The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Eighties pop group Frankie Goes To Hollywood. Postman Pat. Harrowing Vietnam movie Platoon. The Volkswagen Beetle. Manchester United. Big Brother. Paul Hardcastle's song '19'. Heck, even Edd the Duck. What do they all have in common? They've been licensed for use as computer games. And now, with news that Terminator is returning to our joypads (foolowing a lukewarm tie-in to the film Terminator 2 ten years ago), it seems that the boom in licensed games is returning once more.
It's easy to see the advantage to the publisher. Instead of trying to push over a new concept to the buying public every time they come up with a new game, they simply buy the rights to use something we're already familiar with, pretty much let the finished product sell itself and occasionally (but only if we're good), throw in a good game for the buying public at the end of it all. But therein lies the problem. The graveyard of mediocre licensed videogames is full to bursting point, with queues right around the block waiting to get in. Why? Because having spent all that money on the licance, chances are there's not so much left in the development pot, and if we're all going to buy the damn thing anyway on the strength of the name, where's the incentive to the software company to spend ages making something worthwhile to put in the box? Oh, we are cynics. However, every now and then, a developer manages to take a licence, and genuinely use it to enhance their game, and it's moments like these that make it all worthwhile. Take Ocean Software back in the early 90s. The company, previously criticised for its templated approach to movie licences (take big film, turn into a series of sub games which increasingly got worse with each release - examples include NAVY SEALs and Total Recall), had an early first person-shooter on its roster that they applied the Robocop licence to. And hey presto, what was before a good enough game in its own right was cleverly enhanced by proper application of the licence. Everyone's a winner!
Of course, when licensed games are good enough they turn into money mints for companies concerned. The PSone game Who Wants To Be A Millionaire has sold more than a million copies in this country alone across all formats (a staggering achievement, thus leading to inevitable sequels), whilst at various points in the past ten years, games featuring the likes of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, WWF Wrestling and The Simpsons have also bolstered the bank accounts of those concerned. At one point, licensed games were so prevalent that it got to the point where magazine news pages were nothing more than lists of who had signed what, and for publishers, they know if they marry the right game to the right licence, they're laughing all the way to the bank (FIFA series, anyone?).
But something had to give. Consumers began to realise the big licence did not necessarily lead to a good game, and as the market got wiser, licensed games became less successful. Sure, the ones that had a big enough name (think Star Wars, Star Trek etc) still sold, but for long-term shelf-life, we began to demand - and partially got - better games. Thus, the formulaic way of bringing films, TV shows and such like to the gaming world had to cahnge - and it did. Not for nothing are there very few, if any games on the PS2 that sell on the strength of their licence alone, with FIFA the possible exception.
For perhaps the best example of successful usage of licensing in the modern gaming world lies in the EA sports range. Here, the company have snagged licences to the likes of FIFA, Cricket World Cup, NBA, NHL and so on, building up a portfolio of official sporting titles covering all interests, and thus regular income into the EA account. Here again though is an example of how licensing has evolved. How many of you out there actually went and bought FIFA 2001 because it had the endorsement of football's world governing body? Chances are, more of you were swayed by the EA sports brand, the reputation of the FIFA games, generally positive reviews and the pretty pictures on the back of the box. Feel free to post in and disagree.
PC owners got probably the best recent example of a licensed game in the form of Alien vs Predator. It's a title that unites the oh-so-popular first-person shooting genre with the tension, moodiness and - occasionally - all out action of the Alien movies. Genuinely a game you may need to play with the lights on, and certainly better than any of the Alien games that have made it onto any other format. Bah!
So what now? Now, we're at the point where licences now aren't necessarily the be all and end all of the title. Gran Turismo 3 has licensed several cars for use in the game, but none appear on the front of the box - which would have been unheard of even five years ago. Certainly a good licence can work wonders - look at the mega-hit Who Wants To Be A Millionaire for example - but do you honestly feel that the likes of Metal Gear Solid 2 needs a licence to sell it? Me neither. For the market has grown up. A licence may work wonders for the first week's sale of a game, but should a publisher fail to attach the requisite quality game, we've got plenty of other titles out there to keep us entertained. And believe me, I'm more happy to play them instead.
It's easy to see the advantage to the publisher. Instead of trying to push over a new concept to the buying public every time they come up with a new game, they simply buy the rights to use something we're already familiar with, pretty much let the finished product sell itself and occasionally (but only if we're good), throw in a good game for the buying public at the end of it all. But therein lies the problem. The graveyard of mediocre licensed videogames is full to bursting point, with queues right around the block waiting to get in. Why? Because having spent all that money on the licance, chances are there's not so much left in the development pot, and if we're all going to buy the damn thing anyway on the strength of the name, where's the incentive to the software company to spend ages making something worthwhile to put in the box? Oh, we are cynics. However, every now and then, a developer manages to take a licence, and genuinely use it to enhance their game, and it's moments like these that make it all worthwhile. Take Ocean Software back in the early 90s. The company, previously criticised for its templated approach to movie licences (take big film, turn into a series of sub games which increasingly got worse with each release - examples include NAVY SEALs and Total Recall), had an early first person-shooter on its roster that they applied the Robocop licence to. And hey presto, what was before a good enough game in its own right was cleverly enhanced by proper application of the licence. Everyone's a winner!
Of course, when licensed games are good enough they turn into money mints for companies concerned. The PSone game Who Wants To Be A Millionaire has sold more than a million copies in this country alone across all formats (a staggering achievement, thus leading to inevitable sequels), whilst at various points in the past ten years, games featuring the likes of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, WWF Wrestling and The Simpsons have also bolstered the bank accounts of those concerned. At one point, licensed games were so prevalent that it got to the point where magazine news pages were nothing more than lists of who had signed what, and for publishers, they know if they marry the right game to the right licence, they're laughing all the way to the bank (FIFA series, anyone?).
But something had to give. Consumers began to realise the big licence did not necessarily lead to a good game, and as the market got wiser, licensed games became less successful. Sure, the ones that had a big enough name (think Star Wars, Star Trek etc) still sold, but for long-term shelf-life, we began to demand - and partially got - better games. Thus, the formulaic way of bringing films, TV shows and such like to the gaming world had to cahnge - and it did. Not for nothing are there very few, if any games on the PS2 that sell on the strength of their licence alone, with FIFA the possible exception.
For perhaps the best example of successful usage of licensing in the modern gaming world lies in the EA sports range. Here, the company have snagged licences to the likes of FIFA, Cricket World Cup, NBA, NHL and so on, building up a portfolio of official sporting titles covering all interests, and thus regular income into the EA account. Here again though is an example of how licensing has evolved. How many of you out there actually went and bought FIFA 2001 because it had the endorsement of football's world governing body? Chances are, more of you were swayed by the EA sports brand, the reputation of the FIFA games, generally positive reviews and the pretty pictures on the back of the box. Feel free to post in and disagree.
PC owners got probably the best recent example of a licensed game in the form of Alien vs Predator. It's a title that unites the oh-so-popular first-person shooting genre with the tension, moodiness and - occasionally - all out action of the Alien movies. Genuinely a game you may need to play with the lights on, and certainly better than any of the Alien games that have made it onto any other format. Bah!
So what now? Now, we're at the point where licences now aren't necessarily the be all and end all of the title. Gran Turismo 3 has licensed several cars for use in the game, but none appear on the front of the box - which would have been unheard of even five years ago. Certainly a good licence can work wonders - look at the mega-hit Who Wants To Be A Millionaire for example - but do you honestly feel that the likes of Metal Gear Solid 2 needs a licence to sell it? Me neither. For the market has grown up. A licence may work wonders for the first week's sale of a game, but should a publisher fail to attach the requisite quality game, we've got plenty of other titles out there to keep us entertained. And believe me, I'm more happy to play them instead.
Page:
Eighties pop group Frankie Goes To Hollywood. Postman Pat. Harrowing Vietnam movie Platoon. The Volkswagen Beetle. Manchester United. Big Brother. Paul Hardcastle's song '19'. Heck, even Edd the Duck. What do they all have in common? They've been licensed for use as computer games. And now, with news that Terminator is returning to our joypads (foolowing a lukewarm tie-in to the film Terminator 2 ten years ago), it seems that the boom in licensed games is returning once more.
It's easy to see the advantage to the publisher. Instead of trying to push over a new concept to the buying public every time they come up with a new game, they simply buy the rights to use something we're already familiar with, pretty much let the finished product sell itself and occasionally (but only if we're good), throw in a good game for the buying public at the end of it all. But therein lies the problem. The graveyard of mediocre licensed videogames is full to bursting point, with queues right around the block waiting to get in. Why? Because having spent all that money on the licance, chances are there's not so much left in the development pot, and if we're all going to buy the damn thing anyway on the strength of the name, where's the incentive to the software company to spend ages making something worthwhile to put in the box? Oh, we are cynics. However, every now and then, a developer manages to take a licence, and genuinely use it to enhance their game, and it's moments like these that make it all worthwhile. Take Ocean Software back in the early 90s. The company, previously criticised for its templated approach to movie licences (take big film, turn into a series of sub games which increasingly got worse with each release - examples include NAVY SEALs and Total Recall), had an early first person-shooter on its roster that they applied the Robocop licence to. And hey presto, what was before a good enough game in its own right was cleverly enhanced by proper application of the licence. Everyone's a winner!
Of course, when licensed games are good enough they turn into money mints for companies concerned. The PSone game Who Wants To Be A Millionaire has sold more than a million copies in this country alone across all formats (a staggering achievement, thus leading to inevitable sequels), whilst at various points in the past ten years, games featuring the likes of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, WWF Wrestling and The Simpsons have also bolstered the bank accounts of those concerned. At one point, licensed games were so prevalent that it got to the point where magazine news pages were nothing more than lists of who had signed what, and for publishers, they know if they marry the right game to the right licence, they're laughing all the way to the bank (FIFA series, anyone?).
But something had to give. Consumers began to realise the big licence did not necessarily lead to a good game, and as the market got wiser, licensed games became less successful. Sure, the ones that had a big enough name (think Star Wars, Star Trek etc) still sold, but for long-term shelf-life, we began to demand - and partially got - better games. Thus, the formulaic way of bringing films, TV shows and such like to the gaming world had to cahnge - and it did. Not for nothing are there very few, if any games on the PS2 that sell on the strength of their licence alone, with FIFA the possible exception.
For perhaps the best example of successful usage of licensing in the modern gaming world lies in the EA sports range. Here, the company have snagged licences to the likes of FIFA, Cricket World Cup, NBA, NHL and so on, building up a portfolio of official sporting titles covering all interests, and thus regular income into the EA account. Here again though is an example of how licensing has evolved. How many of you out there actually went and bought FIFA 2001 because it had the endorsement of football's world governing body? Chances are, more of you were swayed by the EA sports brand, the reputation of the FIFA games, generally positive reviews and the pretty pictures on the back of the box. Feel free to post in and disagree.
PC owners got probably the best recent example of a licensed game in the form of Alien vs Predator. It's a title that unites the oh-so-popular first-person shooting genre with the tension, moodiness and - occasionally - all out action of the Alien movies. Genuinely a game you may need to play with the lights on, and certainly better than any of the Alien games that have made it onto any other format. Bah!
So what now? Now, we're at the point where licences now aren't necessarily the be all and end all of the title. Gran Turismo 3 has licensed several cars for use in the game, but none appear on the front of the box - which would have been unheard of even five years ago. Certainly a good licence can work wonders - look at the mega-hit Who Wants To Be A Millionaire for example - but do you honestly feel that the likes of Metal Gear Solid 2 needs a licence to sell it? Me neither. For the market has grown up. A licence may work wonders for the first week's sale of a game, but should a publisher fail to attach the requisite quality game, we've got plenty of other titles out there to keep us entertained. And believe me, I'm more happy to play them instead.
It's easy to see the advantage to the publisher. Instead of trying to push over a new concept to the buying public every time they come up with a new game, they simply buy the rights to use something we're already familiar with, pretty much let the finished product sell itself and occasionally (but only if we're good), throw in a good game for the buying public at the end of it all. But therein lies the problem. The graveyard of mediocre licensed videogames is full to bursting point, with queues right around the block waiting to get in. Why? Because having spent all that money on the licance, chances are there's not so much left in the development pot, and if we're all going to buy the damn thing anyway on the strength of the name, where's the incentive to the software company to spend ages making something worthwhile to put in the box? Oh, we are cynics. However, every now and then, a developer manages to take a licence, and genuinely use it to enhance their game, and it's moments like these that make it all worthwhile. Take Ocean Software back in the early 90s. The company, previously criticised for its templated approach to movie licences (take big film, turn into a series of sub games which increasingly got worse with each release - examples include NAVY SEALs and Total Recall), had an early first person-shooter on its roster that they applied the Robocop licence to. And hey presto, what was before a good enough game in its own right was cleverly enhanced by proper application of the licence. Everyone's a winner!
Of course, when licensed games are good enough they turn into money mints for companies concerned. The PSone game Who Wants To Be A Millionaire has sold more than a million copies in this country alone across all formats (a staggering achievement, thus leading to inevitable sequels), whilst at various points in the past ten years, games featuring the likes of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, WWF Wrestling and The Simpsons have also bolstered the bank accounts of those concerned. At one point, licensed games were so prevalent that it got to the point where magazine news pages were nothing more than lists of who had signed what, and for publishers, they know if they marry the right game to the right licence, they're laughing all the way to the bank (FIFA series, anyone?).
But something had to give. Consumers began to realise the big licence did not necessarily lead to a good game, and as the market got wiser, licensed games became less successful. Sure, the ones that had a big enough name (think Star Wars, Star Trek etc) still sold, but for long-term shelf-life, we began to demand - and partially got - better games. Thus, the formulaic way of bringing films, TV shows and such like to the gaming world had to cahnge - and it did. Not for nothing are there very few, if any games on the PS2 that sell on the strength of their licence alone, with FIFA the possible exception.
For perhaps the best example of successful usage of licensing in the modern gaming world lies in the EA sports range. Here, the company have snagged licences to the likes of FIFA, Cricket World Cup, NBA, NHL and so on, building up a portfolio of official sporting titles covering all interests, and thus regular income into the EA account. Here again though is an example of how licensing has evolved. How many of you out there actually went and bought FIFA 2001 because it had the endorsement of football's world governing body? Chances are, more of you were swayed by the EA sports brand, the reputation of the FIFA games, generally positive reviews and the pretty pictures on the back of the box. Feel free to post in and disagree.
PC owners got probably the best recent example of a licensed game in the form of Alien vs Predator. It's a title that unites the oh-so-popular first-person shooting genre with the tension, moodiness and - occasionally - all out action of the Alien movies. Genuinely a game you may need to play with the lights on, and certainly better than any of the Alien games that have made it onto any other format. Bah!
So what now? Now, we're at the point where licences now aren't necessarily the be all and end all of the title. Gran Turismo 3 has licensed several cars for use in the game, but none appear on the front of the box - which would have been unheard of even five years ago. Certainly a good licence can work wonders - look at the mega-hit Who Wants To Be A Millionaire for example - but do you honestly feel that the likes of Metal Gear Solid 2 needs a licence to sell it? Me neither. For the market has grown up. A licence may work wonders for the first week's sale of a game, but should a publisher fail to attach the requisite quality game, we've got plenty of other titles out there to keep us entertained. And believe me, I'm more happy to play them instead.
Go away cheater, I've seen your copied reviews and this is all probally copied aswell. You don't stay around to do anything apart from post one thing a day then leave. Can I be bothered to read them? No.
Yes, but you see the other bloke hadn't copied reviews as far as I was aware of. My rage can't stay in me forever I have to break free at sometime, and I suppose you did read it then Neo? I doubt it and don't reply to this post with just one of your typical one word posts.
hmm you seem to be catching me up in the cheats race...be afraid
oh this is soo copied
You see Nikky, you get them from magazines, not reviews but articles in there and then copy them and that makes them untracable. So unless I've got the mag then I can't prove anything, but I've found some of his reviews that are copied so what is to say that this isn't?
Neo-Genetic wrote:
So it is going to be difficult for me to not give you the satisfaction of upsetting me again with one of your incredibly insulting posts.
Hey, you scratch my back then I'll scratch yours. You don't SPAM and then I'll be nice to you, but you came here as a SPAMMER and you still remain to be one, and you are only given one first impression when all the time you're going 'I'm trying', but like I've said how hard is it not to SPAM?
Look, you don't SPAM and I don't hate you. The end.
So it is going to be difficult for me to not give you the satisfaction of upsetting me again with one of your incredibly insulting posts.
Hey, you scratch my back then I'll scratch yours. You don't SPAM and then I'll be nice to you, but you came here as a SPAMMER and you still remain to be one, and you are only given one first impression when all the time you're going 'I'm trying', but like I've said how hard is it not to SPAM?
Look, you don't SPAM and I don't hate you. The end.
how many times do i have to say this
are you such an idiot that it just goes through one ear and out the other?
it seems like that to me
i dont like being called nikky i hate the name its stupid and it just winds me up
DONT CALL ME NIKKY
or any other form of nikky
whether it be
nikky
nikki
niki
niccy
nicci
nici
nikkee
nikee
get it i dont like the name nikki
are you such an idiot that it just goes through one ear and out the other?
it seems like that to me
i dont like being called nikky i hate the name its stupid and it just winds me up
DONT CALL ME NIKKY
or any other form of nikky
whether it be
nikky
nikki
niki
niccy
nicci
nici
nikkee
nikee
get it i dont like the name nikki
Page: