Slashdot Mirror
On Licenses That Should Be Made Into Games
Ant writes "GameSpy has an article discussing their favorite ideas for licenses that should be made into games, but haven't made the transition yet." The piece, thankfully, notes that we "often get slammed with hideously inappropriate or just badly implemented and misbegotten licensed creations", but also argues: "For every Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Pirates of the Caribbean, or Superman for the N64, we'll occasionally get a Tron 2.0, or Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic", before picking The Road Warrior, Lone Wolf and Cub, and Ender's Game, among others, as licenses they'd like to see made into games. Which licenses do you think could survive the transition to games intact?
i'd rather just see good games with good ideas rather then trying to adapt something from a media thats already been created and formed into its own art. why innovate when we can invent?
Am I the only person that thinks the old BBS door "Legend of the Red Dragon" would make a killer MMORPG?
Seth Able is sitting on a gold mine.. if he still owns the rights to it.
Please don't give Mel Gibson any more money.
[o]_O
At least with Superman 64, Superman fans were willing to admit that the game sucked.
Now how about thinking for yourselves for once instead of quoting someone elses thoughts constantly.
You say after not only agreeing with the previous post while adding no new ideas, but literally quoting him.
I've met Card and had the chance to talk with him. (I worked at a sci-fi/fantasy bookstore where he held a signing - unfortunately the bookstore eventually collapsed under the weight of Borders' and Barnes and Noble's competition, but that's another story...) You are definitely right, in that Card is a very religious socially conservative man. He is, for religious reasons (he's a practicing Mormon), firmly against the very idea of homosexuality. His non-fiction writing (such as the essay linked to on this thread) as well as some of his fiction writing (the Homecoming series, Folk of the Fringe) show his feelings. And let me preface the rest of this post by saying I firmly disagree with his anti-homosexual and (in my opinion) women-as-second-class-citizens attitudes.
I don't think his idelogies negate the fiction he has written. Ender's Game and - to a lesser extent - the rest of the Ender-related books he has written are excellent science fiction. They are not the height of literature in the 20th Century, but are extremely enjoyable books that I have read again and again.
Even though I disagree with some of Card's social ideas in the very core of my being.
When I worked in the sci-fi/fantasy bookstore we (fellow employees and the owner) had a long discussion before Card came about his politics. Everyone at the store was liberal and had trouble reconciling Card's fiction with his ideology. If you can get your hands on it, read "Magic Mirror" by Card (do an Amazon or Google search for "Magic Mirror" and "orsonn scott card"). It's a fairy tale, but with very blunt social commentary. The family it concerns has fallen into dispair as the 'King' (dad) works too much, the 'Queen' (mom) isn't with the children enough, the 'Princess' (daughter) is out partying and the 'Prince' (son) is playing videogames. In the end the 'Queen' is in the kitchen (where she 'should be') the 'Prince' has left videogames for more 'appropriate' activities, the 'Princess' had left her goth ways to become a prim-and-propper teen blond (the most controversial change, as two of the women working at the bookstore were quite goth), and (in the only change we all agreed with) the 'King' cut back on work and spent more time with the family. While other books Card has written show some facets of his politics, this seemed to sum them all up in one little package, complete with disgustingly bright illustrations.
So what do to about Card's ideologies? While none of us were perfectly happy with it, we all were able to hold a dual view of Card: pleased with (most of) his writing, and disagreeing with (most of) his political and social views. It's not a very satisfying sollution, but I do think Card is an amazing author (some of his older short story collections are a real treat if all you've read is Ender's Game and Co.) and it would be a shame to miss out on his writings because you disagree with his philosophies.
In a more extreme case (that I hope won't allienate those of you who stuck with me thus far...) I'm able to enjoy "Battlefield Earth" as trashy sci-fi even though L. Ron Hubbard had his head shoved so far up his ass that it came back out his mouth.
The writings of Card that I have enjoyed the most (mainly Ender's Game and Co. and his short story collections) were not religious or social commentaries. While I could enjoy them as fiction (mainly because I got used copies dirt cheap while at the bookstore) I did not care as much for his more commentating endeavors.
I realize this post has been kind of rambling and offtopic, so I'll bring it back home: I think it is entirely possible to enjoy Card's writing and not feel guilty supporting the man, even though I think his views on (among other things) homosexuality are entirely and completely wrong.
-Trillian
But how many blockbuster successes were licensed properties?
GoldenEye is certainly the only one that's universally loved that I can think of off-hand.
And honestly, I don't know how well that one sold.
It being a licensed property, its success didn't result in Rare/Nintendo being able to parlay that into a sequel for themselves, or leave them with a franchise they could sell/lease.
Examples of wildly successful original properties on the other hand, are plentiful. And all of them left their respective developers/publishers in a position to further capitalize on sequels, tie-ins, cross-promotions, toys, film rights, etc.
While smash successes of original properties certainly being in the minority, their investments are smaller, and profit margins larger, than for licensed games of the same type/scale/genre.
I think when the potential profitability of an original property is added to the equation, 'inventing' is on a bit more even footing than licensing. Is the success rate of licensed properties really that much higher, that the increased costs are worth risking?
As you point out, the core challenge has always been good game design. But licensing doesn't make game design any easier, it just makes marketing easier.
If anything, licensing introduces as many game design challenges as it might alleviate. The higher investment (buying the license) makes publishers much more risk-averse (more apt to cut novel/innovative features), and property holders typically dictate/hold creative check over tone, story, character actions, genre, etc.
Licensing seems to do well for generating good sales off proven designs. And with a few notable exceptions, it doesn't even appear that publishers are trying to create innovative play with licensed properties.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"