| Original message (2134 Views )
| Replies: |
| DarkZero 1194th Post
 
Red Carpet Premium Member+
 
    
    
    
|  "Re(1):Francis Ford Coppola 1, EA 0." , posted Sun 10 Apr 20:34
quote:
Granted, FFC's opinions on upcoming games aren't exactly important (and after Godfather III, I don't particularly care what the man has to say about the series)... still, it's good to see even old people who care nothing about games remarking on EA's habit of taking well-known, beloved franchises and stripping them of everything that made them good in the first place (see LotR, Goldeneye, etc.) and replacing them with a thin sheen of gloss and a horrid soundtrack.
Licensed games are, by their very nature, crap. They sell millions of copies because of their source material, so they can't really deviate from that source material. However, the only possible innovation or cleverness in the game's design exists within the parts of the game where they deviate from the source material, because you can't be innovative, clever, and regurgitating a novel or movie into video game form all at the same time.
If the Godfather game wasn't crap, it wouldn't sell, because it would not, in the strict sense, still be The Godfather. You and I might pop it in and be amazed by its innovation and cleverness, but casual gamers will immediately balk at it and tell their friends that it sucks, and that it sucks simply because it is not The Godfather.
It's kind of like the English version of Gyakuten Saiban. How do you decide what form a game that should never have been made should take? What's the second best thing to the goddamn thing just not existing at all? It's a bizarre question, but it makes EA piles of cash.
|
| Bootation 443th Post
Gold Customer
|  "Re(2):Francis Ford Coppola 1, EA 0." , posted Sun 10 Apr 23:39
quote:
Granted, FFC's opinions on upcoming games aren't exactly important (and after Godfather III, I don't particularly care what the man has to say about the series)... still, it's good to see even old people who care nothing about games remarking on EA's habit of taking well-known, beloved franchises and stripping them of everything that made them good in the first place (see LotR, Goldeneye, etc.) and replacing them with a thin sheen of gloss and a horrid soundtrack.
Licensed games are, by their very nature, crap. They sell millions of copies because of their source material, so they can't really deviate from that source material. However, the only possible innovation or cleverness in the game's design exists within the parts of the game where they deviate from the source material, because you can't be innovative, clever, and regurgitating a novel or movie into video game form all at the same time.
If the Godfather game wasn't crap, it wouldn't sell, because it would not, in the strict sense, still be The Godfather. You and I might pop it in and be amazed by its innovation and cleverness, but casual gamers will immediately balk at it and tell their friends that it sucks, and that it sucks simply because it is not The Godfather.
It's kind of like the English version of Gyakuten Saiban. How do you decide what form a game that should never have been made should take? What's the second best thing to the goddamn thing just not existing at all? It's a bizarre question, but it makes EA piles of cash.
It was on the cover to one of the b.s. gaming magazines i have free subscriptions to. Talk about a retarded idea. Its almost as retarded as lindsey lohan "manga" that they sell in the states. My roommate said ya that godfather game looks pretty fun. I pretty much ignored him. Damn what a stupid game. I think americans should give up making videogames for awhile. We really lost our way.
Pretty please check out my neato sweet awesome webpage
|
| Baines
59th Post
Occasional Customer
| "Re(2):Francis Ford Coppola 1, EA 0." , posted Mon 11 Apr 02:58
quote:
Licensed games are, by their very nature, crap.
I agree and disagree. Licensed games are generally crap. But that fate isn't entirely due to the restrictions of adapting a different property into a game.
Rather, it is partly the nature of licenses to be used as a crutch for otherwise weak designs. Generally if the game were good, it wouldn't be saddled with a license to begin with, because companies would rather have their own IP. If your company makes only mediocre games, whether for lack of vision, talent, or whatever, then licenses might be your crutch.
Though applying licenses to the wrong game design is just as much a problem. Like deciding to make a GTA clone and attaching the Godfather to the project.
Maybe a skilled development team with the right power and influence could make a solid Godfather licensed game that is "true enough" to the source. We'll never see it though, because odds are they'll be making their own game. And whoever gets the license will either blindly attach it to a genre style, or (more rarely) try to stay so true to the original that it is completely crippled. (It is hard for me to see a "true" Godfather game that isn't either mostly a graphic novel or a sim. But I'm sure most developers would go for pure action.)
|
| Undead Fred 2293th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
    
  
| "Re(3):Francis Ford Coppola 1, EA 0." , posted Mon 11 Apr 03:42
quote:
Rather, it is partly the nature of licenses to be used as a crutch for otherwise weak designs. Generally if the game were good, it wouldn't be saddled with a license to begin with, because companies would rather have their own IP. If your company makes only mediocre games, whether for lack of vision, talent, or whatever, then licenses might be your crutch.
Though applying licenses to the wrong game design is just as much a problem. Like deciding to make a GTA clone and attaching the Godfather to the project.
Maybe a skilled development team with the right power and influence could make a solid Godfather licensed game that is "true enough" to the source. We'll never see it though, because odds are they'll be making their own game. And whoever gets the license will either blindly attach it to a genre style, or (more rarely) try to stay so true to the original that it is completely crippled. (It is hard for me to see a "true" Godfather game that isn't either mostly a graphic novel or a sim. But I'm sure most developers would go for pure action.)
God... how could I have guessed that the Godfather game would be a GTA clone?
EA Exec- "Okay, let's make a mafia game. But we need celebrities in it or no one will ever play the game ever. Mafia... celebrities... the Godfather! I think that'll be perfect. Okay, now... mafia... video games... Grand Theft Auto! Totally perfect. We'll make Godfather Theft Auto and it will have a million celebrities. This will be the best game ever and I am a genius."
I think the main reason why I hate licensed games is because a majority of the ones I've seen come out are obvious marketing tie-ins that are released before the movie even comes out. Plus, they'll just make a game out of ANY movie these days... like a Series of Unfortunate Events and Polar Express. And then there are the ones that come out before the movie AND have tickets to the movie included with the game... It's almost like they knew no one would want to see the movie OR play the game, so they're trying to get you to see both by bribing you with tickets to Van Helsing. Heh heh.
Now someone needs to make the Passion of the Christ into a first-person shooter and we're all set.
|
| OmegaDog 1491th Post
Red Carpet Executive Member
| "Re(3):Francis Ford Coppola 1, EA 0." , posted Mon 11 Apr 03:56
quote:
Granted, FFC's opinions on upcoming games aren't exactly important (and after Godfather III, I don't particularly care what the man has to say about the series)
I remember hearing something from an old friend about Coppola not being given as much time to write Godfather III, that it was supposed to stop at II, that Paramount pressured him for a third, gave him a year to do it -- and that the script had to be written as filming progressed. Thing is, I can't seem to confirm the information in quick bite-size form. Is there any truth to these statements?
quote:
It was on the cover to one of the b.s. gaming magazines i have free subscriptions to. Talk about a retarded idea. Its almost as retarded as lindsey lohan "manga" that they sell in the states. My roommate said ya that godfather game looks pretty fun. I pretty much ignored him. Damn what a stupid game.
Well, how much did this magazine show? How much did he look at? And are you pushing aside the fact that he might just have different preferences than you do?
I'll grant that it might've been too early to judge whether or not it would be fun -- assuming what you said is true, he wasn't saying that. He only said it looked fun. That gives him space to dismiss the game as being not fun, if ever it were to come out.
Think if there were still shots of a game from a developer and region of preference, with an art style of your preference, showing off moves and play styles that appeal to you. You'd think it would look fun too, no?
quote:
I think americans should give up making videogames for awhile. We really lost our way.
Uh, dude... you already know that American development teams are quite capable of making quality games. You also already know that development teams in Japan and other regions of the world are quite capable of pushing out crap.
I'm already getting quite a sense of what mindset you have to write this statement -- but I just want to confirm -- why do you write stuff like that, if you know better?
"IT'S PAYBACK TIME..." "LOCKED AND LOADED!" | CCT: NEXT STAGE IS 20
|
| Undead Fred 2294th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
| "Re(2):From Russia with Love" , posted Mon 11 Apr 05:12
quote:
A licensed game can be good in the right hands... Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay is a great example. They had the movie writers involved, The movie people did all the voices, and the model of Riddick was spot on... so much it was almost scary. Not to mention it was just fun to play and offered a lot of background on the Riddick character.
Eh, personally, I'd pretty much EXPECT them to make a movie character look just like the actor that played them (and they usually get the actor to voice them as well)... I don't know, I just see that kind of stuff as window dressing. If the story's good and the game at least SORT OF feels original, then that's all that matters.
quote:
I like that Francis Ford Coppola, the guy who directed Captain EO, is now critiquing game betas. While I can understand his chagrin at the work he did on his movie adaptation being used as a springboard for other enterprises he didn't approve of it's not like the licensing rights or even the original story belong to him. Did he expect that his version of Mario Puzo's novel to be the only adaptation that was going to be made?
Well, that's the thing- they're making a game out of his specific adaptation of the story. They're using actors and their likenesses that were straight out of his movie. So yeah, it's more or less a game about his movie, which I can see as a reason to get irritated about it. Plus, it's not like people (at least a majority of the people) immediately think of a book when you say "the Godfather"... they think of Coppola's movie (or specifically Pacino or Brando). So, you've got to give him some credit there.
|
| Mokona
242th Post
Frequent Customer
| "Re(2):From Russia with Love" , posted Tue 12 Apr 02:02
quote:
I like that Francis Ford Coppola, the guy who directed Captain EO, is now critiquing game betas. While I can understand his chagrin at the work he did on his movie adaptation being used as a springboard for other enterprises he didn't approve of it's not like the licensing rights or even the original story belong to him. Did he expect that his version of Mario Puzo's novel to be the only adaptation that was going to be made?
If they took the characters' names and the story and made a game, he wouldn't have shits to say about it, but they take the likenesses, voices, sets, actors, etc. from HIS fucking movies and make the game.
Now, if the guy doesn't own any of the rights for his own movies, he can't complain. He can say he doesn't like it, he can say he's not happy that noone whatsoever asked for his input/expertise/whatever, but he can't complain.
About the Riddick game. It's clearly a great game (I loved it, the story was great, on top of being a side-story for the movies. It had all the voice/acting talent from the movies, and the atmosphere from the movies is exactly how it should be.) What the team did was great. They didn't do a game based on the movie, they provided an experience parallel to the movie. Now that can clearly go wrong too (if you don't do the game right), like that Enter the Matrix game.
I don't know if the game, being good and critically-praised, did good in terms of sales. That may prove DarkZero's point, but we'd have to check...
Blah!
|
| Dr Baghead 3417th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
| "Re(2):From Russia with Love" , posted Tue 12 Apr 10:32
quote:
I like that Francis Ford Coppola, the guy who directed Captain EO, is now critiquing game betas. While I can understand his chagrin at the work he did on his movie adaptation being used as a springboard for other enterprises he didn't approve of it's not like the licensing rights or even the original story belong to him. Did he expect that his version of Mario Puzo's novel to be the only adaptation that was going to be made?
As other people have said, the game is based on HIS movie not the book.
I'm gonna use Disney as an example here: I can make videogames, action figures, movies, T-Shirts, whatever I want based on Aladdin, the Little Mermaid, Hercules, Beauty and the Beast, the Jungle Book, Peter Pan, Snow White, whatever's not an "original property" (or the Lion King) I can use freely, maybe paying the original non-Disney rights holder a fee to do so.
So I can make an 'Aladdin: the game', BUT I can't make "Disney's Aladdin: the game"... the game can take place in an arabian town, but not Argrobah. Aladin can be a handsome street rat and the Princess can dress like a belly dancer for no reason, but they can't look like Disney's version. I can make the Genie big and cartoon, but make him blue have too frantic a personality HELLLOOOO LAWSUIT. And you can just rule out wacky monkeys and talking parrots too.
It's like those "based on the books" Lord of the Rings games that came out around the time EA made their "based on the movie" games, sure you're techincally using the same source but people would rather play the movie versions since (in addition to looking better 90% of the time) it's what they know and a book version feels like a generic rip-off.
EA could easily give FFC a big fuck you, get the license to the book (if it's not included with the movie license) and rework the game so far with original character and set designs and rerecord a whole new cast. But then people would play it and be all "this isn't the Godfather?! I though Brando was gonna be in this game" and they'll return it and EA won't make shit for cash because who wants to play a generic knock off of a movie.
Blanka and Dan make for a most excellent tag image (yeah still not funny)
|
| DarkZero 1196th Post
Red Carpet Premium Member+
| "Re(3):From Russia with Love" , posted Tue 12 Apr 11:09
quote:
About the Riddick game. It's clearly a great game (I loved it, the story was great, on top of being a side-story for the movies. It had all the voice/acting talent from the movies, and the atmosphere from the movies is exactly how it should be.) What the team did was great. They didn't do a game based on the movie, they provided an experience parallel to the movie. Now that can clearly go wrong too (if you don't do the game right), like that Enter the Matrix game.
I don't know if the game, being good and critically-praised, did good in terms of sales. That may prove DarkZero's point, but we'd have to check...
If I remember correctly, The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay didn't sell that well, but that's probably because The Chronicles of Riddick didn't do so great at the box office. Then again, that does sort of prove my point, because the Lord of the Rings and Spider-Man games have obviously sold millions without being very innovative just because the Lord of the Rings and Spider-Man were box office hits, while Escape From Butcher Bay, being attached to a less popular license, didn't do so well.
Then again, this isn't unique to licensed games. Devil May Cry 2 sold really well in spite of poor reviews simply because it had Dante in it, just like the Spider-Man games sold well just because they have Spider-Man in them. As long as games have actual characters and stories to them and aren't just Pong-esque "pure games" like Tetris or Lumines that are just 100% gameplay, people are going to buy them for the characters and stories even if the gameplay sucks.
|
| Ishmael 1941th Post
Gold Carpet V.I.P- Platinum Executive
| "Re(3):From Russia with Love" , posted Wed 13 Apr 01:25
Heh, I may have to become the devil's advocate and start openly supporting EA just to see what kind of responses I can get. As I said in my first post, yes, I can understand why Coppola is upset that his adaptation of The Godfather is subsequently being adapted to video games. But did he think that Paramount was going to miss an opportunity to make money? EA has a proven track record of being able to make profitable games out of movie adaptations so once you get past the inherent lunacy of making a Godfather video game the whole thing makes sense.
quote:
As other people have said, the game is based on HIS movie not the book.
I'm gonna use Disney as an example here: I can make videogames, action figures, movies, T-Shirts, whatever I want based on Aladdin, the Little Mermaid, Hercules, Beauty and the Beast, the Jungle Book, Peter Pan, Snow White, whatever's not an "original property" (or the Lion King) I can use freely, maybe paying the original non-Disney rights holder a fee to do so.
So I can make an 'Aladdin: the game', BUT I can't make "Disney's Aladdin: the game"... the game can take place in an arabian town, but not Argrobah. Aladin can be a handsome street rat and the Princess can dress like a belly dancer for no reason, but they can't look like Disney's version. I can make the Genie big and cartoon, but make him blue have too frantic a personality HELLLOOOO LAWSUIT. And you can just rule out wacky monkeys and talking parrots too.
It's like those "based on the books" Lord of the Rings games that came out around the time EA made their "based on the movie" games, sure you're techincally using the same source but people would rather play the movie versions since (in addition to looking better 90% of the time) it's what they know and a book version feels like a generic rip-off.
EA could easily give FFC a big fuck you, get the license to the book (if it's not included with the movie license) and rework the game so far with original character and set designs and rerecord a whole new cast. But then people would play it and be all "this isn't the Godfather?! I though Brando was gonna be in this game" and they'll return it and EA won't make shit for cash because who wants to play a generic knock off of a movie.
That analogy doesn't quite work for this situation. EA received the rights to make a game based on The Godfather from the people who own them: Paramount. When companies were making Disney style Aladdin t-shirts, toys or whatever they didn't ask the directors of the Disney movie for their permission, they asked the Disney corporation. That's the way Disney is set up for it's in-house movies and, from the sounds of it, it's close to the same deal Coppola received from Paramount when he made his film. I suspect that EA only sent Coppola a demo in the hopes that he would give them some free publicity instead of publicly blasting the project but I doubt they were under any obligation to keep him in the loop.
|
| Undead Fred 2305th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
| "Re(4):...and they've done it again" , posted Fri 15 Apr 11:03
quote:
You should be their PR guy. According to them in OPM they are competing not just against Sega but all forms of entertainment. God forbid a movie or a Sega game distracted you from enjoying your Def Jam or Madden. So that's the real competition...everything.
That strangely enough was the same thing Microsoft was saying before they ran into anti-trust trouble. Of course nothing came from that.
I wouldn't be surprised if game companies decided to file a big lawsuit against EA over being 'genre monopolies.'
Yeah, I remember that comment about how they want to be the BIGGEST MEDIA FORCE OOOON EEEEAAAAAARTH..... which scares me, since all they make are crappy party games for people that don't play games. Well, not like I'm the only one that's worried. I was talking to someone today that was pissed off that EA took that college football license too. He was saying that now the only sports games that'll be out there are EA's glitchy same-old-same-old sports games. And of course, Command and Conquer, Maxis, and the "near miss" with Ubi Soft came up, too. And I showed him that PR article for the Marvel VS EA game and everyone had a good laugh.
I really can't wait for some anti-trust action to come up against EA, but it'll probably not do much like what happened with Microsoft. But hey, anything limiting EA at all will be good in my opinion.
|
|
|
