Some great games tied to movie licenses have been released in the past, just look at classic Goldeneye for Nintendo 64 or more recently, Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Unfortunately, this doesn't apply to most games, which usually are a shameful representation of their respective movie (is Enter the Matrix slowly taking this path?). The Superman series, for example, embarrassingly falls under this category.

I asked the board members what they thought about this issue, and why it is often such a problem, this is what Banana_Man, Scragglepuss, Link, Qbas, Sip, NickUKGC, Shadowlord, Chris the Great, Dk_Jr, Mattcube, Spikeydude, Blackwelluk, Guaglio, Slink, Sanexone, and Severnik had to say:

--------------------------------------

Banana_Man: Licensed games that turn out well are tricky to create. The companies make the games multi-platform so that means that the console with low technical specifications can run it, but this means that consoles with higher technical specifications lose out because the game doesn't push their respective console. Spiderman: The Movie is an average game, I have it and it may be too easy in parts, but I found levels such as diffusing the bombs took me more than one go. Games such as Minority Report: Everybody Runs and The Sum Of All Fears are terrible games, but I think that they will sell because of the licence attached to them. The people who create these games know they will sell well, despite how it turns out, so yes, I think developers do waste good licenses because if they really spent time creating the game, then it could be a fine game.

scragglepuss: Yes, developers waste very promising licences. It has become more apparent in the last few years. After the sublime GoldenEye, no licensed game has even come close to that pinnacle of greatness. The main offenders are definitely Electronic Arts (EA). They have made the common perception of a James Bond to be 'pretty good' as opposed to 'Ground Breaking' as it was just four years ago. Of course, other games, such as Sum Of All Fears and Minority Report: Everybody Runs have been nothing but cheap cash-ins. However, on the other hand, there have been some good implications of well known licences as of late, mainly the sublime Rocky, which remained faithful to the original film it was based on, without skimping on the gameplay, something all developers should be keen to do...Now for the second face of EA, its sports games. They are, on the whole, the best sports games in their field {hehe}. Madden 2003, NHL 2003 and Knockout Kings 2003 are all excellent representations of their real-life counterparts, but Tiger Woods PGA 2003 is simply fantastic. Even FIFA 2003 is a good game, if poor in comparison to Konami's efforts. EA deserve praise on this side.

Other games of note though, whose developers waste the licences they were given, are Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers, Star Wars: The Clone Wars and Star Wars Bounty Hunter, Disney Sports Games, Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius, Batman: Dark Tomorrow, Scooby Doo and X Men: Next Dimension. To conclude, with the exception of a few brilliant games, on the whole, DEVELOPERS DO WASTE LICENSES.

Link: Many developers now believe that even if they rush out a game with a film licence, it will sell due to the popularity of the film. No matter how disappointing the game actually is. Its those poor fools who are tricked by these big game developers/publishers (e.g. Electronic Arts) that are keeping these companies still in business. I believe that if a licence was given to a worthy developer (like Retro Studios, Silicon Knights) these cheap "cash-ins" trades will end.

well_chuffed: A lot of games used to be rushed out, so that they would be released with the film. A lot of games get more polishingtime now than they used to, but they still usually end up below par against the average game. Obviously almost any fan of Nintendo will know of GoldenEye, about the only movie game ever to be a AAA title. Shot a certain company we know called Rare into the limelight as well. The other reason a lot of licenses get wasted is because it's the smaller development houses that are given the games to develop instead of the more experienced divisions. It must be a lot harder to create the game for a movie because you are confined a lot more to what you can do; there is a lot less of a creative aspect. The last problem, of which I've just thought of, is the fact that a lot of Hollywood films are getting weaker. The dialogue is poor, the story and plot are practically non-existent. It is all made up for with more CGI [computer generated images] and more explosions. All the action. These are not so good for games, other than cut-scenes.

Qbas: Well in my opinion developers shouldn't make license-games from movies anyway because they quite frankly are bad. But on the other hand, it depends on what license the game is made, like Star Trek games for instance; I just love them. Maybe because most of the time developers really have put effort on making those games and getting the Star Trek feel in the games. If a developer makes a game on a license they should at least put effort in them because to me especially games on movie licenses are made in a hurry and they usually suck, but that is just my opinion.

Sip: They sure are wasting licenses. Although I have full faith in Shiny (the developers of the Matrix game) ever since the absolutely stunning MDK, I do believe (some) licences are being wasted. It seems as if the developers think they can suffice with a lousy game, because the license will make it sell anyway. Of course there is the occasional exception, such as GoldenEye, but the bulk of licensed games is a waste of effort.

NickUKGC: Lets get straight to the point, licensed games from movies are just rubbish. Maybe once in a blue moon one will turn up that is good but more often then not they are poor to say the least. GoldenEye being the obvious exception. everyone now thinks if they release a game from a popular movie it will sell, in most cases I don't believe that, most people will take those games back! Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers in my opinion looks like a decent game! I think its really hard to recapture the movie in a game, its just way too difficult. It works for first person shooters like GoldenEye because Bond movies have lots of action, where others such as Minority Report are a different genre of movie, which is hard to make a game out of.

Other people have picked up on it and EA are behind most of these games. Don't get me wrong though, EA is a great company but the only games they are releasing that are worth buying are their sports series (FIFA 2003 & Madden 2003) and maybe the bond license, I'm talking about Nightfire and not the PlayStation 2 clone 'Agent Under Fire'. I think companies have good ideas in concept but then when they actually make the games, they turn out rubbish due to deadlines and oh so many more reasons. Gameplay is where a game is played for or not, not for the licence of the product...some companies forget that!

