The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Will licenses and sequels kill videogames?
I for one, seriously doubt this. In fact they are probably the key to expansion into a wider demographic.
There seems to be horrible misconception that 'big business' is crippling the creativity of software entertainment industry. Many magazine articles/ internet articles and many of you on the forums think that film tie-ins and and sequels are to blame. I disagree. Any license can yield a good gaming experioience, but gebnerally they don't.
The largest publishers are buisnesses. First and formost their aim is to make a profit. This is not greed, it is capitalism. Sowtware engineers and designers can go home safe in the knowledge thatr they are being paid. Simple. Why aren't all games 'perfect'>? Well, in an ideal world all games would be fantastic, but where would all the magazines/ web sitres be without these mediocre and below average games be? All the reviews would be in the 9's/10 or 90% (accordingly).
It also seems that innovation is hailed as a sacred cow. It's easy to list 20 games BAsed on a movie that turn out to be poor. I believe it is just as easy to list 20 games that were startling new ideas that turned out to be really poor. For example 'Black and White', is in this catagory. Let's face it, as far as numbers go it will always be a case that there are relitively few games that are greta followed by the vast majority which are average and then a smaller number that are poor.
Also, many people believe (from what i have read) that when people buy bad games, they never buy any more. It seems incredibly short sighted for a member of the puplic to buy a console at the cost of £150-200, buy one game for it and decide that it's all a write off. Isn't it like saying I could buy a new stereo, hear a Spice girls (one hell of a band :-) and then pack it away forever?
If i am a novice to the gaming world, how do i know what is a bad game?
Let me illustrate this point with an example. My sister loves the Tomb Raider games. She loves them so much infact she has bought all of them (available on the PC). Quitel clearly they have gotten progressively worse, but she continues to buy them anyway. She thinks they are 'good' games, and who are we to tell her otherwise? (her brother?)ANyway, she gets enjoyment out of them and she will continue to buy the brand name in the future. She has no frame of reference fir giid and bad, only that she likes the Tomb Raider games.
The fact is, people love bad games whether anyone else likes it or not. Success stories such as myst and Army Men tell you clearly that quality is not the be all and end all of games. So how are the evil corporations making sure our favourite pastime is slowly being destroyed> Simple, they are giving us the products we buy. Slapping on a license, or making a series almost guarentees sales.
People in general don't read reviews, their experience with games is limited by high prices and a bewildering choice. Staff in specialist shops are not trained to give advice to customers. They are retail staff first and game experts second. With no advice on which game to choose to make best use of your limited leisure time only seems right that you plump for the game of your favourite movie.
It's so simple it should make you cry. The people who buy games vote with their wallets, and the big publishers listen. And why should software be any different to movies or music or comics or books, or newspapaers. 'Quality' will never be in the majority, because it simply dopesn't sell. If there were stringent quality guidelines the world would be a much quieter place. Your local Special Reserve/ GAME store would be half empty, and who would want to look around a shop like that?
And finally, how can the 'current' trend for licenses and sequels help rather than hinder? (I'm sure I heard people moaning about this very subject when i was playing games on my master system:-). Well, the secret is expanding the market so people who don't play games, want to play them in the future. Licensing could help here. Just imagine all your mothers going out to buy the new Sims game, not because they suddenly realise games are not such a waste of time, but because it has the 'Eastenders' license. Or perhaps your Grandmothers might suddenly take interest in the new Delia Smith kitchen management game. Licenses are a genuine pathway to a wider market. The only crime i can see is the publishers thinking that the pie is a fixed size, and the only way to get bigger is to cut yourself a larger slice. Thanks for reading
Please post your views on videogame licensing, as I am very interested in this subject as you could of probably guessed judging from the post :-)
Thanks again, any feedback would be accepted
Sam41
I for one, seriously doubt this. In fact they are probably the key to expansion into a wider demographic.
