| Original message ([an error occurred while processing this directive] Views )[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Replies:
|
| Luisinan 937th Post
 
Red Carpet Regular Member++
    
    
    
|  "Re(5):http://www.darkfurydvd.com/"
, posted Wed 9 Jun 17:49
quote:
I'm sorry for being constatly against nostalgia, but I don't see the difference between how the videogame market is now and how it was back in the day. Lousy licensed features like Krull, Alien and Star Wars games were being put out way back on the Atari 2600. There have been attempts at synchronization between games and movies since Tron came out. And what about all that Pac-Man junk that came out at the height of that game's popularity? How is any of this different from the "new" trends you're railing against?
I think you misunderstood me (or I'm misunderstanding you now), but I don't think older games based on licenses are better then modern games based on licenses. My point is that in the older days, it seems to me, that game developers were more independent (they had to be). Now-a-days, you have super, gigantic game devs who work with movie studios, book publishers, restaurant chains, etc. to create a product that can reach the maximum number of people and can be done at the cheapest expense. And they all work together so that everyone makes a lot of money-- in doing so, they homogonize the game development process.
Best example. If Maniac Mansion were produced today, there would be 1001 tie-ins (movies, music, comics, etc.) And Maniac Mansion would be severely watered down because of it. Maniac Mansion would probably be 'too hard' for today's audience. Maniac Mansion would probably have never been produced today because its such an oddball game and story.
Furthermore, as these multi-product and multi-corporate products get stronger and sell more, our gaming is going to get blander and blander. There well be less innovation, less risk, less offbeat games. Its already happening.
So my point is? Well, the multi-corporate ventures in gaming, media and whatever else are scary, just because they are getting better at being synchrounous(sp?) and tightly marketed together. We got a video game, a hollywood movie and anime of Van Helsing and Riddick-- all released near each other. Thats f-cking insane. In the old days, video game tie-ins happened a year after the fact. This synchronosity is f-cking scary. Its like the giant corporate heads are coming together to get us, the gamer. I don't like their attention. I've already said why.
anyway, end ramble, rant.
Bored? "160"
|
| DarkZero 817th Post
Red Carpet Regular Member+
| "Re(6):http://www.darkfurydvd.com/" , posted Wed 9 Jun 19:41
quote:
I think you misunderstood me (or I'm misunderstanding you now), but I don't think older games based on licenses are better then modern games based on licenses. My point is that in the older days, it seems to me, that game developers were more independent (they had to be). Now-a-days, you have super, gigantic game devs who work with movie studios, book publishers, restaurant chains, etc. to create a product that can reach the maximum number of people and can be done at the cheapest expense. And they all work together so that everyone makes a lot of money-- in doing so, they homogonize the game development process.
The idea that licensed games are always absolute crap goes all the way back to the Atari 2600. They've always been rushed, they've never been good, and the only reason they ever came out a year late was because the games weren't given any sort of priority. They were considered to be second tier merchandise, the like the third or fourth line of Star Wars Episode II toys featuring "Extra #2409 From Scene #27 -- with new standing around and doing nothing battle action!".
And I find it ironic that you're saying all of this during the first time that I've ever seen licensed video games get good reviews. They've been regarded as crap for two decades now, but Chronicles of Riddick is getting really good reviews from lots of different sources right now, and while no one's really excited about Van Helsing, it has been getting the same "decent, but not great" sort of scores that original games like The Suffering or True Crime received.
The anime, though, is just the same direct-to-video tie-in crap that we used to see about a decade ago, and it looks like it's going to be the usual strategy for Universal from now on. The Animatrix from Warner Bros. was competent and even pretty enjoyable at some points, but Universal's Riddick and Van Helsing mini-movies look like they were made ten years ago and dredged up out of a vault. But then again, this is the first time they've done it, so maybe it will get better as Universal's writers start to take the animated prequel as seriously as Vin Diesel supposedly took Riddick's video game tie-in.
|
| Luisinan 939th Post
Red Carpet Regular Member++
| "Re(7):http://www.darkfurydvd.com/" , posted Wed 9 Jun 20:38
I'll put it more clearly, cause i think you keep misunderstanding me.
I am worried about the video game industry when I see game publishers and movie studios working so close together because I feel that game publishers will focus less on creating, new and original games and instead focus on making more movie tie-ins. Synchronicity is a big deal in business, especially entertainment. If you sell Shrek toys, videogames, movies, food-- it all advertises everything else and it creates a bigger impact on the buying public then if it were just a movie by itself.
So, it doesn't matter if Riddick or Van Helsing are good games. What matters to me is EA deciding to publish a Riddick sequel instead of a new or a couple of new, unique video games. These types of decisions happen all the time.
But hey, I like some licensed video games (I think I defended them in some other thread). I'm just worried that game publishers are getting a little too cozy with movie studios. This cozyness = less new, unique games, in my mind.
Bored? "160"
|
| Ishmael 1452th Post
Red Carpet Executive Member
    
| "Re(7):http://www.darkfurydvd.com/" , posted Thu 10 Jun 08:50:
quote:
The animated series based on famous videogames and viceversa were better treated than today, and they were less common.
how were they treated better?
imo, they're pulling the same stuff today that they did back then
crap
crap
utter crap
stupid crap
horror of horrors
Even Pac-Man and his weird 1950's style nuclear family don't like these games.
I agree with JJJ, if you prefer one item to another that's fine but if you're going to compare them make sure you are thinking about the actual items and not something filtered through the haze of childhood memories.
quote:
I am worried about the video game industry when I see game publishers and movie studios working so close together because I feel that game publishers will focus less on creating, new and original games and instead focus on making more movie tie-ins. Synchronicity is a big deal in business, especially entertainment. If you sell Shrek toys, videogames, movies, food-- it all advertises everything else and it creates a bigger impact on the buying public then if it were just a movie by itself.
So, it doesn't matter if Riddick or Van Helsing are good games. What matters to me is EA deciding to publish a Riddick sequel instead of a new or a couple of new, unique video games. These types of decisions happen all the time.
But hey, I like some licensed video games (I think I defended them in some other thread). I'm just worried that game publishers are getting a little too cozy with movie studios. This cozyness = less new, unique games, in my mind.
Ah, so you're more concerned with the idea that game companies will not expend as much resources on original ideas if they are busy with licensed products, tie-ins and the like? Okay, I can understand that. But for myself I'm not certain that is how things will play out.
A good chunk of non-licensed, original games are often not that original and do nothing more than ape a previous, successful idea. Look at Bubsy the Bobcat or all those mediocre fighting games that came out when SF2 first hit it big for examples. I see a lot of licensed games joining this lower tier of games but instead of having a main character that's not quite Mario or Dante the game will star Vin Diesel, Snoop Dogg, or some other celebrity associated with some property.
Will this comingling of games and other entertainment stifle creative games? Or will it help to expand both the game user base and the financial stability of the game companies, allowing for even more off beat and niche titles to make it on to the market? We'll have to see how this plays out in the future.
[this message was edited by Ishmael on Thu 10 Jun 09:12] |
|
|
"Re(1):http://www.darkfurydvd.com/" 
"Re(1):http://www.darkfurydvd.com/" 
