The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Games manufacturers are constantly stumping up cash for licences to stick on their games. Indeed, many a developer has been known to quite literally stick their hands down the back of their staff sofa in an attempt to get a quid closer to the £3 million required for the rights to The Matrix.
But is it worthwhile? It may well sell more games, providing the licence is a popular one, but can it make an actual difference to the GAME? Or do the essential game mechanics remain the same, licence or no licence?
It's an odd question, perhaps. It would seem at first glance that it makes no difference at all - I used to think much the same thing. But recently I've begun to question this theory. I now think that indirectly, a film/book/music/whatever licence can affect a game's essence.
Take GoldenEye as an example. Perfect Dark, absolutely great as it is, came across to many as something of a disappointment. There were loads and loads of whining consumers, complaining that the game simply wasn't as good as its predecessor, but none could place what went wrong.
I think what went wrong was the fact that Rare forgot half of what made GoldenEye so great - the whole "spy" feeling you got from playing it. Perfect Dark relies much more on traditional first-person shooter values; the alien levels were just too ridiculous to take seriously. GoldenEye hit its peak during levels like Facility, where the player infiltrated somewhere, took down enemies silently and made their way through to the climax. All too often, Perfect Dark was an all-out, high-octane blast with no spying-based escapism at all.
What I'm trying to say is that GoldenEye encouraged Rare to mimic the James Bond licence, and that in turn affected the game mechanics somewhat. Without the need to replicate the essence of Bond, GoldenEye could have turned out much more like Perfect Dark than it did: and though Perfect Dark is a good game, it certainly lost some of the greatness found in GoldenEye.
Obviously, that example is a positive one, but I'm not sure all licences have such a great effect upon games. I'm sure there are those that have negatively affected a title - can anybody think of one? And does anyone disagree with me, and not believe that licences, under the right circumstances, can have such a large effect upon the games they're applied to? As always, I anticipate your responses with great interest.
But is it worthwhile? It may well sell more games, providing the licence is a popular one, but can it make an actual difference to the GAME? Or do the essential game mechanics remain the same, licence or no licence?
It's an odd question, perhaps. It would seem at first glance that it makes no difference at all - I used to think much the same thing. But recently I've begun to question this theory. I now think that indirectly, a film/book/music/whatever licence can affect a game's essence.
Take GoldenEye as an example. Perfect Dark, absolutely great as it is, came across to many as something of a disappointment. There were loads and loads of whining consumers, complaining that the game simply wasn't as good as its predecessor, but none could place what went wrong.
I think what went wrong was the fact that Rare forgot half of what made GoldenEye so great - the whole "spy" feeling you got from playing it. Perfect Dark relies much more on traditional first-person shooter values; the alien levels were just too ridiculous to take seriously. GoldenEye hit its peak during levels like Facility, where the player infiltrated somewhere, took down enemies silently and made their way through to the climax. All too often, Perfect Dark was an all-out, high-octane blast with no spying-based escapism at all.
What I'm trying to say is that GoldenEye encouraged Rare to mimic the James Bond licence, and that in turn affected the game mechanics somewhat. Without the need to replicate the essence of Bond, GoldenEye could have turned out much more like Perfect Dark than it did: and though Perfect Dark is a good game, it certainly lost some of the greatness found in GoldenEye.
Obviously, that example is a positive one, but I'm not sure all licences have such a great effect upon games. I'm sure there are those that have negatively affected a title - can anybody think of one? And does anyone disagree with me, and not believe that licences, under the right circumstances, can have such a large effect upon the games they're applied to? As always, I anticipate your responses with great interest.
Page:
Bodgemeister wrote:
what
> made GoldenEye so great - the whole "spy" feeling you got from playing
> it. Perfect Dark relies much more on traditional first-person shooter values;
> the alien levels were just too ridiculous to take seriously. GoldenEye hit its
> peak during levels like Facility, where the player infiltrated somewhere, took
> down enemies silently and made their way through to the climax. All too often,
> Perfect Dark was an all-out, high-octane blast with no spying-based escapism at
> all.
THat is the biggest load of crap i have heard in a long time...
what
> made GoldenEye so great - the whole "spy" feeling you got from playing
> it. Perfect Dark relies much more on traditional first-person shooter values;
> the alien levels were just too ridiculous to take seriously. GoldenEye hit its
> peak during levels like Facility, where the player infiltrated somewhere, took
> down enemies silently and made their way through to the climax. All too often,
> Perfect Dark was an all-out, high-octane blast with no spying-based escapism at
> all.
THat is the biggest load of crap i have heard in a long time...
A license makes all the difference. The developers who gain a license for a game or something are really in it for the money, not to produce a great game for us happy gamers.