Shadowlord: Yup, definitely the developers are wasting licences. With very few exceptions (like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and GoldenEye) most other games are crap. I played Minority Report and Blade II recently and they sucked big time. Of course it's not easy, as has been mentioned, to transfer a movie into a game but sometimes it needs a bit of creative thinking like they did in Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. While the game was far from awesome it was pretty decent because they gave it the right "feel" and added some stuff from the previous book/movie to make the story tie better.

So I feel that developers should think very carefully of what licences they are trying to make games of.

Chris the great: The only good game from a movie ever is GoldenEye. The reason is that it strays away from the film a lot. Films that are full of action have maybe three or four parts that could be in a game. Movies should stay just that, movies. Don't get me started on game movies, has there been one good game to movie? Short answer, no. Its funny how people say that the game and movie industry are becoming one, if they actually played games they would know better. If movie licences stopped going to EA (who are not bad just never great) and to people who can make games well, such as Capcom, Rare, Camelot and Nintendo we might get some good ones.

Dk_jr: It's a difficult thing to develop a movie licensed game in my opinion. The fans of that movie will have high expectations and their own ideas on what it should be like. Many movie titles have been quite appalling, and I don't think I need to say the near endless list of them. Luckily once in a while the license will go to a good company and we get a good product, e.g. GoldenEye. The sad fact is that the licenses go to whoever will pay the most, like the large but poor quality company Activision, and this leads to games that do not live up to anywhere near their potential. To note also the fact they won't work as hard on the larger licenses as they know they will sell like hot cakes. We can only hope one day the licensees will not care for the solely for profits and that they actually get someone to make their license in to a decent game.

Mattcube: Are developers wasting licenses? Well from a business point of view the answer is no. Acquiring a licence means that they can make a bad game sell loads, or at least a considerable amount, and with the reduced developing costs they can make good money for a sub-standard product. If the game is good (which it rarely is) then the developer has a licence to print money! Are developers misusing licences? Yes. They should make the best of licences by using the involving plot/action/thing that make the licence desirable of the film and should be making the player feel like they are in the book/film/whatever, which should actually make a more positive, exciting experience. As GoldenEye proved, a licensed game can be a great game in it own right and even better with your favourite (in this case Bond) character and story to add a new dimension to the gaming experience. Licences can be exciting and great things - look at the Harry Potter books. Loved by children and adults across the world and was brought to the big screen giving Potter fans a new, rewarding and positive experience why can't developers do this instead of trying to make a quick buck.

Spikeydude: I think developers have been wasting licenses - great TV shows are nearly always terrible games, the only exception I can think of is Star Wars. When developers are handed a license for a GBA game they bang out another platformer or kart racer game. If it is for GameCube they just churn out bland versions of whatever the thing of the moment is (Taz: Wanted uses cell-shading) with a terrible camera. People buy them not knowing how shoddy a product they can often be, because of the license - I think there will always be licensed games because of this.

Blackwelluk: I think Star Wars games are the worst offenders as far as only selling because of their licences, although saying this there have been some Star Wars games worth playing, such as Rogue Leader on GC, Super Star Wars on SNES, Super Return of the Jedi on SNES, Super Empire Strikes Back on SNES, Star Wars on NES, Jedi Knight on PC. But that's about it. Other good games that used movie licenses are: Die Hard Arcade on Saturn, Die Hard Trilogy on Saturn, GoldenEye on N64, Rambo on Master System, Rocky on GC/Xbox/PS2. Can anyone name any others?

Guaglio: I would say that licensed games are simply made to attract fans into buying a game based on their favourite licenses. It has been throughout time that these games generally suck - since the first licensed game (ET, I believe) that was apparently crap, until nowadays. With obvious exceptions of course. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - now that was well done along with GoldenEye. Besides those I cant say that many are good.

Slink: I also think that the games made of a movie are not good. The games are just made for more publicity for the movie so that it will be visited or sold more often. I can't really think of a game from a movie that was really good. Jedi Outcast wasn't bad but also not really good. The Disney games aren't only bad for the gamers but also for the GameCube, it doesn't really help Nintendo. I also think they shouldn't make more games of a movie. A game is game and a movie is a movie.

[Kostandino1978 agrees with this, saying "I agree, they are only interested in selling a movie-based game, rather than producing a masterpiece. But unfortunately, this is the "marketing trend"..."]

Sanexone: Well....a lot of people here name some games based on movies that are rather well, plus a few that are really good (GoldenEye), plus a lot that are crappy (thinking.....). Looks like the average game stock to me!! A lot of crap, some average/good titles and some rare super titles. I think it doesn't come from the licenses, but from the average quality of games in general.

Severnik: It's very true that games with licenses are usually of a very low standard, and have mostly been since they have been produced. A handful of them make it into the limelight, but mainly, they suck. GoldenEye was one that excelled the rest, but titles like Minority Report and Lord of the Rings are not really that good at all. The reason I think this, is the fact that the licenses sell the games. Minority Report, although being a totally appalling game, has had relatively good sales, as has Lord of the Rings. There are many others to choose from, and from the casual gamers point of view, these are the games to buy because they are the ones of which they have heard about from the films or TV series that they have come from.

--------------------------------------

Well, that's all for this edition of Board Roundtable. I hope you will join us next time by posting in the thread "Board Roundtable #14", located in the GameCube Discussion forum. Unfortunately, the boards are currently down for technical issues but they'll be back up as soon as possible. So make sure you check back in a day or two!

Thanks and praise to the 16 members who participated by posting their comments, especially to Sip who once again was the editor of this issue.