Movie licensed games. There stupid and more than often get bad reviews because. They were rushed out to make the release date of the movie. That they are based off of. Does anyone else think that games based off movies are stupid ideas? And alot of them end up having technical problems. Poor game design and are short and boring. Do any one else loathe them?
NO MORE!
- Thread starter DethFan666
- Start date
Recommended Videos
yeh Chronicles of Riddick, and van helsing were pretty fun but thats it. i'm still trying to figure out how this genre stays alive
Any newbie can hate a licensed game, but if you do a little thinking on the matter you come to realize that a better question is why are licensed games bad. The answer, as far as I've reasoned, comes down to there being a certain responsibility on behalf of the licenced game developers that are rarely acknowledged:
1. A licensed game carries with it the expectations of the fan that the licensed game will attempt to carry the spirit of what it's based upon. If you make an excellent virtual world predominantly featuring a functioning player economy with goods and services, then slap "Star Wars" on it, you're asking it to bomb, because Star Wars was not an epic movie about moisture farming. We know this now because it actually happened [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Galaxies]. Consequently, those who crave freedom of creative concept should stay far away from licensed games: if your goal is to please the players of that license, your game is primarily there to make the license look good.
2. There's always the temptation on behalf of the developers to simply make the game, even if it's crappy, and release it because they know tens of thousands of twits will buy it anyway because they liked the license in which it was based on. The sad thing is this logic works - Star Wars shovelware is a gold mine. However, it only works partway in that a procession of bad games hurts the original license you're using to the point where you killed the Goose that lays the golden eggs. Furthermore, a good licensed game will likely sell a bit more than a bad licensed game, and set players up to purchase new ones.
It's the constant deluge of licensed games that can do neither #1 or #2 that create a cloud of kneejerk "I hate licensed game" reactions in the ignorant populace you were trying to sell to in the first place. Spiderman 2 is the rare example of the game that gets it right.
1. A licensed game carries with it the expectations of the fan that the licensed game will attempt to carry the spirit of what it's based upon. If you make an excellent virtual world predominantly featuring a functioning player economy with goods and services, then slap "Star Wars" on it, you're asking it to bomb, because Star Wars was not an epic movie about moisture farming. We know this now because it actually happened [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Galaxies]. Consequently, those who crave freedom of creative concept should stay far away from licensed games: if your goal is to please the players of that license, your game is primarily there to make the license look good.
2. There's always the temptation on behalf of the developers to simply make the game, even if it's crappy, and release it because they know tens of thousands of twits will buy it anyway because they liked the license in which it was based on. The sad thing is this logic works - Star Wars shovelware is a gold mine. However, it only works partway in that a procession of bad games hurts the original license you're using to the point where you killed the Goose that lays the golden eggs. Furthermore, a good licensed game will likely sell a bit more than a bad licensed game, and set players up to purchase new ones.
It's the constant deluge of licensed games that can do neither #1 or #2 that create a cloud of kneejerk "I hate licensed game" reactions in the ignorant populace you were trying to sell to in the first place. Spiderman 2 is the rare example of the game that gets it right.
I'd agree but there's always the diamond in the rough. Like the Lord of The Rings games that came out a while ago. Besides, you have to look at who likes what. Some people have more with playing their favorite movie than playing what we consider a great game. Most people who buy movie games care more about the movie than the game. They don't care if the gameplay is unique, if the story is awesome, or if it has great graphics. They just wanna "live the movie". Trust me, I know people like this. Just because we don't like, doesn't mean they don't... so, I won't stand in the way of average movie titles.
That's not to say I don't sigh at some movie games. A lot of things exist out there that are not meant to be. I see it as an act of God that there isn't a Twilight video game.
That's not to say I don't sigh at some movie games. A lot of things exist out there that are not meant to be. I see it as an act of God that there isn't a Twilight video game.
I've heard good things about Riddick.
The lotr games are usually well recieved, in particular that mmo one.
Scarface felt a little dated but was pretty fun.
Star Wars has a history of good games along with some lousy ones.
King Kong was a lot of fun and very pleasing to the eye.
I could probably go on if pressed.
The lotr games are usually well recieved, in particular that mmo one.
Scarface felt a little dated but was pretty fun.
Star Wars has a history of good games along with some lousy ones.
King Kong was a lot of fun and very pleasing to the eye.
I could probably go on if pressed.
I really liked Chronicles of Riddick, and Star Wars usually generates some pretty decent games, a few of them being nothing short of superb (KOTOR). It is for games like these that I don't mind movie games. In fact, I don't care if the market gets more saturated with crappy movie games. I just won't buy them, and I'd advise others to do the same.