At least for me, the law doesn't map my moral/ethics at all - and I hope that's true for you too.

The law does not perfectly map to my morals (pretty far from it), but it makes a reasonable attempt to map to the lowest-common-denominator morals of the average public (and also gets influenced by politics and corporations).

But to say the law doesn't map at all is an exaggeration, unless you find murder and rape acceptable.

Or are you talking only about copyright law? If so, do you understand copyright law enough to recognize the morality behind it? If you don't understand why it exists - i.e. you haven't listened to the arguments for it - then how can you say you disagree with an argument you never listened to? And if you don't understand how the law works, how can you say you disagree with what you don't understand? :)

If I would do it, I'd contect him and ask him, maybe ask him to help me, just because he came up with this idea.

"Hi! I'm going to use your work for my profit, but before I do, I'm going to give you the ''opportunity'' to help me steal your work. I'm not going to ask permission, and I'm not going to let you have any say in the matter, but out of the goodness of my heart I'll give you the option of using more of your labor to help me do what I want."

Do you not see the self-centered / one-sidedness here? Basically it's saying, "I want to do whatever I want, and screw you for standing in my way, but I also want to pretend I'm a decent person, so I'll make hyper biased one-sided offers to feel better about myself.". Your offer is, "Heads I win, tails you lose". It's "Heads I get to use your work with your permission, tails I get to use your work without your permission.". You don't give anyone opportunity to not have their work exploited for your personal gain.

('profit' doesn't have to be money - it can be publicity, praise, pats on the back, donations, cookies, twitter followers, or warm fuzzy feelings. You profit off of it even if you don't charge anyone money for it)
(also, creating the cloned IP is damaging the real thing in several subtle ways, even if you don't charge any money for it)

Suppose you created a really popular character like Master Chief (Halo). And the real-life KKK comes along and uses Master Chief to promote ethnic cleansing of black people. "Master Chief wants your help in eliminating the inferior races!". Your work has now been used to promote ideas you find despicable. It's funny in concept, but not funny if it actually happened, and your actual work was actually being used to do actual harm to actual people. :mellow:

TO clarify: What I mean is e.g.: Assume Super Mario was the first Jump'n'Run. You now do a game, which also is 2D and has a level which goes from left to right and you jum around, collecting stuff, beating monsters. Like there are dozends of such games. Another Example would be line rider. But instead of the sled you are going to use seomthign else, might add a few elements etc - but the main mechanics (a player dragged down on a self painted rack) is baisically the same. (all developed by you)

Anyone can make games inspired by the ideas and mechanics behind other games.

The ideas behind side-scrolling 2D platformers are not intellectual property, and are not protected. The art, music, characters, names, enemies, code, and level designs are protected. And, while no specific math equation in Super Mario Bros is protected, if you take too much of the numbers and equations used in the same way, then it can also be a problem.
For example, some iPhone games have been sued because they had in-game stores featuring the exact same items (even with different pictures), with nearly the exact text, and exactly the same prices (even with different currency type), as the game they were cloning. It was obvious that they were stealing more than just ideas - they were stealing implementations of the ideas.

Basically it comes down to, how much are you actually creating something new vs how much are you taking what other people did?
If players say, "Hey, this kinda reminds me of OtherGame" that's fine. But if players say, "Hey, this is exactly like OtherGame, except with X instead of Y", that's not fine.

If I have to ask, "How close can I get to entirely stealing someone else's work?" then I'd be failing. I'd be failing legally, I'd be failing morally, and I'd be failing as an artist - because you aren't making art, you'd just be scanning someone else's art and selling the prints.

I want to be a game creator, not a game cloner. I want to be an artist, not a xerox machine. :wink:

So the term "at all" might be a bit too much, but what I mean is, that even if I could copy the game without risking getting sued by him for doing so - I wouldn't without asking him. For me, asking him means asking for permission. So it's not egocentered at all. What I mean by "asking him" was: "Hi, I think you have a great game. I have some nice idea for a new version (or whatever), is it okay if I do it? Maybe we can work together?"

Sure law maps morality/ethics in some way - it just doesn't map fully with my ideology. So sorry for my probably poorly written text, was in a horry + English isn't my main tongue.

You example with Master chief and Mario makes "sense": I mean, I understand that and I respect that. But what if you have a game which is so simple that there isn't a lot to protect then the mechanics itself? Spontaneously, linerider comes to mind. I think if you use the mechanics of them, it basically is "the same".

ahh, train is at the stations, have to go. Probably will write more latex

So, edit:

I mean, imagen you built line rider or any other rather simple game and someone cames up with a game for, let's say xbox or whatever plattform where one can paint the tarck with some tracking gear (like kinetic or whatever - just to have some "innovation" lol) and then you press play and a ciclists rides down your track. Maybe you added several kind of tracks to make it more exciting. If I'd be the guy who made line rider I'd think: what an ass, that's my game.

If I'd be the guy who made line rider I'd think: what an ass, that's my game.

This happens all the time.

Do you think the person who created the first match-three looks at the glut of poor mobile games (like the -saga games made by King, etc) and also thinks "what an ass. that's my game"...? Most likely.

In game marketing it's less about who came up with the idea first, but who markets it most successfully.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say you were egocentric, I was just trying to unfold the idea more from the opposite perspective (i.e. the original game creator's perspective).

If I'd be the guy who made line rider I'd think: what an ass, that's my game.

This happens all the time.

Do you think the person who created the first match-three looks at the glut of poor mobile games (like the -saga games made by King, etc) and also thinks "what an ass. that's my game"...? Most likely.

In game marketing it's less about who came up with the idea first, but who markets it most successfully.

Another example is Angry Birds - it's just a catapult game, of which two or three existed before Angry Birds, but Angry Birds (due to marketing and so on) became a thousand times more popular (and more profitable).

I'd also feel bad, "That's my idea! *I* should've made buttloads of money!", but at the same time, every idea is built upon ideas that are built upon ideas that are built upon ideas, so while I'd be bummed out (for missing an oppurtunity), I still wouldn't support ideas themselves as copyrightable.

It also depends how close the two games are. Crayon Physics feels entirely different than Line Rider, though there are obvious similarities.