10 Ways to Tell if a Licensed Game Will Probably Suck

[Something Amyss]

Responses in threads like this are the reasons why I'm starting to dislike the Escapist. If you're going to blast his list, at least be funny about it.

If he wanted us to be funny about it, he should have been funny in the first place. Sadly, that ship has sailed.

But as a token conciliatory gesture, have a kitten.

Spoiler: here

 

[Vegosiux]

... I've got a simpler and less juvenile way to determine if a game will suck. Because there are plenty of games that don't, yet meet your criteria. What I've observed is not a checklist, but is instead a step-by-step process.

1. Don't buy the game at launch.
2. Read/watch reviews. Pay the most attention to notes on game mechanics and core gameplay elements.
3. Determine whether or not you'll buy it.
4. If you'll buy it, determine what price you'll buy it for.
5. Find a way to entertain yourself until the game meets the price you're willing to buy it for.
6. Buy the game.

See? So much simpler. And it saves you money.

Yeah, but good luck telling that to the people who NEED to have the next coolest thing ever RIGHT NAO!!!!

*sigh* I seriously wish public advertising was banned under pain of death.

 

[Godhead]

Responses in threads like this are the reasons why I'm starting to dislike the Escapist. If you're going to blast his list, at least be funny about it. Taking a partly tongue in cheek post and responding to it in an overly serious manner just comes off as obnoxious.

OP: Yeah, the Shat is cool and all, but I can't help but think the original clip the trailer was referencing looked a bit more entertaining than the brief glimpses of game we got to see in said trailer.

We're not allowed to be not serious. If we do then the entire fabricated wall of pseudo-intellectualism around this place falls at the seams, that's why if we have anything fun it must end quickly and not spread to other threads or outside of user groups/RP threads.

 

[Alfador_VII]

Star Trek has about a 99% chance of sucking as it's a movie tie-in, timed to come out near the movie. Can't think of any time that's worked before.

Oh also,it's a generic looking 3rd person cover-based shooter.

What about... GOLDENEYE?

That came out two years after the movie so it had time to be awesome It obviously wasn't rushed in devolopment like most tie-ins, and is STILL one of the greatest console FPSes

 

[gsf1200]

Since everyone else is dumping on the OP, I will say I agree with all your points. I think what he meant to say instead of "licensed game", is every game made to capitalize on the popularity of a movie or tv show. Telltale's walking dead game was licensed, but the actual game had very little to do with the show and it was good. The new walking dead game just sucks. I don't know how that can be, it has Daryl Dixon!

 

[King Aragorn]

I apply the rules I apply to whatever game i'm not sure of:
1. I check previews and gameplay footage, interviews, and what not.
2. See what the general public has to say and the professional critics.
3. Check who's publishing and who's making the game.
4. How much of a ''tie in'' is it? is it like TWD, which does not have much to do with the show, or is it a Battleship kind of thing where it's released on almost the same date, to cash in?
5. Also, if it's a sequel to another tie in *Iron Man games*, then i'll check the one beforehand.

 

[FalloutJack]

1. It's a licensed game.

This doesn't tell me anything except that YOU hate licensed games. I need a why or a more specific point on TYPES of licensed games. Anyone walking into this cold, like me, doesn't get the joke.

 

[VincentMm]

Star Trek has about a 99% chance of sucking as it's a movie tie-in, timed to come out near the movie. Can't think of any time that's worked before.

Oh also,it's a generic looking 3rd person cover-based shooter.

Also, it's a Star Trek game.
Nobody has ever given us a good Star Trek game. Dammit.

 

[aguspal]

The list is pretty good, but I rather do what I do with all games: Just simply wait it out and heard people opinions in places where I KNOW people know what they are saying (This place is a good one by the way ) and youtube gameplay dosnt hurts either.

Star Trek has about a 99% chance of sucking as it's a movie tie-in, timed to come out near the movie. Can't think of any time that's worked before.

Oh also,it's a generic looking 3rd person cover-based shooter.

Also, it's a Star Trek game.
Nobody has ever given us a good Star Trek game. Dammit.

Really? I remember a couple of them begin considerated "good"...

 

[templar1138a]

La Snippe

Yeah, but good luck telling that to the people who NEED to have the next coolest thing ever RIGHT NAO!!!!

*sigh* I seriously wish public advertising was banned under pain of death.

My friend, it's not advertising's fault. It's the fault of the people who believe it.

Off-topic: The range rover and the company that makes it can kiss my ass.

 

[Darks63]

Star Trek has about a 99% chance of sucking as it's a movie tie-in, timed to come out near the movie. Can't think of any time that's worked before.

Oh also,it's a generic looking 3rd person cover-based shooter.

Also, it's a Star Trek game.
Nobody has ever given us a good Star Trek game. Dammit.

