The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
The Lord of the rings (the fellowship of the ring) film was possibly the best film i have seen, ever! I'm just wondering how EA and possible SIERRA can live up to the brilliance of the film. Can they ever make a game that is as good as the film?
Page:
The Lord of the rings (the fellowship of the ring) film was possibly the best film i have seen, ever! I'm just wondering how EA and possible SIERRA can live up to the brilliance of the film. Can they ever make a game that is as good as the film?
Or the book, the book dammit.
*Jumps around waving her "It was a book first" flag"
*Jumps around waving her "It was a book first" flag"
I have, of course, read the book before the film came out and still think the book is far better. I was talking about the film though because that is probably what future games will be based on. Well character looks etc.
Iguana wrote:
> Or the book, the book dammit.
*Jumps around waving her "It was a book
> first" flag"
heh, my thoughts exactly upon reading the title of this thread.
*reads grapo2001's blatant cover up post*
Yeah, probably true. I suspect more of the gamesplaying public have seen the film than read the book. Good point you made there.
> Or the book, the book dammit.
*Jumps around waving her "It was a book
> first" flag"
heh, my thoughts exactly upon reading the title of this thread.
*reads grapo2001's blatant cover up post*
Yeah, probably true. I suspect more of the gamesplaying public have seen the film than read the book. Good point you made there.
If it is anything like the crappy Harry Potter game for the PC then it will be crap.
Think of what they could have done with the licence: a virtual world online where you go through the school ofline and when passed and learnt the spells do battle through forests and unchanted lands. They could have made a brilliant RPG but instead they make a cheap cash in for all the 8 year olds. even they complete it whithin 4 days. HP was a complete waste of time: how could PCgamer give it 79%? It isn't even a game!
Think of what they could have done with the licence: a virtual world online where you go through the school ofline and when passed and learnt the spells do battle through forests and unchanted lands. They could have made a brilliant RPG but instead they make a cheap cash in for all the 8 year olds. even they complete it whithin 4 days. HP was a complete waste of time: how could PCgamer give it 79%? It isn't even a game!
I would have thought a Harry Potter game would be aimed at a younger generation then a Lord of the Rings game.
Purely because the main market for HarryPotter merchandise is around 13 or below, yet for LotR it (I would have hoped) would be higher.
So perhaps the LotR game may be more sophisticated?
To clarify things, this is not Iguana commenting on anything games related.
Purely because the main market for HarryPotter merchandise is around 13 or below, yet for LotR it (I would have hoped) would be higher.
So perhaps the LotR game may be more sophisticated?
To clarify things, this is not Iguana commenting on anything games related.
Ages or not, the Harry Potter game was a rip off based on the film; the Lord of the rings could be to.
The company that has the LOTR licence can go to a developer and say 'make a game on Lord of the Rings' and they will just make a quick crap game. It dosen't matter how good the game is: if it has the brand name people will get it. Not a seasoned vetran developer (like Rare) getting together buying the licence and making a great game (Goldeneye).
The company that has the LOTR licence can go to a developer and say 'make a game on Lord of the Rings' and they will just make a quick crap game. It dosen't matter how good the game is: if it has the brand name people will get it. Not a seasoned vetran developer (like Rare) getting together buying the licence and making a great game (Goldeneye).
Iguana wrote:
> I would have thought a Harry Potter game would be aimed at a younger generation
> then a Lord of the Rings game.
Purely because the main market for
> HarryPotter merchandise is around 13 or below, yet for LotR it (I would have
> hoped) would be higher.
So perhaps the LotR game may be more sophisticated?
>
To clarify things, this is not Iguana commenting on anything games related.
No, that just wouldn't do...you just maintain that you don't like gaming, but carry on playing UT, Q3, Diablo 2 and Max Payne...what to get you on to next..Counter-strike.
You love it.
> I would have thought a Harry Potter game would be aimed at a younger generation
> then a Lord of the Rings game.
Purely because the main market for
> HarryPotter merchandise is around 13 or below, yet for LotR it (I would have
> hoped) would be higher.
So perhaps the LotR game may be more sophisticated?
>
To clarify things, this is not Iguana commenting on anything games related.
No, that just wouldn't do...you just maintain that you don't like gaming, but carry on playing UT, Q3, Diablo 2 and Max Payne...what to get you on to next..Counter-strike.
You love it.
Sounds like Howarrab really likes RARE games. You cant say that the game will just be a lame take off of the film and i disagree that people will just buy it becasue of its 'brand' name!
give grapo 2001 the same respect you guys give me, PS2 guys will know what i mean, hes a mate.
MM
MM
Page: