Debate: Movie Tie In Games-- Why doesn't it Work?

When was the last time you played a great movie tie-in game? Here are a few games that came out alongside movie releases in recent times:

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Iron Man

Harry potter and The Order of The Phoenix

James Bond: Quantum of Solace

Kung Fu Panda: The Game

Incredible Hulk

Any memorable/remarkable games up there? I played all of them except Wolverine and Kung Fu Panda, and none of them were above average. I kind of liked the Harry potter game, but it had loads of bugs and glitches.

So why do you think movie tie-ins don't work? Have you played any good movie tie-in game? 

Some work, but its hard to do. I think alot think its easy to make the transition between game and film but they are two seperate ways of portraying something, in a game you control the character, in a film you watch the character from a third person persepective and allways get that "your watching" feeling where as games you sometimes feel "you are the person".

Goldeneye for instance was great, as were some other James Bond games on PS1/2 (to me).

I think this is a long term issue where games are getting compared to TV shows and films and vice versa, whether this is fair is another question. 

I think this is a result of how money-centric some publishers are. It's often more important to make a game that sells than one that is of quality. Also, the sales of the game is parallel to when the movie comes out, so they often have to rush the game. And considering games take as long to make as movies, you also have the problem of story elements being rushed in and such because the movie is changing as they work on the game. This is why movie tie-ins being crap is so common, because of time constraints and the philosophies of the developers and publishers. They know that the game is underdeveloped and rushed. I've heard this from the staff themselves on podcasts and in interviews several times.

Then again there are good movie tie-ins, and I'm not one of those that always say "this is based on a movie, therefore it will suck". The Chronicles of Riddick is the best example to me. Vin Diesel really wanted it to be good, and the developers got the time they needed and he did his best to help. He's even on the developer image in the game. The game isn't constrained to the movie - it's a completely different story of events, but in the same universe - so they had the room to prioritize gameplay. Goldeneye was excellent while following the movie greatly, but the movie was perfect for an FPS and a lot of movies today aren't.

It's good that you bring up Wolverine, because it differs from the movie a lot. One of the reasons for this was that the movie was changing while they made it, so the game is much gorier and Ninja Gaiden-ish than the movie. It's a mediocre to good game, but that's better than a lot of other movie tie-ins can say.

I don't have many reasons for why they don't work. Could it be that most of the movies that produce tie ins are better off as movies, or are poor movies in the first place. Could it be that the rush to get a game out at the same time as the movie produces sub standard fare. Could it be that producers hope that fans of a movie will not care if a game is substandard and will buy it anyway, as with the ridiculous amount of guff that surrounds Harry Potter, and therefore settle for publishing crap games.

I personally think the only movie tie in I've ever played and liked was Goldeneye. That says plenty about this argument in that a game over ten years old is perhaps the best in this catagory.

I've heard a lot of good things about Golden Eye 64 and the Riddick games, but that's as much as it goes. I don't understand why they can't synchronize the movie and game release; it's basically the same project. Also, the creative decision involved with the game development is also questionable. In my opinion, it'd have been great to have an adventure/RPG game based on the LOTR universe. Instead, they brought out a average hack and slasher based on return of the king. The only great LOTR games are the RTS ones--one of the better movie tie ins I'd say.

I totally agree with rushed in point. To catch the movie release, games are rushed. Which is clear in most movie based games that came in lately. I imagine how can a game based on Transformers can go wrong? It's such an easy creative decision....the franchise gives a pre-built lovable premise....robots that can turn in to vehicles and cause mayhem. And yet the transformers game was soooooo terribly bad. 

Movie tie-ins tend not to work because of development time - the movie scrpit is kept secret and when a game developer get's it they have to meet the dead line so that the game is released along side the movie.

I often see that movie tie-ins that are platformers are good (recently Kung Fu Panda and Monster vs. Aliens which had levels that play a lot like Mario Galaxy) 

Some other good movie tie-ins include: Batman (NES), Batman Returns (SNES), Lion King (SNES/GEN), Aladdin (SNES/GEN), Power Rangers: The Movie (SNES), Spider-Man 2 (PS2/GC/Xbox), Most James Bond games, Peter Jackson's King Kong (PS2/360/PC), Scarface (PS2, Xbox, Wii)

I'd forgotten about Batman Returns which was one of the best beat em ups on SNES.

