The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Several trends can be spotted in the gaming industry several developers are guaranteed to release smash hits, Nintendo will always seem to be a children’s console and film licenses will turn out rubbish.
It’s the latter I'm going to talk about today why do movie/TV license games turn out rubbish? But of course not all day the WWF games are a prime example as was Goldeneye so ok why do some turn out really awful e.g. Superman and some turn out awesome e.g. Goldeneye?
Many put it down to lazy development why should developers bother making a decent game if the name will sell it anyway? I have a different theory and it involves experimentation. Experimenting with different ideas and different methods of development is a risk as well it could all go belly up and the company could end up in a financial mess like Squaresoft and the disastrous Final Fantasy Movie.
So when a movie license comes along well developers can now mess about, try brand new ideas and mess with different genre's they are not used to because if the game goes wrong it can still fall back on the famous name. Simpson’s wrestling for example any normal developer could make an RPG or something but this developer thought I’ll experiment and make this ok it didn't work but ahh well the name will save it and it did. South Park Rally and Chef's Luv Shack were experiments both genres that have appeared before but not used as often as others they both turned out all right.
Now this might go a long way to help people realise why Nintendo are so successful. Look at these names:
Mario
Zelda
Pokemon
Kirby
Donkey Kong
Etc...
Now these names are BIG names and so Nintendo can experiment an experiment such as Mario Party if it fails the Mario name will save it but it actually turned out awesome and Nintendo were praised an example of failures include Hey You Pikachu from what I have heard it is awful but I bet it will sell well due to the name, it was an experiment but it didn't work. Resident Evil is a big name the developer decided to experiment with a different genre and created Resident Evil survivor, it didn't work but thanks to the name it still sold by the bucket load.
The fact of the matter is big developers can afford to make lousy titles but they won't waste the lousy attempts they'll try something new and if this new idea becomes a smash hit like WWF Smackdown which set a new standard for wrestling games then it will continue (Goldeneye set a new standard for First Person Shooters). It is how new genres will develop in the future.
Here's to the future
Dringo.
It’s the latter I'm going to talk about today why do movie/TV license games turn out rubbish? But of course not all day the WWF games are a prime example as was Goldeneye so ok why do some turn out really awful e.g. Superman and some turn out awesome e.g. Goldeneye?
Many put it down to lazy development why should developers bother making a decent game if the name will sell it anyway? I have a different theory and it involves experimentation. Experimenting with different ideas and different methods of development is a risk as well it could all go belly up and the company could end up in a financial mess like Squaresoft and the disastrous Final Fantasy Movie.
So when a movie license comes along well developers can now mess about, try brand new ideas and mess with different genre's they are not used to because if the game goes wrong it can still fall back on the famous name. Simpson’s wrestling for example any normal developer could make an RPG or something but this developer thought I’ll experiment and make this ok it didn't work but ahh well the name will save it and it did. South Park Rally and Chef's Luv Shack were experiments both genres that have appeared before but not used as often as others they both turned out all right.
Now this might go a long way to help people realise why Nintendo are so successful. Look at these names:
Mario
Zelda
Pokemon
Kirby
Donkey Kong
Etc...
Now these names are BIG names and so Nintendo can experiment an experiment such as Mario Party if it fails the Mario name will save it but it actually turned out awesome and Nintendo were praised an example of failures include Hey You Pikachu from what I have heard it is awful but I bet it will sell well due to the name, it was an experiment but it didn't work. Resident Evil is a big name the developer decided to experiment with a different genre and created Resident Evil survivor, it didn't work but thanks to the name it still sold by the bucket load.
The fact of the matter is big developers can afford to make lousy titles but they won't waste the lousy attempts they'll try something new and if this new idea becomes a smash hit like WWF Smackdown which set a new standard for wrestling games then it will continue (Goldeneye set a new standard for First Person Shooters). It is how new genres will develop in the future.
Here's to the future
Dringo.
Ant wrote:
Would you say
> Goldeneye did the job for FPS' though? I think many would say Half-Life, or
> Wolfenstein 3D, but it's arguable.
Well Wolfenstien started it but Goldeneye redefined it.
For the first time ever in a game it gave us Stealth, Sniping, 4 play splitscreen, proper mission objectives, little details like bullet holes, reloading, head shots, hats falling off, AI (lame by todays standards but revolutionary back then), and various other ideas too.
The best PC FPS at the time was Jedi Knight. A class game but clearly outclassed by Rare's beauty through smoothness of graphics, gameplay, animation, AI, playability and originality.
More importantly, it showed that with a correct control system, consoles could handle FPS games just as well as PC's could, if not better!
Half Life came a year later and might've been better than Goldeneye (I've not played half life).
But I seriously doubt that it advanced that genre as much and most likely used plenty of ideas that had been revolutionised in Goldeneye.
I've gone on a little bit there...
Would you say
> Goldeneye did the job for FPS' though? I think many would say Half-Life, or
> Wolfenstein 3D, but it's arguable.
Well Wolfenstien started it but Goldeneye redefined it.
For the first time ever in a game it gave us Stealth, Sniping, 4 play splitscreen, proper mission objectives, little details like bullet holes, reloading, head shots, hats falling off, AI (lame by todays standards but revolutionary back then), and various other ideas too.
