I found the Genesis Aladdin game to be better (surprise!). These were also good:Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
- Terminator (Sega CD)
- EA's LOTR games
- Batman Returns (SNES)
- Batman (NES)
- Rambo 3 (Genesis)
Printable View
I found the Genesis Aladdin game to be better (surprise!). These were also good:Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
- Terminator (Sega CD)
- EA's LOTR games
- Batman Returns (SNES)
- Batman (NES)
- Rambo 3 (Genesis)
With a game engine that took them the previous four years to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roufuss
I like the idea of videogame makers actually being forced to take responsiblity for producing shoddy products, because some movies do have worlds and characters that would be really fun to play around in, but are killed by publishers wanting to rush the game out the door as quickly as possible. Like the new Spider-man game has great potential, but I'm sure it will be rushed and half-assed like the previous one was to meet deadlines imposed by Activision.
People's expectations regarding licensed games.Quote:
damage to what!?
Why? Why should the videogame industry be held to a different standard than any other industry? Videogame makers already are held responsible for shoddy products -- it's called poor sales. It's not their fault we're stupid enough to eat this shit up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ammadeau
The Matrix.Quote:
Originally Posted by lithium
Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter
Good game =/= good sales.
Bad game =/= bad sales.
Yeah by GBA I meant Genesis (well MegaDrive since i'm Aussie). My brain farted... like... or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
Uh yeah, and I'm saying we as consumers should be smart enough to discern the two. That's how capitalism works. Since we're not, the companies have every right to shovel crap at us. Hell, we're buying it right, who are we to complain?Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian79
Build a better mouse trap and they'll beat a path to your door-- Unless they're gamers.
This is stupid. I'm all for accountability, but I'd say Hollywood's being awfully one-sided. If they're going to hold videogames to a certain standard, then they should also hold themselves to it. If they expect a superior videogame, they'd better make a superior movie. If a pile of crap movie-to-game conversion like T3 is penalized, what about the other side of the coin? Like say, Haunted Mansion; the movie was utter shite and ensured that the game sat on shelves, despite being a pretty good game. Games like Van Helsing or Enter the Matrix shouldn't face penalties, because the experiences they delivered were right on par with the mediocrity of their movie brethren.
Also, if they're gonna expect a blockbuster game, they'd better make sure the resources for a blockbuster game are provided. Most liscenced games are crap because a) games usually aren't given a large budget in the first place, and even if they are, b) a lot of that budget is gone from the get-go from having to buy the liscense, and c) the devs are working on much tighter schedule and deadline than an original game would. If games are so important for Hollywood's image, then they should be offering their money and resources (Lord knows they have them in greater abundance) to the game makers, not the other way around.
Part of the problem comes from the reviewers aswell.Quote:
Originally Posted by lithium
Games like Dungeon Seige and DK 64 scored extremely well despite being complete turds and a lot of games get preferential treatment, a lot of magazines like Hyper(in Australia) for example gets a few money hats from developers for their games to get scored slightly better.
Then there is the first impressions which casuals base their purchase on that are often decieving in videogames.
Off the top of my head, the impossibly hard "Batman and Robin" on the Genesis and "Aladin" on the Genny are the only movie game I can think of that deserve to live...
Meh, throw "Micky Mania" on the "live" pile as well, even though that wasn't a specific movie.