The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Take a walk down to your local games store. Take a glance at the shelves of software. Take in the extensive sports game section (ranging from good old FIFA games to the 'Xtreme' sports like skating and BMX-ing). Look at the games in (what is, apparently) the family section - including such software as Weakest Link and Family Fortunes.
Now realise how many of them rely on a big name to sell.
The main reason I've posted this is the Sony forum is because you guys seem capable of sensible debate, something in short supply over in FoG…
One of the most successful games (at present, anyway) on the PS2 is the latest in the Tony Hawk's Pro Skater series. Don't get me wrong - I love this game (albeit the PC equivalent). But surely Activision are just trying to appeal to hardcore enthusiasts by letting their software sport Mr Hawk on the box. Before playing THPS, I had never heard of the guy. Until the third game, he didn't really have any connection with the software except for the title, and even now he only performs cheesy voice-overs for the tutorials. It’s a skateboarding game, for goodness’ sake, not art.
The PC, however, is the biggest criminal of the franchise abusers. From ‘Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?’ to even worse showbiz tie-ins like ‘Weakest Link’, it seems that many publishers for the beige box have simply caved in to selling out. This is disgusting in itself – games like the Harry Potter multi-platform game make sense, since the books have a strong plot which could be mirrored in a playable environment. The games released, however, had CHEAP stamped all over them in great big black letters.
What makes no sense is how well these games sell. Despite being slammed from critics on all sides, Harry Potter and WWTBAM are some of the best-selling software ever. Did you buy it? Neither did I, so who did? Maybe it’s a big conspiracy, and software companies buy their own games to keep themselves at the top of the charts…or maybe they’re taking advantage of the poor sods that don’t know any better.
Some films are perfect for games, as are some books – Star Wars anyone? So why do the games that are cheap and tacky outsell the games that have months and even years of work poured in to them? This is something that really angers me, and is causing me to lose a lot of faith in the gaming industry. Recently, LucasArts shut down some mod-makers who were creating tribute mini-games to their Monkey Island adventure series. Despite the fact that LucasArts released these games years ago, they still want to milk cash from the public, and refuse copyright to anyone who tries to emulate them (even as a compliment). This is depravity, and the executive responsible for this should be shot. Or something slightly less drastic.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that much of the gaming world relies too heavily on names and franchises to sell their products, rather than innovating and coming up with new ideas (anybody here remember Giants: Citizen Kabuto? I thought not…). The only solution would be not to buy the cheaply made cash-ins, but that won’t happen until more people understand that the games, while they have potential to be good games, will only be cheap games until we start wanting quality software. Even ‘Weakest Link’ had potential. But guess what - it’s terrible. What could have been a fun and tense game is instead a dull and pointless plod. I didn’t buy it. Neither should you.
Cheers for reading, and I look forward to hearing your opinions, guys.
Now realise how many of them rely on a big name to sell.
The main reason I've posted this is the Sony forum is because you guys seem capable of sensible debate, something in short supply over in FoG…
One of the most successful games (at present, anyway) on the PS2 is the latest in the Tony Hawk's Pro Skater series. Don't get me wrong - I love this game (albeit the PC equivalent). But surely Activision are just trying to appeal to hardcore enthusiasts by letting their software sport Mr Hawk on the box. Before playing THPS, I had never heard of the guy. Until the third game, he didn't really have any connection with the software except for the title, and even now he only performs cheesy voice-overs for the tutorials. It’s a skateboarding game, for goodness’ sake, not art.
The PC, however, is the biggest criminal of the franchise abusers. From ‘Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?’ to even worse showbiz tie-ins like ‘Weakest Link’, it seems that many publishers for the beige box have simply caved in to selling out. This is disgusting in itself – games like the Harry Potter multi-platform game make sense, since the books have a strong plot which could be mirrored in a playable environment. The games released, however, had CHEAP stamped all over them in great big black letters.
What makes no sense is how well these games sell. Despite being slammed from critics on all sides, Harry Potter and WWTBAM are some of the best-selling software ever. Did you buy it? Neither did I, so who did? Maybe it’s a big conspiracy, and software companies buy their own games to keep themselves at the top of the charts…or maybe they’re taking advantage of the poor sods that don’t know any better.
Some films are perfect for games, as are some books – Star Wars anyone? So why do the games that are cheap and tacky outsell the games that have months and even years of work poured in to them? This is something that really angers me, and is causing me to lose a lot of faith in the gaming industry. Recently, LucasArts shut down some mod-makers who were creating tribute mini-games to their Monkey Island adventure series. Despite the fact that LucasArts released these games years ago, they still want to milk cash from the public, and refuse copyright to anyone who tries to emulate them (even as a compliment). This is depravity, and the executive responsible for this should be shot. Or something slightly less drastic.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that much of the gaming world relies too heavily on names and franchises to sell their products, rather than innovating and coming up with new ideas (anybody here remember Giants: Citizen Kabuto? I thought not…). The only solution would be not to buy the cheaply made cash-ins, but that won’t happen until more people understand that the games, while they have potential to be good games, will only be cheap games until we start wanting quality software. Even ‘Weakest Link’ had potential. But guess what - it’s terrible. What could have been a fun and tense game is instead a dull and pointless plod. I didn’t buy it. Neither should you.
Cheers for reading, and I look forward to hearing your opinions, guys.
Fangface wrote:
>
>
> Star Wars is widely classed as one of the greatest films ever made.
> Can anyone class a Star Wars game as one of the greatest ever made.
> Some come close like Starfighter or Rogue Squadron but all titles
> should be at least of this standard given the basis already supplied
> within the film.
While the console titles are not always up to scratch, PC SW games are superb - Jedi Knight 2 anyone?
>
> I mean if your Granny was to read the back off the GTA3 box she would
> probably die of a heart attack. Its much safer to buy
> "funny" Chris Tarrant than risk corrupting little Johny with
> a violent game.
But that's the problem - developers are afraid to innovate, because the controversy (while it may attract some people) will lead to negative reviews and subsequently lower sales.
>
>
> Star Wars is widely classed as one of the greatest films ever made.
> Can anyone class a Star Wars game as one of the greatest ever made.
> Some come close like Starfighter or Rogue Squadron but all titles
> should be at least of this standard given the basis already supplied
> within the film.
While the console titles are not always up to scratch, PC SW games are superb - Jedi Knight 2 anyone?
>
> I mean if your Granny was to read the back off the GTA3 box she would
> probably die of a heart attack. Its much safer to buy
> "funny" Chris Tarrant than risk corrupting little Johny with
> a violent game.
But that's the problem - developers are afraid to innovate, because the controversy (while it may attract some people) will lead to negative reviews and subsequently lower sales.
I agree with the core of your argument. The main reason these games sold well is the Christmas Present idea. Here your Mum/Auntie/Granny/Sister asks what you want for Christmas. As they have no comprehension of current games quality they rely on branding to direct them. That Anne Robinson is really funny on TV so we can all play in the living room on Christmas day together. The flaw here is that they are transporting their views of a product from one medium to another.
Star Wars is widely classed as one of the greatest films ever made. Can anyone class a Star Wars game as one of the greatest ever made. Some come close like Starfighter or Rogue Squadron but all titles should be at least of this standard given the basis already supplied within the film.
Those who are not readers of games magazines or visitors to websites concerning games will always fall into the "branding" trap as they have no comprehension as to the quality of the game.
I mean if your Granny was to read the back off the GTA3 box she would probably die of a heart attack. Its much safer to buy "funny" Chris Tarrant than risk corrupting little Johny with a violent game.
As to how to stop this - You cant until the retailers give better advice to the public who do not have the knowledge to know a Classic from a Turkey. At the end of the day the retailer wants to sell as much as possible as they are in business to do so.
Personally I am looking forward to the Christmas Interactive DVD home version of "Crimewatch UK" where the family sits around and has to solve the puzzle of which nasty man robbed the bank and ran over that sweet old lady. Hilarious sub-games include dodge the shotgun blasts and the beat-em-up titled "Get that confession"
Star Wars is widely classed as one of the greatest films ever made. Can anyone class a Star Wars game as one of the greatest ever made. Some come close like Starfighter or Rogue Squadron but all titles should be at least of this standard given the basis already supplied within the film.
Those who are not readers of games magazines or visitors to websites concerning games will always fall into the "branding" trap as they have no comprehension as to the quality of the game.
I mean if your Granny was to read the back off the GTA3 box she would probably die of a heart attack. Its much safer to buy "funny" Chris Tarrant than risk corrupting little Johny with a violent game.
As to how to stop this - You cant until the retailers give better advice to the public who do not have the knowledge to know a Classic from a Turkey. At the end of the day the retailer wants to sell as much as possible as they are in business to do so.
Personally I am looking forward to the Christmas Interactive DVD home version of "Crimewatch UK" where the family sits around and has to solve the puzzle of which nasty man robbed the bank and ran over that sweet old lady. Hilarious sub-games include dodge the shotgun blasts and the beat-em-up titled "Get that confession"
Hmmm good points there :-D
I think basically the reason why these big name branded games are so awful or offer less than you would think is because the developer realises they can make easy money without too much effort. Who Wants To Be A Millionare sold well yet it was poor. There was probably only a few people working on it for a short amount of time meaning less budget for Eidos and more profit.
We've seen this alot with the FIFA games. Most have been almost identical in gameplay and the only difference is tarted up graphics and new season data. Fortunately people played EA at their own game and FIFA 2001 had poor figure sales. EA decided to improve the game and they are getting better. I just think that the companies that sell games using names should be taught a lesson and in order for it to back fire on them we should not buy the games.
I think basically the reason why these big name branded games are so awful or offer less than you would think is because the developer realises they can make easy money without too much effort. Who Wants To Be A Millionare sold well yet it was poor. There was probably only a few people working on it for a short amount of time meaning less budget for Eidos and more profit.
We've seen this alot with the FIFA games. Most have been almost identical in gameplay and the only difference is tarted up graphics and new season data. Fortunately people played EA at their own game and FIFA 2001 had poor figure sales. EA decided to improve the game and they are getting better. I just think that the companies that sell games using names should be taught a lesson and in order for it to back fire on them we should not buy the games.
Hey, c'mon guys - I reply to your posts. How about venturing an opinion on mine?
Take a walk down to your local games store. Take a glance at the shelves of software. Take in the extensive sports game section (ranging from good old FIFA games to the 'Xtreme' sports like skating and BMX-ing). Look at the games in (what is, apparently) the family section - including such software as Weakest Link and Family Fortunes.
Now realise how many of them rely on a big name to sell.
The main reason I've posted this is the Sony forum is because you guys seem capable of sensible debate, something in short supply over in FoG…
One of the most successful games (at present, anyway) on the PS2 is the latest in the Tony Hawk's Pro Skater series. Don't get me wrong - I love this game (albeit the PC equivalent). But surely Activision are just trying to appeal to hardcore enthusiasts by letting their software sport Mr Hawk on the box. Before playing THPS, I had never heard of the guy. Until the third game, he didn't really have any connection with the software except for the title, and even now he only performs cheesy voice-overs for the tutorials. It’s a skateboarding game, for goodness’ sake, not art.
The PC, however, is the biggest criminal of the franchise abusers. From ‘Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?’ to even worse showbiz tie-ins like ‘Weakest Link’, it seems that many publishers for the beige box have simply caved in to selling out. This is disgusting in itself – games like the Harry Potter multi-platform game make sense, since the books have a strong plot which could be mirrored in a playable environment. The games released, however, had CHEAP stamped all over them in great big black letters.
What makes no sense is how well these games sell. Despite being slammed from critics on all sides, Harry Potter and WWTBAM are some of the best-selling software ever. Did you buy it? Neither did I, so who did? Maybe it’s a big conspiracy, and software companies buy their own games to keep themselves at the top of the charts…or maybe they’re taking advantage of the poor sods that don’t know any better.
Some films are perfect for games, as are some books – Star Wars anyone? So why do the games that are cheap and tacky outsell the games that have months and even years of work poured in to them? This is something that really angers me, and is causing me to lose a lot of faith in the gaming industry. Recently, LucasArts shut down some mod-makers who were creating tribute mini-games to their Monkey Island adventure series. Despite the fact that LucasArts released these games years ago, they still want to milk cash from the public, and refuse copyright to anyone who tries to emulate them (even as a compliment). This is depravity, and the executive responsible for this should be shot. Or something slightly less drastic.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that much of the gaming world relies too heavily on names and franchises to sell their products, rather than innovating and coming up with new ideas (anybody here remember Giants: Citizen Kabuto? I thought not…). The only solution would be not to buy the cheaply made cash-ins, but that won’t happen until more people understand that the games, while they have potential to be good games, will only be cheap games until we start wanting quality software. Even ‘Weakest Link’ had potential. But guess what - it’s terrible. What could have been a fun and tense game is instead a dull and pointless plod. I didn’t buy it. Neither should you.
Cheers for reading, and I look forward to hearing your opinions, guys.
Now realise how many of them rely on a big name to sell.
The main reason I've posted this is the Sony forum is because you guys seem capable of sensible debate, something in short supply over in FoG…
One of the most successful games (at present, anyway) on the PS2 is the latest in the Tony Hawk's Pro Skater series. Don't get me wrong - I love this game (albeit the PC equivalent). But surely Activision are just trying to appeal to hardcore enthusiasts by letting their software sport Mr Hawk on the box. Before playing THPS, I had never heard of the guy. Until the third game, he didn't really have any connection with the software except for the title, and even now he only performs cheesy voice-overs for the tutorials. It’s a skateboarding game, for goodness’ sake, not art.
The PC, however, is the biggest criminal of the franchise abusers. From ‘Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?’ to even worse showbiz tie-ins like ‘Weakest Link’, it seems that many publishers for the beige box have simply caved in to selling out. This is disgusting in itself – games like the Harry Potter multi-platform game make sense, since the books have a strong plot which could be mirrored in a playable environment. The games released, however, had CHEAP stamped all over them in great big black letters.
What makes no sense is how well these games sell. Despite being slammed from critics on all sides, Harry Potter and WWTBAM are some of the best-selling software ever. Did you buy it? Neither did I, so who did? Maybe it’s a big conspiracy, and software companies buy their own games to keep themselves at the top of the charts…or maybe they’re taking advantage of the poor sods that don’t know any better.
Some films are perfect for games, as are some books – Star Wars anyone? So why do the games that are cheap and tacky outsell the games that have months and even years of work poured in to them? This is something that really angers me, and is causing me to lose a lot of faith in the gaming industry. Recently, LucasArts shut down some mod-makers who were creating tribute mini-games to their Monkey Island adventure series. Despite the fact that LucasArts released these games years ago, they still want to milk cash from the public, and refuse copyright to anyone who tries to emulate them (even as a compliment). This is depravity, and the executive responsible for this should be shot. Or something slightly less drastic.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that much of the gaming world relies too heavily on names and franchises to sell their products, rather than innovating and coming up with new ideas (anybody here remember Giants: Citizen Kabuto? I thought not…). The only solution would be not to buy the cheaply made cash-ins, but that won’t happen until more people understand that the games, while they have potential to be good games, will only be cheap games until we start wanting quality software. Even ‘Weakest Link’ had potential. But guess what - it’s terrible. What could have been a fun and tense game is instead a dull and pointless plod. I didn’t buy it. Neither should you.
Cheers for reading, and I look forward to hearing your opinions, guys.