The first Armada was quite good as well as the Starfleet academy series.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Star Trek has about a 99% chance of sucking as it's a movie tie-in, timed to come out near the movie. Can't think of any time that's worked before.

Oh also,it's a generic looking 3rd person cover-based shooter.

Also, it's a Star Trek game.
Nobody has ever given us a good Star Trek game. Dammit.

The first Armada was quite good as well as the Starfleet academy series.

Oh I loved the first Star Trek: Armada game. The second one not so much.

 

[Kukakkau]

11. It is releasing to coincide with the launch of it's movie counterpart.

You could really just change this to "it's a movie based game"

Also big DLC after release or preorder DLC is a strong sign of fail to come

 

[axlryder]

Responses in threads like this are the reasons why I'm starting to dislike the Escapist. If you're going to blast his list, at least be funny about it.

If he wanted us to be funny about it, he should have been funny in the first place. Sadly, that ship has sailed.

But as a token conciliatory gesture, have a kitten.

Spoiler: here

He certainly came off as more jocular than some of the posters in this thread. Name any names, I shall not.

Also, I'm allergic to kittens. THANKS! *AH-CHOO!*

Ah well, he's still a pretty cute little bugger.

 

[piinyouri]

... I've got a simpler and less juvenile way to determine if a game will suck. Because there are plenty of games that don't, yet meet your criteria. What I've observed is not a checklist, but is instead a step-by-step process.

1. Don't buy the game at launch.
2. Read/watch reviews. Pay the most attention to notes on game mechanics and core gameplay elements.
3. Determine whether or not you'll buy it.
4. If you'll buy it, determine what price you'll buy it for.
5. Find a way to entertain yourself until the game meets the price you're willing to buy it for.
6. Buy the game.

See? So much simpler. And it saves you money.

I second this.

Logic and common sense beats cynical hyperbole in this case.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

But what about the new Walking Dead? Or Batman?

Well to be fair, the ones you're referring to weren't really based on their respective TV shows and Movies. They take more from the concepts behind them. The actual videogame based on the Walking Dead tv show is downright atrocious.

Easily the best videogame tie-in was the Warriors, and that was made decades after the original film. Plus it was made by someone who genuinely wanted to make a videogame about the film, not mandated by the IP owner just to squeeze a few more bucks out of the franchise.

Yes, yes, yes. The Warriors was an amazing game. I like to think the dudes in Rockstar loved the original movie and figured they might as well ride their popularity wave from the GTA games and get it sold because of their name, not the movie's.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

I think it's generally accepted that licensed games are bad 90% of the time these days, if they are based on:

1. Current movies being released.
2. Currently airing television shows.
3. Based on a older television show or movie that is getting a reboot.

Can we start a list of licensed games that were good? Cause it seems like we're getting a good many here.

I've got one more: If the tie-in was made after 2002 expect it to be bad. 2002 is fair isn't it? Spider-Man 2 was a great tie-in after all and...when did Escape from Butcher Bay come out? Alright, maybe change that to 2006...Not all of the tie-ins from before 2006 were good but a lot of them were pretty decent like Batman the Animated Series on Genesis/SNES. Disney/Capcom games were also really good but those go from about NES to Gamecube eras.

Anyway, your list sounds reasonable Smeg. I look forward to hearing reviews that complain about the AI Spock making Shiva look like the perfect...AI...

I don't know, I like some games with a film franchise label on it. Like Battle for Middle Earth, that game was great. The earlier lego games were pretty fun too, and Star Wars battlefront was one of the first shooters I played.

Star Trek has about a 99% chance of sucking as it's a movie tie-in, timed to come out near the movie. Can't think of any time that's worked before.

Oh also,it's a generic looking 3rd person cover-based shooter.

What about... GOLDENEYE?

Naa naa daaa naa naa daaa nana nana nanana na!

But what about the new Walking Dead? Or Batman?

I disagree. Not all licensed games suck. Almost everyone agrees that the Batman: Arkham Asylum/City games are great and those a licensed. Also I like the most recent Aliens vs. Predator game (2009 I think it was) although I agree with Yahtzee that the Alien and Predator campaigns were too short and I would've liked it if the Predator's cloaking device actually worked worth shit, but overall I enjoyed the game.
All the rest of your points seem pretty accurate though.

 

[veloper]

... I've got a simpler and less juvenile way to determine if a game will suck. Because there are plenty of games that don't, yet meet your criteria. What I've observed is not a checklist, but is instead a step-by-step process.

1. Don't buy the game at launch.
2. Read/watch reviews. Pay the most attention to notes on game mechanics and core gameplay elements.
3. Determine whether or not you'll buy it.
4. If you'll buy it, determine what price you'll buy it for.
5. Find a way to entertain yourself until the game meets the price you're willing to buy it for.
6. Buy the game.

See? So much simpler. And it saves you money.

I second this.

Logic and common sense beats cynical hyperbole in this case.

All good things come to those who wait.
For gamers that is.