Written By: Alex Shaw
After
playing and reviewing GoldenEye again recently for the first time in years (Check out the video
podcast here) and with Riddick about to be re-released I started wondering
about the distinction between the good and bad (and terrible) games based on
movies.
For the
longest time, they were just sideways-scrolling platform shooters or brawlers,
with tenuous links to the narrative of their movie counterparts, often
featuring hero models
who bore no resemblance to the actors. For every step forward (True Lies) there
were five drunken staggers backward (Robocop 3, Lethal Weapon, Jurassic Park on the Genesis). This was back when
a simplistic adventure could be swiftly knocked together and released around
the same time as the movie with relatively little prep time. Even considering
this fact, the trend led to some of gamings most wretched abortions as
thousands of buried E.T. tapes will attest. Later on as technology improved,
shallow 2D adventures gave way to shallow 3D ones and despite the lack of quality
increase, development times extended due to volume of programming for this new
dimension and burgeoning opportunities for FMV and realism. The choice was
either bring it out way after the theatrical release (GoldenEye) or rush it out
for with the movie for marketing reasons (Batman Begins). In pure financial terms, obviously
the latter seems most likely to elicit profit; people buy in droves because of
multimedia hype, this will dry out in the months and years it takes to craft a
substantial game so why bother? But that only makes sense if you know nothing
about games. GoldenEye sold gangbusters and was one of the best reasons to buy
an N64. It had a tight, innovative single-player mode, groundbreaking
four-player death-matches and stands as the first brilliant console FPS. The
fact that it was a movie tie-in and you were playing James Bond was just the
icing on the cake but almost seemed incidental to it’s success. It was a
fantastic game, decorated to feel like Bond"s world. Look to the thoroughly
shitty Tomorrow Never Dies and The World is Not Enough to see what happens when
you donât pay attention to that crucial first part.
The central
problem lies at the top. Film producers list the video game along with the
MacDonaldâs promotion and the action figures in terms of a small part of the
mass-media event that a big cinema release tends to be. So time and budget are
rarely a luxury and quality is often not an issue. Look at Pixarâs releases. Nearly
every one of their films is a masterpiece, but their best game tie-in, Cars, is
only pretty good. The fact that an alarmingly high percentage of movie tie-ins
are aimed at children, frequently seen as having no taste or understanding of
quality by producers also means that most of the games are going to be bad. You
can picture some cigar chomping Hollywood savage tanned nutmeg-brown with a $300 haircut and a
phone taped to their ear, sat by his triangular pool, jerking off idly into a
pile of money, saying "What else can we do? We got the Mountain Dew promotion,
the cartoonâs coming out this summer, the Pussycat Dolls are doing a music
video and oh yeah, letâs do a video game. I know a guy.â Twisted exaggeration,
yes, but the truth nonetheless.
Itâs a
costly process to channel developers into making a movie tie-in. They fight
against an unmoving deadline, glaring dissimilarities from the source material,
unwilling actors, (Sierra found that out the hard way with their Damon-less
Bourne game) and more often than not, a narrative that does not lend itself to
an eight hour, action-packed video game adventure. Nobody sets out to make a bad game, but
itâs very easy to make a bad one anyway if you arenât given time, research or resources
and the money-men are breathing down your neck with release dates. The results
range from Jack Sparrow dying when he touches water to the epic grandeur of the
Lord of the Rings trilogy reduced to hack, hack, hack, uh-oh Gimli died!
Think of
the best movie tie-ins. GoldenEye, Riddick, The Warriors, Die Hard Trilogy. All
aimed at adults, all released significantly after the films in question. (Butcher Bay had much more to do with Pitch
Black than the horrendous Riddick follow-up). They were all made by experienced
developers with their hearts set on carving out excellent games and the
producers were wise enough to step back and trust in the strength of the source
material to fuel sales, long after the DVD had come out. But think of the worst, and youâre probably
envisioning games released a week before the movie, terrible review scores,
jerky, unpolished gameplay and very little added to the central story. At best you
sit and watch a crude interpretation of the action from the film on a loop,
hammering the A or X button or flailing your Wii mote. Itâs not a trend likely
to end any time soon either, with these games being massive hits, because in
terms of sales, the money-men are absolutely right. Most kids donât have any
taste. God bless the ones that do, because theyâre the ones begging their
mommyâs to let them play Psychonauts or Super Mario Galaxy, but too many are swayed by advertising
and the dreamy pursuit of more Ratatouille fun (as if a crummy 3D platformer
could distil the subtle, gourmet genius of that film). If they enjoyed the
film, surely theyâll enjoy the game, and itâs that promise of potential that keeps
this cycle of derivative crap circulating forever.
But take heart, because the opposite end is even
worse. Movies based on games are so bad, that they hardly even count as films. Michael
DeLuca allegedly wanted Kurt Wimmer, writer and director of Ultraviolet and
Equilibrium, to write the movie version of Metal Gear Solid. This was after David
Hayterâs script was passed on. For producers to disregard the individual whoâs been
inside Snakeâs head and embodying his voice for a decade yet seek instead, the
man who adapted Sphere for the screen suggests to me a level of blind ignorance
of the medium of games that borders on comical. If you want someone to blame,
look at the richest bastards in Hollywood. I used to love movies, but itâs stories like this
treatment of arguably the greatest game ever made that make
me look at what EA did to Godfather II and think to myself: it could be worse.