Jump to content
LCVG

The Licensed Game "Rule"


Robot Monkey
 Share

Recommended Posts

You know the Licensed Game "Rule," right? As you can guess from my use of quotes, The Chronicles of Riddick topic makes we wonder if the rule is operable.

 

Romier mentioned a number of good (and some great) licensed games. It's a surprisingly big list. We could probably add KOTOR nad Spider-Man to the list of games that don't suck. Hollismb mentioned that these games are an exception.

 

I wonder -- is the ratio between licensed games that suck to licensed games that don't suck any different than non-licensed games today? I mean, for the sake of argument, let's agree that most licensed games suck. But most non-licensed games suck. For every Rainbow Six 3, there are tons of assy FPS's.

 

I'm thinking that the quality of licensed games has increased enough these days to make the licensed game rule inoperable.

 

I'm also thinking that this might be a meaningless discussion that interests no one, in which case I encourage you to depart this topic post-haste to find one of greater interest.

 

-j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, Jay, that what you might be seeing here is the burning off of many years of bad, bad blood from the past, where every single licensed game was total shit.

 

I mean, E.T., Raiders, every single freaking game LJN made (Jaws, Back to the Future, BttF2/3, X-Men), etc, so forth. Licensed games were hideous abominations that made us all run for the hills. And it stayed that way. Look at that shit that Akklaim tried to pass off as a game for Batman Forever.

 

It's like anything, people get cynical and it's easy to be cynical about something instead of optimistic, so the automatic assumption tends to be that a licensed game will blow. Hell, it's not uncommon for a company to grab a cheap license for some quickie name recognition, slap it on a craptastic game, and hope to pass a few copies on to unsuspecting peoples. And that still happens today, contributing to the problem.

 

So, for those licensed games that don't bite, recognition is hard to get. You're right though, the trend for good to come from the license is getting better. EA is doing a fabulous job with the Bond titles, some of the Harry Potters have been okay, LotR is getting better, etc. But while they may be turning the tide, they still have to go a long way to get over a stigma that has been in place for more than a decade and still gets reinforced quite a bit, even though a number of excellent license games have appeared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting topic. I have to agree, that in the past, a licenced game pretty much meant it was going to be craptastic. However, looking over my game collection there are some that have "turned that tide". Games such as Spiderman, Hulk (for the $10..wouldn't have been so pleased at $50), LotR (EA's), and the Bond titles. Another point, Van Helsing is a movie that I'm really quite looking forward to. Granted all I'm expecting from it is a popcorn flick in the vein of The Mummy and Mummy Returns. Now the game I was all ready to simply dismiss as a licenced pile of "why bother". However, after downloading some video clips of the game, I have to say it's one that is up there on my interest meter at least to take a look at. I'm certainly not about to start singing it's praises until I've had a chance to sit down with it, but as a Devil May Clone game, it has potential.

 

Time will tell.

 

Finally, Ack-lame really didn't help reputations of licenced games in the past, and the Terminator games aren't doing anything helpfull for them now :)

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pharmboy@Apr 26 2004, 07:07 PM

Hell, how much licensed gaming bias is influenced just by Superman 64? :green:

You know, I was in EB yesterday, and I saw a copy of this game in the store. That in itself didn't surprise me. What did was the fact that they wanted to charge $12 for it. With a game like that, EB should be offering money to the customers to get rid of it.

 

Anyway, my collection consists of surprisingly few licensed games. Those that I do own are either called Goldeneye or have the words Star Wars in them. The problem I have with licensed games is that, for the most part, I don't think they're all that interesting. I'm not saying that they all suck, but if I have a choice between them or original games like Beyond Good & Evil, Viewtiful Joe, and Ratchet and Clank, I'm more likely to chose the original games. I resepect developers that are willing to take risks with new properties, and I like to reward them with my money for creating something new (and in many cases with the hope that there will be a sequel). That is, of course, assuming that these original titles don't suck either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pharmboy@Apr 26 2004, 06:51 PM

every single freaking game LJN made (Jaws, Back to the Future, BttF2/3, X-Men)

It's pretty telling when, y'know, thirteen years later or whatever, I see a note about the LJN X-Men game and can still feel the bile rise... I was a huge X-Men fan and was still in elementary school, so I didn't have a lot of shots to get games. My birthday falls really close to Christmas, so aside from those rare occasions when my parents took pity on me or if I somehow managed to scrounge together enough money to fish something out of the bargain bin, I got all my video games in pretty much one annual blast. I wasted one of those volleys on X-Men, and I'm still bitter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, and I specifically singled out LJN because they sucked so hard. And that X-Men game was the one that taught me the true value in rental first :P. I still to this day am blown away that anybody would even have the audacity to release that sack of shit onto the market and try to sucker people into buying it. Rose-colored glasses, yeah, but there's NO way I can believe anybody working on that project thought they were making a game that didn't blow six ways from Sunday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Didn't mean to imply that Acclaim was responsible for the Terminator games...

 

Only that Acclaim did nothing helpfull for licenced games as a whole in the past (far too many examples to list)

 

And that the Terminator games aren't doing anything helpfull for licenced games (again as a whole) now.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am amazed how far along Licensed games have come. Games like the 1st Buffy, the new Bond (I am not as big as a fan of this one as everyone else), The Two Towers and Return of the King, Clancy games, The Thing, and Spider-Man. I even enjoy the two Scooby-Doo games. Licensed games are finally a class of games that are worth playing, and worth buying. Star Wars games have always been popular, even the shitty ones. However, I think Knights of the Old Republic has really raised the bar for quality in the Star Wars universe. I know for me it has. I didn't even want to play the latest Rogue Squadron after playing Knights. I loved the 1st Gamecube incarnation, but I had no interest in the same ol? same ol?, especially after hearing everyone?s opinions on the abysmal foot missions.

 

I actually look forward to the licensed games now. The new Spider-Man looks incredible as does Riddick. I'll give Van Helsing a rent to just to kick some monster ass. :)

 

-Dean-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...