StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Okay, this thread was born from an ongoing argument I have with my friends. Namely, they are of the view that all Movie video games suck and are bad by their very nature. Personally, I take the side of it being a case by case situation. Some movie games (too many sadly) do suck horribly, and I will freely admit that. The crux of the argument though is that all of them suck and I have several examples of both situations. I'll just make a list real quick, and open myself up to ridicule (my tastes in video games is also a point of contention):

The Good:

Lego Star Wars: Probably the golden standard in movie games is Lego Star Wars. Obviously a tie-in by their very nature, these games are fun and entertaining on their own. As evidenced by the fact that you don't need the SW aspect to keep it fun (Lego Batman for example). This is just about the only game my friends agree with me on.

Spiderman 2: An oldie, but still a fun game. This is the only Spidey game so far that I feel really captured the feel of being Spiderman. You could fly through New York, climbing along buildings and helping the random bystander. About my only complaint here is the length, since if I feel like speed-running through the game I can finish the main quest in a single sitting.

Harry Potter (Sorcerers Stone, Chamber of Secrets, Prisoner of Azkaban): These three games have always managed to entertain me personally. There is just something about exploring Hogwarts that keeps me coming back to them even with newer games on the market. PoA had the problem of it turning into a game focused more on combat than exploring, but it was still a fun game.

HP Quidditch World Cup: Not explicitly a movie game, but I felt it deserved an honorable mention. This game is a fun romp through the most famous (though some would say tedious) part of the Harry Potter books/movies. It also captures the feel of Quidditch much better than the movie games, even if the difficulty is laughably easy...I've gotten multiple games with 999 points without even getting the Snitch.

The Bad:

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: This game just never really kept me interested. Compared to the first three (and World Cup) it just didn't feel like a good Harry Potter game. You couldn't explore the Castle, one of the major draws to the first three, and it turned into a mission oriented game. It just wasn't fun to me. Your mileage may vary on this one. (Note, this is the last of the HP games I have played, I haven't gotten Order of the Phoenix through Deathly Hallows yet...they may go back to the old format, I don't know)

Spiderman 1: This game also just didn't capture what I was expecting of it. You couldn't free roam New York (seeing a theme here?), and you would die if you deviated from the course the game gave you. Not to mention it only vaguely followed the storyline of the movie it was based on (the same could be said for Spidey 2, but it was more fun...). For example, I distinctly remember a quest where you go after Uncle Ben's killer and kill him...which is retconned thanks to Spider-Man 3. Just not a fun game to me.

Thor the Game: Do I really need to say why this game sucked? It just seemed like they weren't trying when it was developed. Glitchy, horrible controls, felt like a DMC clone...just overall not a very good game.

Green Lantern: Most of the same problems as Thor. This game was at least more interesting, though that is a relative term. Seems to be a recurring theme that superhero games are either horribly broken and sucky (these three) or excellent (Spidey 2).
******

Well? What do you all think...should I just give in to my friends because the games I chose all suck and I just have odd tastes in games? Or am I on to something here? (Bear in mind, I can't possibly get every movie game, so my choices are limited in that regard...though I can't shake the feeling I missed a couple good games...)

Path of Neo was was pretty decent, as well as good fun to play.

Of course, I may just be forgetting bad bits.

GoldenEye 007. It depends on how rushed things are. If it's meant to release at the same time as the movie and gets rushed through production, then it turns to crap. If it's actually given time to develop as a proper game, it'd probably turn out OK.

I haven't played these myself, but I've heard good things back 'Wolverine' (they had a little extra time to polish it) and 'Captain America'.

Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay stands up on its own merits as a solid game. You don't need to have seen the movies to enjoy it. The gameplay is fun, the graphics are pretty, Vin Diesel still voices Riddick. Easily my favorite movie-tie-in game. Quite possibly the only one I really like, actually.

SilverWingedSeraph wrote:Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay stands up on its own merits as a solid game. You don't need to have seen the movies to enjoy it. The gameplay is fun, the graphics are pretty, Vin Diesel still voices Riddick. Easily my favorite movie-tie-in game. Quite possibly the only one I really like, actually.

In fact, it's the game that sold me to watch "Pitch Black", and not the reverse. And I discovered the movie "Chronicles of Riddick (The)" only after having played the game.

Interestingly enough, IIRC, the game was produced by a company owned (or controlled ?) by Vin Diesel, and the man himself apparently love videogames.

The 1989 Amiga / Atari ST Batman game was pretty good (by the standards of the time). The NES version was fairly horrible though.

Xmen Origins: Wolverine. It was a GoW knockoff, but fun as hell.

Okay then, replies:

Never heard of Path of Neo, but I'll look it up. GoldenEye...can't believe I forgot about that one. Great game, too bad they ruined it with two remakes. Wolverine I've heard is good, but haven't played it...same with Captain America. Riddick I have played, though I have never beaten it.

And I remember the games I missed earlier: Lord of the Rings, Two Towers and Return of the King. For mindless hack and slash games they were pretty fun.

