Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Muz]

Games based on movies are purely made for money. Nobody ever bothers making a good one, because the smart players won't even touch it, and the movie fanatics will love it no matter how bad it is.

[Neruz]

Games based on movies are purely made for money. Nobody ever bothers making a good one, because the smart players won't even touch it, and the movie fanatics will love it no matter how bad it is.

Completely and totally wrong.


Games based on movies suffer from several crippling issues;

Firstly, games are interactive, movies are not. A storyline that works well for a movie does not work well in a game, and visa versa (this is also why vidjeogame movies suck).
Secondly, games based on movies have laughably short production times. Movies are often getting major art changes in the last few months of production, and often the producer becomes a major obsticle in production as he usually is not involved in the game studio. The result is that often the people designing the game don't actually know what the movie is going to be until as little as 4 months before the movie comes out.
Thirdly, the game has to come out soon after the movie, this combined with the previous mention of just how late it is that the devs get any info about the movie means that the meaningful production time can be less than a year. A year is not enough time to make a top notch triple A game. It just isn't.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, games based on movies suck, everyone knows this, so generally the producers push on the dev team not to develop a good game, but to develop a game that will make money.


The end result is a dev team that has no incentive to produce a good game, not enough time or resources to produce a good game, and is working from source material that won't really work to produce a good game anyway.

[Sergius]

You knew how frigging long it was before watching it!!!  So stop bitching!

If you didn't know... Check that before going to a movie.

Hey did I mention how long this movie was?

[ChairmanPoo]

Games based on movies are purely made for money. Nobody ever bothers making a good one, because the smart players won't even touch it, and the movie fanatics will love it no matter how bad it is.

Completely and totally wrong.


Games based on movies suffer from several crippling issues;

Firstly, games are interactive, movies are not. A storyline that works well for a movie does not work well in a game, and visa versa (this is also why vidjeogame movies suck).
Secondly, games based on movies have laughably short production times. Movies are often getting major art changes in the last few months of production, and often the producer becomes a major obsticle in production as he usually is not involved in the game studio. The result is that often the people designing the game don't actually know what the movie is going to be until as little as 4 months before the movie comes out.
Thirdly, the game has to come out soon after the movie, this combined with the previous mention of just how late it is that the devs get any info about the movie means that the meaningful production time can be less than a year. A year is not enough time to make a top notch triple A game. It just isn't.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, games based on movies suck, everyone knows this, so generally the producers push on the dev team not to develop a good game, but to develop a game that will make money.


The end result is a dev team that has no incentive to produce a good game, not enough time or resources to produce a good game, and is working from source material that won't really work to produce a good game anyway.

How is what he said wrong when you pretty much said the same thing, only with more words?

[Jackrabbit]

Well, it's not that they don't bother, it's that extreme restrictions in terms of time and fun mean they have no real way of making them good unless they are extremely good at their job.

[Neruz]

Games based on movies are purely made for money. Nobody ever bothers making a good one, because the smart players won't even touch it, and the movie fanatics will love it no matter how bad it is.

Completely and totally wrong.


Games based on movies suffer from several crippling issues;

Firstly, games are interactive, movies are not. A storyline that works well for a movie does not work well in a game, and visa versa (this is also why vidjeogame movies suck).
Secondly, games based on movies have laughably short production times. Movies are often getting major art changes in the last few months of production, and often the producer becomes a major obsticle in production as he usually is not involved in the game studio. The result is that often the people designing the game don't actually know what the movie is going to be until as little as 4 months before the movie comes out.
Thirdly, the game has to come out soon after the movie, this combined with the previous mention of just how late it is that the devs get any info about the movie means that the meaningful production time can be less than a year. A year is not enough time to make a top notch triple A game. It just isn't.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, games based on movies suck, everyone knows this, so generally the producers push on the dev team not to develop a good game, but to develop a game that will make money.


The end result is a dev team that has no incentive to produce a good game, not enough time or resources to produce a good game, and is working from source material that won't really work to produce a good game anyway.

How is what he said wrong when you pretty much said the same thing, only with more words?

Because you are blind and didn't read my post.

Well, it's not that they don't bother, it's that extreme restrictions in terms of time and fun mean they have no real way of making them good unless they are extremely good at their job.

Exactly; they've got poor material to work with, not enough time or resources to work with and the publisher doesn't want them to make a high quality game anyway.

