The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Apart from goldeneye and a couple of other exceptions, until recently there weren't really any good film-game conversions.
People made them anyway though.
Why?
Well, it was no doubt a good starting point for an idea, gave the developers something to work with, but i think more important was the label. By adding a film licence, a game could bask in reflected glory and draw in sales, piggybacking from peoples' love for the film, and when people saw the game they'd have something (hopefully) positive to associate with the game, maybe (mistakenly?) have some hope that the game was halfway playable.
And today?
While there are still pleanty of dire abuses of semi-reasonable film licences, just lately there have been a few good ones. The Thing, Rocky and Top Gun spring to mind.
Why have developers made these games? Well all the old arguments look like they still apply, but look at those three games - when were the films made?
That's right, they're old. 1982, 1976 and 1986 respectively to be precise (thanks imdb). All have a cult(ish) classic status and would be more likely to apeal to the older gamer.
Fair enough then, games companies looking to more specificly market to older gamers.
But do they have to jeopardise my fond memories of classic fils every time they try to do it?
Who can really claim to have been able to look at Christopher Reeve the same way after Superman 64?
But while we may want software companies to leave stuff alone, at a time when the only sparks of originality seem to come from computerisation of Shigsy Miyamoto's latest (acid?) trip down his garden, those code-monkeys are probably jumping at the chance to recycle old ideas without having to make another sequel.
So it looks fairly likely that we'll see more of our past dredged up and served to us in shiny circular portions.
And with more films getting old all the time, we could be seeing companies finally learning to tap into a very deep oil field.
Ah well, don't have to buy them i guess.
People made them anyway though.
Why?
Well, it was no doubt a good starting point for an idea, gave the developers something to work with, but i think more important was the label. By adding a film licence, a game could bask in reflected glory and draw in sales, piggybacking from peoples' love for the film, and when people saw the game they'd have something (hopefully) positive to associate with the game, maybe (mistakenly?) have some hope that the game was halfway playable.
And today?
While there are still pleanty of dire abuses of semi-reasonable film licences, just lately there have been a few good ones. The Thing, Rocky and Top Gun spring to mind.
Why have developers made these games? Well all the old arguments look like they still apply, but look at those three games - when were the films made?
That's right, they're old. 1982, 1976 and 1986 respectively to be precise (thanks imdb). All have a cult(ish) classic status and would be more likely to apeal to the older gamer.
Fair enough then, games companies looking to more specificly market to older gamers.
But do they have to jeopardise my fond memories of classic fils every time they try to do it?
Who can really claim to have been able to look at Christopher Reeve the same way after Superman 64?
But while we may want software companies to leave stuff alone, at a time when the only sparks of originality seem to come from computerisation of Shigsy Miyamoto's latest (acid?) trip down his garden, those code-monkeys are probably jumping at the chance to recycle old ideas without having to make another sequel.
So it looks fairly likely that we'll see more of our past dredged up and served to us in shiny circular portions.
And with more films getting old all the time, we could be seeing companies finally learning to tap into a very deep oil field.
Ah well, don't have to buy them i guess.
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
Apart from goldeneye and a couple of other exceptions, until recently there weren't really any good film-game conversions.
People made them anyway though.
Why?
Well, it was no doubt a good starting point for an idea, gave the developers something to work with, but i think more important was the label. By adding a film licence, a game could bask in reflected glory and draw in sales, piggybacking from peoples' love for the film, and when people saw the game they'd have something (hopefully) positive to associate with the game, maybe (mistakenly?) have some hope that the game was halfway playable.
And today?
While there are still pleanty of dire abuses of semi-reasonable film licences, just lately there have been a few good ones. The Thing, Rocky and Top Gun spring to mind.
Why have developers made these games? Well all the old arguments look like they still apply, but look at those three games - when were the films made?
That's right, they're old. 1982, 1976 and 1986 respectively to be precise (thanks imdb). All have a cult(ish) classic status and would be more likely to apeal to the older gamer.
Fair enough then, games companies looking to more specificly market to older gamers.
But do they have to jeopardise my fond memories of classic fils every time they try to do it?
Who can really claim to have been able to look at Christopher Reeve the same way after Superman 64?
But while we may want software companies to leave stuff alone, at a time when the only sparks of originality seem to come from computerisation of Shigsy Miyamoto's latest (acid?) trip down his garden, those code-monkeys are probably jumping at the chance to recycle old ideas without having to make another sequel.
So it looks fairly likely that we'll see more of our past dredged up and served to us in shiny circular portions.
And with more films getting old all the time, we could be seeing companies finally learning to tap into a very deep oil field.
Ah well, don't have to buy them i guess.
People made them anyway though.
Why?
Well, it was no doubt a good starting point for an idea, gave the developers something to work with, but i think more important was the label. By adding a film licence, a game could bask in reflected glory and draw in sales, piggybacking from peoples' love for the film, and when people saw the game they'd have something (hopefully) positive to associate with the game, maybe (mistakenly?) have some hope that the game was halfway playable.
And today?
While there are still pleanty of dire abuses of semi-reasonable film licences, just lately there have been a few good ones. The Thing, Rocky and Top Gun spring to mind.
Why have developers made these games? Well all the old arguments look like they still apply, but look at those three games - when were the films made?
That's right, they're old. 1982, 1976 and 1986 respectively to be precise (thanks imdb). All have a cult(ish) classic status and would be more likely to apeal to the older gamer.
Fair enough then, games companies looking to more specificly market to older gamers.
But do they have to jeopardise my fond memories of classic fils every time they try to do it?
Who can really claim to have been able to look at Christopher Reeve the same way after Superman 64?
But while we may want software companies to leave stuff alone, at a time when the only sparks of originality seem to come from computerisation of Shigsy Miyamoto's latest (acid?) trip down his garden, those code-monkeys are probably jumping at the chance to recycle old ideas without having to make another sequel.
So it looks fairly likely that we'll see more of our past dredged up and served to us in shiny circular portions.
And with more films getting old all the time, we could be seeing companies finally learning to tap into a very deep oil field.
Ah well, don't have to buy them i guess.