Un-convert the converted

Why is the latest Simpsons game so bad? It's a huge brand with loads of money behind it, yet they have produced a game that plays so terribly in places, you suspect it must be on purpose. It's the same with lots of other TV shows and films that make the jump over to games. The Golden Compass got reviews so terrible you were left with the impression that playing it was an act of masochism.

I do love The Simpsons TV show and think the game has lovely graphics, funny cut scenes and some good ideas, but the gameplay is frustrating and executed in a way that smacks of too much time spent on the concepts and jokes and not enough on the actual game.

Fortunately there is a ray of blocky golden light at the end of the tunnel and it comes from the Danes. The Lego Star Wars series of games is a perfect example of how it should be done. The games are easy enough for a six year old to play but well scripted and fun enough for an adult to enjoy too. The cut scenes have often made me laugh out loud and the way they blends the two brands of Lego and Star Wars seamlessly is perfection.

So why do the film and TV companies feel that it's OK to fob off fans with games that are simply not good enough? Given that games make more money than movies you would think it would be in their interest to make a game that really can compete with the likes of Mario and Call Of Duty. At least games sometimes can get their own back, as anyone who remembers the classic 1993 film Super Mario Bros featuring Bob Hoskins will remember.

Comments

[john cowle]

I’m waiting to see if this problem is exemplified when the transition from genres is the other way i.e. the forthcoming Halo movie.

P.S.
WE NEED RAMBO THE GAME!

[Enigmatic]

I remember playing a Rambo game on my Amiga 500. Wasn't bad either!

The problem is that they cash in on the movies success, and they don't really care if people are happy or not... when was the last time you knew of someone who specifically avoided a particular game developer after buying one of their duds? You vote with your wallet and game developers see that people keep coming back no matter how bad they are

[Steve]

Not all film tie-ins are bad. Take the chronicles of riddick, I think the game is actually better than the film. The difference there was to have a completely different story to the film but using the same concepts and characters. It also helped that it was vin diesel's company who made it. I think the people in charge of selling the rights to films dont really care how good the game is they just sell the rights to anyone who is willing to pay for it. Capitalism at its finest.

[Chris N]

Often the price paid to purchase the license and the time schedule required to create the software leaves little scope to do a good Job.

Games writing is about money and little else now days.

[Jim Z]

It's a matter of timing with these things. If a game is slated to come out with the movie, or shortly after, it has most likely been put on a 7 to 12 month schedule. possibly twice as long for a 360 or PS3 platform. It's all a matter of shoveling the stuff into the market place in time to get the advertising dollars that are pushing the film (including press junkets and the echo chamber that is the news media.) These things are all factored into the Buzz that will generate site unseen, non-reviewed game purchases. Or, as I call them, sucker sales. Movies that generate games, years after release, tend to be fan favorites, with enough of an established I.P. that a more developed game can be risked. In this risk adverse, monopolistic world, you will see very few original properties because the people holding the money know better than to risk it all on a non-proven thing. Simply Put, Crap continues to sell, and the cycle repeats.

[David]

Golden Eye for the N64 was probably the best game/movie ever made, precisly because it had no relation to the movie's release schedule.

To ensure a goo-quality game movie companies should either delay film releases for the game or give up on the idea of tie-ins

Separately, with Uwe Bolls as general, the video game world has more than paid cinema back with terrible, terrible game-to-film releases

[Gus Swan]

Time is the enemy. The production cycle for most games now matches or exceeds that for films now. Given that many of the story and graphic themes emerge in production, the game development team is up against the clock. Games have to launch with the theatrical release to ride the marketing wave, whereas many of the best game series; Metal Gear, Resident Evil, Gran Turismo are delayed several times to focus on quality.

[Geoff Brown]

There's a core problem with games derived from movies. Most movies rely heavily on human dialogue, and games require user choice. Trying to offer choices with human dialogue (yet ensuring that it makes sense) gets very tricky and expensive. One attempt to solve this problem is the learning games at http://www.hownottotalk.com. Apparently they can produce complex dialogue games fairly cheaply. They just got a patent. Still have a long way to go, though, before a great dialogue-based game (a true "first-person talker") hits the streets.

[Mike Devoe]

This article explains nothing. This wasn't informative or entertaining.

[Oznonymous]

Gus Swan nailed it on the head. Production times for blockbuster films is much shorter than the production time for a "good" game. Games that are timed to movie releases usually have been rushed through production and are mostly crap. Studios should stop doing tie-ins and focus on original games based on their film libraries.

[Jamie Lloyd]

I've played on all sorts over the years, I grew up playing Super Mario on the SNES and then onto the N64 with Golden eye and Star Fox. Nowadays you tend to find games are more graphics orientated as to storyline based. Take the new Final Fantasy series for example, up until the release of FFX for the PS2 it was an amazing series, now I just find games try to hard to wow players with the "Havok Physics" and the high definition graphics.

Many people may think The Simpson's game is poor but how could you possibly compare Call of Duty or Mario to a game based on a Famous and popular cartoon. I think everybody knows that It's not going to be the most graphically intense game. It's just a simple and fun game with the option of multi-player game play. Not only this but its a lighthearted and child friendly game which seems to be what everyone wants to see nowadays anyway, not blood, violence and gore.

To make a further point this game is much better than the previous "Hit and Run" Simpson's game but to take it further, I don't think game companies should be put down for the work they produce. There's a lot of hard work that goes into creating games and anyway, like I said, why do games like the Simpson's need to compete with the likes of Call of Duty?

[Learn]

Why are movie-based games so bad?

Same reason Game-based movies are so bad!

Hollywood has lost touch with the people and could care less about making a good movie and only cares about the budget. Thus everything it touches turns to crap, just like the banking system.

[faceplant]

The Chronicals of Riddick wasn't so much a film tie in, it was an extension of the character. Guaranteed if it had been closer to the film, it wouldn't have been anywhere near as good. It's the lack of freedom in developing storylines and characters that normally kills movie tie ins. What CoR did was explore the character and create a believable story which helped to embelish the film and the story of Riddicks' development.

It mioght have worked in the days of 16 bit (Batman was good on the Amiga) but the level of sophistication now expected in games means that to be good, you have to be a lot more creative. Films are very linear in a way that a good game can't afford to be. The player needs choices and freedom to be engaged, and following a strict movie guidline allows neither.

Just my twopennys worth.

[Bill Jenkins]

Productions times are shorter and money is spent more on the license for the title instead of other things that could go into the game.

My young kids see those titles and get excited because they like the movies and I've educated them: "games made from movies generally suck" I tell them. I show them a good website or magazine to read reviews on games.

The last game I enjoyed that was based on a movie was The Goonies on the Apple II.

[NS. O'Toole]

I am someone who has made a few games based off of movies and I can tell you that one thing that makes it tough for us is that we oftentimes have to adapt something - a film's plot/characters/etc. - into a video game universe that it was never made for.

The Simpsons is a great example. The show is obviously about funny characters in funny situations in a funny world. What does that have to do with an interactive video game experience? What physical things do characters from that show do that look anything like tried-and-true game mechanics? It's up to the developer to try and figure out how to translate a movie or show into a video game without deviating so much from the movie or show's plot that the licensor completely vetos it.

Let me tell you from experience, this can be a difficult balance to achieve. If you're making a game based on an action movie, it gets a little easier but for something like The Simpsons, forget about it.

Whereas if you are lucky enough to work on an original title, something that doesn't have to adhere to a license or pre-determined plot, the sky's the limit (sort of). You can be as creative as you want to be and base your design/story decisions on what is most fun, not what will fit within this constrained box.

[Jon Auverset]

This is a classic phenomenon all game lovers know well. The most likely explanation is that the really good games, the games that set the standard, are planned and designed over the course of a few years, while a game based on a movie is usually rushed through production in order to cash in on the buzz generated by the movie itself.

[V2-Schneider]

Film companies see games as merchandise rather than a medium for story telling.

They also don't have the foresight to offer video games as an extension of plot lines instead the rehash the film plot, creating a comparatively inferior experience (currently). Where instead they could do a knights of the old republic and expand the star wars universe for example

[joe]

in regards with the halo movie comment from john cowle.

I believe at the moment that the film is on hold, due to budget problems. Also i heard a rumour, still dont know if its true, that microsoft might be on to help with funding.but im not quiet sure. If anyone knows something please post.

Most games that are movie tie-ins are generally rubbish. due to being rushed as everyone has pointed out. also due to game companies wanting to cash in on the movies popularity. (not naming any companies as such 'disney' cough)

Ive seen a lot of film tie ins games that come out even before the film. Though what should be the case is developing the game after the film has come out. As if a person likes the film, they obviously can buy the game. But as the case is the other way round, If the games are rubbish, no one will want to see the film, resulting in losses of money to the film company.
so therefore, why dont game companies, take longer to develop a game, so everyone can enjoy it to its full potential.

[Jonathan]

Wow! I can't believe no one has mentioned the ET game which almost single handedly destroyed the video game industry!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983#Flood_of_consoles_and_games