CAGs in your Face: Licensed Games

[CheapyD]

CAGs in your Face

Got something that’s being burning you up inside?
CAG will now be accepting hot topics for discussion, directly from the CAG community. Topics must be accompanied by well-written article and have game shopping or video games as a subject.
Send submissions to cheapyd@cheapassgamer.com

Topics & articles that are chosen will become a sticky topic in the General Gaming and Industry News forum. There will be a link to the article off the front page to give your article more exposure. The topic will last a week or so, and then be unstickied, and then replaced by a new topic.

Our first topic for discussion this time around was sent to me by CAG, studio and edited slightly by me.



Games Based on Licenses: Good, Bad or Unnecessary?
by studio (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=9210)

Now, I think it is safe to say that for the most part, the quality of games based on popular licenses have been well, let’s say under whelming. We all know this. Even casual gamers know to stay away from most of these games. That's not the question I'm posing here today. The question is, why are these games almost always a disappointment? The stock answer I've always been given is, that after paying licensing fees, the development budget is wiped out, leaving nothing left to make a decent game.

If the publisher didn't blow it’s wad on Aquaman, what other game could have been made instead? Would it just have been a crummy game with no license? Perhaps something innovative could have been born. It’s the alluring promise of easy money that drives publishers to create the next lousy Batgame. But really, where do I get off telling companies what to do, I'm only the consumer. So, let's make a compromise. You seem to feel the need to continuously develop this crap and people are buying it, but we need to find a way to make this work for the majority of gamers.

We know that recognizable, pop culture-friendly icons are ripe for game development. This is because fans already familiar with these characters may not be able to resist “becoming them”, in a way that only videogames can deliver. So why are these games destined to be steaming piles of hot garbage? Is it lack of effort on the developer’s part, or perhaps they are trying too hard?

The last major Batman game for the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube (hereafter knows as the Psoxube when talking about all three) was released by Ubisoft and received an average review score of 60.3% according to Gamerankings.com. These people made Splinter Cell and Prince of Persia, but couldn't manage to pull a decent Batman game out of their French derrières? They could have taken the Splinter Cell engine, put ears and a cape on Sam Fisher, and they would have had a better game.

Perhaps the key to developing license-based games is avoiding innovation and sticking with what works. X-men Legends is a good example of this. It’s a fun game; I have it and I'm enjoying it, but is it groundbreaking? No, it’s Gauntlet with the X-men. But isn't that all we’re looking for, a fun game with our favorite characters? Leave the innovation to non-licensed games, use your development budget to create that groundbreaking engine. Then re-use it. That’s right, you heard me re-use it. Would a stealth/action Batman game using the Splinter Cell engine be a bad idea? I admit it wouldn't change the industry, but may be fun, and in the end isn't that all we really want?

What do you think?

[GuilewasNK]

Would a stealth/action Batman game using the Splinter Cell engine be a bad idea?

Seems like a good idea to me. I always wondered why they didn't so something like that before. Other than the excellent Batman Returns on the SNES and the Adventures of Batman and Robin (also SNES), most Batman games are average at best.

[Scorch]

It's all about money. People are looking for the quick buck. How many of you would buy a game running the Max Payne 2 engine set in the Matrix world? I know I would. The media forces things upon us and make us believe what's popular, and how it's must-have.

As said before, XMen Legends is excellent. Games don't have to be new and innovative to be fun. I would much rather play a game on PS2 or XBox with 2D sprites and 150 hours of gameplay than a drop dead gorgeous looking action game with seven to nine hours of gameplay (*cough* Riddick *cough*)..

The next topic should totally be product placement in games, the butterfinger vending machines in THUG 2 is annoying the hell out of me.

[thorbahn3]

I guess I will throw in my 2 cents. You forgot about the rare times a game based on a franchise works. Goldeneye, Riddick, and some Star Wars games have been great. I also have another theory as to why some franchise games blow. The company makes the game come out along with the movie. Enter the Matrix comes to mind to a lot of people. The game was rushed out so it sucked. Also let us not forget E.T. . They only gave Scott Warshaw 6 weeks to make a game based on a action light movie.

[fireball343]

Companies that don't release many great hits see a licesnced game as a way to make some quick money. The game would have instant popularity because of the franchise that already exists. It used to be cool to make a game where you play the movie, but now we're more interested in playing a new story or an expanded one. Enter the matrix was some stuff from the movie but mostly an expanded story. Riddick was a prequel. James bond games are a new story most times.

