Slashdot Mirror
Movie Games Losing Their Appeal to Game Publishers
The New York Times (registration required) has an article on the relationship between games and movies, as regards movie tie-in games. While efforts like Spider-Man 2 or Escape from Butcher Bay prove that quality games based on movie properties are possible, game developers and publishers are beginning to realize the inherent dangers involved in attempting to capture a movie as a game. From the article: "Another factor adding to the risk is that the development process for most major games is now 18 to 24 months, longer than that of many movies. The long development time puts publishers under pressure to make their picks when a film is just a script. And still, not all games come out on time for a movie's release..."
I think the biggest problem of making a game based on a movie is releasing the game close to when the movie came out. When the matrix game came out the same day as the movie, you could tell it was just unfinished. There were so many bugs, big and small, and the whole game just felt unfinished.
in my opinion, the "hunter: the reckoning" console games weren't even interesting enough to finish once i'd foolishly bought a used (cheap) copy, let alone make a movie out of.
Chalk it up as 'journalists never agree on trends.' An article on Businessweek's cover this week says the exact opposite-- Video games and studios are getting much closer, studios looking to buy devs/publishers, devs/publishers looking to make alliances with studios. I read both, and Businessweek is usually more accurate about industry trends than the NY Times. So take it with a grain of salt.
The question is not really whether movie games are universally good or bad, but whether the publishers are paying the right amount of money for the license. Also, remember that only a small fraction of games are hits, so there's a pretty good chance that a big movie-based game could flop. All the naysayers will point to this and say "See movies and games don't mix-- I told you so" when that is simply the standard operating economics of the industry.
What the hell you talking about? The "producers", the big game dork Vin Diesel being one, had this all in mind. I mean, how does "Chronicles of Riddick" have nothing to do with the game? It's about Riddick and his, yeah, chronicles before the movies.
Now, personally, I hated the movies and hate Vin Diesel as an actor, but what they did with Riddick the game was astounding. And to dismiss it because it doesn't have multiplayer is idiotic.
Actually, I think EA is pretty much on time with most of their games. I worked at an EB for 3+ years, and I can't remember many times when an EA release date - for any of their games, sports or otherwise - changed. That could be different now, since I stopped working at EB in 2003 (thank God), but I doubt it.