There seems to be horrible misconception that 'big business' is crippling the creativity of software entertainment industry. Many magazine articles/ internet articles and many of you on the forums think that film tie-ins and and sequels are to blame. I disagree. Any license can yield a good gaming experioience, but gebnerally they don't.
The largest publishers are buisnesses. First and formost their aim is to make a profit. This is not greed, it is capitalism. Sowtware engineers and designers can go home safe in the knowledge thatr they are being paid. Simple. Why aren't all games 'perfect'>? Well, in an ideal world all games would be fantastic, but where would all the magazines/ web sitres be without these mediocre and below average games be? All the reviews would be in the 9's/10 or 90% (accordingly).
It also seems that innovation is hailed as a sacred cow. It's easy to list 20 games BAsed on a movie that turn out to be poor. I believe it is just as easy to list 20 games that were startling new ideas that turned out to be really poor. For example 'Black and White', is in this catagory. Let's face it, as far as numbers go it will always be a case that there are relitively few games that are greta followed by the vast majority which are average and then a smaller number that are poor.
Also, many people believe (from what i have read) that when people buy bad games, they never buy any more. It seems incredibly short sighted for a member of the puplic to buy a console at the cost of £150-200, buy one game for it and decide that it's all a write off. Isn't it like saying I could buy a new stereo, hear a Spice girls (one hell of a band :-) and then pack it away forever?
If i am a novice to the gaming world, how do i know what is a bad game?
Let me illustrate this point with an example. My sister loves the Tomb Raider games. She loves them so much infact she has bought all of them (available on the PC). Quitel clearly they have gotten progressively worse, but she continues to buy them anyway. She thinks they are 'good' games, and who are we to tell her otherwise? (her brother?)ANyway, she gets enjoyment out of them and she will continue to buy the brand name in the future. She has no frame of reference fir giid and bad, only that she likes the Tomb Raider games.
The fact is, people love bad games whether anyone else likes it or not. Success stories such as myst and Army Men tell you clearly that quality is not the be all and end all of games. So how are the evil corporations making sure our favourite pastime is slowly being destroyed> Simple, they are giving us the products we buy. Slapping on a license, or making a series almost guarentees sales.
People in general don't read reviews, their experience with games is limited by high prices and a bewildering choice. Staff in specialist shops are not trained to give advice to customers. They are retail staff first and game experts second. With no advice on which game to choose to make best use of your limited leisure time only seems right that you plump for the game of your favourite movie.
It's so simple it should make you cry. The people who buy games vote with their wallets, and the big publishers listen. And why should software be any different to movies or music or comics or books, or newspapaers. 'Quality' will never be in the majority, because it simply dopesn't sell. If there were stringent quality guidelines the world would be a much quieter place. Your local Special Reserve/ GAME store would be half empty, and who would want to look around a shop like that?
And finally, how can the 'current' trend for licenses and sequels help rather than hinder? (I'm sure I heard people moaning about this very subject when i was playing games on my master system:-). Well, the secret is expanding the market so people who don't play games, want to play them in the future. Licensing could help here. Just imagine all your mothers going out to buy the new Sims game, not because they suddenly realise games are not such a waste of time, but because it has the 'Eastenders' license. Or perhaps your Grandmothers might suddenly take interest in the new Delia Smith kitchen management game. Licenses are a genuine pathway to a wider market. The only crime i can see is the publishers thinking that the pie is a fixed size, and the only way to get bigger is to cut yourself a larger slice. Thanks for reading
Please post your views on videogame licensing, as I am very interested in this subject as you could of probably guessed judging from the post :-)
Thanks again, any feedback would be accepted
Sam41
Page:
Yep, indeed
This shows exactly how a developer can create a 'masterpiece' with a movie license, and how another developer can create the license into just another mediocre game. This is a good example which i should have used in my original post, as it contains the message of one of my views and wraps it up in a nice little package :-)
Sam41
This shows exactly how a developer can create a 'masterpiece' with a movie license, and how another developer can create the license into just another mediocre game. This is a good example which i should have used in my original post, as it contains the message of one of my views and wraps it up in a nice little package :-)
Sam41
morbo wrote:
> Bake in 1997, eat in 2003. nice and green
oops
> Bake in 1997, eat in 2003. nice and green
oops
Adamario wrote:
> Another good example is Rare selling there licence to one of the best
> made game ever, im speaking of course about James Bond.
