The November issue of
EGM explores five reasons why games based on movies (or products in general) almost always suck. In summary:
- They're just products. Said games are merely marketing extensions, not end-products. Ergo, their quality is lacking.
- They have to ship by the premiere. By relying on a film's release buzz to increase game sales, developers must ship a title on time.
- They're someone else's IP. Developers are compelled to comply with executive wishes, even if the overall product is compromised.
- They suffer from copycat syndrome. Developers play it safe with games (see no. 2) leveraging proven mechanics even copying previous games in favor of pushing the creative envelop.
- They clone the flick. If you've seen the movie, you pretty much know the storyline.
All valid points. And while original game content is preferred, how about making better movies first?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
jason @ Oct 18th 2006 10:38PM
Did the writer of this article play The Godfather or Scarface? Neither games suffer from the syndromes listed.
nitefire @ Oct 18th 2006 10:39PM
all valid points except for a game called Goldeneye. i kinda liked that one.
Pedro Van Faulk @ Oct 18th 2006 10:42PM
Riddick was not only an awesome movie based game, but an awesome game to begin with. Hell, it even was better than the movie it came with.
And Enter the matrix had its moments. It isn't that movie based games must suck, only that those making them put in little effort. Part of what made Riddick so awesome is that Vin took it as a matter of pride that his game was gonna be good.
Seroth @ Oct 18th 2006 10:43PM
While Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay wasn't based on a specific Riddick movie, I still consider it a movie game, and it's still awesome.
comradetrotskii @ Oct 18th 2006 10:46PM
What about Legend of Zelda? Is that not based on that Tom Cruise movie 'Legend'
*Runs like hell*
Kestrel @ Oct 18th 2006 10:51PM
JOYSTIQ BIAS!!!1
gameclu @ Oct 18th 2006 10:53PM
I completely disagree. Games based on movies are teh r0x0r! Anyone who's played Total Recall for the NES knows what I'm talking about.
Daniel @ Oct 18th 2006 11:04PM
Honestly, I would put up with another five years of crap movie tie-in games if I could play another game as good as Riddick. That is still my favourite game for Xbox (yes, even more so than peoples' precious Halo) by a country mile.
Goddam, just thinking about it gets me all giddy.
jc @ Oct 18th 2006 11:05PM
Thank you LucarArts... (and BioWare, Pandemic, Travelers Tails)
Probot @ Oct 18th 2006 11:05PM
"They're just products."
And what do you call non-movie-based video games? Anything made for consumption is a product. I think you mean, it's just advertising.
"They have to ship by the premiere."
Which is why a lot of game companies are now getting started on the games sooner in the process.
"They're someone else's IP"
Ask the average game developer how often he's working on his own idea. I doubt you'll get more than 5% answering in the positive. You work on what you're assigned to work on.
"They suffer from copycat syndrome."
This isn't specific to movie games.
"They clone the flick."
If they didn't, EGM would complain that they stray too far from the subject material. Would they rather every movie be incomplete like Matrix Reloaded in order for the video game to have exclusive scenes?
Psaakyrn @ Oct 18th 2006 11:06PM
Counterarguements:
1) Just because they're related doesn't mean one has to be subservent to the other. Example: World of Warcraft is based off Warcraft 3. It doesn't make either better than one another.
2) This is a company-based deadline. There are games which are based off movies, and come after movies. (see example: Many Disney games, Star Wars, etc)
3) Just because it's someone elses IP doesn't make it worse, it only makes it as good as said IP. Example: All Star Wars games are technically movie based games. Games which makes good use of said IP (like Lego Star Wars, which is a double IP game) would be good.
4) This is not a problem with movie-based games, but of publisher-based games. The only reason this seems to affect publishers more is because most famous movies/IP require a significant amount of cash investment which publishers can afford.
5) This may or may not be a good thing depending on game genre, AND it isn't necessarily true anyway. Story only significantly matters in non-pure action games, and many games are pure-action. Example: The racing game based off Star Wars EP1, which no one complained about the story. Also, Enter the Matrix and KOTOR are examples of a movie/IP-based game which does not "clone" the flick, but inste4ad adds to the movie/IP.
Problem: Most publishers don't care and will not follow the counters because they're lazy and money-hungry.
dsub @ Oct 18th 2006 11:09PM
Isn't it funny. Games made from movies suck. Movies made from games suck.
mountain_rage @ Oct 18th 2006 11:12PM
Im still waiting for the "It's pat" movie based game.
Then after its release I can watch the Uwe Boll "its pat movie based game movie" which he will somehow butcher beyond the original.