I think the main reason most film tie ins fail as games is that devs think they are sure fire sellers so don't have to spend so much time money asnd effort on producing quality goods - the name will sell.

It is the same thing we see with sequals to games. Sonic, Mario, Halo, Crash, - these titles sell regardless of their quality due in large part to the weight of the franchise - it's also why EA can continue to put out sport updates each year.

We buy bond games on the name of the franchise, withinout considering the developer or publisher behind the game and their talents - it's nothing but suggestive marketing. It's the same with any other tie in. If you are a fan you'll no doubt be interested in the game, enough to at least take a look, regardless of the actual quality of the finished product.

I agree with the poster above me. However, I also believe it's the fundamental difference between the two in that movies are meant to convey a sense of realism, in other words, it's going to have to be applicable to the real world. For example, a Halo movie where every actor can jump twelve feet doesn't seem to be too compelling of a movie (not to mention there would be special effects up the wazoo that could potentially detract from the move as a whole). Games, on the other hand, are played on computer monitors and televisions in settings that are completely artificial (have you ever seen the chairs in COD4? They're indestructible!)

On a similar note, check out this movie I found on Youtube the other day. It's by the South African director chosen to make the Halo movie that didn't go through. They made a few short clips from the Halo movie though. Quite epic!  :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxdvGO1oOF0

No HP game has ever been good. The franchise sucks and is nothing more than gravy for some woman who can't even be arsed to pell out her whole name on the cover of her books, which are pretty crap reading as well if you ask me. Certainly not up to the standard I expect after all the attention they've received.pai-may

Films get better? A polished turd is still a turd!pai-may

hahaha you seem too skeptical about the whole HP franchise....it's not that bad, actually. The games are nice in a simplistic manner. The new game will have broomstick battles (e.g. Quidditch) and a lot of duelling, which sounds cool. Maybe you should check out the trailer.

[QUOTE="pai-may"]Films get better? A polished turd is still a turd!DeadManRollin

hahaha you seem too skeptical about the whole HP franchise....it's not that bad, actually. The games are nice in a simplistic manner. The new game will have broomstick battles (e.g. Quidditch) and a lot of duelling, which sounds cool. Maybe you should check out the trailer.

I'm not scepticle of the franchise I merely see it for what it is. A poorly written series of books that became a phenomenon for some bizzarro world reason and spawned all the additional merchandise of the capital world. I'm pretty sure the only piece of merchandise I'd ever buy would be HP loo roll so I could wipe my arse on Daniel's smug face.

[QUOTE="DeadManRollin"]

[QUOTE="pai-may"]Films get better? A polished turd is still a turd!pai-may

hahaha you seem too skeptical about the whole HP franchise....it's not that bad, actually. The games are nice in a simplistic manner. The new game will have broomstick battles (e.g. Quidditch) and a lot of duelling, which sounds cool. Maybe you should check out the trailer.

I'm not scepticle of the franchise I merely see it for what it is. A poorly written series of books that became a phenomenon for some bizzarro world reason and spawned all the additional merchandise of the capital world. I'm pretty sure the only piece of merchandise I'd ever buy would be HP loo roll so I could wipe my arse on Daniel's smug face.

[QUOTE="pai-may"][QUOTE="DeadManRollin"]

[QUOTE="pai-may"]Films get better? A polished turd is still a turd!loopy_101

hahaha you seem too skeptical about the whole HP franchise....it's not that bad, actually. The games are nice in a simplistic manner. The new game will have broomstick battles (e.g. Quidditch) and a lot of duelling, which sounds cool. Maybe you should check out the trailer.

I'm not scepticle of the franchise I merely see it for what it is. A poorly written series of books that became a phenomenon for some bizzarro world reason and spawned all the additional merchandise of the capital world. I'm pretty sure the only piece of merchandise I'd ever buy would be HP loo roll so I could wipe my arse on Daniel's smug face.

You will always get media snobs who say this format is better than that or I wish they had not left theat bit out of a film or changed it to that bit. It comes with the territory and unless the director has said it is going to be a completely acurate interpretation of a novel, then people should just shut the hell up in general. But we are all armchair critics are we not?

[QUOTE="pai-may"][QUOTE="DeadManRollin"]

[QUOTE="pai-may"]Films get better? A polished turd is still a turd!loopy_101

hahaha you seem too skeptical about the whole HP franchise....it's not that bad, actually. The games are nice in a simplistic manner. The new game will have broomstick battles (e.g. Quidditch) and a lot of duelling, which sounds cool. Maybe you should check out the trailer.

I'm not scepticle of the franchise I merely see it for what it is. A poorly written series of books that became a phenomenon for some bizzarro world reason and spawned all the additional merchandise of the capital world. I'm pretty sure the only piece of merchandise I'd ever buy would be HP loo roll so I could wipe my arse on Daniel's smug face.

You will always get media snobs who say this format is better than that or I wish they had not left theat bit out of a film or changed it to that bit. It comes with the territory and unless the director has said it is going to be a completely acurate interpretation of a novel, then people should just shut the hell up in general. But we are all armchair critics are we not?

Books are generally cut to keep films to a moderate length. Otherwise, lord of the rings part one would have been five hours long and had a stupid scene in it with Tom bloody bombadil the great big ninny.pai-may

Books are generally cut to keep films to a moderate length. Otherwise, lord of the rings part one would have been five hours long and had a stupid scene in it with Tom bloody bombadil the great big ninny.pai-may

Lol, there are actually many fans that thought Tom should have been there in the movie. I found him to be a very annoying character from the LOTR universe. Also, most of the dialogues of the Treants were damn boring and I am glad they did not talk much in the movies. 

But again, the LOTR RTS game was too good. Even the part 2 and expansion was great. 

Watchmen Episode 2 Coming to PC

Anyone played the game? Saw the movie? There are so few beat'em ups for the PC that I actually thought about getting this game. Now that the 2nd episode is coming out, it might be a good idea to get both. 

I think there are way too many superheroes out there! Every year I hear about someone new who is apparently "a big shot in marvel/DC/whatever universe".

Anyone played the Street Fighter game based on the Street FIghter movie? (the first one, not the new one with chun li)

I think there are way too many superheroes out there! Every year I hear about someone new who is apparently "a big shot in marvel/DC/whatever universe".

Anyone played the Street Fighter game based on the Street FIghter movie? (the first one, not the new one with chun li)

DeadManRollin

i have actually have the street fighter game based on the movie and i can tell you that the game is pretty good. You can do lots of cool stuff just like what you can do in a street fighter game. for harry potter movies the worst on is 2 and 4 and then followed by 1. harry potter movie 3 and 5 are the best ones.

I have played good movie games. These include the king kong  game, quantum of solace game, indiana jones(original xbox game), alladin, chronicles of riddick, and many others that i can't remember.

Though not directly based on the movies, but Batman: Arkham Asylum is looking good. DeadManRollin

Yeah, it just needs to be out already.

Though not directly based on the movies, but Batman: Arkham Asylum is looking good. DeadManRollin

[QUOTE="DeadManRollin"]Though not directly based on the movies, but Batman: Arkham Asylum is looking good. loopy_101

True, which is actually a good thing. 

OKay, so we had a lot of discussions regarding movie tie-ins, now what about game tie-in movies? i.e. Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Tomb Raider, Max Payne, etc.? 

[QUOTE="loopy_101"][QUOTE="DeadManRollin"]Though not directly based on the movies, but Batman: Arkham Asylum is looking good. DeadManRollin

True, which is actually a good thing. 

OKay, so we had a lot of discussions regarding movie tie-ins, now what about game tie-in movies? i.e. Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Tomb Raider, Max Payne, etc.? 

These never work. I'm sure some of you are going to quote me otherwise on some obscure title but perhaps even the most well known game to movie franchise is rubbish ie Tomb Raider. They work as cartoons ie SF and Tekken are pretty good, but as live action films they are rubbish. Mortal Kombat One is ok, but the sequel is bob and the tv series needs erasing from all discs it was ever burned onto.

Tomb Raider and Resident Evil were not bad to me but thats because I rarely watch films. I hear the Bioshock film has a plausabile chance of being good but with the story there already known if it sticks to the game its known quantity and if they make it dfferent then its not really based on the game.Garfield360UK

I think the Bioshock film has been cancelled or at least put on hold as the director has walked away.

The camera has been around for over a century and we were able to make movies for a while within our culture to get the best out of the technology. It's the same with video games and as it's been around for 50 years and the technology is getting much better, being able to handle more content and with alot more interest to the customer and players, it gives an oppotinuty for the organization in the movie industry to license video games to make them profitable.

Does it work or doesn't it? Well the problem I think some companies relay too much on the previous experience in movies which makes the gameplay, or so they think. For example, may companies back in the 90s taken the gameplay from Mario or Street fighter and replaced the characters, story, setting to DC characters, making it into a clone of one game and marketing it as a tie in. This will never works... it's just a waste of time in my opinion.

It would work when there two experiences, the one being the movie meanwhile the other being the game, both using the technology well enough to be a stand alone experience. I could sit down and watch the movie, meanwhile if I'm satified, I can see down and playing the video game. 

Yeah, I would agree, I would say from reading that it is the experiences, the game needs to be less generic and have a standout feature, possibly the story or get the game right.

I mean Wanted Wepons of fate I hear is a good film and the game had the right idea but it just lacked polish in the actual gameplay. There were great ideas in the game like curving bullets around corners (from the film of course) but the usuall "lets chuck quick time button presses in" ruinined it just like the Bourne game which could have been so great if they didnt make it depend on quick time events all the time.

Yeah, I would agree, I would say from reading that it is the experiences, the game needs to be less generic and have a standout feature, possibly the story or get the game right.

I mean Wanted Wepons of fate I hear is a good film and the game had the right idea but it just lacked polish in the actual gameplay. There were great ideas in the game like curving bullets around corners (from the film of course) but the usuall "lets chuck quick time button presses in" ruinined it just like the Bourne game which could have been so great if they didnt make it depend on quick time events all the time.

Garfield360UK

The poor execution of the gameplay ideas lead it to be a poor experience... reading from what Garfield said, curving bullets sounds awesome, however if I wanted to play the game and read what Garfield just wrote, then I'll step back abit, I would think I'll waste my time if I bought Wanted Weapons of Fate.

The Bourne game, I'm a huge fan of the movie... quick time events is becoming common in video games, I think it's used to break down the pace of the combat alittle bit. Yakuza series does it the worse, there quick time events are weak and they're hardly used in the game, considering it's a Sega game and it was born from Shenmue, it does blow my mind.

Indigo Prophecy punks them up alittle bit, using 2 analog controllers and an user interface like the one in that game where the 4 lights lit up, on the colour interface... the 'quick' time last for around 2 mins at the most... giving the player a move cinamitic experience. 

Back on topic. if companies uses all these gameplay ideas and execute them well enough along with movie ideas... which many are doing well, then they're in business. The poor games relay too much techiques from the movie industry to produce thier video games.

Enter the Matrix did that... different experience, different techniques, they spent alot of time putting actors in a 'phonebooth' wired up their faces with switches or sensors and put that into the game content as I recall... what a waste of time.

Thats true, I like a cinematic game experience but it needs to be a game formost.

This is something some developers do not seem to follow and make some games more like interactive videos rather than a game with cinematic feel (what I mean is there needs to be a degree of challenge and you should be in control like Fallout 3 and not say Bourne where you rarely have control over the game due to the constant quick time events).

Thats true, I like a cinematic game experience but it needs to be a game formost.

This is something some developers do not seem to follow and make some games more like interactive videos rather than a game with cinematic feel (what I mean is there needs to be a degree of challenge and you should be in control like Fallout 3 and not say Bourne where you rarely have control over the game due to the constant quick time events).

Garfield360UK

It is a game isn't it? Well a Video game... my trusty dictionary tell me what a game is... I have a control here, choose how to move my avatar around, depending on what they pick up and analyze and what they do with clues and items, the cinematics is the feedback the players gets at the end of the day. How I win the game? Well in Bourne case, we know when we win and lose.

When it comes to using the console's hardware, something like MGS4 really maxs out everything, the graphics, Blu Ray space, content, etc... that's what I call a 'must own' video game.

I also agree that sandbox themes are better suited for games. If you already know what is the ending, you might find little motivation to play through the game. In order to combat this problem, people should come up with movie themed games, i.e. what Ghostbusters did--they took the IP and built an original game on the basis of an original story. DeadManRollin

Ghostbusters only really worked because of the input of Akroyd et al, if it had been down to game writers to write the story I'm sure it would not have been as good.