| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (42)

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 2:04PM Spike Spiegel Humble Bounty Hun said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
So true.
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 3:02PM latin trident said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
ever played Jurassic Park on Sega Genesis? best movie to game evar!!!
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 3:12PM ShadowOp said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Latin
those were the gold ol days...
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 4:48PM latin trident said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
the good ol' days were when youngsters got together at each others houses and played co-op on a split screen. It was when you got to punch your friend for giving you the wrong directions in Sewer Shark...
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 4:54PM AutobotIronhide said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
the best movie game of all time is definitely Spider Man 2 on Xbox. I was playing that everyday for like 7 weeks.
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 2:06PM Dr Blight said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
"It's a three-year process to get a really good game made, and that's where they fail."

So...Uncharted 2, ME2, AC2 all were 2 year dev cycles...
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 2:10PM tehr0b said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
All of those games are sequels, which cuts development time a lot since you already have a universe and characters, if not an entire engine, as a jumping-off point.
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 2:14PM Mr Khan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Pre-development, from scratch, takes longer. Pikmin 3, for instance, is going to need pretty much all new assets and gameplay features redesigned around the Wiimote and such, so it's earliest phases of existence back in 2008 will have given it a three-year run before release in (likely) 2011, though actual *development* only began sometime last summer

The movie industry works a little differently, since we know immediately when a movie is greenlit, even though that's just the very beginnings of that, too, but certain notions about the movie have been developed ahead of time
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 2:14PM McBrick said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You can forgive him a rather broad and technically incorrect statement made about an industry he's not directly involved with, I think. His main point is still valid - game devs have to rush to meet the movie release's deadline and the game's quality suffers.
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 2:16PM Dr Blight said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Their first games also were about two years. AC may have been longer. My point is, it doesn't take three years to make a good game. It's because the movie studios sign crap devs to do the game!
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 2:17PM 2kings said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
cash money!
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 2:18PM WiNGSPANTT from TopTierTacticsco said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Money?
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 2:19PM camronm21 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Because it's a business model that works. Despite the games being crap, there are enough people ignorant of that, hopeful for the reverse, or just enough of a die-hard fan to buy them. They know they'll make money from it; it's similar to other licensed products: sure they're terrible quality, but they will bring in more cash.
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 2:19PM Mr Khan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Some properties just don't work as movies, whereas others very much would. Pokemon translated well enough (though i blame the show for making the games seem more "kiddy" than they are), but its doubtless that those adaptations were well-received commercially

There are two problems: 1, video games are given movies well after their prime of people caring about them, or 2, come from series that few people cared a lot about. Look at Doom for the former and BloodRayne for the latter, then you've got the problems of movies being made for games that didn't really fit them, like Super Mario Bros. The key is like any successful business venture: you need the right idea at the right time. The way the Doom movie was structured, i think it would have been much more successful in the 90's, aside from Doom itself being more widely acclaimed at the time, the Doom movie had more of a 90s feel to it, that what was stupid then could have been awesome at some other point.
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 3:39PM Granger said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
DOOM came out a year after DOOM 3, which was itself a retelling of the original DOOM. And although it wasn't the greatest game ever, it still had a lot of hype and for the most part was positively received (both critically, and financially). So it was hardly past its prime or even remotely irrelevant.

Plus, DOOM is one of those proverbial games that just doesn't die. Just because it isn't name-dropped every other day, doesn't mean people don't care about it. It's like the dark ages between Super Metroid and Metroid Prime/Fusion, people didn't just stop caring about Metroid because it was on the back-burner, instead they tried to reason with themselves that a sequel was coming out this year, or this year, or this year . . . same with DOOM.

TRON was hardly 'relevant,' and then out of the blue we get this kick ass game called TRON 2.0, and now we're getting TRON Legacy, and that sort of validates the 25+ years of fans still caring about the film and its franchise status.
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 2:20PM Swizzler said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
so instead of mirroring a whole movie in a game they should take the indie route and make a short and sweet game centered around one mechanic like AAAaaAAaaAAa and VVVVVV. (wow I just referenced two indie titles whose names only contain one letter... ok flywrench too)
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 2:22PM Puertoricarious said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
and yet i remember james cameron pontificating about how most movie-games were mediocre and how the avatar the game would be different. sorry to break it to you jerry, but it's been said before. the only thing that will make this game good is the talent behind it.
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 2:29PM DevilSei said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Then again David, besides the "ooo-shiny" factor, Avatar wasn't all that great a movie either, so I'd say it matched expectations pretty well.
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 2:23PM def PD said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
hoes! what?!
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 2:28PM DevilSei said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Most movie-based games fail the same reason as most game-based movies fail.
Horrid developers/directors (they both start with a D, holy crap.

Uwe Boll ring a bell? (He counts twice, since he was also in charge of a game based upon one of his own movies, don't look it up though).
Activision in general?
2-3 years is an alright-good time for development. 3-5 is good-pushing it, and anything above 5 it either damn well better be good, or is vaporware (*tear*DNF...).
Obvious example to that last thing would easily be Too Human. Don't care what you say, but that game sucked the blood-crusted sack of Odin's warhorse...
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 2:32PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
boats and ho's
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 2:38PM Digiboi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
He makes a valid point, but it isn't the only problem. Video games are generally over the top of reality to make the game fun. Plots in video games are rarely realistic. Video games are interactive experiences. Movies are passive.

Tying a videogame and movie together (as opposed to a franchise) either requires the game to be on rails of a predictable path (*yawn*) or canon established from the movie has to be set aside.

Take Harry Potter - if you want a HP game, you want to be HP or maybe Hermione if you prefer a female lead. You don't want to be some anonymous wizard that is tangentially part of the HP world. At the same time, you don't want to trudge through the movie or book because you've already seen all of that. But to avoid that, you either need new material that wasn't interesting enough for the books - or you have to break canon and say "this exciting bit happened here but you were never told about it and no one ever talks about it after it happened."
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 2:43PM HotDogWater said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
A game based on a movie based on a game... Should be interesting.
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 3:25PM tdrwiega said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
street fighter: the movie (the game) laughs at that statement
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 2:44PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm glad Jerry decided to take the time to explain to Gamasutra something that we already know. Don't rush a game and it might just turn out good

(exceptions of Duke Forever and Too Human...which aren't movie games but still took time and failed).
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 2:46PM Dr Blight said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, but it doesn't matter how much time you give a terrible developer. It's still going to suck.
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 3:02PM Vidikron said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Dr. 32X

I don't think you fully appreciate the position the developers are put in with the tie-in games. Yes, they are often given to relatively unknown developers, but have you considered that maybe that's because established devs with other options don't want the gigs because they tough?

Someone made a great post here about this same subject a while back. I'll see if I can find it, but the general idea was that not only is the time frame shorter than most games, you're also given skimpy budgets and have limited access to the source material. He said that the studios often wouldn't given them access to the script or even production stills to assist with developing the game. So the devs are just left in dark working with a bare bones outline of the movie, yet at the same time have limited creative freedom. He also said that they are often under the guidance of someone from the studio that treats them the same as t-shirts, action figures, and other movie merchandise. Because to the studio that's all they are, just another bit of merchandise meant to increase the exposure of the movie.
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 2:46PM JamesHks said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
gotta have me my boat 'n hoes
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 2:47PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This one has fail written all over it. James Cameron was bragging about how HIS game was in development right at the start and he worked on it while he was filming. It failed.. so what makes Jerry think he can out do Jimmy?.. HA.
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 4:12PM Brother Unit No 4 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Easy.

Prince of Persia is a more established franchise among gamers. Everyone who watches Avatar may not want to invest in the game.
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 4:17PM MizzDiva said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well Mike, actually I don't think that's what Jerry's saying at all. And actually if you read up a bit on this new Prince of Persia, I believe much of the approach that was taken w/ it by Ubisoft is that it was only very loosely based on the film but still retained much of the elements/plots that had already been established in previous PoP games (not counting the last one, of course).

Usually movie games that take this approach of not being gripped by the balls of movie studios--i.e. like the aforementioned Riddick and Goldeneye games (hell, even Wolverine game wasn't too bad)--and try to have a bit of uniqueness that doesn't exactly run identical to movie are games that usually fair better. Of course this are also games that people actually try to take the time to make; which as we know is the whole point as why movie-based games still have not fully succeed.

Meh, time will tell (no pun intended) how this Prince game will do. I'm at least hoping it outdoes the movie at least.
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 2:54PM Haywire said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"As long as it's a good game, people will play it"
I take issue with this statement. There are so many good games being made nowadays that failure is easy. Plenty of good games don't make a profit, but crap movie tie-ins do. The entire business model is to make a game quickly and cheaply and sell it to those who buy it simply because they recognise the name of the movie. This model will continue to succeed until the casual consumer realises that most licensed games suck.
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 3:15PM Elranzer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Movie games suck because they keep hiring companies like Activision and Ubisoft to make them.

Ever see movie games made bu Nintendo, Square Enix, Capcom or Konami? That would be a good movie game.

Remember Goldeneye 64? Done by Rare and Nintendo. Good game, too.

Remember all of those Disney games for NES, SNES and Genesis? Done by Capcom, Sega and Virgin Games. All mostly good games.

Spider-man 2 was a probably the last decent movie-based game, though 1 and 3 sucked.
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 3:24PM Vidikron said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
A lot of those though weren't under the same constraints as today's movie-ins. Goldeneye, for example, released a full two years after the movie was released. The point made in the article is about games that are trying to release with the movie.
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 3:25PM Vidikron said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
*movie tie-ins
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 4:15PM RogueJedi86 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Like Vidikron said, the GoldenEye game came out out in 1997, a full 2 years after the movie. It ended up being far more influential and notable than the already great movie it was based on. Makers of movie video games(and the movie executives who push them to make those games) need to take that lesson. Delay releasing your movie game for 2 years. If the game no longer seems relevant or worth it to make/release, then it wasn't a good game idea to begin with. Maybe it'd teach them to stop making crappy games off these random movies that stay in the theaters for 5 seconds and no one remembers because the movies weren't notable at all.
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 5:06PM aristokrat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
But won't anybody think of the achievements whores? How else will they get their easy 1000's?
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 6:22PM CtrlBurn said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Consumers hold the power to change this trend. Stop buying/renting/borrowing/playing crummy games that are based on movies. It's not hard to read a review before buying a game, and the reviews will let you know which movie-based games are good and which are garbage.
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 7:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
We shall see.......
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 8:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Warriors was one of the best games i've ever played. I think it's more about the studio they put on the project.
Reply

Posted: Apr 15th 2010 8:05AM HowdyDoody said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
TBH I'd rather the title of this article be "Bruckheimer explains why 'game movies' fail"......
Reply

Posted: Apr 15th 2010 12:22PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I saw the trailer for this movie on my Xbox and it actually made me want to see it less. It looks like that Disney crap that never has a serious tone to it. It might as well be 'Pirates of Persia'.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW