Every Game Blog Must Comment On This Topic
Movie License Games. As far as I can tell, the biggest reason for their typical suckiness is that they are rushed through production to be released at the same time as (or a little before) the movie. Most complaints about such titles are about a lack of polish, too little content, bugs, and the like. Why do these games have to come out at the same time as the movie? Are they worried that the movie will be forgotten by the time the game comes out, so no one will buy it even if it's a good game?
If the movie is so forgetable, then the problem is crappy source material. Goldeneye 007 proved that if you use a good movie, the game can come out much later. This brings up the question: did Goldeneye 007 get any boost from the movie license or was it successful purely on being an awesome game? I think it did benefit from putting players into the suit of the legendary secret agent on a mission to save the world. But even if it did, that was a good movie. Can a good game be made out of a crappy movie? I can't think of an example of such a case. I assume that mediocre films might need their games to come out on the heels of their own advertising campaigns in order to be successful. In any case, such a game is already hindered by the uninspired schlock for character and story; the tight schedule isn't going to help.
As for games based on movies with something worth buying the license for(characters, environments, storylines, phenomena, etc.), I'd like to see some better connections to the film. For instance, when I was watching Hot Fuzz, especially toward the end, I was thinking about what kind of video game could be made out of it. A proper use of the license would be a very silly shooter in which you select your weapons and your goofy Brittish target. This is followed by a fast-paced cinematic with close-ups of said weapons being loaded. Then there is the driving and horseback riding which blends directly into the main fighting: a tactical shooter with the challenge of finding things to shoot so that they fall onto your enemies. You can call on allies such as the hooded schoolchildren or another police officer. The whole time, your character delivers lines inspired by cheesy shoot-'em-ups.
The second most important thing for a movie license game is that good source material is integrated into the experience. The most important thing is that the game is good.
2 comments:
I'm not sure if you mean that last comment to be a statement of fact or a wish...
It seems like, from the very phrase "movie license game" the movie is set as the most important thing. Indeed, the game is only being made to cash-in on the movie. The entire point is to make money off of a movie that has already done most of the advertising for you, not to make a genuinely good game (necessarily, though of course there are some exceptions)/
A rare instance I can think of which only barely relates is Dinosaur Planet, Rare's Game which eventually became Starfox Adventures because it was just SO EASY to integrate and already established universe.
But come on: Do you really think most of the people who bought X-men : The Official Game of the Movie were expecting a really GOOD game? With a friggin' title like tht I certainly hope not. In order for the games to get better they should first be seen more as JUST a movie tie-in. In some ways it could be said that the Spider-man franchise has done that. The Spider-Man 2 engine impressed everyone so much that it went on to be modified for Ultimate Spider-Man, which is a better game in some important ways. And the same could be said of Goldeneye, too, actually. Perfect Dark is pretty similar, right? (I have barely played it, be dkaufman will be able to correct me on this).
...sorry for talking so much.
I'm not sure how this relates exactly but I would say Goldeneye is a better game than it is a movie.
Would Perfect Dark have sold more if it was Goldeneye 2? I think so. Licenses sell games, unfortunately. If they didn't, we wouldn't have 50 million terrible platformers based on Spongebob. Why put in the effort if it will sell either way?
The thing about most movie licensed games is being based on the source material does not yield enough gameplay to sustain an entire $60 purchase.
One route to take is Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay. The movie sucked, but the game was apparently really good. However,it was not based on the plot of the film.
Another route is Spiderman 2/3 where they build on the movie story by throwing in a bunch of extra villains that don't serve any purpose.
Post a Comment