Motoi @ Oct 18th 2006 11:26PM
I think some of you are forgetting some of the more bad movie to game titles that have been released in the past. X-Men 3? Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon? Enter the Matrix was pretty weak.... The Da Vinci Code? Minority Report? E.T? Probably hundreds more I'm not thinking of...
cheese @ Oct 18th 2006 11:28PM
Um, does even the most average gamer know that movie based games suck and vice versa? Slow news day?
Crazylink @ Oct 18th 2006 11:28PM
As Pedro Van Faulk said, Enter the Matrix was pretty good. Also, I don't remember the NES Robocop sucking, just really hard.
Psaakyrn @ Oct 18th 2006 11:33PM
to #14 Motoi
I don't think anyone disagrees that there is a lot of sucky movie-based games. I do however disagree that they suck because of the movie-based quality or that the 5 points are the reason why movie-based games suck. They suck because of the publishers, period.
Psaakyrn @ Oct 18th 2006 11:43PM
Wait, that got me thinking: Movie-based games tend to suck because they amply all the reasons why publisher-based games suck:
Direct co-relation:
1) Publishers don't care about individual products, they care about marketting and total profit. If one product can be sacrificed to make another much more valuable, so be it.
2) Publishers like deadlines, especially deadlines which can lead to greater profits (like movie premieres, summer holiday, thanksgiving/christmas, etc.
3) Publishers will buy/use IP which can earn them a profit, even if the IP sucks. Remember, publishers don't care about the product, only the end result (aka total profit).
4) Publishers hate unnecessarily risk/cost. If something works, use it. It it costs money to develope new gameplay, which may not see equilivant returns, ignore it.
5) Publishers hate unnecessary spendature. If it costs money to create new content, which gives little returns, publishers will shy away. Might as well use something that already exists. (also see: point 4)
John Musco @ Oct 18th 2006 11:50PM
I didn't realize Lego Star Wars 2 was released 20-30 years ago.
Also, Goldeneye came out years after the game and was terrific.
Spiderman 2 was a great game that pretty much had nothing to do with the movie.
Geoff @ Oct 19th 2006 12:12AM
"Spiderman 2 was a great game that pretty much had nothing to do with the movie."
Maybe, but the things that were bad in the game were all due to the film, such as the horrid voice acting.
And, to flip the initial theory, one reason why films based on games are horrible: Uwe Boll.
Psaakyrn @ Oct 19th 2006 12:12AM
to #19 John Musco
Actually, I would ignore any "comic based movie based game which had little to do with the movie" because that just translates to "comic based game".
manny @ Oct 19th 2006 12:34AM
Is Captain Obvious writing for Joystiq now? Demotions are a bitch.
adam @ Oct 19th 2006 12:34AM
And the true WTF with this article is the original Robocop game that came out with the film was very well received - Amiga, C64 and arcade versions.
Figboy @ Oct 19th 2006 12:44AM
i tested Spider-Man 2 and the game had a great swing engine. that was it. after 4 months of 8-10 hour days, i can say that Spider-Man 2 is a very mediocre game. outside of the swinging, there was nothing else there to keep you compelled. Ultimate Spider-Man was worse.
Chronicles of Riddick i've only seen my friend play, but it looked pretty sweet, even though i can't stand Vin Diesel.
The Warriors is an excellent movie based game, and should be the standard by which all video games based off of movies should be held up against. it shows what can happen when a talented developer is given material that they respect and love, and the time necessary to make a worthy product.
King Kong was also a very good movie based game, but Peter Jackson showed his brilliance when he enlisted in Michael Ancel to design the title. if only more studio execs were gamers, and respected games, and didn't view them as marketing extensions that pay.
The Path of Neo had potential, but Atari sucks. plain and simple. if a talented developer like Ubisoft had the Matrix license, i guarantee the franchise would be kickass (i imagine a Matrix game by Ubisoft to play a lot like Prince of Persia and Assassin's Creed).
most of the time, the movie studios don't even look at the pedigree of the publisher or developer they've tapped to make their licensed game. Activision is the king of licensed drivel, so they always tend to get the movie tie in games. it doesn't surprise me that a lot of the licensed games that are panned by critics stems from Activision's camp.
of course, if consumers would stop buying these shitty movie tie in games, maybe they'll stop making them, or they'll start to actually put some effort into their creation. yeah, like *thats* gonna happen.
murc @ Oct 19th 2006 1:43AM
**raises beer glass**
Heres to hoping that Superman Returns (X360) changes all that.
Sonic @ Oct 19th 2006 1:51AM
Can EGM stop talking all together.
WarpedEye @ Oct 19th 2006 2:10AM
I have to second (or third, or fourth) Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher's Bay. Comparing the game to that list, you realise why it's so good: it didn't bow down to any of the points mentioned in the story.
Wilky @ Oct 19th 2006 2:26AM
Whaaaaat? Have you goes never played Debbie does Dallas on the PC. The movie sucks, and so does the game. But then, it was supposed to.
Bob @ Oct 19th 2006 3:25AM
I'm in the games industry, so I know a little bit about how this works..
1) For the majority of the cases, it's the developer who approaches the studio for the license, not the other way around. EA bought the rights to James Bond, Lord of the Rings, etc, not the. Activision bought the rights to Marvel games. The cases of actually "marketing extensions" is the rare exception. If this is what EGM says, they have no idea how the games industry works.
2) I can remember as many games that slipped the movie premiere as the ones who made it. Games are still sw products, and are subject to problems of sw products, including slipped dates.
3) Since your first assertion is false, the product is rarely controlled by the IP holder's wishes. EA had control with how James Bond, LOTR, etc played, since they have the rights to develop the game. Sony, or whoever is the IP holder is, has very little input on the gameplay.
4) Um - most games suffer from the copycat syndrome. So do most movies.
5) Storyline doesn't dictate gameplay.
It's true that many movie games suck, but some movie games are also good. It's also true that most games suck, and most movies suck, and only a few are successful. I don't know if it's true that movie games suck at a higher percentage, but if they do, they're not because of the reasons you stated.
Markusdragon @ Oct 19th 2006 3:49AM
Indianna Jones and the Last Crusade.
Anonymous @ Oct 19th 2006 4:35AM
Sweet Home for the NES was the best Game-to-Movie/Movie-to-Game conversion (no one seems to know which came first) I've played.
Additionally, Clock Tower (SNES) could be considered to be based on a movie, when you consider the fact that it's nothing more than a huge rip off of Phenomena.
Denney @ Oct 19th 2006 5:00AM
Its not really those points its EA they buy all the rights to movies. only problem is that EA SUCK and cant make games.
CP229 @ Oct 19th 2006 7:27AM
I've always had a theroy on this...
75% of the time games based on movies and movies based on games suck.
Martin @ Oct 19th 2006 7:41AM
First of all, the article was on games based on not just movies, but comics and TV too (as well as other entertainment media)
The article listed 2 games that did it right. They had Riddick and X-men legends. The bad thing is, they left out GoldenEye, which probably is the best game, at least the top selling game ever that was good based on a franchise. I really can't believe they left that game out.
Azerael @ Oct 19th 2006 8:25AM
Have they played KotOR, Lego Star Wars, X-wing (or Tie Fighter), Jedi Knight, Battle For Middle-Earth, Dune, Goldeneye, Alien Vs. Predator (all 9 trillion of them), Chronicles of Riddick...
In fact, do they even play games- or do they just write about them?
stayontheroofs @ Oct 19th 2006 9:06AM
Robocop vs Terminator on the Genesis/Megadrive was great, just captured Robocop's extremely gratuitous violence perfectly. It's probably the single most violent game I've ever played actually.
Also, the Alien vs Predator games were good weren't they?
I think the best movie/games adaptations come about when the game producers play fast and loose with the concepts of the movie. I like the way Lego Star Wars doesn't take itself as seriously as the films.
dwl @ Oct 19th 2006 9:30AM
Hmm. I've always thought of LOTR:BMFE and the Dune series as games based originally based on books, less so movies. Afterall, the campaign in BFME2 is based on the parts of books not in the movies.
Anthony D @ Oct 19th 2006 9:57AM
Riddick rocked as did LOTR on all systems (EA GAMES) and oh yeah, Superman Returns (360) looks ridiculous, so maybe there's hope!!
Foetoid @ Oct 19th 2006 10:13AM
One Word: Goldeneye. One of the best FPS games to come out in the last decade or so. I look back on the hours, days, months, years i spent on that game, only wishing somhow Nintendo could secure that game for the VC service.....is it possible? The game was made by Rare, exclusivly for the N64, doesnt that give Nintendo some rights to the game, or does EA have those rights now cause they got the license....so confusing.
Aden Nak @ Oct 19th 2006 10:23AM
Games based on movies that are NOT tied to the release date tend to be of higher quality, specificly because they aren't tied to some arbitrary release date. And while I largely agree with this assertion, there are some exceptions to the rules. The "Super Star Wars" series back on the SNES was a trio of extremely fun 2D side scrollers. Of course, those were made years after the movies, while most of the follow-the-plot games for the new Star Wars prequels were pretty bad. But again, sticking with Lucasarts for a moment, most of the "movie setting" games they do that have their own plots tend to be much better (Pod Racer anyone?).
I also thought the Spiderman 2 game (for consoles and PC) was one of the most entertaining things to come out that year. And that's a double whammy, because it's a sequel AND a movie knock-off. The trouble is that, in temrs of video games, for ever Spiderman 2 there are a hundred X-Men 3's. Ugh.
Firefarter @ Oct 19th 2006 10:31AM
Does anyone remember Robocop 2 on the Amiga? It was amazing!! It was like a mix of Dragon Ninja vs Bad Dudes, and Midnight Resistance...pure quality. One cannot discount Indiana Jones point and clickers. But in general, the translation of movies to games, and the other way, suck big time.
Jake @ Oct 19th 2006 11:25AM
Goldeneye was sorta okay, kinda. Scarface is neat. And Riddick wasn't the worst game for xbox. But Robocop on SNES was maybe the best game of all time.
JohnHeist @ Oct 19th 2006 2:56PM
WTF...
"Goldeneye was sorta OK"
ok wow.
Top...3 games on the N64
Don't forget this mentions "5 reasons why games based on movies suck, and products in general"
Just remember: COOL SPOT was an awesome game.
greg @ Oct 19th 2006 5:03PM
"One Word: Goldeneye. One of the best FPS games to come out in the last decade or so. I look back on the hours, days, months, years i spent on that game, only wishing somhow Nintendo could secure that game for the VC service.....is it possible? The game was made by Rare, exclusivly for the N64, doesnt that give Nintendo some rights to the game, or does EA have those rights now cause they got the license....so confusing."
microsoft owns rare, microsoft owns Goldeneye64
Wat Tsu @ Oct 19th 2006 9:30PM
"...And while original game content is preferred, how about making better movies first?"
Actually, the problem is not and never has been the movies. There have been lots of great games based on lousy movies, and more that were terrible games based on quality films. Heck, here's two:
Riddick? Good game, medicore movie.
Finding Nemo? Awful game, great movie.
And occasionally there are great games based on transcendent films (Spider-Man 2, kthx). And how quickly we forget top-drawer stuff like Kingdom Hearts!
It's really a two-way street. A company determined to actually give a hoot can make a good game out of a bad movie. Likewise, a company that doesn't care can make dreck out of a great film. Blaming one or the other for failure is fun but ultimately doesn't address the real cause of the problem. And it's a problem that isn't likely to change, because let's face it: these games sell. And that money will help developers and publishers take chances on other, less commercial games, just like your average Michael Bay-type blockbuster can help to finance a low-budget Wes Anderson-type dramedy later.
So I went on for a while about relatively unimportant stuff. But isn't that what Joystiq comment threads are all about?
Karmakin @ Oct 20th 2006 1:04AM
You know, we all have this knee-jerk reaction that games based on movies suck. But when you really get down to it...they're not that bad.
I think there might be that there was just a few really bad movie-based games. Has E.T ruined it all for us in that way? (Disclaimer. I actually liked E.T. I liked how stupidly complicated it was...I found it was better than other attempts at depth done on the 2600, Raiders of the Lost Ark or Swordquest).
Games based on movies, are generally based on movies that the game community considers to be really fun movies. So our standards might be higher for this sort of thing. We want something movie quality.
But of course, I was one of the few (glad to see a few more) who thought that the Matrix games, while the controls were too ambitious, were fun romps.
graphicartist2k5 @ Oct 20th 2006 9:58AM
let me say that the older games that were based on movies did suck major ass, and the reason why that is, is because back in the day we didn't have all kinds of technology available to us that enabled us to create the kinds of games we play nowadays. every damn time a movie came out when the NES was in its prime, some game company felt it had to make a game out of it, no matter HOW lame the movie was. are there crappy ass games out nowadays that are based on movies? of course, but i think what has happened over the years is that game developers have learned from the mistakes that were made back in the days of the NES, and they're making movie-based games better, with more replay value, and the graphics are a HELL of alot better.
Snuk the Great @ Oct 21st 2006 11:34AM
I think you see this from a wrong perspective. A lot of games suck, but it has nothing today with what it is based on. If you ever played Battle for Middle Earth 2 (based on The Lord of the Rings) you should respect the translation from movie to game.
I also liked a lot of batman games, and there are a lot of good Starwars games. So I think that you should rephrase your statement like so: "5 reasons why some games suck"
Of course that would not cook up as much respons as this statement.
Deozaan @ Oct 24th 2006 2:25AM
I would just like to remind everyone again (as has been already mentioned in these comments) about Goldeneye 007 on the N64.
Of course, I still agree with this article. Good games based on movies are the exception, and very far from the rule.