GOOD FILM, BAD GAME

Why do good films make such bad games, and vice-versa? Tom Standage, business editor of The Economist, considers this strange paradox ...

From INTELLIGENT LIFE Magazine, Spring 2009

“The Chronicles of Riddick”, a dodgy sci-fi flick from 2004 starring Vin Diesel, was not a high point in film history. But it is held in high esteem by video-gamers. Its spin-off game, one of the best on the old Xbox, made pioneering use of whizzy graphical tricks, such as simulated depth of field. It had a strong plot and voice acting, and a cinematic quality far ahead of its time. It was re-released in March, updated for the latest consoles, as a bonus with a fervently awaited new “Riddick” game, “Assault on Dark Athena”.

Most spin-off games, alas, are dire, but they sell anyway, often to parents of young children, who assume that if Little Johnny liked the film, he’ll like the game, too. This is a trap set for the non-gaming adult. Pay no attention to the recognisable characters and reassuring packaging: the chances are that a dud game lurks inside.

Why? Spin-off games are often rushed, to be ready in time for the film release. They are often produced by a separate company that is simply given a script and a load of artwork and told to make a game, pronto—hardly a recipe for quality.

The best games draw you in with a blend of satisfying gameplay, carefully calibrated difficulty, an attractive game world and a compelling plot. Movie tie-ins are absolved from these requirements. They are often made by taking an existing game and re-skinning it with details from a film, forcing them into a particular genre and stifling innovation. So you find yourself fighting off endless streams of baddies, and collecting glowing rings or orbs, whether or not these things figured in the film. Judging by its tie-in game, Narnia is overrun by an infinite supply of wolves that must be beaten to death with sticks.

The film’s plot provides the game’s structure, and you are expected to plod your way through it, no matter how dull or confusing its presentation. In “Harry Potter”, Hogwarts is a school filled with wonders; play the latest video game and it becomes a prison, filled with menial tasks.

Spin-off games get away with being so bad by exploiting the buzz around a film. The “Riddick” game, by contrast, had to overcome anti-buzz. It did so with new twists in both gameplay and graphics, transcending its film rather than being hemmed in by it. The same is true of the “Lego Star Wars” games and other titles in which franchises (“Indiana Jones”, “Batman”) are re-enacted in plastic bricks. The Lego games add playful humour and gentle but satisfying puzzle-solving to a film’s existing world. Tellingly, they are not direct spin-offs and are not tied to particular films, but are based on franchises with enduring popularity. And just as films usually make bad games, games invariably make bad films. What works in one medium rarely works in the other.

Illustration: Richard Rockwood

(Tom Standage is the gaming columnist for Intelligent Life and business editor for The Economist. His last column was on addictive games.)

Article tools

Comments

Golden Eye on the Nintendo 64

May 6, 2009 - 04:03 — Stewart Robinson (not verified)

Of course one example of a truly great movie spin off is Golden Eye, specifically on the Nintendo 64. The developer, Rare, won a BAFTA for "Best UK Developer". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoldenEye_007

But in general I agree. Movie games and game movies are terrible.

Title

May 10, 2009 - 21:10 — Visitor (not verified)

You haven't answered the question really.

One main reasons is that

May 12, 2009 - 03:26 — wootalot (not verified)

One main reasons is that they have absolutly no incentive to create an outstanding game, just put the minimum resources and the game will still sell as a result of the associated movie. They will probably get higher profit margins from tie in games such as these...mind you, EA has been doing this for a while and is one of the few game companies struggling at the moment...so maybe we'll see less of these games in the future.

Films and computer games

May 30, 2009 - 08:08 — Jan (not verified)

There were som odd excpetions in the late 80's and early 90's, when computer games were much more unsofisticated than today and focus was more on the story line than the graphics, and the transition from film to computer was no bad thing. But as things are today I fully agree you.

Not Always

June 17, 2009 - 12:55 — Mark (not verified)

When you listen to better game developers, they speak about their franchise and they talk in terms of extending it with every release, be it game versions or films. One of the better video games/films is the James Bond Series where both games and films are of a consistent quality (the games are produced by EA). Perhaps it is this view of the film as an extendible franchise that ensures some level of consistencY.

True, but some exceptions

June 29, 2009 - 10:58 — John (not verified)

I have played several games that were based on films that did not disappoint. Lego Star Wars was based on the newer episodes and the games stayed true to the story and had some decent arcade action. Two thumbs up!

Reason

July 10, 2009 - 07:49 — Sökoptimering (not verified)

Why do good films make such bad games, and vice-versa? Its very likley they want to make the most money out of it instead of making quality wich will sell well in its own name.

it's easy

August 16, 2009 - 19:47 — Mia (not verified)

As my boyfriend used to work at a video game company which specializes in making games from movie IP, it's actually quite simple. They're rushed, theres little to no quality control, instead relying on the strength of the original IP to sell, and their budgets aren't exactly high. Nothing about the process screams "quality". It's all about getting something which resembles a game out, on time, and making quick money.

Moreintelligentlife.com is the website of Intelligent Life magazine. Articles about Arts, Lifestyle, Travels, and Ideas