Path of Neo was a bug filled resource devouring monster that crashed all the time, but even on a PC, with gimpy keyboards-aren't-designed-for-analogue-brawlers controls, it was surprising fun to play. There were a lot of combat options that opened up as you got more familiar with the controls and fun set piece battles that stood out from each other.

It also had it's fair share of absolutely infuriating missions. It was definitely a rough game.

The big problem with a lot of movie based games is that they try to be the movie. The pacing for a 2 hour movie does not translate well into a 30 hour game. Of course the reality is plenty of movie games are not really designed to be games as much as marketing gimmicks. So plenty of them are designed to literally be disposable.

The better movie games tend to be more inspired by the movie rather than trying to follow its pace and scenes directly. Games like The Warriors, and Chronicles of Riddick are examples which were clearly made by a well managed dev team that was allowed to work on the games like video games.

Yeah, that's what I felt about Spider-Man 2 (to use one from my list). It doesn't follow the movie too closely, and it benefits from that. Though it is still a short game. And the HP games (Goblet aside) tend to diverge from both the movie and books, and it keeps them more interesting.

Movie-Game Tie-ins are almost always screwed by release dates that need to closely coincide with the movie. And it really tells when they're counting on the license to sell a game. I don't think Lego Star Wars really counts as a Tie-in game. Something like the shit-fest of Episode 1 on PC or Episode 3 (which was actually a solid game) on Xbox. These games were released "as part" of the movies.

I couldn't fucking stand Path of Neo. Hilariously bad animations and dialog and horridly broken controls couldn't get me past 2 hours into it. I heard the PC version was lightyears ahead of the XBox version (which is what I borrowed from a friend).

Wolverine was actually not that bad. I enjoyed my normal run-through, then lost a controller on Hard Mode due to bullshit game mechanics. Fucking quicktime events...... Of other current generation games..... I heard the Bourne series of games were good.

Going way back, Aladdin and Lion King were pretty damn solid and fun sidescrollers. Super Return of the Jedi was great as well (I think it was released around the time of the Special Edition Tapes, so it may or may not count). Jurassic Park for Genesis (the sidescroller) was great, whereas I found the SNES version lacking (way too fucking long with no save option). Batman (1989) spawned a fun but Nintendohard game.

Path of Neo is a game where you use a US flag to fight off an army of Smiths in the Senate and cap the game off by fighting a giant mega-Smith made out of debris complete with sunglasses from a billboard. It is clearly the greatest movie tie-in ever made.

You also get a cheerful montage at the end set to We Are the Champions if you win. The wachowskis know how to have a little fun with their own thing.

They have a break-away somewhere during the climax where they say "Hey, the ending is going to be a little different. The movie ends with neo dying because [20 seconds hyperspeech talking about cyberjesus]. But for a video game, that *sucks*. So here's a fight with a 30 story tall megasmith!"

Don't forget, the megasmith is a bunch of debris *and* thousands of smithclones.

.... ....

THAT SOUNDS AWESOME!!

Of course, that is assuming the game was actually good up to that point. Which from what I've read in here it isn't.

Losonti Tokash wrote:Path of Neo is a game where you use a US flag to fight off an army of Smiths in the Senate and cap the game off by fighting a giant mega-Smith made out of debris complete with sunglasses from a billboard. It is clearly the greatest movie tie-in ever made.

Excuse me Sir, but aren't you forgetting THE ANTS?

Oh yeah, and the 8bit Wachowski brothers who appear to discuss why they made continuity changes.

And the fact that instead of a terrible ending scene like in the movies, you get We Are The Champions by Queen rocking out?

That game was fucking brilliant stuff. Technically horrible, but so much fun.

Skywalker_T-65 wrote:.... ....

THAT SOUNDS AWESOME!!

Of course, that is assuming the game was actually good up to that point. Which from what I've read in here it isn't.

It's flawed. But if you have access to a copy and free time, there's no reason not to give it a try. The game can be a lot of fun, and if you're a fan of the Matrix films there's a lot of really nice little aesthetic touches. For example, the early portions of the game have fight animations and choreography straight out of the first film, but as the game goes on into the 2nd and 3rd film territories, it changes and mutates into those films' much more refined and artsy movements.

It's a surprisingly competent beat em up, with some upgrade paths and generally fun. It's on of the few original box games I keep out with my other games to play through every so often, along with Breakdown. Like Joviwan says, though, it's flawed in a lot of ways but charming. Except for the bipedal ant creatures that can only be killed with fire. Don't know what the fuck happened there.

Losonti Tokash wrote:It's a surprisingly competent beat em up, with some upgrade paths and generally fun. It's on of the few original box games I keep out with my other games to play through every so often, along with Breakdown. Like Joviwan says, though, it's flawed in a lot of ways but charming. Except for the bipedal ant creatures that can only be killed with fire. Don't know what the fuck happened there.

Acid. It's called acid.