everything else has been cloned to a tee!"

Defendant: "I... umm... well... Pure coincidence!"

Plaintiff: "I think not. And I'm sure everyone here today finds this quite unsettling."

Judge: "I've heard all I need to hear. Jury, would you kindly announce your verdict?"

Jury Member: "We, the jury, find the defendant..."

Who knew Mario Party 9 could be so...inspirational. What say you: Copycats or strong odes? Guilty or not guilty?

Feature by KnucklesSonic8