It's a cheap way of making money. Not many developers actually take the time to make it as good as it should be, do they? The only developers I can think of who actually put an effort into using a license effectively, is RARE. They had the Bond license, and so they had rights to Goldeneye. Not only did they use the license to their advantage, but they eentually created one of the best first-person-shooters ever; a game that would see many others following it's footsteps.
They also had a license to do Mickey Mouse Speedway for the N64. It was alright, it earned good marks, and was generally better than most license games, I can tell you.
Shocky
It's a cheap way of making money. Not many developers actually take the time to make it as good as it should be, do they? The only developers I can think of who actually put an effort into using a license effectively, is RARE. They had the Bond license, and so they had rights to Goldeneye. Not only did they use the license to their advantage, but they eentually created one of the best first-person-shooters ever; a game that would see many others following it's footsteps.
They also had a license to do Mickey Mouse Speedway for the N64. It was alright, it earned good marks, and was generally better than most license games, I can tell you.
Shocky
most licenced games turn out rubbish in the end.
they have to stick to the plot, so you know exactly what is going to happen.
original games are a lot more fun as you don't know what is going to happen.
(FF)
they have to stick to the plot, so you know exactly what is going to happen.
original games are a lot more fun as you don't know what is going to happen.
(FF)
Games manufacturers are constantly stumping up cash for licences to stick on their games. Indeed, many a developer has been known to quite literally stick their hands down the back of their staff sofa in an attempt to get a quid closer to the £3 million required for the rights to The Matrix.
But is it worthwhile? It may well sell more games, providing the licence is a popular one, but can it make an actual difference to the GAME? Or do the essential game mechanics remain the same, licence or no licence?
It's an odd question, perhaps. It would seem at first glance that it makes no difference at all - I used to think much the same thing. But recently I've begun to question this theory. I now think that indirectly, a film/book/music/whatever licence can affect a game's essence.
Take GoldenEye as an example. Perfect Dark, absolutely great as it is, came across to many as something of a disappointment. There were loads and loads of whining consumers, complaining that the game simply wasn't as good as its predecessor, but none could place what went wrong.
I think what went wrong was the fact that Rare forgot half of what made GoldenEye so great - the whole "spy" feeling you got from playing it. Perfect Dark relies much more on traditional first-person shooter values; the alien levels were just too ridiculous to take seriously. GoldenEye hit its peak during levels like Facility, where the player infiltrated somewhere, took down enemies silently and made their way through to the climax. All too often, Perfect Dark was an all-out, high-octane blast with no spying-based escapism at all.
What I'm trying to say is that GoldenEye encouraged Rare to mimic the James Bond licence, and that in turn affected the game mechanics somewhat. Without the need to replicate the essence of Bond, GoldenEye could have turned out much more like Perfect Dark than it did: and though Perfect Dark is a good game, it certainly lost some of the greatness found in GoldenEye.
Obviously, that example is a positive one, but I'm not sure all licences have such a great effect upon games. I'm sure there are those that have negatively affected a title - can anybody think of one? And does anyone disagree with me, and not believe that licences, under the right circumstances, can have such a large effect upon the games they're applied to? As always, I anticipate your responses with great interest.
But is it worthwhile? It may well sell more games, providing the licence is a popular one, but can it make an actual difference to the GAME? Or do the essential game mechanics remain the same, licence or no licence?
It's an odd question, perhaps. It would seem at first glance that it makes no difference at all - I used to think much the same thing. But recently I've begun to question this theory. I now think that indirectly, a film/book/music/whatever licence can affect a game's essence.
Take GoldenEye as an example. Perfect Dark, absolutely great as it is, came across to many as something of a disappointment. There were loads and loads of whining consumers, complaining that the game simply wasn't as good as its predecessor, but none could place what went wrong.
I think what went wrong was the fact that Rare forgot half of what made GoldenEye so great - the whole "spy" feeling you got from playing it. Perfect Dark relies much more on traditional first-person shooter values; the alien levels were just too ridiculous to take seriously. GoldenEye hit its peak during levels like Facility, where the player infiltrated somewhere, took down enemies silently and made their way through to the climax. All too often, Perfect Dark was an all-out, high-octane blast with no spying-based escapism at all.
What I'm trying to say is that GoldenEye encouraged Rare to mimic the James Bond licence, and that in turn affected the game mechanics somewhat. Without the need to replicate the essence of Bond, GoldenEye could have turned out much more like Perfect Dark than it did: and though Perfect Dark is a good game, it certainly lost some of the greatness found in GoldenEye.
Obviously, that example is a positive one, but I'm not sure all licences have such a great effect upon games. I'm sure there are those that have negatively affected a title - can anybody think of one? And does anyone disagree with me, and not believe that licences, under the right circumstances, can have such a large effect upon the games they're applied to? As always, I anticipate your responses with great interest.
Page: