The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
No, I'm not off on one of my obscure tangents here, the title is a similie to help convey this post. The Grinch is due for release over here soon, but so is the console game. So which came first? Did they make the film and then rush out the game in time for the release dates to coincide? Or was the game in development before the film? Or did someone think: "Hey! Let's get some extra marketing out of this one...." and so on.
It seems that we are being bombarded with more and more motion picture tie-ins, and not always good ones at that, take Batman for example, anyone got that in their all time top 10 console games? Top 50 even? And which is worse, the game coming out and then someone doing a film on it or the other way around? We've all heard about Street Fighter the Movie, Mortal Kombat Annihalation, and then those classic games...Dinosaur, The Grinch, er....there's loads more but they don't exactly trip off the tongue, do they? What will be next, Coronation Street: The Game? I'd love for games to go back to the way they were, not relying on big budgets and movie tie-ins, I'd prefer to see them released because they are good games and nothing else. Unfortunately most of the time it's great movie, naff game; or great game, naff movie. It's very hard to get the two on the same level.
Maybe that's what happens when movie people try to make games or vice versa. There are a few exceptions though:
Star Wars games are, on the whole, in demand. Final Fantasy the movie is sure to be a hit with sci-fi and adventure fans, but how much of this is due to their genre and existing fan base I would not like to hazard a guess. My personal feeling is that this technique of releasing games with movies concurrently is purely a profit motive and no other, I may be being too cynical but that's the way it appears. Shouldn't the two entertainment modes be kept separate as forms of enjoyment in their own right? Not every movie goer is a gamer, and vice versa.
It seems that we are being bombarded with more and more motion picture tie-ins, and not always good ones at that, take Batman for example, anyone got that in their all time top 10 console games? Top 50 even? And which is worse, the game coming out and then someone doing a film on it or the other way around? We've all heard about Street Fighter the Movie, Mortal Kombat Annihalation, and then those classic games...Dinosaur, The Grinch, er....there's loads more but they don't exactly trip off the tongue, do they? What will be next, Coronation Street: The Game? I'd love for games to go back to the way they were, not relying on big budgets and movie tie-ins, I'd prefer to see them released because they are good games and nothing else. Unfortunately most of the time it's great movie, naff game; or great game, naff movie. It's very hard to get the two on the same level.
Maybe that's what happens when movie people try to make games or vice versa. There are a few exceptions though:
Star Wars games are, on the whole, in demand. Final Fantasy the movie is sure to be a hit with sci-fi and adventure fans, but how much of this is due to their genre and existing fan base I would not like to hazard a guess. My personal feeling is that this technique of releasing games with movies concurrently is purely a profit motive and no other, I may be being too cynical but that's the way it appears. Shouldn't the two entertainment modes be kept separate as forms of enjoyment in their own right? Not every movie goer is a gamer, and vice versa.
Longevity is the answer. If seasonal games came out on a regular basis we would have the likes of "Eggburts Easter Egg Extravaganza" or "Guy Fawkes: Resurrection" or "Repent: It's Lent." These games would be like birthday cards or Christmas trees, a quick seasonal profit and providing no real advancement in the quality of gaming, a case of 'I bought it because of the time of year, not because I wanted the game...'. If The Grinch were worth its gaming salt, then it could be released in its own right at any time of year and still be a success. The marketing people are pinning their hopes on a naive public buying the game in droves because it has the word 'Christmas' associated with it. Personally, I wouldn't say no to ANY game placed in my stocking by Santa, but I'd prefer to think that he'd think carefully a bit about the types of games I prefer instead of just following the sheep. (No offence there, Sheepy).
The chicken.
Why release a game based around a christmas story at any time other than christmas?
Why release a game based around a christmas story at any time other than christmas?
Goldeneye wasn't exactly a Movie tie in though was it? It was released long after the film. It's the games that roll out shortly after, or at the same time as the film that are usually rubbish.
Goldeneye?
Tarzan and Bug's Life are good if you've got nippers too. So I'll let Disney be an exception to the rule.
Barbie is another matter....
Barbie is another matter....