[Halmie]

Exactly; they've got poor material to work with, not enough time or resources to work with and the publisher doesn't want them to make a high quality game anyway.

The publisher would love them to make a high quality game. It's just he doesn't need them to.

[Neruz]

Exactly; they've got poor material to work with, not enough time or resources to work with and the publisher doesn't want them to make a high quality game anyway.

The publisher would love them to make a high quality game. It's just he doesn't need them to.

Actually the publisher wouldn't. The publisher wants them to make a game that makes some money, quality costs time and money, so the publisher wants the lowest quality game possible that will still sell a reasonable amount so the dev team can get moved onto the next project asap.

With movie games, riding the high of the movie, quality can be ditched completely, since it's largely irrelevant to how well the game will sell, doubly so with the pervading sense that video games of movies suck.

[Dasleah]

i watched the Avatar in 3D cinema does am i internet cool guy yet

[Duke 2.0]

i watched the Avatar in 3D cinema does am i internet cool guy yet

Only once you become either a frenzied fan or a cynical critic of every detail the fan doesn't like.

[Jackrabbit]

i watched the Avatar in 3D cinema does am i internet cool guy yet

dude did u se ethe explosion bit was aesome dude so cool

[Neruz]

i watched the Avatar in 3D cinema does am i internet cool guy yet

dude did u se ethe explosion bit was aesome dude so cool

that rocked!!! lol ingore da h8ers!!

[Muz]

Games based on movies are purely made for money. Nobody ever bothers making a good one, because the smart players won't even touch it, and the movie fanatics will love it no matter how bad it is.

Completely and totally wrong.

The publisher wants them to make a game that makes some money, quality costs time and money, so the publisher wants the lowest quality game possible that will still sell a reasonable amount so the dev team can get moved onto the next project asap.

With movie games, riding the high of the movie, quality can be ditched completely, since it's largely irrelevant to how well the game will sell, doubly so with the pervading sense that video games of movies suck.

Wait, wait, I don't see how you can say I was wrong. You're saying exactly the same thing.

I'd explain what I meant, but it's exactly what you said in the reply. So, I think we agree here.

[Neruz]

Games based on movies are purely made for money. Nobody ever bothers making a good one, because the smart players won't even touch it, and the movie fanatics will love it no matter how bad it is.

Completely and totally wrong.

The publisher wants them to make a game that makes some money, quality costs time and money, so the publisher wants the lowest quality game possible that will still sell a reasonable amount so the dev team can get moved onto the next project asap.

With movie games, riding the high of the movie, quality can be ditched completely, since it's largely irrelevant to how well the game will sell, doubly so with the pervading sense that video games of movies suck.

Wait, wait, I don't see how you can say I was wrong. You're saying exactly the same thing.

I'd explain what I meant, but it's exactly what you said in the reply. So, I think we agree here.

You said that no-one bothers making a good game because smart players won't touch it. This is false; no-one makes good games because they lack the time, resources and motivation to do so.

[Neonivek]

IF ONLY that one person had just asked his Sister what she meant by that stray comment! All this could have been avoided!

Why? I know what she meant.

The problem is that people took it too ridgedly/literally and I have no idea how to explain the concept. Too long was even explained by another user and it was rejected forthright.

What can I do? Tell them to watch all the Lord of the Rings movies back to back and pretend it was all one movie? If that earlier person who highlighted what "Too long" means was rejected then there is nothing I can do.

That AND by the time I wrote the original comment she was already gone and won't be back for weeks.


Anyhow Movies based on games sucking makes less sense UNTIL you realise who is making them. Then you sort of realise most of them are cash grabs.

The Newest Street Fighter? It didn't suck because it was based off of a game... since they almost entirely ignored the games to make it (No honestly)... No it sucked because they wanted money and used the Street Fighter name to sell it.

Then there is Uwe Boll who is just plain bad at making movies and a lot of people believe it is intentional.

Then there are games people shouldn't have even tried to make like Mario.

The REAL barrier for Movies based on games is supposed to be somehow translating gameplay into the movie. It is however proven that the real barrier is the fact that people who make games into movies simply can't make movies.


Games based off of movies are bad (at least now adays, a long time ago they could actually be good) because of two reasons

1) They are rushed games that need to be out at specific dates because they are part of the Merchandising.
2) They often are forced to translate parts of the movie into a game.