[Bastich]

I just read this article over at Gamespot:

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/driving/d...s_6085458.html

The part I am most interested in is below:

GS: What happens to the smaller games when stars like Schwarzenegger get involved? Does the hits-driven nature of the business eventually crowd out the smaller titles completely?

SA: Yes, but not for the reasons of talent participation alone. The maturation of gaming as an entertainment choice means more is expected of products overall, not just in actors or acting but also in visual effects, sound design, and art. You know what's happening? That's driving costs up to 4x what they were in the PS1 days.

Because this is a truth in our business today, fewer games are going to be made and more money will be put into each game. Companies that choose not to evolve with this are going to die and their products are really going to pale by comparison to those that move in stride with the business.

Your thoughts? Is this a good or a bad thing?

[ligsy]

There are a few things games could definately benefit from professional level input. Writing, production values and quality voice acting are all areas which could be improved in many games. I for one would be very interested in a game developed with the likes of David Lynch. GTA: VC, SSX Tricky and Splinter Cell (amongst others) used Hollywood name actors for their voices, and benefited well from them. But they are all great games, and would still be great games with lesser names behind the voices.

In the case of someone like Schwarzenegger, the only thing they can bring to a game is their weight as a selling point, voice acting isn't that much greater than the previous examples. Vastly poorer in Arnie's case. That kind of personality driven publicity strikes me as being very dangerous. Film licenses, which match this model very closely, are correctly regarded as being second rate in most cases. The idea of fewer games costing more, merely to pay for voice actors from big name "talent" is wholey the wrong direction.

[Starflux]

The guy in the article has a way with words; but he is forgetting that to this date, almost all of the movie-licensed games have been utterly inferior to products where a company wasn't viced, restricted and limited in their own creativity and input into their game.
In the end, it's gameplay that really counts. Microsoft is releasing five-year old Counterstrike for the X-Box, which has absolutely terrible graphics for this day and age in comparison to other X-Box titles, but all signs point towards it becoming a success. Why? Simply because Counterstrike has a beautiful gameplay to offer.

[syntheticgerbil]

Oh so I can play some sort of confusing game with a thing and obscure plot by Mr Lynch and make fun of everyone who doesn't like it because they aren't intellectuals and wouldn't understand great art if it bit them on the ass?

[ligsy]

Originally Posted by syntheticgerbil

Oh so I can play some sort of confusing game with a thing and obscure plot by Mr Lynch and make fun of everyone who doesn't like it because they aren't intellectuals and wouldn't understand great art if it bit them on the ass?

Sure, if you want to be pretentious.

Alternatively, you could play a generic and uninvolving game where a significant part of the budget has been used up paying the big name stars, leaving the development team short handed on talent.

Many games have had obscure plots without being confusing, and countless games have things.

[redhotray]

It's interesting to note that this has also been tried in the past, but not to a great deal of success.

Case in point, Toonstruck. Virgin had a HUGE budget backing the game, they had Christopher Lloyd not only providing the voice, but actually digitally imposed into the game. Not only that but he was accompanied by Tim Curry and Dan Castenellia as well. With names and money behind the product, you'd think the game would be a cert to clean up sales, yet it did the complete opposite. Even though I absolutely adored this game it became budget bait within the space of a few months! Because of this, Burst and Virgin stayed away from the genre, seeing no market in it for them! Thus the genre finds itself in the red, today. We're fortunate to get a few underground developers and hardened veterans wanting to create new games for us to play in this type of environment, but sales are limited!

Lucasarts however, would be an exception in this case. They have acheived incredible success with their adventure games through mass marketing, thoroughly entertaining plots and beautiful graphics! Not to mention, they've snagged a bit of star power and thrown it into their games for good measure. Lucasarts have done wonderful things for our community, and created masterpieces we still cherish to this very day! They are, however, are a branch of Lucasfilm, property of Hollywood! I should also note that they don't just deal in adventure games, and obviously they have the backing of Star Wars and Indiana Jones to help boost sales!

So the infiltration of Hollywood into games isn't a new commodity by any stretch of the imagination. However, there is a rapid growth developing, films are not generating the appeal they once used (This summer was definate proof of that!). Hollywood has opted for cash in after cash in, trying to revitalize classic films, and instil new life into them. Hollywood has lost some of it's magic on the moving pictures audience, so now it's decided to become more involved with the interactive audience!

It depends which way you want to look at it. In many ways, Hollywood has made it extremely difficult for low budgeted developers to bring anything into the market and acheive any kind of success. On the other hand, they have brought computer games into more homes than ever before, and generated a greater appeal throughout the JO public!

It's a double edged sword!

(Side note - Most movie licenses suck, with a few exceptions to the rule like Blade Runner)