Viewing Thread:
"Whats with Liscences?"

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.

New Jimmy wrote:
> I will admit "Anna Kornikovas Smash Court Tennis" did
> catch my attention perhaps a little more than a game called
> "Smash Court Tennis 2" would have :-)

Lol

I will admit "Anna Kornikovas Smash Court Tennis" did catch my attention perhaps a little more than a game called "Smash Court Tennis 2" would have :-)

FIFA illustrates that point very clearly, people buy it for its name even though InternationalSuperstarSoccer is better. Personally if I was bringing out a Game it would be called "We Hate Man U"...I think the name would sell it :-)

No my point was that even hardcore gamers, no matter how much they hate to admit it, are also drawn towards big names.

Nice win there although I'll have to rephrase your point.

The name isn't as important to us as the Gameplay is.

The name is important to the casual gamers who often choose a game based on how it looks on the shelf and to the publisher who makes money on the game selling to these people but to the more hardcore gamers like us, it doesn't make that much of a difference.

Great point though.

Zeldapro wrote:
> HAve you chosen a GC game yet?

I chose Zelda for my last win, so yes I have chosen a GC game before ;-D

Well if you have then maybe you could
> pick a GBA game

Don't have a GBA

or if you havent got any new games recently for your
> present console and you are a bit bored.

I've already got Battle for Naboo off my second win and I chose IJATIM for my second. So I've either got or have chosen all the games I want to the N64.

I would probably pick an
> GBA game or an N64 game.

Nope, GC for me :-D

The_Vottanator wrote:
> RBS have you got the first wave race on N64?

Yup

RBS have you got the first wave race on N64?

HAve you chosen a GC game yet? Well if you have then maybe you could pick a GBA game or if you havent got any new games recently for your present console and you are a bit bored.

I would probably pick an GBA game or an N64 game.

Hey, you're right!

Yay. Wave Race: Blue Storm here I come! Hmmm, maybe I should choose Star Fox Adventures though... Oh I'llt hink about it over dinner :-D