If a great devolper would use their great engines and release licensed games by adding to the story without screwing up the orignal, yeah, that would be a good start, but is still a little bit away, closer than before, but still a mile away.

[KingDox]

I think one of the really early licensed that was great was Batman for the NES. That game rocked so hard. Also the old Star wars Arcade game was fantastic. But I do think that with a licensed game the developer loses some flexability when creating a game. In a batman game he just has to fight the joker, if he doesn't then batman fans will get angry. And then you have to develop the joker as an enemy and come up with some way for him to fight batman joker style. If it was a non-licensed game then you can create any villian you want and have him attack in any style that you think works best. But with a licensed game you are locked in to certain rules, like batman never using a gun. And I think that can hurt some of the creative process of game making.

Yeah and we really do need to address product placement in games. I didn't pay 50 bucks to look at AXE Spray ads.

[redgopher]

It's all about money. People are looking for the quick buck. How many of you would buy a game running the Max Payne 2 engine set in the Matrix world?

Too bad that didn't happen (and if it had happened it would have saved the game completely for me.. ever used Focus on the PC version? yeah! what framerate)... instead we got Enter the Craptacular Game.

Anyways, licensed games are just horrible. I don't care how high a score Riddick or Spiderman 2 got, they're just interactive versions of the movies that either a) are nearly nowhere as good as the film, or b) have awful, boring, repetitive gameplay.

[broke]

The thing that bothers me is that game companies that make bad license games are not seeing the big picture.
They know that they can make $$$ because of the popularity of the license itself. But uneducated buyers are the ones who purchase the games and end up un-happy. If these companies were able to either a) spend more $$$ on development or b) spend more time and $$$ on development they would be able to sell more units than the most popular non-license games.
Its idiotic - as the average game player gets older (I am in my thirties) they are less taken with the "mystique" of a game, and more likely to do research. Movie games are digging themselves an early grave if they think that a 30 year-old player is going to buy a bad Fantastic Four game just because the Thing is in it.
How many times have you turned to one of your friends after playing a bad "movie-oriented" game and said "who the hell signed off on this?". The fact of the matter is that bad games do more than just waste peoples time - they can turn a group off to an entire genre of games. Admit it - many of us assume movie games are bad before they even read a review. And for the most part they are right. Don't blame yourself - blame Neo.
PS - Laila Ali is hot.

[GuilewasNK]

PS - Laila Ali is hot.

Agreed! Glad somone knew who she was. 8)

I think Acclaim killed the licensed game business a long time ago. They churned out some awful titles back in the day. That's part of the reason Acclaim is dead now.

It would be nice to see some licensed games made by Konami, Capcom, and SquareEnix for a change. Of course there is no guarantee they would succeed but they have proven track records when it comes to making good games. EA's Bond games have been pretty good and they should do more licensed games as well.

[dcfox]

PS - Laila Ali is hot.

Agreed! Glad somone knew who she was. 8)

I think Acclaim killed the licensed game business a long time ago. They churned out some awful titles back in the day. That's part of the reason Acclaim is dead now.

It would be nice to see some licensed games made by Konami, Capcom, and SquareEnix for a change. Of course there is no guarantee they would succeed but they have proven track records when it comes to making good games. EA's Bond games have been pretty good and they should do more licensed games as well.

Well isn't Konami making the King Arthur game? Square Enix also has a game based on Full Metal Alchemist.

[CaptainObviousXl]

PS - Laila Ali is hot.

Agreed! Glad somone knew who she was. 8)
it says in the background

[GuilewasNK]

Well isn't Konami making the King Arthur game? Square Enix also has a game based on Full Metal Alchemist.

I didn't know about the King Arthur game. I was thinking more along the lines of US movie licenses like The Matrix or something like that. Full Metal Alchemist is an anime property right?

it says in the background

Yeah, but some people may be oblivious to that.

[dcfox]

Well isn't Konami making the King Arthur game? Square Enix also has a game based on Full Metal Alchemist.

I didn't know about the King Arthur game. I was thinking more along the lines of US movie licenses like The Matrix or something like that. Full Metal Alchemist is an anime property right?

