At least that's the way it seems to me.

Licensed games - what we used to often derisively refer to as 'movie
games', because they most often were released in tandem with a
marketable film - never had a very good reputation. Too often they
were rushed productions, forced to release on the IP owner's schedule
and not when the game was actually finished. That same IP owner was
often very restrictive about what could and could not be done with
their property, resulting in games that suffered both mechanically and
thematically. And because video games were, for the longest time, seen
as playing second fiddle to the movies, they were often very poorly
funded, and often farmed out to the cheapest developers.

But in the oughties, things started to change. We actually started to
get licensed games that weren't just playable, but actually remarkably
good games on their own merits. There was still plenty of dross but
games like "Batman: Arkham Asylum" and "Alien: Isolation" made us
doubt the old addage about licensed games being crap.

But it looks as if the tide is turning again. Games like "Starship
Troopers: Terran Command" and "Stargate: Timekeepers" - while not
absolutely terrible - do seem to indicate a slow decline in quality.
The big publishers - the ones with deep enough pockets to do the
licenses justice - are seemingly less interested in the job, leaving
it up to smaller developers again... and while their products don't
necessarily have to be bad, there's a bigger chance that they'll suck.

And it's not just the funding that's the problem; it's the sheer
volume of the things. IP owners are plumbing the depths of their
libraries and farming them out to seemingly everyone, in hopes of
making some extra cash (Game Designers Workshop is the worst at this;
do we really need a dozen Warhammer games released every year?) It
just floods the market, and makes the few licensed games worth playing
harder to discover, tainting the entire market.

Well, hopefully we won't return to the era where "Iron Man" was
considered an acceptable release. That's gotta be one of the worst of
the lot.

Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> At least that's the way it seems to me.
>

If by form we understand "Being absolute garbage", King Kong managed to
bring the licensed game in a way that I have issues understanding why
people are so outraged. They used to be like this. And the less is
talked about Gollum...

Jokes asides, a licensed game works when two things happen:

- Publisher / IP owner is not searching to make quick money or use the
IP to shove microtransactions (WB with LOTR, Electronic Arts got a
warning from Disney due to the Star Wars lootboxes)

- The developer studio actually cares about the IP and treats the game
as their passion project. Good Examples: Terminator Resistance and
Robocop Rogue City. They Are B-Games that are hated by the AAA crowd,
but fans of the IP have never been happier.

Am 27.01.24 um 20:32 schrieb H1MEM:
> Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>

> - The developer studio actually cares about the IP and treats the game
> as their passion project. Good Examples: Terminator Resistance and
> Robocop Rogue City. They Are B-Games that are hated by the AAA crowd,
> but fans of the IP have never been happier.
There always were good license games, the first star wars games from
Lucasarts were amazing, so were the indiana jones adventure games.
It really comes down to, does the studio want to make this game out of
passion or is it a cash grab.
Baldurs Gate 3 basically is also licensed, AD&D ad we have seen our fair
share of shoddy AD&D games in the past as well!