Why the Movie Is Better than the Game
- Thread starter Steve Butts
- Start date
Actually, this particular game seems to be a bit of an oddity as far as movie tie-ins go. Manyr seems to be saying that one of the big problems with these games is that they stick to the source material too closely. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World the game immediately disproves this, but instead, what it does is reduce the scale of the content that it tries to provide to the player.Taynas said:
While diverging from the source material is definitely a legitimate strategy to convert a movie into a game, it still doesn't solve the issue of lack of resources available to the developer, whether it be time or money. The way Scott Pilgrim did it however was to simply create a smaller game that focused on a simple core mechanics (beating hundreds of random thugs up), and create a set of visuals and a world that reflected the movie in a way that the player understood as representing the source material, but wasn't the source material in itself. Basically, if the game feels like it follows the movie, and is fun to play, it doesn't matter whether it follows the movie perfectly at all. it will still be recognizable, and the player will be able to fill in the blanks.
Overall, this game didn't necessarily have the high production values that eat up time and money to create (although admittedly, I never did look up how much work they actually put into this game, I might be wrong), but it was a fantastic tie in. I believe that shorter, simpler tie-ins can achieve a higher level of quality without having to diverge from the source material. they only have to represent it in a format that better suits a game.
I generally agree with this, although a weird exception to the rule is the "Revenge of the Fallen" game. Granted, pretty darn low bar there, but the game manages to come across as the superior product. I'd even go so far as to say I had more fun with it than "War for Cybertron".
Why, just why? I'd much, much rather fight say a dozen capable swordsmen on my way through an rpg level, then massacre a hundred mooks. Both making the enemies less, but better, or giving the player more allies, would imho lead to a far far better experience then the Dragon Age/CoJ/Fallout way of doing things, where by the time you've accomplished anything, you killed more people then WWI... why is it, that so few people try that out?Steve Butts said:
(And by the way - case and point Morrowind (think about it, how many people do you kill on an average mission there, and how many in oblivion - the combat was more then lackluster, but at least they got that right)
The only movie tie-ins I enjoyed were Star Wars.
Although, I have to ask -- what about book-game tie-ins? These don't seem as based about "cashing in" on the profit, so much as exploring different possibilities that book different offer. When I write this, I'm thinking primarily of Metro 2033, which I've been playing a lot of recently. I haven't had the chance to read the books yet, but I'm very interested in doing so now, and see what the original author put.
Although, I have to ask -- what about book-game tie-ins? These don't seem as based about "cashing in" on the profit, so much as exploring different possibilities that book different offer. When I write this, I'm thinking primarily of Metro 2033, which I've been playing a lot of recently. I haven't had the chance to read the books yet, but I'm very interested in doing so now, and see what the original author put.
I did, perhaps embarrassingly, enjoy the Lego games (up until the sneezing statue problem on Lego Harry Potter) because although they stuck to the films they brought their own addition ellents and puzzles to the games (although a little easy to complete).
I still think generally that tie ins not linked directly to the films work better, I enjoyed the Jedi Knight series and even the 1993 X-Wing game (which only tied into the films at the very end).
I still think generally that tie ins not linked directly to the films work better, I enjoyed the Jedi Knight series and even the 1993 X-Wing game (which only tied into the films at the very end).
This was pretty much the point I was going to make.Eideann said:
My little sister and I used to sit for hours playing the first two Harry Potter adaptations on the Playstation, and I came across them again recently when we cleared out her room and set up all the old consoles (we had a sega 32-bit megadrive in there for some bizarre reason), and we played them again. for hours. They were actually really good, because while they did have to follow the main plot, there were loads of side-quests and secrets to find that made it enjoyable. My favourite was the one where you had to collect Bertie Botts' Every Flavour Beans for the Weasley Twins, in return for rewards.
Thing is, when they came out, the techonology was, granted, a little simpler, but nowadays I think adapatations are expected so soon after the movie release, especially when they're released this close to Christmas, that there really is no way around the developers having such a fixed deadline. Which is really sad. Most people I know just get money for Christmas anyway, give the developers more time, and let them buy the game later if they really want it.
The original adaptations didn't seem to feel the need to stick so rigidly to the storyline either; Peeves was in the games, and he never even appeared in the movies! This may be looking ahead to the articles tomorrow, but I do believe that taking a story from a book would be a much better plan than taking it from a movie, which often had a good chunk of the story removed anyway.
Also, the Lego games are quite possibly the most hilarious things ever created. There is nothing better than sitting at 4am after a night on the town, blasting little plastic enemies into a squillion pieces. They still follow the story, but are much better than the ones that try to be the movies.
It seems to me there's a lot of confusion between "movie tie-in games" and "franchise games" ... many of the comic, and pretty much all the Star Wars and LotR games mentioned aren't really movie tie-in's, they're just games set in a franchise universe that happens to include some films!
Even a classic like Fate of Atlantis is just an Indy franchise story told through medium of a game rather than another film (we all thought the film series was finished after The Last Crusade .. if only it was so
) And there lies your distinction: Franchise stories told through a game rather than a movie are often fantastic, whereas movie tie-in games where the studio is trying to make a quick buck by duck-taping together a game without paying any attention to plot, mechanics or character development (sadly the norm these days) are generally poor.
There are some notable exceptions in my book. The Last Crusade Indy game was pretty awesome in its time, and followed the plot of the movie very closely. The original Ghostbusters II game was also awesome, and of course Goldeneye
Even a classic like Fate of Atlantis is just an Indy franchise story told through medium of a game rather than another film (we all thought the film series was finished after The Last Crusade .. if only it was so
) And there lies your distinction: Franchise stories told through a game rather than a movie are often fantastic, whereas movie tie-in games where the studio is trying to make a quick buck by duck-taping together a game without paying any attention to plot, mechanics or character development (sadly the norm these days) are generally poor.There are some notable exceptions in my book. The Last Crusade Indy game was pretty awesome in its time, and followed the plot of the movie very closely. The original Ghostbusters II game was also awesome, and of course Goldeneye
The problem of making games out of movies is that they do almost all the extremely wrong things when it comes to the art of developing a game, all at the same time. Its like they had a sheet infront of them where it said "how to make a grame crap" and crossed off all the boxes as they went along.
1. Use alot of money just to buy the rights of making the game that could have been spent on developing something not brand named. *Check*
2. Have a strict and short schedule for when a game is suppost to be released. *check*
3. Game having to be closely tied to the movie where the publisher forces the dev to keep in check with a movies exact storyling. Even if it's most likely not true to the book it's based apon *check*.
4. Usually the rights are bought by some big publisher to make the game. Like sucky EA games. *check*
1. Use alot of money just to buy the rights of making the game that could have been spent on developing something not brand named. *Check*
2. Have a strict and short schedule for when a game is suppost to be released. *check*
3. Game having to be closely tied to the movie where the publisher forces the dev to keep in check with a movies exact storyling. Even if it's most likely not true to the book it's based apon *check*.
4. Usually the rights are bought by some big publisher to make the game. Like sucky EA games. *check*
I have played my share of movie-related game releases, and the list of acceptable adaptations is very small. It would seem that games more loosely based on the franchise are oftentimes better than direct translations (such as The Path of Neo from The Matrix).
Probably the best advice I could think of in this particular area is that instead of having the tie in game come out as the movie is released in theaters is to have the game come out as the movie is released to disc. Hell, you could do a double and release the movie and the game together in a two-box set so you have more time to work on the game plus you are also selling a copy of the movie to the consumer. I don't know that I've ever actually seen that done before, but it almost seems like a no-brainer.
Probably the best advice I could think of in this particular area is that instead of having the tie in game come out as the movie is released in theaters is to have the game come out as the movie is released to disc. Hell, you could do a double and release the movie and the game together in a two-box set so you have more time to work on the game plus you are also selling a copy of the movie to the consumer. I don't know that I've ever actually seen that done before, but it almost seems like a no-brainer.
i think that the reson why the movies are better than the game is because that some movie games just dont work and that the movie productions like to used that as a way to cash out the movie production, and that their are rushed out right out after the movie
Ironically I couldn't get the Die Hard Trilogy game for the Playstation out of my head even before you said your bit about John McClane. The shining examples of games based on movies are few and far between. Goldeneye perhaps is the best example I can think of, and that is because it blatantly disregarded the things you pointed out.
I know it was massively flawed, having blocky graphics, ropey animation and dodgy controls, but for some reason I still loved Enter The Matrix. It had the usual tie-in problems, but it also had a decent narrative and was actually pretter fun to play.
Aside from that, I had Die Hard Trilogy on the PS1, and that was pretty fun. Well, mainly the light-gun Die Hard 2 game, but the other two games were still OK. With that one, the game came out quite a while after the third DH movie, so it didn't suffer so much from an arbitrary deadline.
In general, it seems like the only movie games that are actually any good are the ones made after the films cinema run has ended - i.e. the ones which actually had a reason for being made other than merchandising. To make a good game you need an actual good idea first, not just a brand.
P.S. Writing this in the freezing cold at a London bus station because the Central line is broken *again.* That has nothing to do with anything, I just need to vent. Fscking tube network!
Aside from that, I had Die Hard Trilogy on the PS1, and that was pretty fun. Well, mainly the light-gun Die Hard 2 game, but the other two games were still OK. With that one, the game came out quite a while after the third DH movie, so it didn't suffer so much from an arbitrary deadline.
In general, it seems like the only movie games that are actually any good are the ones made after the films cinema run has ended - i.e. the ones which actually had a reason for being made other than merchandising. To make a good game you need an actual good idea first, not just a brand.
P.S. Writing this in the freezing cold at a London bus station because the Central line is broken *again.* That has nothing to do with anything, I just need to vent. Fscking tube network!