Solve : Avatar - Best Or Worst?

1.	Solve : Avatar - Best Or Worst?
Answer» Hi EVERY 1 >>:Why So Serious? I Recently Played Avatar Pc Game I thought I wud B a Hardcore Intresting game but W*F The Game was neither intresting nor like Wat One Hav thought The Game play consist Of Few Elements 1] Run and Kill 2] Travel 3] Minigames 4] NO BOSS The Only PArt Wich i Liked is the Costumes Or Armors and Weapons! And Graphics 2 Some Extent Ive Completed The Game - The reward 4 Completing The Game Was A Meaningless ENDTRO Why Was i So Sick 2 Play It Overall my Experience Was Not So Good Not So Bad Pls Write Comment after Every Vote I believe it was the virtual manifestation of pure sht. Physics sucked(when I crashed into a panther animal it just slid along my car), graphics were slightly lower than the usual game, gameplay made me feel like I was playing a fps version of chicken run (yes there was a game for that movie). All in all, it's a game to play when there are no games to play. Something you leave in the back of the closet because your too disgusted to even recognize that you payed 40$ for it. PS The controls and the way the maps were loaded reminded me of deadspace. Even though deadspace was done by EA and not ubisoft, does anyone know what engine they did this game on?deadspace - god farther game engine avatar - a combination of Dunia, Havock, and Jade Source is wikiIt doesn't matter how good the movie or a tv show is. any game based on it has a 90% chance of suckage. Also, if the movie is a super popular block-buster it has a chance to suck even more since the plan is just to sell it based on the label. Take the E.T videogame, for instance.BC In some Cases ur right , but in some cases NOT Take For Example IRONMAN , The Incredible Hulk Quote from: the_mad_joker on January 29, 2010, 11:51:13 PM BC In some Cases ur right , but in some cases NOT Take For Example IRONMAN , The Incredible Hulk My response... Quote from: BC_Programmer on January 29, 2010, 08:08:55 AM It doesn't matter how good the movie or a tv show is. any game based on it has a 90% chance of suckage. Also, if the movie is a super popular block-buster it has a chance to suck even more since the plan is just to sell it based on the label. Take the E.T videogame, for instance. Quote from: BC_Programmer on January 29, 2010, 08:08:55 AM It doesn't matter how good the movie or a tv show is. any game based on it has a 90% chance of suckage. Also, if the movie is a super popular block-buster it has a chance to suck even more since the plan is just to sell it based on the label. Take the E.T videogame, for instance. Is there a paticular reason why these games are usually horrible?: is there a smaller amount of time than usual for their designers to assemble one OR is the plot, characters, etc. limited because the majority of them have ALREADY been introduced by the movie, tv show, etc.?Quote from: wowsrc on January 30, 2010, 07:30:38 AM Is there a paticular reason why these games are usually horrible?: is there a smaller amount of time than usual for their designers to assemble one OR is the plot, characters, etc. limited because the majority of them have already been introduced by the movie, tv show, etc.? It's mostly a time constraint. using the E.T video game as another example (probably the biggest video game flop ever) they literally gave one guy 6 months to make the entire thing... considering the time he had it isn't too bad. In that case though for some reason they decided to produce more game cartridges then there were Atari's in existence. the reasoning behind that I cannot fathom. Even so, as I said; about 10% of games based on movies are good; I'd say maybe 1 in one hundred is really "great" For example, Goldeneye for the n64 was an excellent game, one of the best for the system, even. I might have been too strong in saying there was a 90% chance of suckage; nowadays the ratio is probably a lot lower, but really it's more a question of who the developer was; some TRY to sell as many as possible based in the movie/series license before people clue in that the game blows; others take the time to make the game truly great; the problem is it's hard to tell the difference sometimes.Quote from: BC_Programmer on January 29, 2010, 08:08:55 AM It doesn't matter how good the movie or a tv show is. any game based on it has a 90% chance of suckage. Also, if the movie is a super popular block-buster it has a chance to suck even more since the plan is just to sell it based on the label. BC hit the nail on the head here. And no, I don't think 90% is overstated, in fact it might even be worse than that. Quote from: wowsrc on January 30, 2010, 07:30:38 AM Is there a paticular reason why these games are usually horrible? Yes, because it doesn't matter what the game is like or what its reviews are like, fans are still going to buy it. They might complain about it, they might play it for an hour then never again, but the money will be spent and that's all that matters. It's the same way in reverse (Game to Movie). The game could be a smash hit, but the movie will most likely suck, but the fans will still go see it. On top of that, there can be really great games and really great movies, but the two just don't translate into the other very well.Quote from: the_mad_joker on January 29, 2010, 11:51:13 PM BC In some Cases ur right , but in some cases NOT Take For Example IRONMAN , The Incredible Hulk I played both of those. The sucked royally.The Graphics Were OK! Type and Game play was stunning!! IRON-MAN , Hulk (Not the first one) Quote from: quaxo on February 01, 2010, 04:12:56 AM BC hit the nail on the head here. And no, I don't think 90% is overstated, in fact it might even be worse than that. Yes, because it doesn't matter what the game is like or what its reviews are like, fans are still going to buy it. They might complain about it, they might play it for an hour then never again, but the money will be spent and that's all that matters. It's the same way in reverse (Game to Movie). The game could be a smash hit, but the movie will most likely suck, but the fans will still go see it. On top of that, there can be really great games and really great movies, but the two just don't translate into the other very well. Here are some explanations why Games after movies "Suck": 1. If a game is made after a movie, the game has too little detail, making it "suck". the only exception I can make is for a series of movies, like LOTR and Star Wars, they have many movies, so game designers can add more details to make the game better. 2. Most games after movies come out around the time of the movie's release date, thus Game designers have only a little time to make the game, another reason for its "Suckyness" 3. Most games after movies have smaller budgets than compared to other games 4. Most games after movies have restraints, they have to follow the movie's plot, which can make the game "Suck" I TOTALLY AGREE WITH U JUICE Perfect Explaination! Why So Serious? Ha Ha Ha Ha!

Answer»

Hi EVERY 1

>>:Why So Serious?

I Recently Played Avatar Pc Game

I thought I wud B a Hardcore Intresting game but W*F The Game
was neither intresting nor like Wat One Hav thought

The Game play consist Of Few Elements

1] Run and Kill
2] Travel
3] Minigames
4] NO BOSS

The Only PArt Wich i Liked is the Costumes Or Armors and Weapons!
And Graphics 2 Some Extent

Ive Completed The Game - The reward 4 Completing The Game Was
A Meaningless ENDTRO

Why Was i So Sick 2 Play It

Overall my Experience Was Not So Good Not So Bad

Pls Write Comment after Every Vote I believe it was the virtual manifestation of pure sht. Physics sucked(when I crashed into a panther animal it just slid along my car), graphics were slightly lower than the usual game, gameplay made me feel like I was playing a fps version of chicken run (yes there was a game for that movie). All in all, it's a game to play when there are no games to play. Something you leave in the back of the closet because your too disgusted to even recognize that you payed 40$ for it.

PS
The controls and the way the maps were loaded reminded me of deadspace. Even though deadspace was done by EA and not ubisoft, does anyone know what engine they did this game on?deadspace - god farther game engine
avatar - a combination of Dunia, Havock, and Jade
Source is wikiIt doesn't matter how good the movie or a tv show is. any game based on it has a 90% chance of suckage. Also, if the movie is a super popular block-buster it has a chance to suck even more since the plan is just to sell it based on the label.

Take the E.T videogame, for instance.BC In some Cases ur right , but in some cases NOT

Take For Example IRONMAN , The Incredible Hulk Quote from: the_mad_joker on January 29, 2010, 11:51:13 PM

BC In some Cases ur right , but in some cases NOT

Take For Example IRONMAN , The Incredible Hulk

My response...

Quote from: BC_Programmer on January 29, 2010, 08:08:55 AM

It doesn't matter how good the movie or a tv show is. any game based on it has a 90% chance of suckage. Also, if the movie is a super popular block-buster it has a chance to suck even more since the plan is just to sell it based on the label.

Take the E.T videogame, for instance.

Quote from: BC_Programmer on January 29, 2010, 08:08:55 AM

It doesn't matter how good the movie or a tv show is. any game based on it has a 90% chance of suckage. Also, if the movie is a super popular block-buster it has a chance to suck even more since the plan is just to sell it based on the label.

Take the E.T videogame, for instance.

Is there a paticular reason why these games are usually horrible?: is there a smaller amount of time than usual for their designers to assemble one OR is the plot, characters, etc. limited because the majority of them have ALREADY been introduced by the movie, tv show, etc.?Quote from: wowsrc on January 30, 2010, 07:30:38 AM

Is there a paticular reason why these games are usually horrible?: is there a smaller amount of time than usual for their designers to assemble one OR is the plot, characters, etc. limited because the majority of them have already been introduced by the movie, tv show, etc.?

It's mostly a time constraint. using the E.T video game as another example (probably the biggest video game flop ever) they literally gave one guy 6 months to make the entire thing... considering the time he had it isn't too bad.

In that case though for some reason they decided to produce more game cartridges then there were Atari's in existence. the reasoning behind that I cannot fathom.

Even so, as I said; about 10% of games based on movies are good; I'd say maybe 1 in one hundred is really "great" For example, Goldeneye for the n64 was an excellent game, one of the best for the system, even.

I might have been too strong in saying there was a 90% chance of suckage; nowadays the ratio is probably a lot lower, but really it's more a question of who the developer was; some TRY to sell as many as possible based in the movie/series license before people clue in that the game blows; others take the time to make the game truly great; the problem is it's hard to tell the difference sometimes.Quote from: BC_Programmer on January 29, 2010, 08:08:55 AM

It doesn't matter how good the movie or a tv show is. any game based on it has a 90% chance of suckage. Also, if the movie is a super popular block-buster it has a chance to suck even more since the plan is just to sell it based on the label.

BC hit the nail on the head here. And no, I don't think 90% is overstated, in fact it might even be worse than that.

Quote from: wowsrc on January 30, 2010, 07:30:38 AM

Is there a paticular reason why these games are usually horrible?

Yes, because it doesn't matter what the game is like or what its reviews are like, fans are still going to buy it. They might complain about it, they might play it for an hour then never again, but the money will be spent and that's all that matters. It's the same way in reverse (Game to Movie). The game could be a smash hit, but the movie will most likely suck, but the fans will still go see it. On top of that, there can be really great games and really great movies, but the two just don't translate into the other very well.Quote from: the_mad_joker on January 29, 2010, 11:51:13 PM

BC In some Cases ur right , but in some cases NOT

Take For Example IRONMAN , The Incredible Hulk

I played both of those. The sucked royally.The Graphics Were OK! Type

and Game play was stunning!!

IRON-MAN , Hulk (Not the first one) Quote from: quaxo on February 01, 2010, 04:12:56 AM

BC hit the nail on the head here. And no, I don't think 90% is overstated, in fact it might even be worse than that.

Yes, because it doesn't matter what the game is like or what its reviews are like, fans are still going to buy it. They might complain about it, they might play it for an hour then never again, but the money will be spent and that's all that matters. It's the same way in reverse (Game to Movie). The game could be a smash hit, but the movie will most likely suck, but the fans will still go see it. On top of that, there can be really great games and really great movies, but the two just don't translate into the other very well.

Here are some explanations why Games after movies "Suck":

1. If a game is made after a movie, the game has too little detail, making it "suck". the only exception I can make is for a series of movies, like LOTR and Star Wars, they have many movies, so game designers can add more details to make the game better.

2. Most games after movies come out around the time of the movie's release date, thus Game designers have only a little time to make the game, another reason for its "Suckyness"

3. Most games after movies have smaller budgets than compared to other games

4. Most games after movies have restraints, they have to follow the movie's plot, which can make the game "Suck"
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH U JUICE
Perfect Explaination!

Why So Serious? Ha Ha Ha Ha!

Solve : Avatar - Best Or Worst?

Discussion

No Comment Found

Related InterviewSolutions

Reply to Comment