Movie Games

Is it really even necessary to put "The Game" at the end of something that is sold within the games section of a Best Buy, with a big ol' honking "Xbox 360" or "PS3 banner on the cover? Probably not, and the three people who may actually be confused by such a problem and buy the game thinking its their lucky day and they found Avatar on DVD early deserve all the hassle that will ensue. How long did the marketing department work to make the title of these movie games? Did they label it "The Game" for production purposes to separate it from the movie and then forget to change it back? 
 

By the way, this movie was as awful as this game will be.


It can be argued that all movie games suck dong. It's almost a bulletproof theory, but as with everything there are exceptions. Spider-Man 2 was pretty great, and is probably the reason we're still subject to all the multiple unnecessary additions to the series that don't build on the series at all (other than Ultimate Spider-Man, which I think is probably the best iteration of Spider-Man games). Its fine that movie games suck. I get that it must make some sort of money for whoever makes the games, since they're repeatedly being churned out. Why not make some money off your brand that you're marketing already anyways? How many millions of dollars did Beowulf spend on letting that dude scream "I AM BEOWULF" on my TV? If plastering the words "Beowulf" onto a blu-ray disc with a truly terrible God of War-esque remake will off-set a little of the costs, go nuts. I saw people pay full price for that game-soon-to-be-coaster. Some people came to the EB Games I worked at every week, buying two games a week no matter how awful they were. I'm sure Beowulf made enough money to maybe even turn a profit. But seriously, at least give me something different. 
 
 Also, you fight crabs. Vicious, vicious crab.


 For example, Wanted: Weapons of Fate is the only movie game to ever try and take a step forward, in the sense that it didn't just create a lame recreation of the movie. It was a sequel/prequel, and expanded on the story. It used that one thing that movie had, the bullet bending, and made a decent game concept of it. Sure, it wasn't a great game, and it was trying way too hard to be, I don't know how to explain it exactly, maybe cool? Hardcore? Extreme without the E? But at least they had the right idea? I don't want to watch the movie, and then play a very poor version of the movie, whilst fighting some extra dudes that weren't in the movie. I want to know what happens after the movie. Or before. That's all. 
 


Wanted also had the good sense to know it's limits. No multiplayer normally sounds like a ripoff, but seriously, who is playing Avatar online? Even Aliens vs Predator had a pretty terrible online feature, where it fell off the Plays list on Giant Bomb within a we ek of its release. No one plays movie games online. If people have money for buying Clash of the Titans on PS3, they certainly had money to buy Modern Warfare 2 or Bad Company 2. Making a half-hearted multiplayer is just a sign that they could have spent some more time on improving what I assume was already a terrible singleplayer, but instead had some crazy idea that they were going to add any amount of replayability to their awful game. This doesn't mean they can't add co-op. Adding co-op seems like a pretty good idea for any game, as it gives more of a reason for someone to convince their friends to buy the game as well. I would have never played Saints Row 2 if it weren't for its co-op function, and eventually I got two friends to buy the game. Of course, Saints Row 2 is pretty awesome, and Wanted was no where near as such. But it would add some replayability to the game and I normally have more fun playing the co-op features of a game than I do in any other mode. 
 
But I digress. In my opinion, movie games would be best served as a prequel to the movie and, in a perfect world, be released some time before the movie. This way, you take advantage of any hype the movie might have generated and attract cust omers who hope to get an early glimpse of the movie in some shape or form. Of course, I'm sure a lot of movie people would not want a video game to take away from the film in any way even if it didn't touch on the main plot, which is why most movie games get released afterwards. If this fact is known by the developers, make a game set just after the events of the movie. At least this way I might actually take something from the game. Or do what Bioware did and set it thousands of years before the original story and make Knights of the Old Republic, a game who's story is far superior to any Star Wars media. Yeah, I said it.

Start the Conversation
1 Comments
Posted by Spiral_Stars

Is it really even necessary to put "The Game" at the end of something that is sold within the games section of a Best Buy, with a big ol' honking "Xbox 360" or "PS3 banner on the cover? Probably not, and the three people who may actually be confused by such a problem and buy the game thinking its their lucky day and they found Avatar on DVD early deserve all the hassle that will ensue. How long did the marketing department work to make the title of these movie games? Did they label it "The Game" for production purposes to separate it from the movie and then forget to change it back? 
 

By the way, this movie was as awful as this game will be.


It can be argued that all movie games suck dong. It's almost a bulletproof theory, but as with everything there are exceptions. Spider-Man 2 was pretty great, and is probably the reason we're still subject to all the multiple unnecessary additions to the series that don't build on the series at all (other than Ultimate Spider-Man, which I think is probably the best iteration of Spider-Man games). Its fine that movie games suck. I get that it must make some sort of money for whoever makes the games, since they're repeatedly being churned out. Why not make some money off your brand that you're marketing already anyways? How many millions of dollars did Beowulf spend on letting that dude scream "I AM BEOWULF" on my TV? If plastering the words "Beowulf" onto a blu-ray disc with a truly terrible God of War-esque remake will off-set a little of the costs, go nuts. I saw people pay full price for that game-soon-to-be-coaster. Some people came to the EB Games I worked at every week, buying two games a week no matter how awful they were. I'm sure Beowulf made enough money to maybe even turn a profit. But seriously, at least give me something different. 
 
 Also, you fight crabs. Vicious, vicious crab.


 For example, Wanted: Weapons of Fate is the only movie game to ever try and take a step forward, in the sense that it didn't just create a lame recreation of the movie. It was a sequel/prequel, and expanded on the story. It used that one thing that movie had, the bullet bending, and made a decent game concept of it. Sure, it wasn't a great game, and it was trying way too hard to be, I don't know how to explain it exactly, maybe cool? Hardcore? Extreme without the E? But at least they had the right idea? I don't want to watch the movie, and then play a very poor version of the movie, whilst fighting some extra dudes that weren't in the movie. I want to know what happens after the movie. Or before. That's all. 
 


Wanted also had the good sense to know it's limits. No multiplayer normally sounds like a ripoff, but seriously, who is playing Avatar online? Even Aliens vs Predator had a pretty terrible online feature, where it fell off the Plays list on Giant Bomb within a we ek of its release. No one plays movie games online. If people have money for buying Clash of the Titans on PS3, they certainly had money to buy Modern Warfare 2 or Bad Company 2. Making a half-hearted multiplayer is just a sign that they could have spent some more time on improving what I assume was already a terrible singleplayer, but instead had some crazy idea that they were going to add any amount of replayability to their awful game. This doesn't mean they can't add co-op. Adding co-op seems like a pretty good idea for any game, as it gives more of a reason for someone to convince their friends to buy the game as well. I would have never played Saints Row 2 if it weren't for its co-op function, and eventually I got two friends to buy the game. Of course, Saints Row 2 is pretty awesome, and Wanted was no where near as such. But it would add some replayability to the game and I normally have more fun playing the co-op features of a game than I do in any other mode. 
 
But I digress. In my opinion, movie games would be best served as a prequel to the movie and, in a perfect world, be released some time before the movie. This way, you take advantage of any hype the movie might have generated and attract cust omers who hope to get an early glimpse of the movie in some shape or form. Of course, I'm sure a lot of movie people would not want a video game to take away from the film in any way even if it didn't touch on the main plot, which is why most movie games get released afterwards. If this fact is known by the developers, make a game set just after the events of the movie. At least this way I might actually take something from the game. Or do what Bioware did and set it thousands of years before the original story and make Knights of the Old Republic, a game who's story is far superior to any Star Wars media. Yeah, I said it.