Ubisoft CEO Explains the Avatar Effect
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Here's the long and short of it: Cameron hired the wrong guy to make his game. (he did practically no meddling at all)
Hes right, it was a boneheaded time to release it. Nobody is going to play a tie in before the movie is out, at best you might be confused by the plot, so that rules out the Christmas market.. At the worst you`ll ruin the movie before you`ve seen it. So now its January, and the only thing anybody has is a big debt, so nobody is going to bother buying games for little jimmy.
Film based games are almost always bad, every gamer knows this, and even when they are good, they could be better with a different setting, standing alone.
Look at Wolverine last(?) year, it was an awesome game, but how many people didn't buy it because a) it was a movie game and b) it was a game of a movie that stank high heavens.
It's okay to use the setting, look at how awesome Batman: AA was, yes it was a Batman game, but it didn't root itself in any film setting forcing you to play through parts of the movie.
On the time, it was really stupid, yes there was hype for the movie flowing onto the game... but how many people excited to see the movie avoided anything to do with the game for fear for spoilers? another thing to consider.
Look at Wolverine last(?) year, it was an awesome game, but how many people didn't buy it because a) it was a movie game and b) it was a game of a movie that stank high heavens.
It's okay to use the setting, look at how awesome Batman: AA was, yes it was a Batman game, but it didn't root itself in any film setting forcing you to play through parts of the movie.
On the time, it was really stupid, yes there was hype for the movie flowing onto the game... but how many people excited to see the movie avoided anything to do with the game for fear for spoilers? another thing to consider.
It wouldn't have mattered. Making a game that needs to come out at the same time as a movie is a virtual guarantee that it will be toss.murphy7801 said:
Notice how the movie games that are being cited as not toss have come out anywhere up to twenty years after the movies they tie into.
I like the idea that any movie tie-ins will be made with plenty of time for proper polishing. It's not a sure-fire solution to fixing the problem of poorly made games, but it's certainly a step in the right direction.
The problem is that by the time the story and the cast is finalised for the basis of the game, there is often less than a year to develop the game itself, so the easiest way is to model all the characters, buy an engine and slap it together. This has been profitable for years too, until most people caught on that it would be shit.Andronicus said:
The exception that is always mentioned is Wolverine, and for good reason, it had a full development period. It was in development before the X:Men Origins movie even had a script written and it was later decided to adjust the story in the game to match the movie more (which it doesn't, really). But the character design was easy (Hugh Jackman) and the back story was already somewhat there, but they had the time to develop the important part, namely being able to slash the shit out of everything.
Batman wasn't even a movie tie in, but the best thing to happen to it was that the actual movie tie in for the Dark Knight was scrapped.
Goldeneye 64 came out a whole TWO YEARS after the film (barely before the NEXT james Bond film came out) and it has turned out to be the most critically acclaimed and highest selling licenced gmes of all time.
Just goes to show publishers who think they can have a game on the shelves at the same time as the movie in theatre have NO CLUE.
The way video game tie-in games's SHOULD be done is
Step 1) a film is made,
step 2) everyone gets a feel for what they like about the film as it is shown in cinema and reviewed
Step 3) THEN they start on a tie in game to expand on the elements that were enjoyed.
step 4) ????
Step 5) PROFIT!
you see this with star war games as well, like Star Wars Republic Commando, quite a decent game came out 2 years after the last new Star Wars movie. I think publishers have realised there are just too many good games out now and too many people are clued into game review sites and metacritic to just buy a bad game because it ties into a good film they saw recently.
I really wish they could start making a PROPER Avatar game now, to really make a game with height, depth and sense of adventure.
Just goes to show publishers who think they can have a game on the shelves at the same time as the movie in theatre have NO CLUE.
The way video game tie-in games's SHOULD be done is
Step 1) a film is made,
step 2) everyone gets a feel for what they like about the film as it is shown in cinema and reviewed
Step 3) THEN they start on a tie in game to expand on the elements that were enjoyed.
step 4) ????
Step 5) PROFIT!
you see this with star war games as well, like Star Wars Republic Commando, quite a decent game came out 2 years after the last new Star Wars movie. I think publishers have realised there are just too many good games out now and too many people are clued into game review sites and metacritic to just buy a bad game because it ties into a good film they saw recently.
I really wish they could start making a PROPER Avatar game now, to really make a game with height, depth and sense of adventure.
Sorry Ubisoft but not only do I not have an adequate PC or a current gen console, but I have no, absolutely no affinity towards playing licensed games. I don't know who you think do, you know that million people you thought you could sell to, but for me, I have absolutely no interest in it at all. It's not about quality, it's about the IP itself to me. Even when I could have got the Spiderman games, I didn't. Instead I invested in your Prince of Persia series and enjoyed that immensely. I dont' think IP's from Movies to Games or vice versa work very well. Similar to how Novels don't even translate very well into film(I am Legend, for example)
It is not as stupid as you make it sound. If it were, all good games would sell well while all bad games would sell badly. You know that's not the case. If a movie-licensed game does not sell well, it sure has less to do with the game's quality itself than with pretty much anything else. Marketing, advertising, public relations, that whole bunch mainly. Of course, if a game is absolute greatness, it probably sells well, but that doesn't automatically mean a bad game sells bad - especially with an expensive license.HardRockSamurai said:
So, I suppose you're expecting Santa Claus to come in through your chimney once a year, bringing presents and the spirit of christmas (an aeroplane-model, inspired by the old planes from the 40's) to your home. ;DRedMenace said:
Well, it's a James Bond license, and Bond is timeless - I won't let that one count!Treblaine said:
