Every now and then, we need somebody to tell us something we already knew, and that somebody right now is Bob Jacob, Cinemaware co-founder. Jacob blames the business model of a licensed game, wherein it has to be rushed to coincide with the release of the film. Well, duh.
"As far as games and movies, there are inherent problems. The basic reason why so many bad games have been made on film licenses is simply because of a business reality that no one has been able to overcome yet," explains Jacob. "That reality is that the time it takes a film to [hit theaters after being green-lit] is never more than a year. What kind of a game can you do in a year? Generally a piece of crap.
"EA can get around that a little bit by throwing a few hundred guys at a project. But for the most part, it's been a pretty sorry history, and until we can solve the basic timing issues it's going to be tough."
Jacob is obviously correct when he says that you can't expect many games to be of AAA quality with less than a year of development. However, when I look at slapdash garbage like Avatar: The Game, there really is no excuse. Even in a year, you can at least borrow game engines and mechanics to create a serviceable, if generic, title. The quality of licensed games should be better with the wealth of resources available. However, there is one major problem that Jacob didn't hit upon that I feel will never be overcome.
The fact that developers don't give a sh*t.
Interview: Bob Jacob On The Cinemaware Era [Gamasutra via CVG]
Contest:
4:00 AM on 01.07.2010
| 
Why would you even..?
There was a time when the fix of achievement points was so bad that I could not see straight. But I am taking it one day at a time.
Now if it were the other way around, that would be sad.
movie based on a video game = uber FAIL
like seriously name one movie based on a video game that is actually better then the game or as good as the game itself recently?
Max Payne was...ugh don't get me started on that shit.
Even though that's the only example I can think of though. Ever.
That's because the Wolverine movie was TERRIBLE.
Dead or Alive
@ Mr Bones
Oh god. you've brought back visions of Max Payne....
Usually the problem is when someone has a great idea to make the game better, the answer is "we don't have time for that," and believe it or not, I've seen people work really damn hard and crazy hours to get something out the door that a hardcore gamer would scoff at...but they're not the target audience. The target audience are those who are excited about or have just seen said movie and wants more of it, so We care the most about first impressions and making "little Johnny" happy.
Throw on top of that you have Hollywood types pulling rank saying "so and so wouldn't be doing that" rather than care if the game is actually FUN. You already get this with producers, but it's even doubly so on such titles.
So yeah, it's not that devs don't care, it's that publishers above all want a decent game out that's playable ("decent" being playable and first impression pretty) much more than a game that would sell less than half the copies when a game comes out after the movie is out in theatres.
For example, if anybody treated me like Hollywood treated the Super Mario Bros. movie, I'd probably be in jail for murder.
Agreed! I think one of the other issues is that developers don't have access to the resources they need. If you're making a movie game then there's a good chance that story is going to be super important, and at the core of good stories are the characters. If you're making Uncharted you can hire actors like Nolan North or Emily Rose who are really able to commit to the process and work hard on developing the character. If you're working on something like say, Pirates of the Caribbean (and I didn't, that's just an example), you'll be lucky if you can get Johnny Depp in the recording studio for a couple of hours, yet he's so integral to the license that the publisher or license holder will demand that you use Depp and not some sound-a-like who has the time to do a proper job.
Now say because of some milestone, or some press event at E3, or whatever else, you have to get a vertical slice polished early, so you need the dialogue recorded early. Depp comes in, does an hour or in the recording studio, and is satisfied that he's fulfilled his contract. A few weeks later you're focus testing and you realize that one of your levels isn't going to be as fun as you first thought because players aren't getting some puzzle or gameplay mechanic. You can fix it but it needs some ambient dialogue or a story rewrite to explain things in a clearer way to the player. Well then you're screwed cause Depp's done his lines and he's not doing any more. The developer is in this crappy situation where on any other game they'd just get the actor to do a few lines and it'd be sorted, but instead they have to look at cutting the confusing features, do big redesigns, or consider leaving the confusing gameplay in and hope no-one notices. On a short development cycle, producers hate cutting content so the level stays in, confuses players, and bad review scores ensue.
Also I think another overlooked point is that the developer won't push innovation because the license itself is seen as the unique selling point.
They are just excuses. In fact, it IS easy.
1. Licence a graphics engine (cuts off 80% of the development time right there). Cryengine, MW2 engine, Farcry2 engine, Source, Unreal Engine (who needs anti-aliasing lol), fallout3 engine etc etc. There's tons.
2. Make textures, models and levels.
3. Profit (because they would have time to make gameplay, rather than foliage-physics.
Hundreds of thousands of independent UNPAID modders manage to create total conversions of hundreds of different games every year, why wouldnt a proffessional games development studio be able to?
Oh wait, because they are incompetent :)
King Kong = Surprisingly good game, and better than the movie (I think).
WALL-E = haven't gotten yet, but the PS2 did WAY better than the PS3/360 version, so that's the one I'll be getting.
The Thing = haven't finished yet, but really creepy and a good game overall.
The Warriors (PS2/Xbox) = enough said. Why hasn't Rockstar at least made a spiritual sequel? Sega should go to them for a Streets of Rage remake.
Unfortunately, neither medium is understood by the other side of the fence. It would take someone with an eye for both to bridge the gap sufficiently.
LOL Dead or Alive.. oh god..
@GiftofGab
I'm sorry... I really am... I feel your pain buddy... hold me... *opens arms for a warming hug* we can grief together....in a non homo way...
I know it might seem that simple, but I think you'd be surprised at how little the engine has to do with the quality of gameplay. Why do you think the shooting and cover combat in Mass Effect sucks compared to to the shooting and cover combat in Gears of War? They both use Unreal Engine 3 and it's not like Bioware is an incompetent developer.
Often it's the art assets themselves that dictate how a game feels to play. Animations dictate how the character feels to move. Feedback like muzzle flash, blood splatter, recoil animations, screen shake, pad vibration, enemy death animations, are all what makes shooting feel good or bad. Level design will dictate how fun, challenging, well paced and easily understood the game is. You don't get any of that stuff when you license an engine, it all has to be built from scratch. It strikes me as very naive when the press or gamers will say something like, "it's using the Call of Duty engine, so chances are it'll be good". The engine is only a small part of what makes Call of Duty good, the rest is an equal mix of technology, design and art.
I'd also dispute your point on modders. There are 6177 mods listed on moddb at the minute. Now ask yourself honestly how many mods were released in the last year that were as good as a retail game? Ask yourself how many of those 6177 mods will even release something before their teams fold in on themselves? In my experience there are only a handful of mods that ever reach anything close to a professional level. It's not their fault; what modders are capable of is amazing considering their lack of resources. They're going up against projects with huge teams (there were 350 people on Assassins Creed 2), and each team member is doing 8-10 hours a day for two or three years. It's a wonder that any mods ever get close.