The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
"Wow! What a great film!" he said, stepping out of theater. The boy began flinging his arms out, making noises with his mouth. "SWISH! WOOSH!" He tosses his ticket into the bin and went home, still buzzing. He talked to his friends all the way home about how cool SpiderMan was, how he could sling webbing, climb walls, and kill the bad guys...and then when he logged onto the computer, the boy saw he had won a free game courtesy of some very nice people. "Great!" he thought, "now I can get the SpiderMan game!", and a few days later it arrived. The boy ripped open the package, and put the disc in his console, grinning in anticipation.
When the game fired up, the boy went into the training mode (because he's a pansy), and learnt the basics. He admired the pretty visuals, and eventually got ahold of the tricky controls, and even managed to master the 'diving over the edge and grabbing onto the wall' thingie...but still didn't feel all that special. Then he went into the main game, and although the freedom the boy was allowed as Spidey WAS cool, it didn't feel right. A little too slick here and there. An annoying camera. A battle system that could get you killed through no fault of your own quite easily. As the boy sat playing, he realised how great the film was, and how bad the game was. Not in comparison, but standing alone, the game was a dissapointment. That boy's name is El Swandre. Well, OK, his name isn't really El Swandre but he's me. About a month ago.
Films are seen by millions around the world, and aren't really held to limitations. A bit like video games. It's no surprise that when a big blockbuster opens at the theatres, a game is not far behind. Heck, think back to the games of Aladdin, Superman etc.; tie-ins are nothing new. Neither are films. But as time has gone on, films have got flashier, they're made for more money, and more people watch them...and generally, they've gotten better. This is not the case for their video-game counterparts. SpiderMan is a recent example of a movie that has broken box-office records left right and centre, but has had a game that falls well short. Hardly a Disney flick goes by without the obligatory official GBA platformer.
The question is...why? Why do films and television shows with such great possibilities (like South Park) end up as such rubbish (like crappy quiz games)? Even the grand daddy of all licenses, James Bond, has been dragged through the mud by EA. In fact, Bond is the only film star to have been in a decent movie-game in recent memory: GoldenEye. The game that more than 75% of all N64 owners have. The best console FPS that isn't Halo (or Perfect Dark, IMO). It didn't have to compromise the game's plot in order to have a decent game (see SpiderMan and it's fifty bosses); it didn't need to be a game based on nothing you see in the game at all (see Shrek's Super Speedway, and all the other terrible kart games from films with no karts in them); it didn't leave out the possibility of multiplayer larks (and, in the process, created one of the best four player games around) (see SpiderMan again); and, most importantly, if you played it you had FUN (*cough* Evil Dead *cough*). It was a good game all on its own, the fact you were the world's coolest person was just a huge bonus.
But still, developers take things with such great potential, and proceed to leave said potential by the wayside, instead ripping off Mario Advance. EA took the Bond license from Rare, and after four attempts (two from films, two made-up) they're still nowhere near capturing GoldenEye's brilliance. Well, I have an idea. How about, instead of flogging your movie license to the highest bidder...you actually go after a games company? Sam Raimi didn't offer a wad of cash to produce SpiderMan, did he? When a new Star Wars comes out, why don't LucasArts ask Square to develop an RPG, or Psygonis to create a racer? When the new Austin Powers film is released, would it be so silly to ask Valve to use the license to make a brilliant shooter?
The games usually sell like hotcakes regardless, and if, instead of being paid for use of the license, film companies are given an even healthier slice of profit, there would be no losers. Especially not the gamers. I for one am certainly tired of opportunities being missed, and hope that soon something happens that makes game developers buck up their ideas.
Do you have any ideas that could stop really good films being made into really bad games? Or do you just want to praise my phenomenal writing ability? ;-) please reply, all my FOG Prime posts tend to sink to the bottom unseen...ugh, I'm such a beggar.
Anyways, thanks for reading.
That boy, with SpiderMan sitting in its case upstairs, collecting dust.
When the game fired up, the boy went into the training mode (because he's a pansy), and learnt the basics. He admired the pretty visuals, and eventually got ahold of the tricky controls, and even managed to master the 'diving over the edge and grabbing onto the wall' thingie...but still didn't feel all that special. Then he went into the main game, and although the freedom the boy was allowed as Spidey WAS cool, it didn't feel right. A little too slick here and there. An annoying camera. A battle system that could get you killed through no fault of your own quite easily. As the boy sat playing, he realised how great the film was, and how bad the game was. Not in comparison, but standing alone, the game was a dissapointment. That boy's name is El Swandre. Well, OK, his name isn't really El Swandre but he's me. About a month ago.
Films are seen by millions around the world, and aren't really held to limitations. A bit like video games. It's no surprise that when a big blockbuster opens at the theatres, a game is not far behind. Heck, think back to the games of Aladdin, Superman etc.; tie-ins are nothing new. Neither are films. But as time has gone on, films have got flashier, they're made for more money, and more people watch them...and generally, they've gotten better. This is not the case for their video-game counterparts. SpiderMan is a recent example of a movie that has broken box-office records left right and centre, but has had a game that falls well short. Hardly a Disney flick goes by without the obligatory official GBA platformer.
The question is...why? Why do films and television shows with such great possibilities (like South Park) end up as such rubbish (like crappy quiz games)? Even the grand daddy of all licenses, James Bond, has been dragged through the mud by EA. In fact, Bond is the only film star to have been in a decent movie-game in recent memory: GoldenEye. The game that more than 75% of all N64 owners have. The best console FPS that isn't Halo (or Perfect Dark, IMO). It didn't have to compromise the game's plot in order to have a decent game (see SpiderMan and it's fifty bosses); it didn't need to be a game based on nothing you see in the game at all (see Shrek's Super Speedway, and all the other terrible kart games from films with no karts in them); it didn't leave out the possibility of multiplayer larks (and, in the process, created one of the best four player games around) (see SpiderMan again); and, most importantly, if you played it you had FUN (*cough* Evil Dead *cough*). It was a good game all on its own, the fact you were the world's coolest person was just a huge bonus.
But still, developers take things with such great potential, and proceed to leave said potential by the wayside, instead ripping off Mario Advance. EA took the Bond license from Rare, and after four attempts (two from films, two made-up) they're still nowhere near capturing GoldenEye's brilliance. Well, I have an idea. How about, instead of flogging your movie license to the highest bidder...you actually go after a games company? Sam Raimi didn't offer a wad of cash to produce SpiderMan, did he? When a new Star Wars comes out, why don't LucasArts ask Square to develop an RPG, or Psygonis to create a racer? When the new Austin Powers film is released, would it be so silly to ask Valve to use the license to make a brilliant shooter?
The games usually sell like hotcakes regardless, and if, instead of being paid for use of the license, film companies are given an even healthier slice of profit, there would be no losers. Especially not the gamers. I for one am certainly tired of opportunities being missed, and hope that soon something happens that makes game developers buck up their ideas.
Do you have any ideas that could stop really good films being made into really bad games? Or do you just want to praise my phenomenal writing ability? ;-) please reply, all my FOG Prime posts tend to sink to the bottom unseen...ugh, I'm such a beggar.
Anyways, thanks for reading.
That boy, with SpiderMan sitting in its case upstairs, collecting dust.
Yeah, for the first few times. But then you spend so many levels cooped up in buildings with the stupid camera lock with people shooting you.
And it does get pretty samey.
And the puzzles are dumb.
By the way, thank you very much for the GAD SR =D =D =D
And it does get pretty samey.
And the puzzles are dumb.
By the way, thank you very much for the GAD SR =D =D =D
I thought Spiderman was pretty good, save for the AWFUL camera and terrible combat system (which you mentioned) But you have to admit, webslinging through New York was pretty good (except when you went too far down and "died")
Hey, I'm not denying the fact that SpiderMan kicks brass, but the game is a big dissapointment. For me, anyway. And pretty much the whole of my year at school. And other people I talk to online.
But if you like it, hey, go have fun playing it. To each their own.
But if you like it, hey, go have fun playing it. To each their own.
"Hmmm, I think I'll make up some statistics"
99% of the population think that 10% of Spiderman is 35% spiderish. Whatever. Spiderman rocks, in my opinion, and despite some mediocre reviews the (recent) game is incredibly cool!
99% of the population think that 10% of Spiderman is 35% spiderish. Whatever. Spiderman rocks, in my opinion, and despite some mediocre reviews the (recent) game is incredibly cool!
"Wow! What a great film!" he said, stepping out of theater. The boy began flinging his arms out, making noises with his mouth. "SWISH! WOOSH!" He tosses his ticket into the bin and went home, still buzzing. He talked to his friends all the way home about how cool SpiderMan was, how he could sling webbing, climb walls, and kill the bad guys...and then when he logged onto the computer, the boy saw he had won a free game courtesy of some very nice people. "Great!" he thought, "now I can get the SpiderMan game!", and a few days later it arrived. The boy ripped open the package, and put the disc in his console, grinning in anticipation.
When the game fired up, the boy went into the training mode (because he's a pansy), and learnt the basics. He admired the pretty visuals, and eventually got ahold of the tricky controls, and even managed to master the 'diving over the edge and grabbing onto the wall' thingie...but still didn't feel all that special. Then he went into the main game, and although the freedom the boy was allowed as Spidey WAS cool, it didn't feel right. A little too slick here and there. An annoying camera. A battle system that could get you killed through no fault of your own quite easily. As the boy sat playing, he realised how great the film was, and how bad the game was. Not in comparison, but standing alone, the game was a dissapointment. That boy's name is El Swandre. Well, OK, his name isn't really El Swandre but he's me. About a month ago.
Films are seen by millions around the world, and aren't really held to limitations. A bit like video games. It's no surprise that when a big blockbuster opens at the theatres, a game is not far behind. Heck, think back to the games of Aladdin, Superman etc.; tie-ins are nothing new. Neither are films. But as time has gone on, films have got flashier, they're made for more money, and more people watch them...and generally, they've gotten better. This is not the case for their video-game counterparts. SpiderMan is a recent example of a movie that has broken box-office records left right and centre, but has had a game that falls well short. Hardly a Disney flick goes by without the obligatory official GBA platformer.
The question is...why? Why do films and television shows with such great possibilities (like South Park) end up as such rubbish (like crappy quiz games)? Even the grand daddy of all licenses, James Bond, has been dragged through the mud by EA. In fact, Bond is the only film star to have been in a decent movie-game in recent memory: GoldenEye. The game that more than 75% of all N64 owners have. The best console FPS that isn't Halo (or Perfect Dark, IMO). It didn't have to compromise the game's plot in order to have a decent game (see SpiderMan and it's fifty bosses); it didn't need to be a game based on nothing you see in the game at all (see Shrek's Super Speedway, and all the other terrible kart games from films with no karts in them); it didn't leave out the possibility of multiplayer larks (and, in the process, created one of the best four player games around) (see SpiderMan again); and, most importantly, if you played it you had FUN (*cough* Evil Dead *cough*). It was a good game all on its own, the fact you were the world's coolest person was just a huge bonus.
But still, developers take things with such great potential, and proceed to leave said potential by the wayside, instead ripping off Mario Advance. EA took the Bond license from Rare, and after four attempts (two from films, two made-up) they're still nowhere near capturing GoldenEye's brilliance. Well, I have an idea. How about, instead of flogging your movie license to the highest bidder...you actually go after a games company? Sam Raimi didn't offer a wad of cash to produce SpiderMan, did he? When a new Star Wars comes out, why don't LucasArts ask Square to develop an RPG, or Psygonis to create a racer? When the new Austin Powers film is released, would it be so silly to ask Valve to use the license to make a brilliant shooter?
The games usually sell like hotcakes regardless, and if, instead of being paid for use of the license, film companies are given an even healthier slice of profit, there would be no losers. Especially not the gamers. I for one am certainly tired of opportunities being missed, and hope that soon something happens that makes game developers buck up their ideas.
Do you have any ideas that could stop really good films being made into really bad games? Or do you just want to praise my phenomenal writing ability? ;-) please reply, all my FOG Prime posts tend to sink to the bottom unseen...ugh, I'm such a beggar.
Anyways, thanks for reading.
That boy, with SpiderMan sitting in its case upstairs, collecting dust.
When the game fired up, the boy went into the training mode (because he's a pansy), and learnt the basics. He admired the pretty visuals, and eventually got ahold of the tricky controls, and even managed to master the 'diving over the edge and grabbing onto the wall' thingie...but still didn't feel all that special. Then he went into the main game, and although the freedom the boy was allowed as Spidey WAS cool, it didn't feel right. A little too slick here and there. An annoying camera. A battle system that could get you killed through no fault of your own quite easily. As the boy sat playing, he realised how great the film was, and how bad the game was. Not in comparison, but standing alone, the game was a dissapointment. That boy's name is El Swandre. Well, OK, his name isn't really El Swandre but he's me. About a month ago.
Films are seen by millions around the world, and aren't really held to limitations. A bit like video games. It's no surprise that when a big blockbuster opens at the theatres, a game is not far behind. Heck, think back to the games of Aladdin, Superman etc.; tie-ins are nothing new. Neither are films. But as time has gone on, films have got flashier, they're made for more money, and more people watch them...and generally, they've gotten better. This is not the case for their video-game counterparts. SpiderMan is a recent example of a movie that has broken box-office records left right and centre, but has had a game that falls well short. Hardly a Disney flick goes by without the obligatory official GBA platformer.
The question is...why? Why do films and television shows with such great possibilities (like South Park) end up as such rubbish (like crappy quiz games)? Even the grand daddy of all licenses, James Bond, has been dragged through the mud by EA. In fact, Bond is the only film star to have been in a decent movie-game in recent memory: GoldenEye. The game that more than 75% of all N64 owners have. The best console FPS that isn't Halo (or Perfect Dark, IMO). It didn't have to compromise the game's plot in order to have a decent game (see SpiderMan and it's fifty bosses); it didn't need to be a game based on nothing you see in the game at all (see Shrek's Super Speedway, and all the other terrible kart games from films with no karts in them); it didn't leave out the possibility of multiplayer larks (and, in the process, created one of the best four player games around) (see SpiderMan again); and, most importantly, if you played it you had FUN (*cough* Evil Dead *cough*). It was a good game all on its own, the fact you were the world's coolest person was just a huge bonus.
But still, developers take things with such great potential, and proceed to leave said potential by the wayside, instead ripping off Mario Advance. EA took the Bond license from Rare, and after four attempts (two from films, two made-up) they're still nowhere near capturing GoldenEye's brilliance. Well, I have an idea. How about, instead of flogging your movie license to the highest bidder...you actually go after a games company? Sam Raimi didn't offer a wad of cash to produce SpiderMan, did he? When a new Star Wars comes out, why don't LucasArts ask Square to develop an RPG, or Psygonis to create a racer? When the new Austin Powers film is released, would it be so silly to ask Valve to use the license to make a brilliant shooter?
The games usually sell like hotcakes regardless, and if, instead of being paid for use of the license, film companies are given an even healthier slice of profit, there would be no losers. Especially not the gamers. I for one am certainly tired of opportunities being missed, and hope that soon something happens that makes game developers buck up their ideas.
Do you have any ideas that could stop really good films being made into really bad games? Or do you just want to praise my phenomenal writing ability? ;-) please reply, all my FOG Prime posts tend to sink to the bottom unseen...ugh, I'm such a beggar.
Anyways, thanks for reading.
That boy, with SpiderMan sitting in its case upstairs, collecting dust.