Sega is co-publishing Matrix Online, I believe. Other than that and the King Arthur game I think EA pretty much has the American movie license locked up.

[bookishboy]

I guess I will throw in my 2 cents. You forgot about the rare times a game based on a franchise works. Goldeneye, Riddick, and some Star Wars games have been great. I also have another theory as to why some franchise games blow. The company makes the game come out along with the movie. Enter the Matrix comes to mind to a lot of people. The game was rushed out so it sucked. Also let us not forget E.T. . They only gave Scott Warshaw 6 weeks to make a game based on a action light movie.

thor is right-on here. Can any of you imagine the sucktitude that Goldeneye would have possessed if it'd been held "to-schedule" and been released simultaneously with the movie? It was a full YEAR AND A HALF late, and wound up being one of the greatest games of its time, let alone one of the best movie-licensed games ever. And what rewards did Rare reap from being so incredibly late with such an amazing game? They haven't done a James Bond game since; they had the license yanked from them.

Lesson learned: It matters not how good your game is, how wonderfully it shows off the license in question. If it isn't released on-time (meaning, within a month of the movie release) then you have failed, and won't get our business again in the future.

[GuilewasNK]

I think Hollywood has a tendency to press game companies into make near simultaneous releases with movies now. Hollywood doesn't realize that it takes more to make a great game than it does to make a great movie. Not only must you tell a great story in a game, the interaction in the game must be worth while. One of the first movie licensed games I remember that was really good IMO was T2: The Arcade Game. It took some of the bad taste of ET on the 2600 out of my mouth.

[Wombat]

First off, I'd like to say thank you for everyone who has read my little article, and a double thank you to everyone who has responded.
A few things to respond too:
yes, there have been some great star wars games, the are also published by LucasArts, which means no licensing fees, even VU's the Thing was decent game(they also made The Chronicles of Riddick), the problem it seems are the fees. The more money you take out of development, well you get the point.

thanks again for reading, feel free to give a piece of your mind

[hiccupleftovers]

Many times a licencesd game doesn't work because the programmers/designers of that game already have an idea of how it should look. How are they supposed to come with something original when they already know what the public is at least anticipating. If they were supposed to go in the oppisit direction and create something that they thought was more appealing for their game, the company would slap them in the face and just tell them how to do it. Also with already the idea of how to do it, their is no inspiration in how it should look, of the angle that they should take, that's why IMO many games are carbon-copies of most movies. The game's directors don't want to take another look at how the license should be done. This is not always, but tends to be in concern with movie to game adaptation or a game being developed around the same time as a movie.

[msdmoney]

I guess I will throw in my 2 cents. You forgot about the rare times a game based on a franchise works. Goldeneye, Riddick, and some Star Wars games have been great. I also have another theory as to why some franchise games blow. The company makes the game come out along with the movie. Enter the Matrix comes to mind to a lot of people. The game was rushed out so it sucked. Also let us not forget E.T. . They only gave Scott Warshaw 6 weeks to make a game based on a action light movie.

thor is right-on here. Can any of you imagine the sucktitude that Goldeneye would have possessed if it'd been held "to-schedule" and been released simultaneously with the movie? It was a full YEAR AND A HALF late, and wound up being one of the greatest games of its time, let alone one of the best movie-licensed games ever. And what rewards did Rare reap from being so incredibly late with such an amazing game? They haven't done a James Bond game since; they had the license yanked from them.

Lesson learned: It matters not how good your game is, how wonderfully it shows off the license in question. If it isn't released on-time (meaning, within a month of the movie release) then you have failed, and won't get our business again in the future.

Huh? Rare got a ton of money for Goldeneye, but their license was up and they got outbid by EA who saw a way to capatilize on Goldeneye's success. They didn't get the license yanked because it came out too late as far as I know. I just don't think Rare saw the need to pay for the license when their own reputation was selling games on its own. The Rare name became a license in itself.

There is nothing inherently wrong with lisences, but they are just too often used to pass off a mediocre rushed game onto an unsuspecting average gamer. Of course it is also up to the average gamer to discern the crap from the good, and often they don't hold up their end, so game companies will continue pushing out lisences.

[GuilewasNK]

That was another big problem of the 16-bit era. The games were expensive enough to make without the licensing fees. With that added to the production costs you would think that a company would not enter in to a publishing agreement with a movie unless they were SURE it would be a quality game. I do remember a few more gems though. The Jungle Book, Aladdin (on the Genesis mainly) and the Lion King games were really good. I think Disney had some of the better licensed games out there. Part of that probably had to do with the fact that Disney had some very good games made back in the NES days as well....

Darkwing Duck
Duck Tales
Duck Tales 2
The Little Mermaid
Rescue Rangers

They were also cartoon-based games. In general, those have done better than games based on movies (or TV) with live actors.

[Heyricochet]

Many times a licencesd game doesn't work because the programmers/designers of that game already have an idea of how it should look. etc....see above for the rest if you want to read it again.
Right, the problem with licensed games isn't always that they just make a quick and lame game, its also that they have to keep true to the fans and they follow the world already created. A lot of the fun of a new game is seeing the world you're in and developing the characters as the story moves along. With a licensed franchise it already exists, so it already loses some of the magic right there. Its hard to take something and expand on it, which is why you also see a lot of staleness in established franchises as they just repeat the same thing as before with better graphics and new levels. Thats why most licenses get horrible games.

Or, the developers really are trying to make a quick buck. Sometimes.

[hiccupleftovers]

Many times a licencesd game doesn't work because the programmers/designers of that game already have an idea of how it should look. etc....see above for the rest if you want to read it again.
Right, the problem with licensed games isn't always that they just make a quick and lame game, its also that they have to keep true to the fans and they follow the world already created. A lot of the fun of a new game is seeing the world you're in and developing the characters as the story moves along. With a licensed franchise it already exists, so it already loses some of the magic right there. Its hard to take something and expand on it, which is why you also see a lot of staleness in established franchises as they just repeat the same thing as before with better graphics and new levels. Thats why most licenses get horrible games.

Or, the developers really are trying to make a quick buck. Sometimes.

Exactly.

[tickdude]

While there are a few movie and TV licensed games that are good to great, on the whole, these types of games are mediocre to poor. In the short term, they may be cash cows for the production companies, but IMO it seems that gamers are becoming more saavy and knowledgeable about games, and how many times can you give consumers crappy movie-tied games before they say "enough!".
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think I remember reading an article in CGW a few months back stating that Paramount (I think) was going to start a game testing division of sorts that would play games based on their licenses prior to being published (perhaps the entire Star Trek & Interplay relationship was the reason, since I think the only game that was good from that licensing agreement was Starfleet Command.) If this is the trend, expect these kind of games to hopefully have better gameplay, but development times will increase and games may be cancelled if they do not meet some kind of blue ribbon standard. On the other hand, I do not see innovation arising from these type of games. Maybe Battle for Middle Earth will kickstart RTS games with the AI they are introducing.
That's my 2 cents. :wink:

[Mospeada_21]

Hmm...good concise article.

Yup, some licensed games are good, some are bad. Then, there's BG&E that we should all own; ahem....have a licensed copy of. (no pun intended)

Doubt there is a breakdown of 'types' of game buyers readily available, but I doubt we are the majority, even though most of us probably think otherwise. The 'public' buys games as gifts for gamers of all ages. Most probably are not as informed as us 'insiders.' So these bad 'licensed' titles proliferate. It's only when the primary vehicle, too, takes a dump, (meow), the game title will be significantly impacted.

[rebenns]

Many games are sold purely on hype. Look how many copies of Enter the Matrix, Fable, and Driv3er were sold in the first few weeks of release. Then, probably as word of mouth got around, the sales slacked off. Meanwhile, many great games, like BG&E, Viewtiful Joe, and Prince of Persia have sold poorly, despite price drops and other incentives.

[DrunkTigerWoods]

That was another big problem of the 16-bit era. The games were expensive enough to make without the licensing fees. With that added to the production costs you would think that a company would not enter in to a publishing agreement with a movie unless they were SURE it would be a quality game. I do remember a few more gems though. The Jungle Book, Aladdin (on the Genesis mainly) and the Lion King games were really good. I think Disney had some of the better licensed games out there. Part of that probably had to do with the fact that Disney had some very good games made back in the NES days as well....

Darkwing Duck
Duck Tales
Duck Tales 2
The Little Mermaid
Rescue Rangers
All those NES games and Aladdin on SNES were made by Capcom. The rest were made by Virgin.