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."

Comments

Goldeneye?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello? Anybody remember 1998?

Depending

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Give credit to the developer...

[Song for the Deaf]

If Chronicles of Riddick is good, all that means is the developer actually cared about the product and had the imagination and talent to pull it off. It's that simple.

The underlying problem is still and will always be there- games based on movies tend to be promotional tie-ins first, games second.

The answer is simple:

[schild]

Movie based games are utter shite.

Movie INSPIRED games tend to be good.