StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Earlier today after I got back from school and I saw a comercial for that Spiderman 3 game for the PS3. Then I thought "well that game is going to suck". I thought that mostly because it was for the PS3 then I thought "don't all movie licensed games suck. Think about it when was the last time good movie licensed game came out? So why do companies make them. I'm not talking about the games based on the animated movies. (Those are obviously for the kids) Just movie licensed games based on any movie or even a show. A while back a "300" hundred game was released, it sucked by the way. (Somewhere on earth Frank Miller weaps) It seems to be a cheap way to cash in on the movie. What do you guys think?

No. All of them end up being pathetic cash-ins aiming for little more than some extra pocket money for the sake of the producers.

Chronicles of Riddick was nice, but it concentrated on the character and was unbound by the movie. I also found the 2003 Pirates of the Carribean game fun, but it was built on the engine of an already planned game called Sea Dogs 2. It was related to Disney's POTC in name only.

Your question is ridiculously black-and-white. Some of the greatest games I know were licensed - Rogue Squadron, GoldenEye. Others were the epitome of bad quality - ET anyone?

Licensed games can be quite fun, even the latest Spiderman games got fairly positive reviews. You just need a good dev team.

I'll admit that a question was vague I mostly referring to recent games. (and yet somehow I was expecting you guys to know that) My bad.

Bounty you're right about Golden Eye (one of the games ever) how could I have forgotten about that one.

Oh fuck, I DID forget about good Star Wars games! Fuck. Jedi Knight, Rouge Squadron, X-Wing Alliance, TIE Fighter! I've failed you! T_T

C:/ProgramFiles/Selfownage/Palmface.exe

I have Spiderman 3 for PC and quite frankly, though it has some annoying bugs and problems, it is a very enjoyable game. Think GTA3 Spidey-style.

The reason I probably like this game so much is that I generally like Spiderman. Read the comics, saw all the new movies (and some of the old) and liked them very much.

As for the bugs...yeah, they are there and the 6,3 that Gamespot gave it is pretty well justified. Still, I enjoy this game very much.

There's generally three types of "Movie to Game" adaptations from what I've seen:

1. Game follows movie plot as close as possible, possibly adding in other levels to make the game longer. Examples include EPIII for XBox, EPI for PC. The former being a decent game (not great, but fun) and the later being pretty much crap.

2. Game is set during the storyline of the movie, but has little else in common. An example would be "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," "Friday the 13th," and "Jaws" for NES. All three were pretty shitty except for possibly WFRR, only because of the comedy value (which may be nostalgia on my part). These types of games seem to be less commonplace in later years. This is probably due to better graphics and memory-storage technology.

3. Games with different characters set in the same universe. These types of games allow the most leeway during storyline creation. You get gems like Jedi Knight, Tie Fighter, etc. Granted, it's hard to classify SW as the license expands so far into gaming.

For the most part: I don't enjoy the #1 games, EPIII being the exception. #2 ranking are generally written by crack-addicts (please try and explain ET for Atari). The #3 styles generally have better quality.

Personally, it's all about the implementation. If you've got the right dev team, they can make the most retarded idea enjoyable in gaming format.

TheFeniX wrote:There's generally three types of "Movie to Game" adaptations from what I've seen:

1. Game follows movie plot as close as possible, possibly adding in other levels to make the game longer. Examples include EPIII for XBox, EPI for PC. The former being a decent game (not great, but fun) and the later being pretty much crap.

2. Game is set during the storyline of the movie, but has little else in common. An example would be "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," "Friday the 13th," and "Jaws" for NES. All three were pretty shitty except for possibly WFRR, only because of the comedy value (which may be nostalgia on my part). These types of games seem to be less commonplace in later years. This is probably due to better graphics and memory-storage technology.

3. Games with different characters set in the same universe. These types of games allow the most leeway during storyline creation. You get gems like Jedi Knight, Tie Fighter, etc. Granted, it's hard to classify SW as the license expands so far into gaming.

For the most part: I don't enjoy the #1 games, EPIII being the exception. #2 ranking are generally written by crack-addicts (please try and explain ET for Atari). The #3 styles generally have better quality.

Personally, it's all about the implementation. If you've got the right dev team, they can make the most retarded idea enjoyable in gaming format.

For what you said about number 3 those types of games sound more like spin offs of the movie. Can you honestly call those movie to game adaptations without using the word technically?

Elite Pwnage wrote:So why do companies make them.

To put it simply: Because they get paid for it. There is actually a good chance that people that liked a movie (action movies mostly, you'll notice they don't make games out of all kinds of movies) will also buy the game, as long as it looks reasonably good and doesn't suck too much (like ET did), and so it is an easy source of money. The film companies also make money on the games, so they're definitely also a factor, and not just the game developers.

As to why many of them suck, it comes down to design mentalities and development time and budget (as with all games, really). If you design a game that you want many people to buy, you're likely to get some uninspired, though polished, crap. If you design a game that will be fundamentally fun to play, you're more likely to get GoldenEye (and as a result, many people will buy it). Film-based games will also have a more constrained time table, because they usually have to be released close to release date of the film. GoldenEye was different in this respect, as it was released years after the film and had no such deadlines.

i enjoy them;
SW franchise and Blade Runner are enought to make me choose this path.

Elite Pwnage wrote:For what you said about number 3 those types of games sound more like spin offs of the movie. Can you honestly call those movie to game adaptations without using the word technically?

I was attempting to keep in mind this post:

CaptHawkeye wrote:Oh fuck, I DID forget about good Star Wars games! Fuck. Jedi Knight, Rouge Squadron, X-Wing Alliance, TIE Fighter! I've failed you! T_T

C:/ProgramFiles/Selfownage/Palmface.exe

I really don't consider them in the "Game to movie adaptation" area. But I wanted to cover as much as possible. Then again, you have games like the action/adventure Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for NES that was riding the wave of the movie, while having nothing in common story wise. Also included are games like "Nightmare on Elm street" or "The Goonies II."

I guess it comes down to (for me at least) if the producer is trying to use the success of the movie in order to sell their game, no matter how little in common it had with the movie itself.

I would consider "Wolverine" a game to movie adaptation just based on how they were riding the Wolververine hype wagon after the success of the movies. But I wouldn't consider Marvel Ultimate Alliance in the same boat due to the initial success of X-Men legends I and II (which would fit into category #3), considering it's the same engine and everything.

I hope some of that makes sense, because it looks confusing as Hell even from my end.

Dooey Jo wrote:To put it simply: Because they get paid for it. There is actually a good chance that people that liked a movie (action movies mostly, you'll notice they don't make games out of all kinds of movies) will also buy the game, as long as it looks reasonably good and doesn't suck too much (like ET did), and so it is an easy source of money.

To expand on that a little, publishers select projects based on maximising expected return. Movie licenses almost invaribly sell plenty of copies, particularly to the people who never read reviews and gaming magazines (simple name recognition works just great for non-gamers buying gifts for children or friends, for example). As well as reducing the risk of poor sales, this means that less money can be spent on development, which is to some extent necessary to make up for the fact that licenses are expensive.

Dooey Jo wrote:Film-based games will also have a more constrained time table, because they usually have to be released close to release date of the film.

I used to be in the industry, and though I never worked on any licensed games I went to the trade events and had various friends who did (still keep in touch with some of them). From what I've heard, insane timescales are the single biggest reason why movie adaptations suck, followed closely by bullshit and constantly changing requirements from the IP owner about what you can and cannot do with their characters and setting. Which sounds completely plausible to me.

P.S. Number of the beast postcount! And now it's gone. Oh well.

As TheFeniX pointed out, SW games aren't the way to measure these, because most of them aren't adaptations in the strict sense of the word. They're spin-offs, they're elements of SW EU, and as the Dark Forces series and KOTOR showed, they can easily shine both as games and as elements of the franchise.

SW games that are actually adapations (EPI, EPIII) range from mediocre to suck... just like general adaptations.

Any SW game has two factors of "goodness": how good they are as games and how good they are as Star Wars. KOTOR and the Dark Forces series did well as both, as did the fighter games. The Battlefront series and Galaxies were good Star Wars, but mediocre games. And things like Galactic Battlegrounds failed on both counts, and thus flopped.

If you exclude the Star Wars EU games, the average quality of movie-based games drops dramatically. And why does there have to be a game for every movie, even those that don't easily lend themselves to it?

General_Soontir_Fel wrote:Any SW game has two factors of "goodness": how good they are as games and how good they are as Star Wars. KOTOR and the Dark Forces series did well as both, as did the fighter games. The Battlefront series and Galaxies were good Star Wars, but mediocre games. And things like Galactic Battlegrounds failed on both counts, and thus flopped.

So what was your opinion of 'Empire at War'?

If you exclude the Star Wars EU games, the average quality of movie-based games drops dramatically. And why does there have to be a game for every movie, even those that don't easily lend themselves to it?

In corporatespeak, the answer is simple; many millions of dollars have been invested in building the multimedia brand of Shrek or whatever. To maximise the return on investment the brand should be used to drive as many product sales as possible, right up to the point of dimminishing returns where customers might suffer brand fatigue and be put off by bad products. For most brands this is pretty far and for transitory brands like the average movie the general rule is 'tie in as much overpriced crap as you can while the name is hot' (only in corporatespeak it's more 'capture the whole value spectrum' or something similar).

On an individual level, the question is not 'why do companies make this crap', it's 'why do people buy it' (as is often the case).

I guessed I should have looked into a lot more before posting about it. I completely forgot that Golden Eye and Chronicles of Riddick were good games.
But anyway do any of you plan on getting the Pirates 3 game?

Movie games are made for branding/marketing reasons. If one is good, it's just a coincidence. As Starglider says, it works because people will buy any old shit with TMNT or Transformers written on it, simply based on the brand.

I do not count KotoR or TIE Fighter as 'movie games'. They're licenced, but they're not based on any movie, and are often made decades after the source movies. 'Movie games', the ones of famously poor quality, are those released on or about the release of the game in question, like the Jimmy Neutron game, the Cars game, the Shrek game, etc. Even things like the Godfather game or Scarface aren't as hopelessly poor and rushed as games released when the movie is still fresh.

Starglider wrote:So what was your opinion of 'Empire at War'?

I'll have one after I play it. But it doesn't belong in this discussion either, right? It's not an "adapatation", is it? It's (loosely) based on the universe, and that's it.

I want a sometimes option.

Spider-Man 2 is probably the best movie-based game I've played, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Everything I've heard is that Spider-Man 3 utterly sucked compared to the second one though.

And SW games, of course.

Praxis wrote:Everything I've heard is that Spider-Man 3 utterly sucked compared to the second one though.

The Spider-Man 3 movie utterly sucked compared to the second one, so that's not a surprise.

General_Soontir_Fel wrote:I'll have one after I play it.

Ha! Branding in action. You will play it... because it's Star Wars. Thus it doesn't have to be good (and it sure ISN'T good) because it has a built-in market.

Spider-Man 3 sucks.

Which is a shame because Spider-Man 2 was awesome.

I hear they changed the controls from SM2 to SM3 somehow, which makes SM3 a buttonmasher?

Stark wrote:I hear they changed the controls from SM2 to SM3 somehow, which makes SM3 a buttonmasher?

Wouldn't be surprising. Falls in with the *dumbing down* trend in gaming as of late. I'm looking at you Deus Ex and Elder Scrolls.

Praxis wrote:I want a sometimes option.

Spider-Man 2 is probably the best movie-based game I've played, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Everything I've heard is that Spider-Man 3 utterly sucked compared to the second one though.

And SW games, of course.

Well SM2 was really fourth in a series of Spider-Man games that got their start on the original Playstation (the first two were based on the comics, not the movies) and thus only really had to tweak an established formula, rather than having to come up with a style of play that would fit the license in the short time that developers typically have to crank out that sort of game.

Then again, so was Street Fighter: The Movie: The Game, and we all know how that turned out.

General_Soontir_Fel wrote:It's not an "adapatation", is it? It's (loosely) based on the universe, and that's it.

Closer than you might think. The two campaigns feature all the plot and some of the scences and dialog from ANH. They're at least as much of an adaptation as the 'Rogue Squadron' games. 'Forces of Corruption' (the EoW expansion) OTOH is the absolute worst kind of third rate EU-worshipping 'original' (and I use the term in the technical sense only) bullshit.