The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I think that the quality of games recently has been lower than many years ago due to the fact that games companies can do this because of flimsy liscences.
I'm not against the concept of liscences in games, because there have been some good games based on liscences, such as GoldenEye (N64), and Spiderman(PS), but I'm afraid to say that the majority of games are wasted due to liscences. The most notable offender has to be EA, with numerous liscence based sports games, like Rugby, F1, Football, Golf and even Cricket, once a year. Although in previous posts, I have condoned the publishing of mediocre games, if this is to encourage companies to make new and innovative games, although people still buy these games.
Another example hs to be Ronaldo V-Football. The graphics aren't great, and the game itself is too easy. It does have some good features in it, like endurance, where you have to play games one after another, and can only save after every 10th win. Companies must realise one thing: GAMEPLAY IS EVERYTHING. People do not care about the polygon counts in games if the game itself is not up to scartch.
Liscences are killing original gaming, becuase as long as a company has an official name next to it, then there will be mugs willing to buy them.
I'm not against the concept of liscences in games, because there have been some good games based on liscences, such as GoldenEye (N64), and Spiderman(PS), but I'm afraid to say that the majority of games are wasted due to liscences. The most notable offender has to be EA, with numerous liscence based sports games, like Rugby, F1, Football, Golf and even Cricket, once a year. Although in previous posts, I have condoned the publishing of mediocre games, if this is to encourage companies to make new and innovative games, although people still buy these games.
Another example hs to be Ronaldo V-Football. The graphics aren't great, and the game itself is too easy. It does have some good features in it, like endurance, where you have to play games one after another, and can only save after every 10th win. Companies must realise one thing: GAMEPLAY IS EVERYTHING. People do not care about the polygon counts in games if the game itself is not up to scartch.
Liscences are killing original gaming, becuase as long as a company has an official name next to it, then there will be mugs willing to buy them.
Page:
I think that the quality of games recently has been lower than many years ago due to the fact that games companies can do this because of flimsy liscences.
I'm not against the concept of liscences in games, because there have been some good games based on liscences, such as GoldenEye (N64), and Spiderman(PS), but I'm afraid to say that the majority of games are wasted due to liscences. The most notable offender has to be EA, with numerous liscence based sports games, like Rugby, F1, Football, Golf and even Cricket, once a year. Although in previous posts, I have condoned the publishing of mediocre games, if this is to encourage companies to make new and innovative games, although people still buy these games.
Another example hs to be Ronaldo V-Football. The graphics aren't great, and the game itself is too easy. It does have some good features in it, like endurance, where you have to play games one after another, and can only save after every 10th win. Companies must realise one thing: GAMEPLAY IS EVERYTHING. People do not care about the polygon counts in games if the game itself is not up to scartch.
Liscences are killing original gaming, becuase as long as a company has an official name next to it, then there will be mugs willing to buy them.
I'm not against the concept of liscences in games, because there have been some good games based on liscences, such as GoldenEye (N64), and Spiderman(PS), but I'm afraid to say that the majority of games are wasted due to liscences. The most notable offender has to be EA, with numerous liscence based sports games, like Rugby, F1, Football, Golf and even Cricket, once a year. Although in previous posts, I have condoned the publishing of mediocre games, if this is to encourage companies to make new and innovative games, although people still buy these games.
Another example hs to be Ronaldo V-Football. The graphics aren't great, and the game itself is too easy. It does have some good features in it, like endurance, where you have to play games one after another, and can only save after every 10th win. Companies must realise one thing: GAMEPLAY IS EVERYTHING. People do not care about the polygon counts in games if the game itself is not up to scartch.
Liscences are killing original gaming, becuase as long as a company has an official name next to it, then there will be mugs willing to buy them.
That's right. FIFA immediately springs to mind. Who's it from, EA. Everyone buys it even though ISS has much better gameplay. It just doesn't have the real names. SUPERMAN is another example. I don't know who this is made by and I was never expecting it to be great but come on. Fog that doesn't allow you to see 2 inches in front of you, horrendous pop up and awful gameplay make this one of the worst games I've ever played. Oh, and speaking of worst games, the worst game I have ever played is WWF ATTITUDE (read my review on UKreviews if you want to know why). Acclaim have somehow managed to release a game that is worse than its predeccesor, WARZONE. That wasn't very good either but better than this.
It isn't the actual licenses that make the games bad, it is the way that the developer uses the license that counts.
Personally, I find that film licenses are the worst. It is very rare that a game with a film license turns out to be absolutely stunning. Some examples of terrible games with a film license would be: Superman, which has already been discussed and having never played it, I can only assume that it is as terrible as you say. Jurassic Park is another example. The PSX version was absolutely terrible.
There have been some good ones, such as Alien Trilogy and Star Wars: Starfighter (although Star Wars games normally turn out really pants).
EA have tonnes of licenses: FIFA, and NHL just two examples, and most of them turn out pretty average, but the license plays a part in the fact that they sell well. FIFA especially, as it nearly always outsells ISS but is generally the inferior game, which shows that the license does play a part in the success of a game.
As I said before, it is how the developers and the publishers use the license that makes the game a success. If that license is not used to its full potential, then the game will turn out pants.
Personally, I find that film licenses are the worst. It is very rare that a game with a film license turns out to be absolutely stunning. Some examples of terrible games with a film license would be: Superman, which has already been discussed and having never played it, I can only assume that it is as terrible as you say. Jurassic Park is another example. The PSX version was absolutely terrible.
There have been some good ones, such as Alien Trilogy and Star Wars: Starfighter (although Star Wars games normally turn out really pants).
