So I was hitchhiking around various video game blogs today catching up on all the news and happings around the world when it comes to video games. An interesting article picked my eye on GoNintendo (obviously sourced from somewhere else) which was from Ubisoft.

Of late various video game developers and publishers have been in the “news” siting piracy and the Wii as the devil. Interesting enough this article is moving away from the piracy side of things- but still sites some pretty stupid things.

But then again those stupid things are partly there own fault- considering most of the developers and publishers decided “casual” was the Wii.

But this article talks about well, video games based of licences. For example things like Harry Potter or Avatar. The video game world is full of them, big publishers cash in on the licences and produce video games with the latest trend/licence to shit on.

While most “casual” gamers won’t know the difference to a medicore game or even the difference of a DVD to a Bluray or even, well you get the picture there not that bright. But give them some credit, even they can notice that licensed games = crap.

While they try and blame it on Christmas sales, or sales in general, or even the Wii or DS as the “casual” market subsides or moves on. The basic reason here is that licensed games are generally- wait not generally are all the time generic FPS or RPG’s or what ever easily adaptable genre that can be slapped onto it and presented across the broadest amount of platforms in the hopes to achieve money.

They can’t say maybe releasing a game based of a licence only on one console or having a more detailed and imersive game would be risky and stupid, because quite frankly they havn’t even tried- even with there own IP’s.

While they try and blame it on Christmas sales, or sales in general, or even the Wii or DS as the “casual” market subsides or moves on. The basic reason here is that licensed games are generally- wait not generally are all the time generic FPS or RPG’s or what ever easily adaptable genre that can be slapped onto it and presented across the broadest amount of platforms in the hopes to achieve money. They can’t say maybe releasing a game based of a licence only on one console or having a more detailed and imersive game would be risky and stupid, because quite frankly they havn’t even tried- even with there own IP’s. I was going to write this article around a few select TV and Movie licences and talk about how a game should be made with that licence, for example a Dexter game would be a perfect game to have as a sandbox/stealth game with GTA elements galore, but then I realized, one that would take to long, and two the problem reaches further then that, and then three even if my suggestions are good? Well quite frankly most games would be more perfect, especially if they are licensed if they mix genres.

“lots of developers and publishers seem to think there are risks involved in making a good game…”

Lets keep talking about Dexter for a minute, and look at the machinics of how such a game should be performed. I am aware that there is a Dexter game in existence. The only problem I can see is its only for the iPhone (which a game like Dexter really shouldn’t be restricted to what the iPhone offers- plus the fanboy in me says the iPhone sucks and should only have horrible licences attached to it like Twilight), but wait I’m watching the trailer (as I havn’t played the game) and I’m seeing a problem which many developers like to chuck in…

Unwanted puzzles which seem to be so bloody obvious and stupid- essentially gimmicky gameplay promises. But lets go back to the problem that its for an iPhone, this is a problem because the iPhone really isn’t a gaming console no matter how much people want you to think, and the only real games people would play are quick and short mini games or “casual” games, or more simple dumbed down games. With that logic, this licence has already been distroyed because it would have been dumbed down. Then again, I think I wanted to argument this with a point. Which is that a Dexter game from my third person view experience (of watching videos and media!) seems to be riddled with gimmicky game play promises and horrible puzzles. A real Dexter game would be more like Hitman, and more freedom then Hitman towards things like GTA.

Dexter would obviously have a world which if the player wanted to could do anything, and could kill anyone- but if that happend his world would obviously fall appart, which if anyone knows my point by now, is a gameplay promise stronger then gimmicky ideas. Dexter would be able to kill anyone, and like in the show even though he has his rules which keep him alive he occasionally breaks them.

This means that Dexter would be able to lead his own way around the world, and if the player chooses to knock down X person with out proof hes a dangerous person, then he would go into anarchy like he does in the show (I don’t care if you havn’t watched it, really I’m tired and if I’m spoliering you from the 4th season, its your own fault). By killing an inocient life, he would have effects sciology which effects how the game reacts towards him, and how Dexter acts in game without player control.

Essentially my whacked out fan boy idea has lead me to the conclious that this could only be possible on the PC (maybe other consoles) but the point here is something as powerful as the PC when it comes to a game this big, and complex AI wise, would need something powerful, and would need a betiful world.

I’m rambling, and I’ve forgotten to check my spelling, but I think my point has been quickly reached? No? Okay.