Apart from Die Hard Trilogy (which came out a lot later than the films) and the original Aliens game (not the US one) on the Speccy and C64 - that was a really scary game, it had all the tension of a Res Evil game and was probably too advanced for it's time. It even had the classic motion detector sound, so you knew that an alien was approaching, even if you couldn't see it.
Predator wasn't too bad, but had a terrible difficulty rating, and of course there were the classic Star Wars original arcade game and the newer one brought out several years ago.
The Disney action games, like Hercules and Jungle Book all seem to be based on a similar game engine (not for a minute incinuating that Disney are simply out to make a profit on this) but they're not too bad for younger players.
Predator wasn't too bad, but had a terrible difficulty rating, and of course there were the classic Star Wars original arcade game and the newer one brought out several years ago.
The Disney action games, like Hercules and Jungle Book all seem to be based on a similar game engine (not for a minute incinuating that Disney are simply out to make a profit on this) but they're not too bad for younger players.
If you look at the theory of evolution, yuo would have to conclude that chickens evolved from a non-chicken. This non-chicken would have bred with another non-chicken creature, and an egg would have been laid that contained a primitive form of chicken, that, over time, evolved into the chicken we know now. So the egg, came first, laid by a non-chicken.
And yes, on the whole movie tie in games are crap. Anyone remember Cliffhanger on the SNES?
Thought not.
And yes, on the whole movie tie in games are crap. Anyone remember Cliffhanger on the SNES?
Thought not.
No, I'm not off on one of my obscure tangents here, the title is a similie to help convey this post. The Grinch is due for release over here soon, but so is the console game. So which came first? Did they make the film and then rush out the game in time for the release dates to coincide? Or was the game in development before the film? Or did someone think: "Hey! Let's get some extra marketing out of this one...." and so on.
It seems that we are being bombarded with more and more motion picture tie-ins, and not always good ones at that, take Batman for example, anyone got that in their all time top 10 console games? Top 50 even? And which is worse, the game coming out and then someone doing a film on it or the other way around? We've all heard about Street Fighter the Movie, Mortal Kombat Annihalation, and then those classic games...Dinosaur, The Grinch, er....there's loads more but they don't exactly trip off the tongue, do they? What will be next, Coronation Street: The Game? I'd love for games to go back to the way they were, not relying on big budgets and movie tie-ins, I'd prefer to see them released because they are good games and nothing else. Unfortunately most of the time it's great movie, naff game; or great game, naff movie. It's very hard to get the two on the same level.
Maybe that's what happens when movie people try to make games or vice versa. There are a few exceptions though:
Star Wars games are, on the whole, in demand. Final Fantasy the movie is sure to be a hit with sci-fi and adventure fans, but how much of this is due to their genre and existing fan base I would not like to hazard a guess. My personal feeling is that this technique of releasing games with movies concurrently is purely a profit motive and no other, I may be being too cynical but that's the way it appears. Shouldn't the two entertainment modes be kept separate as forms of enjoyment in their own right? Not every movie goer is a gamer, and vice versa.
It seems that we are being bombarded with more and more motion picture tie-ins, and not always good ones at that, take Batman for example, anyone got that in their all time top 10 console games? Top 50 even? And which is worse, the game coming out and then someone doing a film on it or the other way around? We've all heard about Street Fighter the Movie, Mortal Kombat Annihalation, and then those classic games...Dinosaur, The Grinch, er....there's loads more but they don't exactly trip off the tongue, do they? What will be next, Coronation Street: The Game? I'd love for games to go back to the way they were, not relying on big budgets and movie tie-ins, I'd prefer to see them released because they are good games and nothing else. Unfortunately most of the time it's great movie, naff game; or great game, naff movie. It's very hard to get the two on the same level.
Maybe that's what happens when movie people try to make games or vice versa. There are a few exceptions though:
Star Wars games are, on the whole, in demand. Final Fantasy the movie is sure to be a hit with sci-fi and adventure fans, but how much of this is due to their genre and existing fan base I would not like to hazard a guess. My personal feeling is that this technique of releasing games with movies concurrently is purely a profit motive and no other, I may be being too cynical but that's the way it appears. Shouldn't the two entertainment modes be kept separate as forms of enjoyment in their own right? Not every movie goer is a gamer, and vice versa.