Fuseball
New member
- May 26, 2012
- 484
- 0
So which do we prefer? Licensed or Non-Licensed game themes?
After the success of Addams Family, pretty much everything made by Bally/Williams from '93 to '95 was a licensed theme. Companies like Sega, Data East and Gottlieb/Premier ONLY made pinballs based on big name licenses. The same is true of Stern now.
I've always been quite ambivalent towards licensed games. With few exceptions (TZ, ST:TNG for example) I feel the license restricts the designer's ability to deliver the best game possible. The artwork is often horribly compromised (who would really want to look at the backglass of The Shadow, Johnny Mnemonic or Demolition Man for any length of time?) and the games often become quite humourless, with the creative decisions out of the designer's hands.
TZ and ST:TNG work so well because the theme is so loose, or at least not tied to such a strict narrative, that the game's design can be whatever the designer wants. The license acts as a creative springboard rather than a straitjacket.
Although pinball's popularity, and that of arcades generally, was on the decline from '95 onwards, I think the games that Williams produced from then until their demise were more creative, satisfying and visually appealing than almost all of the licensed titles that had preceded them for a couple of years. There's the artistic flair and eccentricity of J-Pop's flowing table designs, and the humour and approachability of Brian Eddy's AFM and MM for starters.
Pre-Addams Family the game designs and themes were also largely original, and it's those designs - games like Funhouse, Fish Tales and The Getaway that stick in the memory. Of course, most pinballs from the '80s were non-licensed themes, and even if the rulesets have dated, the playfield layouts and artwork are often inspired.
So... what does everyone else think? Are licensed games a good or a bad thing?
After the success of Addams Family, pretty much everything made by Bally/Williams from '93 to '95 was a licensed theme. Companies like Sega, Data East and Gottlieb/Premier ONLY made pinballs based on big name licenses. The same is true of Stern now.
I've always been quite ambivalent towards licensed games. With few exceptions (TZ, ST:TNG for example) I feel the license restricts the designer's ability to deliver the best game possible. The artwork is often horribly compromised (who would really want to look at the backglass of The Shadow, Johnny Mnemonic or Demolition Man for any length of time?) and the games often become quite humourless, with the creative decisions out of the designer's hands.
TZ and ST:TNG work so well because the theme is so loose, or at least not tied to such a strict narrative, that the game's design can be whatever the designer wants. The license acts as a creative springboard rather than a straitjacket.
Although pinball's popularity, and that of arcades generally, was on the decline from '95 onwards, I think the games that Williams produced from then until their demise were more creative, satisfying and visually appealing than almost all of the licensed titles that had preceded them for a couple of years. There's the artistic flair and eccentricity of J-Pop's flowing table designs, and the humour and approachability of Brian Eddy's AFM and MM for starters.
Pre-Addams Family the game designs and themes were also largely original, and it's those designs - games like Funhouse, Fish Tales and The Getaway that stick in the memory. Of course, most pinballs from the '80s were non-licensed themes, and even if the rulesets have dated, the playfield layouts and artwork are often inspired.
So... what does everyone else think? Are licensed games a good or a bad thing?
