Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Movie-Licensed Games That Might Not Suck

Posted by simoniker on from the how-bout-zero-effect-point-n-click? dept.

Thanks to GameSpot for their new mini-feature discussing movie licenses that might actually make decent games, as opposed to "every big-budget blockbuster getting a cheap and dirty game that is less a game and more a lackluster piece of promotional material." The suggested movies include Run Lola Run as a game "with hundreds of available outcomes", Battle Royale as a "twisted and sadistic" action title, and Fletch with "a Max Payne style of narration.. to represent Fletch's internal dialogue." But, the big question - do Slashdot Games readers have any better suggestions?

1 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. They're missing the point... by devnull17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Making movies from licenses from good movies isn't necessarily hard. I think the main factor in explaining why almost all movie licenses suck is that most movie-licensed games must be released, ready or not, at the same time as their respective movies. Add to that the fact that the production cycle of a typical movie is shorter than that of the average game, and you have a recipe for disaster that smells vaguely like most of what Acclaim releases.

    There's no reason that licensed games have to suck. Some don't. (Goldeneye was released years after its movie counterpart, and didn't really have a strict deadline to meet.) It's just that rushed games tend to suck.

    Producing a good game nowadays requires more time and money than most licensors realize. When licensed games are treated less as a marketing tie-in and more as separate entities, their quality will improve dramatically.