EA have tonnes of licenses: FIFA, and NHL just two examples, and most of them turn out pretty average, but the license plays a part in the fact that they sell well. FIFA especially, as it nearly always outsells ISS but is generally the inferior game, which shows that the license does play a part in the success of a game.
As I said before, it is how the developers and the publishers use the license that makes the game a success. If that license is not used to its full potential, then the game will turn out pants.
What's in a name?
In the gaming world, everything!
You see, people are drawn towards games that have big names on them. No not big as in long, I mean big as in popular.
Why do you think Final Fantasy 8 sold so well? No, not becuase it was a great game (and let's face it it wasn't, it was rubbish) becuase it had the name 'Final Fantasy' slapped on it.
If Final Fantasy 7 hadn't had the name 'Final Fantasy' on it, do you think it would have sold so well? If it had been exactly the same game, same graphics, smae gameplay same everything. Would it have done so well? Would it have been so widely known? Of course it wouldn't! It still would have been big (well, maybe) but it sure as hell would not have dominated the game charts as it did. (Number one for six weeks running, if I remember correctly)
Even outside the gaming world it's the same. Trainers are a prime example. Say Adidas made a pair of excellent trainers. They looked great and were really really comfy. They would have sold like hot-cakes! But say Diodora (Who?) made a pair exactly the same. Would they have soled? (No pun intended... well... maybe just a bit :-D) Hell no! Adidas have built up a reputation over the years and are now the trendiest thing on the market. Diodora haven't.
The same goes for the game developers. A Shigeru Miyamoto game is always met by public acclaim and recognition. Miyamoto has earnt that reputation. He has already proved that he is a God when it comes to game-making. If Bill Gates (mumbled curses) made a game of this calibre would it be recognised as much? Err... well probably (Should of thought about that one more :-D) BUT! (Heh!) It woudl only have been praised among Gates' supporters. Whereas a Miyamoto game is recognised and praises among the entire gaming community, A Gates game of the same calibre... wouldn't, quite simply.
The funny thing is, although everyone says that the name doesn't matter, it's the game that matters, That's just not true! No matter how much you deny it it's always there nagging at the back of your mind.
In any industry (not just the gaming one) these days, a name makes or breaks a product. As much as you hate the idea and as much as you try to shy away from the fact... It's true!
RBS
In the gaming world, everything!
You see, people are drawn towards games that have big names on them. No not big as in long, I mean big as in popular.
Why do you think Final Fantasy 8 sold so well? No, not becuase it was a great game (and let's face it it wasn't, it was rubbish) becuase it had the name 'Final Fantasy' slapped on it.
If Final Fantasy 7 hadn't had the name 'Final Fantasy' on it, do you think it would have sold so well? If it had been exactly the same game, same graphics, smae gameplay same everything. Would it have done so well? Would it have been so widely known? Of course it wouldn't! It still would have been big (well, maybe) but it sure as hell would not have dominated the game charts as it did. (Number one for six weeks running, if I remember correctly)
Even outside the gaming world it's the same. Trainers are a prime example. Say Adidas made a pair of excellent trainers. They looked great and were really really comfy. They would have sold like hot-cakes! But say Diodora (Who?) made a pair exactly the same. Would they have soled? (No pun intended... well... maybe just a bit :-D) Hell no! Adidas have built up a reputation over the years and are now the trendiest thing on the market. Diodora haven't.
The same goes for the game developers. A Shigeru Miyamoto game is always met by public acclaim and recognition. Miyamoto has earnt that reputation. He has already proved that he is a God when it comes to game-making. If Bill Gates (mumbled curses) made a game of this calibre would it be recognised as much? Err... well probably (Should of thought about that one more :-D) BUT! (Heh!) It woudl only have been praised among Gates' supporters. Whereas a Miyamoto game is recognised and praises among the entire gaming community, A Gates game of the same calibre... wouldn't, quite simply.
The funny thing is, although everyone says that the name doesn't matter, it's the game that matters, That's just not true! No matter how much you deny it it's always there nagging at the back of your mind.
In any industry (not just the gaming one) these days, a name makes or breaks a product. As much as you hate the idea and as much as you try to shy away from the fact... It's true!
RBS
You are absolutely right Rasta. It is the name that makes a game successful, which was what I was trying to say with the licenses. In most cases, a game with a license, will sell a lot better than a game without a lisence, FIFA being more successful than ISS is a good example. And when that lisence is actually in the name of the game, which FIFA and most others are, just makes that success even greater.
Liscences? what!
Sniper wrote:
> Liscences? what!
Nice to see Sniper back to his usual self after that freakishly strange time when he actually posted something longer than 10 words!
> Liscences? what!
Nice to see Sniper back to his usual self after that freakishly strange time when he actually posted something longer than 10 words!
Super Gohan wrote:
> You are absolutely right Rasta.
What?!?!?!?!
STOP PRESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I WAS RIGHT!!
Lets make a National Holiday, Holy Hell! I Got Something Right Day!
:-)
> You are absolutely right Rasta.
What?!?!?!?!
STOP PRESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I WAS RIGHT!!
Lets make a National Holiday, Holy Hell! I Got Something Right Day!
:-)
Get out more RBS.
Plus learn how to spell licenses.
Plus learn how to spell licenses.
Sniper wrote:
> Get out more RBS.
I'm willing to bet I get out more than you :-D
Plus learn how to spell licenses.
Hey, I didn't spell it wrong!
> Get out more RBS.
I'm willing to bet I get out more than you :-D
Plus learn how to spell licenses.
Hey, I didn't spell it wrong!
Page: