The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
With a growing number of PS2 games appearing on the market week in and week out, many of us are left pondering about what games they should be spending their hard-earned cash on. With games being unveiled every month or two, this task gets even more difficult. "Ah lets go out and get a game. Wait did you hear about that top new game they just unveiled at E3? Oh hmmmm, damn this is hard"...You get the idea.
Another interesting thing is the amount of games bearing a license of some kind sneaking their way onto the shelves. And I am not just talking about movie tie-ins and remakes. I am also taking about sports titles, wrestling sims plus games based on popular books. There is a growing number of such games appearing and with their release comes a big question. Are these games actually any good?
Of course, this may not be addressed to all licensed games, but most of them are rushed out due to extremely tight deadlines made even tighter by the requests to bring the game out as close to the film premiere/start of a new season etc. Lets look at some examples. Harry Potter, which is a game based on the film of the same name, is a shoddy 3rd person platformer that was rushed out to the shops because of the film's release in UK. It didnt aim to be a breakthrough in platform games unlike Jak and Daxter and it didnt particularly care about the gameplay much either. The reason? Because the name of the game was HARRY POTTER:blala bla bla bla. The name immediately catches peoples attention and makes them take notice. Harry Potter has sold a huge amount of books and millions on merchandise around the world, because of the success of the books. So the developers were not exactly faced with a difficult task. Just make a game based on the film and everyone will buy it. And yes it worked, because there are so many gullible idiots among us that dont give two monkeys about what they purchase, AS LONG as it bears a license.
Another example is the recently announced Lord of The Rings game. Its release is supposed to coincide with the UK premiere of the second film in the LOTR trilogy which should hit our screens this December. So how long does that give the development team. Providing they have their graphic engine running and plot worked out, roughly 7-8 months. Which is not exactly enough. We all know its going to get a 7 or if they are lucky an 8 from most magazines, because thats just what always happens. The game may be shoddy, but the characters and locations are most certainly going to be superbly realised, meaning that it will knock a few points to many magazine scores.
But how do licenses enhance games? Many people think that the game which has a proper license is automatically better that other non-endorsed games. Taking FIFA as an example, players will have proper names, stadiums will be accurately modelled around real-life grounds and of course the commentary is going to be provided by A list pundits. As it proves to be in licensed games, all the background detail and data is spot on. But it doesnt mean the gameplay is. FIFA's license helped EA sell thousands of copies while being distinctly average and not as good as the magnificent ISS/Pro Evo series made by Konami. And EA are masters of sports titles with Konami having hardly any experience in the field. Makes you think doesnt it? For about 4 years FIFA has outsold its superior opponent, before we finally realised that the game is simply not good anymore. This is THE problem with licensed games. No matter how rubbish they are, they will still shift loads of copies just because of a well-known name on the box or words FIFA, NHL, NBA, MADDEN etc...
I would like to conclude by saying that licenses have, are and will sell many copies, despite the finished quality of the product and whatever the magazines say about the game. Its not that all licensed games are bad..EA sports games simply cant be rivalled in the authenicity and playability departments but most of us will know that Licensed games should not be considered any different from other titles just because of the entire England squad on the box....
Thank you...
Another interesting thing is the amount of games bearing a license of some kind sneaking their way onto the shelves. And I am not just talking about movie tie-ins and remakes. I am also taking about sports titles, wrestling sims plus games based on popular books. There is a growing number of such games appearing and with their release comes a big question. Are these games actually any good?
Of course, this may not be addressed to all licensed games, but most of them are rushed out due to extremely tight deadlines made even tighter by the requests to bring the game out as close to the film premiere/start of a new season etc. Lets look at some examples. Harry Potter, which is a game based on the film of the same name, is a shoddy 3rd person platformer that was rushed out to the shops because of the film's release in UK. It didnt aim to be a breakthrough in platform games unlike Jak and Daxter and it didnt particularly care about the gameplay much either. The reason? Because the name of the game was HARRY POTTER:blala bla bla bla. The name immediately catches peoples attention and makes them take notice. Harry Potter has sold a huge amount of books and millions on merchandise around the world, because of the success of the books. So the developers were not exactly faced with a difficult task. Just make a game based on the film and everyone will buy it. And yes it worked, because there are so many gullible idiots among us that dont give two monkeys about what they purchase, AS LONG as it bears a license.
Another example is the recently announced Lord of The Rings game. Its release is supposed to coincide with the UK premiere of the second film in the LOTR trilogy which should hit our screens this December. So how long does that give the development team. Providing they have their graphic engine running and plot worked out, roughly 7-8 months. Which is not exactly enough. We all know its going to get a 7 or if they are lucky an 8 from most magazines, because thats just what always happens. The game may be shoddy, but the characters and locations are most certainly going to be superbly realised, meaning that it will knock a few points to many magazine scores.
But how do licenses enhance games? Many people think that the game which has a proper license is automatically better that other non-endorsed games. Taking FIFA as an example, players will have proper names, stadiums will be accurately modelled around real-life grounds and of course the commentary is going to be provided by A list pundits. As it proves to be in licensed games, all the background detail and data is spot on. But it doesnt mean the gameplay is. FIFA's license helped EA sell thousands of copies while being distinctly average and not as good as the magnificent ISS/Pro Evo series made by Konami. And EA are masters of sports titles with Konami having hardly any experience in the field. Makes you think doesnt it? For about 4 years FIFA has outsold its superior opponent, before we finally realised that the game is simply not good anymore. This is THE problem with licensed games. No matter how rubbish they are, they will still shift loads of copies just because of a well-known name on the box or words FIFA, NHL, NBA, MADDEN etc...
I would like to conclude by saying that licenses have, are and will sell many copies, despite the finished quality of the product and whatever the magazines say about the game. Its not that all licensed games are bad..EA sports games simply cant be rivalled in the authenicity and playability departments but most of us will know that Licensed games should not be considered any different from other titles just because of the entire England squad on the box....
Thank you...
POP...:)
One of the best games with a license is probably Goldeneye on the N64. Rareware games sell themselves, but this license made sure it shifted twice as fast.
Then there are the huge line of WWF games...A lot have been very crap. Think Acclaim had the license a few years back, and produced a few shoddy games game that sold loads because of the WWF name...While THQ games (which are much better) with the WCW licence didnt sell as well. Think THQ got somthin like a 10 year deal with the WWF so they should be fine for a long time...
License's do sometimes make the game that extra bit special. okay, they dont change the gameplay, but they just feel much better. Perfect Dark (natural sequel to Goldenye) on the N64 was a much better game than Goldeneye but it just wasnt the same as walking around as Bond.
Then there are the huge line of WWF games...A lot have been very crap. Think Acclaim had the license a few years back, and produced a few shoddy games game that sold loads because of the WWF name...While THQ games (which are much better) with the WCW licence didnt sell as well. Think THQ got somthin like a 10 year deal with the WWF so they should be fine for a long time...
License's do sometimes make the game that extra bit special. okay, they dont change the gameplay, but they just feel much better. Perfect Dark (natural sequel to Goldenye) on the N64 was a much better game than Goldeneye but it just wasnt the same as walking around as Bond.
People need to research there games before buying.
This is something that i have always maintained into the reason that the shoddy games with licences always seem to sell millions. With such games that have films along side them, when the public see the film and like it they are always inclined to buy the games as surely that will be good aswell, well usually they arent. Why is this? Well the developers know that when they have a licence such as Harry Potter or Star Wars lots of people are going to be attracted to the game straight away and are going to buy it with little consideration at all, therefore the developers dont put any real effort into making a good title at all and so end up with the same old trash, and its a reacuring cycle.
And of course its the same with Fifa, infact, they are becoming known for being the series of licence to bore. As you know its the same thing each year, same game play but different suit. They have all the usual updated stats and so on and thats the only real reason why the game sells.
But i suppose its only the public that can be blamed for these constant cash ins, after all they buy them and give the developers a reason and a 'knowing' that they will sell and so they keep making them, and will continue to do so till they wake up.
This is something that i have always maintained into the reason that the shoddy games with licences always seem to sell millions. With such games that have films along side them, when the public see the film and like it they are always inclined to buy the games as surely that will be good aswell, well usually they arent. Why is this? Well the developers know that when they have a licence such as Harry Potter or Star Wars lots of people are going to be attracted to the game straight away and are going to buy it with little consideration at all, therefore the developers dont put any real effort into making a good title at all and so end up with the same old trash, and its a reacuring cycle.
And of course its the same with Fifa, infact, they are becoming known for being the series of licence to bore. As you know its the same thing each year, same game play but different suit. They have all the usual updated stats and so on and thats the only real reason why the game sells.
But i suppose its only the public that can be blamed for these constant cash ins, after all they buy them and give the developers a reason and a 'knowing' that they will sell and so they keep making them, and will continue to do so till they wake up.
With a growing number of PS2 games appearing on the market week in and week out, many of us are left pondering about what games they should be spending their hard-earned cash on. With games being unveiled every month or two, this task gets even more difficult. "Ah lets go out and get a game. Wait did you hear about that top new game they just unveiled at E3? Oh hmmmm, damn this is hard"...You get the idea.
Another interesting thing is the amount of games bearing a license of some kind sneaking their way onto the shelves. And I am not just talking about movie tie-ins and remakes. I am also taking about sports titles, wrestling sims plus games based on popular books. There is a growing number of such games appearing and with their release comes a big question. Are these games actually any good?
Of course, this may not be addressed to all licensed games, but most of them are rushed out due to extremely tight deadlines made even tighter by the requests to bring the game out as close to the film premiere/start of a new season etc. Lets look at some examples. Harry Potter, which is a game based on the film of the same name, is a shoddy 3rd person platformer that was rushed out to the shops because of the film's release in UK. It didnt aim to be a breakthrough in platform games unlike Jak and Daxter and it didnt particularly care about the gameplay much either. The reason? Because the name of the game was HARRY POTTER:blala bla bla bla. The name immediately catches peoples attention and makes them take notice. Harry Potter has sold a huge amount of books and millions on merchandise around the world, because of the success of the books. So the developers were not exactly faced with a difficult task. Just make a game based on the film and everyone will buy it. And yes it worked, because there are so many gullible idiots among us that dont give two monkeys about what they purchase, AS LONG as it bears a license.
Another example is the recently announced Lord of The Rings game. Its release is supposed to coincide with the UK premiere of the second film in the LOTR trilogy which should hit our screens this December. So how long does that give the development team. Providing they have their graphic engine running and plot worked out, roughly 7-8 months. Which is not exactly enough. We all know its going to get a 7 or if they are lucky an 8 from most magazines, because thats just what always happens. The game may be shoddy, but the characters and locations are most certainly going to be superbly realised, meaning that it will knock a few points to many magazine scores.
But how do licenses enhance games? Many people think that the game which has a proper license is automatically better that other non-endorsed games. Taking FIFA as an example, players will have proper names, stadiums will be accurately modelled around real-life grounds and of course the commentary is going to be provided by A list pundits. As it proves to be in licensed games, all the background detail and data is spot on. But it doesnt mean the gameplay is. FIFA's license helped EA sell thousands of copies while being distinctly average and not as good as the magnificent ISS/Pro Evo series made by Konami. And EA are masters of sports titles with Konami having hardly any experience in the field. Makes you think doesnt it? For about 4 years FIFA has outsold its superior opponent, before we finally realised that the game is simply not good anymore. This is THE problem with licensed games. No matter how rubbish they are, they will still shift loads of copies just because of a well-known name on the box or words FIFA, NHL, NBA, MADDEN etc...
I would like to conclude by saying that licenses have, are and will sell many copies, despite the finished quality of the product and whatever the magazines say about the game. Its not that all licensed games are bad..EA sports games simply cant be rivalled in the authenicity and playability departments but most of us will know that Licensed games should not be considered any different from other titles just because of the entire England squad on the box....
Thank you...
Another interesting thing is the amount of games bearing a license of some kind sneaking their way onto the shelves. And I am not just talking about movie tie-ins and remakes. I am also taking about sports titles, wrestling sims plus games based on popular books. There is a growing number of such games appearing and with their release comes a big question. Are these games actually any good?
Of course, this may not be addressed to all licensed games, but most of them are rushed out due to extremely tight deadlines made even tighter by the requests to bring the game out as close to the film premiere/start of a new season etc. Lets look at some examples. Harry Potter, which is a game based on the film of the same name, is a shoddy 3rd person platformer that was rushed out to the shops because of the film's release in UK. It didnt aim to be a breakthrough in platform games unlike Jak and Daxter and it didnt particularly care about the gameplay much either. The reason? Because the name of the game was HARRY POTTER:blala bla bla bla. The name immediately catches peoples attention and makes them take notice. Harry Potter has sold a huge amount of books and millions on merchandise around the world, because of the success of the books. So the developers were not exactly faced with a difficult task. Just make a game based on the film and everyone will buy it. And yes it worked, because there are so many gullible idiots among us that dont give two monkeys about what they purchase, AS LONG as it bears a license.
Another example is the recently announced Lord of The Rings game. Its release is supposed to coincide with the UK premiere of the second film in the LOTR trilogy which should hit our screens this December. So how long does that give the development team. Providing they have their graphic engine running and plot worked out, roughly 7-8 months. Which is not exactly enough. We all know its going to get a 7 or if they are lucky an 8 from most magazines, because thats just what always happens. The game may be shoddy, but the characters and locations are most certainly going to be superbly realised, meaning that it will knock a few points to many magazine scores.
But how do licenses enhance games? Many people think that the game which has a proper license is automatically better that other non-endorsed games. Taking FIFA as an example, players will have proper names, stadiums will be accurately modelled around real-life grounds and of course the commentary is going to be provided by A list pundits. As it proves to be in licensed games, all the background detail and data is spot on. But it doesnt mean the gameplay is. FIFA's license helped EA sell thousands of copies while being distinctly average and not as good as the magnificent ISS/Pro Evo series made by Konami. And EA are masters of sports titles with Konami having hardly any experience in the field. Makes you think doesnt it? For about 4 years FIFA has outsold its superior opponent, before we finally realised that the game is simply not good anymore. This is THE problem with licensed games. No matter how rubbish they are, they will still shift loads of copies just because of a well-known name on the box or words FIFA, NHL, NBA, MADDEN etc...
I would like to conclude by saying that licenses have, are and will sell many copies, despite the finished quality of the product and whatever the magazines say about the game. Its not that all licensed games are bad..EA sports games simply cant be rivalled in the authenicity and playability departments but most of us will know that Licensed games should not be considered any different from other titles just because of the entire England squad on the box....
Thank you...