10 Ways to Tell if a Licensed Game Will Probably Suck

[smeghead25]

I figured it's about time we developed a list of things to watch out for, so that we don't make the mistake of buying things like Aliens: Colonial Marines again.

Am I being fair with this list? Do I need to change or add anything? Would I be right in saying that all of these apply to Aliens: Colonial Marines, The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct, and the upcoming Star Trek game? That last one makes me sad.

The more of these that apply, the higher the chance of suckiness:

1. It's a movie tie-in.
2. They keep telling you that it isn't like all those other licensed games.
3. It has a long development cycle with nothing to show for it but a single demo of generic gameplay they use at every press event.
4. Alternatively, it has a development cycle much shorter than other titles in the genre.
5. Developers gush about how much respect they have for the license, yet they have obviously missed the point (i.e. No strong female characters in Aliens; Kirk and Spock only shoot and take cover without any communication).
6. Developers only ever talk about their creative vision, never about the game itself.
7. The trailers are mostly either cut-scene footage or celebrity endorsements.
8. Any gameplay footage they do show in trailers are montages of half-second clips that don't show you how the game actually plays.
9. The publisher doesn't send out review copies.
10. The publisher places an embargo on reviews until mere days before release.

And as Lovely Mixture suggested, a quick list of decent licensed games!

Aliens Vs Predator (2010), Batman: Arkham Asylum/Arkham City, Battle for Middle Earth, Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay/Dark Athena, Defiance, James Bond games (Goldeneye and From Russia With Love), Metro 2033, Spider-Man 2, The Walking Dead (from Telltale Games), The Warriors.

 

[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.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Here's another one, though for the most part, it only really applies to games based on movies:

11. The game is released at the same time or even before whatever it is based on hits shelves, the big screen, whatever.

Exceptions exist, but often this means it's a rushed tie-in cash grab.

edit: darn, ninja'd

 

[Tom_green_day]

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.

 

[smeghead25]

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.

Yeah, there have been a fair few good licensed games. I enjoyed Riddick of course, and the non-film tie-in Transformers games are a blast. Like Alfador and chimpzy pointed out, games that aren't meant to tie into a movie releases seem to have much better chances. Pretty much every good licensed game tends to show off decent chunks of gameplay and give the press proper demonstrations well before the release and doesn't have to coincide with another product.

 

[WoW Killer]

It's funny because truth.

I've got sort of a golden rule now that applies to both licensed and non-licensed, tying in with 7, 8 and 9. If you've not seen any proper gameplay footage of a game, don't buy it. Corollary: if no proper gameplay footage has been allowed out before release, don't buy it on day one.

But yes, this seems to happen more often with licensed games.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

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...

 

[Total LOLige]

Does this mean I just wasted £28 on Defiance?

Stranglehold was sort of a licensed game and it didn't suck, it rocked.

 

[saintdane05]

But what about the new Walking Dead? Or Batman?

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

My general rule is to see how big a deal they make of it being a licensed game. If it's all they talk about then it's probably going to suck because the game can't stand on it's own merits, only on the fact that is has a license.

 

[templar1138a]

... 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.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Review embargos.
If your game is good, you'd let reviews out before launch.

 

[Sight Unseen]

Another red flag is if the game company doesn't release review copies of the game. It shows that they aren't confident in their game and want the precious few days without reviews to try to scam as many people as possible into buying their shitty product.

 

[afroebob]

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!

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

I don't really feel like having a massive, quote-heavy post, so I'll just put my thoughts in bold-face in the one quote.

1. It's a licensed game.
I disagree with this. Duck Tales on NES was a licensed game, and it's considered a classic. Same goes for Goldeneye. Though it is worth noting that neither of those games fall under #11 on this list, so that's something to consider.

2. The developers tell you that a long development cycle is a reason that the game won't suck.
I again disagree. Long development times don't mean anything except that the game has been in development for a while. I've seen games with a 3+ year cycle that were absolutely spectacular, and games with a more "reasonable" development time that were simply atrocious. The time it takes to make a game doesn't mean anything. I think Duke Nukem Forever has soured people to automatically assume that a longer cycle means a game is going to be terrible, but that ignores the damning factors in DNF's development that caused the long development time. DNF didn't suck because they took too long to develop it, rather that it took too long to develop because the people (or person) in charge was making bad decisions.

3. The developers tell you that the studio who commissioned a shoddy cash-in game don't want it to suck, and therefore they have made it magically not suck.
Eh, this could be said for any game. EVERY developer will tell you during development about how much they think the game is going to be awesome; franchise or not. So this isn't really a red flag so-much as par for the course.

4. They gush about how much respect they have for the series/movie without showing this.
Um... I guess? Though you'd have to give an example of how a team has claimed to have respect, then showed it. Otherwise I don't really see this one.

5. They keep telling you that it isn't like all those other licensed games.
See my rebuttal to #3

6. They give all those excuses but never really talk about the game itself, just about why it's different to other licensed games.
The list is starting to feel a little redundant and padded. Couldn't this be filed under one of the previous points?

7. The trailers show mostly cut-scene footage and...
8. ...they try to distract you from the half-arsed gameplay footage by getting relevant celebrities to appear in a trailer...
9. ...and the only gameplay footage they show in trailers is a montage of short half second clips where you don't get to see how it actually plays.
See, this is what I'm talking about. You just stretched one point into 3 sections. *Ahem* Anyway, this is another thing that's kind par for the course in general. Just as many non-licensed games have done this kinda thing (Most FF titles, Dead Island, and I'm sure many others), so this isn't really a "What to watch for with licensed games" so-much as "What to watch for with any game".

10. Marketing doesn't start until right before release, and they only show off one tiny 30 second gameplay chunk they extended into 2 minutes by blasting at enemies. Marketing doesn't mean anything. I've seen great games with no marketing, terrible games with a lot of marketing, and vice versa. Marketing is just marketing, and every studio handles it differently.

11. It is releasing to coincide with the launch of it's movie counterpart.
This is definitely a fair point. In rare cases has a licensed game that was set to launch with it's source material actually been good, to the point where they are the exception that proves the rule.

Over-all, not a bad idea for a list, but I think you need to look to licensed games that have been good as a meter. As I mention in my rebuttal for the first point, those games didn't get launched to coincide with any source material. I think an important thing for this list is to look at licensed games (be they based on a movie, tv show, comic, whatever) and make note of what they do differently. Look into what the good games did right vs what the bad ones did differently, and use that as a baseline for how the list should look.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

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.

 

[Il_Exile_lI]

I like the idea, but some of these don't hold up under scrutiny. For one, Colonial Marines was an anomaly in that development took forever. In most cases, bad licensed games are rushed out as quick as possible to coincide with movie releases and such. Some accounts have stated that Walking Dead: Survival Instincts was developed in less than a year (in this instance to capitalize on the positive buzz the Walking Dead brand has received thanks to the Telltale game).

 

[Something Amyss]

1. It's a licensed game.

While the majority of licensed games suck, so do the majority of shooters. Saying "it's a licensed game" as evidence it'll suck is like saying "it's a shooter" is evidence a shooter will suck.

I suppose this works if you're going for comedy, but even then it's low-lying fruit.

2. The developers tell you that a long development cycle is a reason that the game won't suck.

As both long and short development cycles exist for both good and bad games, this is a non-issue.

3. The developers tell you that the studio who commissioned a shoddy cash-in game don't want it to suck, and therefore they have made it magically not suck.

I'd like to see an example of this.

4. They gush about how much respect they have for the series/movie without showing this.

The former is just evidence that the people at the developer are breathing. The latter is so subjective as to be worthless as a measure of anything.

5. They keep telling you that it isn't like all those other licensed games.

See "why shooters suck." See also "evidence of breathing."

6. They give all those excuses but never really talk about the game itself, just about why it's different to other licensed games.

Yes, only bad developers try and differentiate their product.

Additionally, there's been plenty of talk in the one instance I have followed about the game itself (star trek). It might not be good talk, but no, this doesn't apply.

7. The trailers show mostly cut-scene footage and...

Now we've moved on to "proof video games suck."

Actually, the original Mass Effect is a good example of a game that hits a lot of these.

8. ...they try to distract you from the half-arsed gameplay footage by getting relevant celebrities to appear in a trailer...

If they're trying to distract you, I suppose.

9. ...and the only gameplay footage they show in trailers is a montage of short half second clips where you don't get to see how it actually plays.

See "Proof video games suck."

I suppose if you filter for hyperbole, this one works.

10. Marketing doesn't start until right before release, and they only show off one tiny 30 second gameplay chunk they extended into 2 minutes by blasting at enemies.

Isn't blasting at enemies a big part of gameplay?

Also, doesn't apply to Star Trek, but I can't speak for the others. the Trek hype started like a year ago.

...It's just a shame that the game doesn't look to have improved in a year.

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

When the release of the movie sets the schedule, yes. It'll probably suck.

 

[rofltehcat]

... 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.
Just wait a little and see how it turns out. If it is good, you'll buy it and "lost" 3 days playing other stuff from this over-saturated market (my list of things to play is getting longer and longer). If it isn't as good or you're cheap, just buy it later for a third of its price. If it sucks, you just saved a lot of money and frustration.

 

[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. 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.