>
> Bake in 1997 Rare made one of the best games ever, 007 Golden Eye. It
> was and still is concidered to be the best shoot 'em up games ever,
> with an impressive over 20 1player missions, a huge amount of guns for
> 1player and multi player missions and a load of characters to choose
> from; it was an AMAZING game.
>
> When they sold the licence to EA we all knew a sequal was coming, and
> there it was: 007 TWINE (The world is not enough). To be honest, it
> was poor, it didnt even sell 1/5 of the amount golden eye did. So they
> left it at that, untill the Gamecube came out, and as one of the
> release titles came 007 Agent under fire, it really was dissapointing,
> only 10 1player missions, a poor amount of multiplayer missions and
> even smaller amount of people to play with, i had trouble cathing the
> story line, it was bad and unoriganal, to put it simple, "Its
> been done".
>
> As you can see the fun just wor off, it might be because of EA, but i
> think they just didnt try hard enough.
P.S. I still buy them all though, coz they are good, but not as well thought out as they could be.
> Another good example is Rare selling there licence to one of the best
> made game ever, im speaking of course about James Bond.
>
> Bake in 1997 Rare made one of the best games ever, 007 Golden Eye. It
> was and still is concidered to be the best shoot 'em up games ever,
> with an impressive over 20 1player missions, a huge amount of guns for
> 1player and multi player missions and a load of characters to choose
> from; it was an AMAZING game.
>
> When they sold the licence to EA we all knew a sequal was coming, and
> there it was: 007 TWINE (The world is not enough). To be honest, it
> was poor, it didnt even sell 1/5 of the amount golden eye did. So they
> left it at that, untill the Gamecube came out, and as one of the
> release titles came 007 Agent under fire, it really was dissapointing,
> only 10 1player missions, a poor amount of multiplayer missions and
> even smaller amount of people to play with, i had trouble cathing the
> story line, it was bad and unoriganal, to put it simple, "Its
> been done".
>
> As you can see the fun just wor off, it might be because of EA, but i
> think they just didnt try hard enough.
P.S. I still buy them all though, coz they are good, but not as well thought out as they could be.
Bake in 1997, eat in 2003. nice and green
Another good example is Rare selling there licence to one of the best made game ever, im speaking of course about James Bond.
Bake in 1997 Rare made one of the best games ever, 007 Golden Eye. It was and still is concidered to be the best shoot 'em up games ever, with an impressive over 20 1player missions, a huge amount of guns for 1player and multi player missions and a load of characters to choose from; it was an AMAZING game.
When they sold the licence to EA we all knew a sequal was coming, and there it was: 007 TWINE (The world is not enough). To be honest, it was poor, it didnt even sell 1/5 of the amount golden eye did. So they left it at that, untill the Gamecube came out, and as one of the release titles came 007 Agent under fire, it really was dissapointing, only 10 1player missions, a poor amount of multiplayer missions and even smaller amount of people to play with, i had trouble cathing the story line, it was bad and unoriganal, to put it simple, "Its been done".
As you can see the fun just wor off, it might be because of EA, but i think they just didnt try hard enough.
Bake in 1997 Rare made one of the best games ever, 007 Golden Eye. It was and still is concidered to be the best shoot 'em up games ever, with an impressive over 20 1player missions, a huge amount of guns for 1player and multi player missions and a load of characters to choose from; it was an AMAZING game.
When they sold the licence to EA we all knew a sequal was coming, and there it was: 007 TWINE (The world is not enough). To be honest, it was poor, it didnt even sell 1/5 of the amount golden eye did. So they left it at that, untill the Gamecube came out, and as one of the release titles came 007 Agent under fire, it really was dissapointing, only 10 1player missions, a poor amount of multiplayer missions and even smaller amount of people to play with, i had trouble cathing the story line, it was bad and unoriganal, to put it simple, "Its been done".
As you can see the fun just wor off, it might be because of EA, but i think they just didnt try hard enough.
sam 41 wrote:
> HalloHowArtThou wrote:
> block. of. text.
>
> My. Eyes. Hurt.
>
> Sorry, I needed to express my views to a suitable extent, so that
> people would be able to realise what my point is. And by using
> examples this helps to deliver my thoughts on how the publishers are
> more or less taking advantage.
>
> Sam41
I think what he meant was - could you try indenting paragraphs next time? Makes it much easier to read. Thanks :-)
> HalloHowArtThou wrote:
> block. of. text.
>
> My. Eyes. Hurt.
>
> Sorry, I needed to express my views to a suitable extent, so that
> people would be able to realise what my point is. And by using
> examples this helps to deliver my thoughts on how the publishers are
> more or less taking advantage.
>
> Sam41
I think what he meant was - could you try indenting paragraphs next time? Makes it much easier to read. Thanks :-)
Good post Adamario
Another example of developers doing this is,
GTA Vice City
As GTA3 was such a groundbreaking game, which allowed the player total freedom. Because this game created such a huge fanbase Rockstar decided to release a new game ASAP. In my opinion this is one of the dissappointments of the year, as it promised so much, but delivered so little, except a few frills which would only entertain a child for a few days. Sure, if this is the first GTA game you have played, it is revolutionary in its own respects, but if you have GTA3 - their is nothing here that you havent seen before. This post was not created to flame GTA Vice City, but just to show an example of how the developer has taken advantage of its huge fanbase. Even the most hardened GTA fan must agree with this statement.
Sam41
Another example of developers doing this is,
GTA Vice City
As GTA3 was such a groundbreaking game, which allowed the player total freedom. Because this game created such a huge fanbase Rockstar decided to release a new game ASAP. In my opinion this is one of the dissappointments of the year, as it promised so much, but delivered so little, except a few frills which would only entertain a child for a few days. Sure, if this is the first GTA game you have played, it is revolutionary in its own respects, but if you have GTA3 - their is nothing here that you havent seen before. This post was not created to flame GTA Vice City, but just to show an example of how the developer has taken advantage of its huge fanbase. Even the most hardened GTA fan must agree with this statement.
Sam41
HalloHowArtThou wrote:
> block. of. text.
>
> My. Eyes. Hurt.
Sorry, I needed to express my views to a suitable extent, so that people would be able to realise what my point is. And by using examples this helps to deliver my thoughts on how the publishers are more or less taking advantage.
Sam41
> block. of. text.
>
> My. Eyes. Hurt.
Sorry, I needed to express my views to a suitable extent, so that people would be able to realise what my point is. And by using examples this helps to deliver my thoughts on how the publishers are more or less taking advantage.
Sam41
I think that bringing out sequals can sometimes ruin a good game, especially when they bring one in a rush just because the last one sold well. just look at Zelda: Majoras mask, Ocarina of time was a GREAT game, amazing seller and alround the best, then they brought out majoras mask and if you havent played it, dont. The story line was a bit crappy, they used the same people, enemies, songs, ect. It really was a let down to Zelda games, all because they thourght it would sell as well as OOT.
Also bringing out sequals can get boring, look at Spyro the Dragon, the first one, great game, then the second, improved graphics and more things to do, then the third, a waste, they used the same graphics, same idea and it was boring if your've played the others.
I think if the company really think about a good idea and make it origanal a sequal can really be profital and make the game that much better.
Also bringing out sequals can get boring, look at Spyro the Dragon, the first one, great game, then the second, improved graphics and more things to do, then the third, a waste, they used the same graphics, same idea and it was boring if your've played the others.
I think if the company really think about a good idea and make it origanal a sequal can really be profital and make the game that much better.
Page: