Welcome to NShooters, if we feel that you as a shooters fan will be interested in a game or peripheral, we will give it coverage right here on NShooters. If you enjoy other genres of games in addition to shooters, then be sure to visit NAdventures and NSports in order to get your fill of gaming content. Check out http://hub.ngenres.com for the highlight stories from each genre.

Editorials   License To Kill
- By Mike Schneider

Recently some events in the gaming industry – although not totally unexpected – are disheartening non-the-less. The situation that comes to my mind today is that of an upstart company trying to make it big time with a unique title that looks unlike anything before it on any handheld. What comes to my mind is Tyrannosaurus Tex. A game being critically acclaimed – a game trying to sell on its merits rather than being centered on a recognizable character – a game that doesn’t have a publisher.

I like trying to figure out why, oh why, do bizarre things happen. And for every question, there usually is an answer. So, let’s begin by reading an *exclusive conversation overheard between two higher-ups at a well known company…

Big Shot Exec 1: Bubba, this T-Tex game is pretty awesome.
Big Shot Exec 2: Guh-huh. What about a license?
Big Shot Exec 1: Slitherine doesn’t want to attach a license to their game, they simply want it to be published how they intended it.
Big Shot Exec 2: Who is Slitherine anyway? I haven’t heard of them.
Big Shot Exec 1: It’s their first project.
Big Shot Exec 2: But what about a license? The public eats those recognizable characters up and then I can go on a six-week vacation with all my money.
Big Shot Exec 1: I dunno. This game is pretty good, it might be able to make it on the market based on its quality.
Big Shot Exec 2: That’s nonsense. It’s licenses that sell bad games like Superman, and it’s licenses that sell good games. I won’t take unless Tex becomes somebody recognizable like Turok or Duke Nukem. We need marketability. I’m not about to take a chance on this, it isn’t a safe investment.

And so the conversation goes on in this fashion, with Big Shot Exec 2 winning game, set, and match. Sad, isn’t it? Well, thus far the scenario above exemplifies what is wrong in the gaming industry. Creativity is indeed being restricted and repetition is being rewarded. I’d like to just be able to flat out blame the companies that have passed up on Tex; however, it isn’t that simple… Are we, the gamers at equal fault on this one?

In an ideal world, it is the quality of the game that sells it, since sales totals are ultimately what keeps the gaming industry going (well duh, who would have thought?). But is it really this way? Sure, I can – and I will – throw out the example of Superman’s gigantic sales totals despite it being one of the worst games of all-time; but there’s more. Perfect Dark, the follow up to one of the most popular games to grace the N64, has largely been considered a sales disappointment. It only recently sold a million copies, whereas Majora’s Mask – backed by the Zelda license, quickly reached the feat. Pokemon Snap, a game that has not been hailed by critics, has had enormous success, as has been the case with each and every game that has the Pokemon license.

Think about it a little further, the developers might have a stronger case than you or I would like to believe, sadly. I remember when both Space Station Silicon Valley, and Rocket: Robot on Wheels were released. IGN64, as well as others, went gaga for both games. However, despite the fact I would usually trust their reviews, I still insisted on renting it. Now, take a game like Banjo-Tooie, or even going back to Turok 2. Both bought the day of their release – I had no need to rent them – I didn’t even have a need to read other reviews of the game to see if they were worthy of a purchase. Rogue Squadron was the same way, as was Shadows of the Empire. The name Star Wars was attached to it, and magically my psychological approach was different. The games were all instantly recognizable and relatable, and the buying risk was decreased. Was I truly buying the license first and hoping the game would satisfy me? I don’t know, but a case could be made either way.

With this said, it is still appalling that not one developer has recognized the opportunity that is available if they would publish Tex. This isn’t a case of the chicken and the egg – all franchise characters have to start with a premiere. Logic then states that if Tex is truly as good as other sources indicate, the reward for taking the chance on Tex could be tremendous… Think about this, you cannot have a Lara Croft in your stash of franchise-able characters without releasing the first game. In essence, Tex could be the start of a good license, if given a fair chance.

In addition, if my memory serves me correctly, and it always does; Pokemon has been selling like crazy, and selling a lot of Gameboy Colors. There are a lot of Gameboy Color owners. They’re going to want another game to take a crack at after they’re done being Pokemasters. If I put two and two together, I see an equation for some success. But then again, I haven’t gone to college for umpteen years nor received a double major in marketing and economics, so I could be mistaken.

So do I have any answer? Not really. Gamers could show their intelligence and buy quality, original games and give publishers something to take note of. Likewise, publishers can give us gamers the opportunity to prove our intelligence by allowing us the opportunity to buy these quality, original games. Let me know what you think in the Mail Bag.