At last! EA is goinis goin to fall to hes death!:smt067 You cant go and think that if you make a game with brando or connery you`ll sell more: those guys havent been in a hit-movie in ears, and the videogame generation (clue: not your parents) dont give a fuck about those old farts. Kudos to EA who once again thinks that a mediocre yet overhyped game can beat a overall good game. BTW, how many battlefields are already? 15?:smt082
There's a very good reason that Brondo hasn't been in a hit movie in years... :death As for EA, yea I'll agree with you there as always.
K, i've read the article through now and unusually I think I might have to agree with EA on something. If these multi-millionaire stars ask for over the top amounts of money just to do a couple of voice overs then I think I'd tell them where to go aswell. As for movie tie-ins in general, I think that they should give up on making games that are due for release when a film is. Good games often take a lot longer to create than a good film. As was said in the article if the film is bad then the whole proccess is a waste. If the film is bad and the game is good it's also a waste of time. If the film is good then there usually isn't enough time to make a good game so the whole prossess is idiotic. Games companies should step back, wait to see how good a movie is once finished and released, then if it is good go after the licence. This way, the company has the correct material on which to base the game, can spend the appropriate ammount of time in order to create a good game and then since the film is good and the game is good then there sould be a better chance of success (well, in a perfect world anyway).
Gore_Lord. that's 10 too many "good"s than Hollywood/game licensors can handle. They don't care about "good", just "can it sell well in the 2 weeks from movie release day hype?"
