Slashdot Mirror
Movie-Based Videogames - Not Actually That Bad?
Moryath writes "The fine folks at Glide Underground look like they've started a new weekly column - and for their opening run, they tackled the question of whether movie-licensed games are in fact cursed or not. Apparently it was in honor of too many reviewers picking up the new Chronicles of Riddick title, and proclaiming boldly that the game broke some curse - 'movie video games suck, it doesn't suck but it's a movie game, ergo curse broken.' Quite an interesting read, going back all the way to the days of Atari 2600 to examine the history of movie-licensed games."
I played the Chronicles of Riddick game. The game was good, but the movie sucked! Perhaps this is a new paradigm! A video game based on a movie can be good...if the movie sucks!
Hello? Anybody remember 1998?
I won't play movie based games because they're an obvious cash-in. Doesn't matter much if it's that good or not.
That being said, the Chronicles of Riddick isn't an adaptation of the movie, it's just a seperate story for the character which is both more creative a development and well made, so probably a bad example to use in comparison to other movie-licensed-crap.
The underlying problem is still and will always be there- games based on movies tend to be promotional tie-ins first, games second.
Not all video games based on movies suck unfortunately though it is the majority.
:)
(briefly) Looking over the article it seems as though it was written more from a console standpoint. If you look at the arcade you'll notice that most movie based games are actually enjoyable. It's true that they are mostly shooters/fighters though.
Star Wars Trilogy was a great time sink and provided a lot of enjoyment for me on my lunch breaks.
Star Wars Racer had a lot more excitement than the actual movie
The Jurassic Park shooter was fun also.
I wouldn't call the above games great, they had their problems but they definately didn't suck.
On a tangent, it's a shame the arcade scene isn't how it used to be. I miss the days that sega ruled the arcades.
Chewie does not get a medal. Come on, George. Can a Wookie get a medal?
For a while I thought it was called Schwarzeneggerbecause his name was bigger than the title on the cartridge. It was a sidescroller starring a guy with a machine gun shooting bubbles. Surprisingly fun for a few hours. Alex.
It just had the same title.
The game took place before pitch black in the timeline. The only real similarity was the Riddick charactor.
It had it's own plot, storyline, etc. I think it did well because it didn't even try to be a movie game. It stood on it's own and was just a good console shooter.
--Chris
So, the idea of "one game that breaks the curse" doesn't really work for me.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Movie based games are utter shite.
Movie INSPIRED games tend to be good.
schild
editor, f13.net
From what I've seen, not all movie-based games suck. Not by a long stretch of the imagination. However, as a general (horribly general) rule, I think they can be broken down into two groups.
First of all, we have games which come out within the same immediate time-frame as the movie they're based on. These tend to suck. Examples include, but are by no means limited to: Enter the Matrix, Fifth Element, Terminator 3, etc, etc, etc. I'm sure you can think of many more. This is where Chronicles of Riddick breaks the rules; it falls into this category and doesn't suck. But most games in this group are, and always will be, cheap attempts to cash in on a movie whose brand has a short shelf-life.
The second group contains games based on movies or movie franchises which appear when the movies aren't the hype-of-the-moment. In general, these tend to be games based on *good* movies, since only the better movies stand up over time. Examples here include: Aliens vs Predator games (excluding the recent console RTS), Blade Runner (the adventure game - it's aging now, but it still rocks) and Terminator: Future Shock (and Skynet). Perhaps because the movies aren't flavour of the moment, these games have more freedom to move into expanded universes and craft a plot that works well for a game, rather than a movie.
Of course, half-way between the two groups, we have the Star Wars games, some of which rock and some of which suck. I think, however, that the same rule holds true here. Think about it... in the early and mid 90s, before the prequels, Star Wars games tend to rock. We have the SNES platformers/shooters, the X-Wing and TIE Fighter series etc. Sure, there's the odd dud, like Rebel Assault, but at least they're innovative duds. When Episode 1 comes out, the quality of Star Wars games, even from an objective, non-Jar-Jar-bashing point of view falls through the floor. We get a few utterly forgettable shooters and third-person games. Even today, when the license has recovered a bit from its nadir, the best games (Kotor and JK2) are those which are based more heavily on the universe of the original trilogy.
Street Fighter:The Movie.. game
Now that was scraping the bottom of the barrel.
"I am a kernel in the linux army"
Comment removed based on user account deletion