^^title-2297^^
- Thread starter TPi
- Start date
- Views 2,292
- Replies 12
Wow. The guy from Spain...
This isn't a region-dupe, because they added an extra language over the European version. The US one includes Spanish.
I'm glad all these Spanish-speaking people are appreciating this.
I want to reach out and strangle every single person responsible for this piece of CRAP. Well the music writer I guess was the only one of the lot that had some redeeming value, but seriously, Paws Inc. needs to be MUCH MORE DISCERNING about who they sell a license to. I remember a problem a while back where they wouldnt give their blessing to a freeware fan adventure game that was absolutely awesome ("Garfield: Attack of the Mutant Lasagna"), and yet they allow these idiots to make this utter and complete insult to gaming and the Garfield comic strip. The Genesis game ("Garfield: Caught in the Act") was very fun and creative, but this one is just... ugh words fail me, it's so bad. I'm so mad I'm gonna write to Paws Inc., because this is just wrong.
Here's a transcript of the email I just sent to Cliff Hackney, Vice President, Licensee Acquisition at Paws Inc.
Hello Cliff,
I have been a big fan of Garfield for many years, and I am writing to express to you my disappointment at the fact that your company allowed the Garfield license to be used for the portable Game Boy Advance game, "Garfield: The Search for Pooky". The game itself is not at all enjoyable, and has no polish whatsoever. It follows a many-years-old formula of a platform game, and expresses no creativity.
I remember some years back that there was a fan who wrote a point-and-click adventure game to whom your company would not give your blessing to allow the Garfield characters to be used and served him with a cease and desist letter. I can understand the need to protect your company's intellectual property, but one has to wonder if you truly are "protecting" it by allowing game creators with no feelings of accountability to the end player to attempt to fool the gaming public with such an absurdly low quality attempt to use the Garfield name to sell a video game.
I would hope that your company in the future is much more discerning about who it allows to use the Garfield license and would either play, or have an experienced video game reviewer look at, any game based on Garfield, and deny use of the license if the game is so substandard as "Garfield: The Search for Pooky."
Thank you for your time.
If you hated the game as much as I do, please also write to Cliff. His email address is
[email protected]
Hello Cliff,
I have been a big fan of Garfield for many years, and I am writing to express to you my disappointment at the fact that your company allowed the Garfield license to be used for the portable Game Boy Advance game, "Garfield: The Search for Pooky". The game itself is not at all enjoyable, and has no polish whatsoever. It follows a many-years-old formula of a platform game, and expresses no creativity.
I remember some years back that there was a fan who wrote a point-and-click adventure game to whom your company would not give your blessing to allow the Garfield characters to be used and served him with a cease and desist letter. I can understand the need to protect your company's intellectual property, but one has to wonder if you truly are "protecting" it by allowing game creators with no feelings of accountability to the end player to attempt to fool the gaming public with such an absurdly low quality attempt to use the Garfield name to sell a video game.
I would hope that your company in the future is much more discerning about who it allows to use the Garfield license and would either play, or have an experienced video game reviewer look at, any game based on Garfield, and deny use of the license if the game is so substandard as "Garfield: The Search for Pooky."
Thank you for your time.
If you hated the game as much as I do, please also write to Cliff. His email address is
[email protected]
You really do feel strongly about this don't you? I enjoy Garfield too (the comics), but not quite enough to warrant this type of response. Sadly it seems the norm these days, there are plenty of horrible GBA games that were made just to cash in on popular franchises.
Woah... *slowly backs away from the borderline obsessive*
It's nice that someone's doing something about those lousy franchise platformers though; the day that a disney film release isn't the herald of anothr god-awful platforming disater being unleashed upon the unsuspecting parental market cannot come soon enough. Not that I like disney or anything, but bad platformers are kinda irritating
It's nice that someone's doing something about those lousy franchise platformers though; the day that a disney film release isn't the herald of anothr god-awful platforming disater being unleashed upon the unsuspecting parental market cannot come soon enough. Not that I like disney or anything, but bad platformers are kinda irritating
Probably wouldnt bother me as much if they were some multiple franchise company like disney or warner bros., from whom of course you would expect that type of thing, or (more importantly) if they hadn't told the guy who wrote that fan adventure game to not publish it. Them telling him to cease and desist, then allowing the sale of this piece of crap is hypocritcal and is basically spitting on fans of the comic strip.
I mean, seriously, Paws Inc. only deals with basically one license, the Garfield characters (and I guess the U.S. Acres characters as well.) If you've ever played Garfield: Caught in the Act for Sega Genesis / Megadrive, you realize that a lot can be done to make a Garfield game fun. I liked Caught in the Act, but then playing Search for Pooky just made me feel utterly insulted. Smaller companies are more likely to listen to feedback because they depend more on the devotion of the fans.
I guess playing this for an hour or so just built up my pent up rage at some game companies who expect gamers to shell out hard earned money when they don't care about the art form. You can really tell just by playing when the creators of a game actually care about what they were doing, and when they are just racing to meet the deadline to make a buck.
Good companies (like Nintendo for instance,) have checks and balances in place to prevent them from letting a game go off to be published if it is just simply is not fun. I wish more companies would follow their example.
I mean, seriously, Paws Inc. only deals with basically one license, the Garfield characters (and I guess the U.S. Acres characters as well.) If you've ever played Garfield: Caught in the Act for Sega Genesis / Megadrive, you realize that a lot can be done to make a Garfield game fun. I liked Caught in the Act, but then playing Search for Pooky just made me feel utterly insulted. Smaller companies are more likely to listen to feedback because they depend more on the devotion of the fans.
I guess playing this for an hour or so just built up my pent up rage at some game companies who expect gamers to shell out hard earned money when they don't care about the art form. You can really tell just by playing when the creators of a game actually care about what they were doing, and when they are just racing to meet the deadline to make a buck.
Good companies (like Nintendo for instance,) have checks and balances in place to prevent them from letting a game go off to be published if it is just simply is not fun. I wish more companies would follow their example.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2003
- Messages
- 1,916
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 43
- Location
- Newcastle, Australia
- Website
- Visit site
- XP
- 256
- Country
Am I the only one who hates Garfield? The comic strip drives me nuts. For a great example of why Garfield is so bland, check out what Maddox has to say on the topic along with his own comic strip that could as well be a real strip: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c....=garfield_sucks
EDIT: He's even on my freaking donut box! Why?
EDIT: He's even on my freaking donut box! Why?
Admittedly and sadly, yes, Jim Davis ran out of new ideas many years ago, and he does consistently rehash the same formulas that worked for him before. However, in the early to mid 80's, his ideas were still new, and some of the TV specials, the saturday morning show, and his comic strip collections from that era were actually pretty funny. Binky the clown was something of a character model I think for the modern day Krusty the clown. It was actually funny seeing Garfield dance on Jon's face to wake him up, because it hadn't been done a million times yet.
No need to be so hard on Jim's creation. His comic was the next natural step in the evolution of the comic strip humor after the likes of Peanuts. It was good for its day. If he had never wrote it, comic strip humor today might be kind of bland.
Hmm.. I sound old... "When I was yer age sonny..." *cough cough*
No need to be so hard on Jim's creation. His comic was the next natural step in the evolution of the comic strip humor after the likes of Peanuts. It was good for its day. If he had never wrote it, comic strip humor today might be kind of bland.
Hmm.. I sound old... "When I was yer age sonny..." *cough cough*
Similar threads
-
- Portal
-
- Portal
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Xdqwerty:
@Purple_Heart, then I will be actually older than him for a bit (ik thats not how ages work btw) -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