The best PC FPS at the time was Jedi Knight. A class game but clearly outclassed by Rare's beauty through smoothness of graphics, gameplay, animation, AI, playability and originality.
More importantly, it showed that with a correct control system, consoles could handle FPS games just as well as PC's could, if not better!
Half Life came a year later and might've been better than Goldeneye (I've not played half life).
But I seriously doubt that it advanced that genre as much and most likely used plenty of ideas that had been revolutionised in Goldeneye.
I've gone on a little bit there...
Wolfenstein started it all really Goldeneye set new standards in my mind.
Humm...You appear to make 2 points in that topic, and I'll reply to both.
1-Yes, games that are based on movies are usually crap, with the odd exeception of Goldeneye, The Phantom Menace and Aliens Vs Predator. Hopefully this can improve with time.
2-I think I see what you mesn about setting standards. Ground-breaking titles are always a good thing, as it means more will hopefully come along, trying to live up to it's status.
Would you say Goldeneye did the job for FPS' though? I think many would say Half-Life, or Wolfenstein 3D, but it's arguable.
1-Yes, games that are based on movies are usually crap, with the odd exeception of Goldeneye, The Phantom Menace and Aliens Vs Predator. Hopefully this can improve with time.
2-I think I see what you mesn about setting standards. Ground-breaking titles are always a good thing, as it means more will hopefully come along, trying to live up to it's status.
Would you say Goldeneye did the job for FPS' though? I think many would say Half-Life, or Wolfenstein 3D, but it's arguable.
Several trends can be spotted in the gaming industry several developers are guaranteed to release smash hits, Nintendo will always seem to be a children’s console and film licenses will turn out rubbish.
It’s the latter I'm going to talk about today why do movie/TV license games turn out rubbish? But of course not all day the WWF games are a prime example as was Goldeneye so ok why do some turn out really awful e.g. Superman and some turn out awesome e.g. Goldeneye?
Many put it down to lazy development why should developers bother making a decent game if the name will sell it anyway? I have a different theory and it involves experimentation. Experimenting with different ideas and different methods of development is a risk as well it could all go belly up and the company could end up in a financial mess like Squaresoft and the disastrous Final Fantasy Movie.
So when a movie license comes along well developers can now mess about, try brand new ideas and mess with different genre's they are not used to because if the game goes wrong it can still fall back on the famous name. Simpson’s wrestling for example any normal developer could make an RPG or something but this developer thought I’ll experiment and make this ok it didn't work but ahh well the name will save it and it did. South Park Rally and Chef's Luv Shack were experiments both genres that have appeared before but not used as often as others they both turned out all right.
Now this might go a long way to help people realise why Nintendo are so successful. Look at these names:
Mario
Zelda
Pokemon
Kirby
Donkey Kong
Etc...
Now these names are BIG names and so Nintendo can experiment an experiment such as Mario Party if it fails the Mario name will save it but it actually turned out awesome and Nintendo were praised an example of failures include Hey You Pikachu from what I have heard it is awful but I bet it will sell well due to the name, it was an experiment but it didn't work. Resident Evil is a big name the developer decided to experiment with a different genre and created Resident Evil survivor, it didn't work but thanks to the name it still sold by the bucket load.
The fact of the matter is big developers can afford to make lousy titles but they won't waste the lousy attempts they'll try something new and if this new idea becomes a smash hit like WWF Smackdown which set a new standard for wrestling games then it will continue (Goldeneye set a new standard for First Person Shooters). It is how new genres will develop in the future.
Here's to the future
Dringo.
It’s the latter I'm going to talk about today why do movie/TV license games turn out rubbish? But of course not all day the WWF games are a prime example as was Goldeneye so ok why do some turn out really awful e.g. Superman and some turn out awesome e.g. Goldeneye?
Many put it down to lazy development why should developers bother making a decent game if the name will sell it anyway? I have a different theory and it involves experimentation. Experimenting with different ideas and different methods of development is a risk as well it could all go belly up and the company could end up in a financial mess like Squaresoft and the disastrous Final Fantasy Movie.
So when a movie license comes along well developers can now mess about, try brand new ideas and mess with different genre's they are not used to because if the game goes wrong it can still fall back on the famous name. Simpson’s wrestling for example any normal developer could make an RPG or something but this developer thought I’ll experiment and make this ok it didn't work but ahh well the name will save it and it did. South Park Rally and Chef's Luv Shack were experiments both genres that have appeared before but not used as often as others they both turned out all right.
Now this might go a long way to help people realise why Nintendo are so successful. Look at these names:
Mario
Zelda
Pokemon
Kirby
Donkey Kong
Etc...
Now these names are BIG names and so Nintendo can experiment an experiment such as Mario Party if it fails the Mario name will save it but it actually turned out awesome and Nintendo were praised an example of failures include Hey You Pikachu from what I have heard it is awful but I bet it will sell well due to the name, it was an experiment but it didn't work. Resident Evil is a big name the developer decided to experiment with a different genre and created Resident Evil survivor, it didn't work but thanks to the name it still sold by the bucket load.
The fact of the matter is big developers can afford to make lousy titles but they won't waste the lousy attempts they'll try something new and if this new idea becomes a smash hit like WWF Smackdown which set a new standard for wrestling games then it will continue (Goldeneye set a new standard for First Person Shooters). It is how new genres will develop in the future.
Here's to the future
Dringo.