A developer has stated the obvious and said that movie-based games are usually bad because of a lack of development time. It needed to be said again though, especially is the bosses (not ours) are reading.
Bob Jacob, Cinemaware co-founder, expalined, "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.
"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."
Transformers
Official trailer
1:04
Transformers
Official trailer
1:04
Age Restricted Content Please enter your date of birth below in order to verify your age before watching this video
You must be at least 0 years of age.
Play Again? Missed something? Just watch it again..
Watch More Videos Browse related videos and see what's new & popular
Share This Video Email this video, or embed it into your own web page
tbh I thougjt king kong was alright on xbox 360.... apart from that I can't say i'd ever buy one ever - they're just blacklisted games to me no matter how good the movie is I know the game is going to suck
All comments in caps are invalid and should be disregarded by all.
Looking at my games, I can only see one, Quantum of solace (which was worth it at a fiver, but not at £30 or more). And yeah, kong was alright. Other than that, I cant think of a good tie-in.
Sadly it seems the general perception now, with good reason, is that film-tie-in games will generally be rubbish. Its a shame as well because frequently kids will pressure parents to get the latest game of the film, based on liking the film and having no idea that the game just isn't worth it. Difficult to see way round this though as the development time just isn't there.
CVGrFAGS is obviously wiigodboy (or whatever alias he's had over the time) in disguise.
I mean look at the facts: everything is in capital, overly obsessive defense of Nintendo and even the user name attacking CVG on its own forums because he's been banned and kicked off so many times.
The wolverine game was a decent game but apparantly the company involved in it were already making a game based on wolverine and they were approached to change their game to match the film so that was a decent product.
The recent ghostbusters game was pretty good and time was spent on making it great because it wasnt rushed into a schedule because the film was already out several years ago and it was technically a sequel of sorts.
To be honest games that are planned to be released alongside the films are always doomed to fail so hell just make it in your own time developers, dont make a game that mirrors the films do one that is based on the films that way you can get past the usual originality barriers.
The only movie tie-in game I can think of that wasn't bad is the Ghostbusters game. Oh, and CVGrFAGS, you're a B*****d, who don't know anything about common courtesy to people that only own a certain console, you fanboy tosser.
sony fans call nintendo fans BASED ON THINGS OFDEN PROVEN TO BE THE OTHER WAY ROUND
Except that I'm not a Sony fan as I don't own a single Sony console yet (well, technically my younger brother's PlayStation is mine ).
I'm only a "fanboy" of videogames, not a particular brand or console. Though if anything I probably would be labeled as Nintendo fanboy ironically enough as I have practically all their consoles and have grown up with them.
Except I now mostly play my 360 more than anything (and recently my DS again due to Zelda), though I will be getting a PS3 for Heavy Rain
Oh and I do plan on owning every console someday, so again a fanboy of any one in particular I sure as hell am not
well, he clearly doesn't know what he is talking about. The vast majority of big movies that warrant an accompnaying game take a lot longer than a year to make. I know this because I work on most of them. There is no excuse for making a s**t game unfortunately. The studios just rely on the uninformed purchasing recognisable brands rather than quality work.
The real reason why this happens is that very few big film makers are also big gamers. They are of teh wrong generation. The next generation of film makers will have grown up with games and so it will be much more likely that they wil care what the movie tie in is like. More importantly, they will understand where and why these tie ins have failed in the past.
The Chronicles of Riddick games were probably the best examples of movie tie ins in recent times, but if you delve into the past there are are others. Robocop 3 springs to mind.
There was a time when games based on films were generally decent. I remember back in the 8-bit home computer days really enjoying games like Batman the Movie, Robocop and Ghostbusters. Of course nowadays games based on films are invariably dreadful. (and films based on games, but that's another matter).
Wolverine is pretty good, but technically it needs a lot of work overall, still a good game.
Quantum of Solace seems pretty good too from what I've seen, even if it is just CoD with a Bond skin.
Otherwise this guy hasn't said anything we didn't already know. Although I'm glad someone involved in the industry is happy to come forward and openly bash movie tie-ins
Only having a year to make the game is a problem, but it's not the only big problem. The other big problem is you can almost never make a good game when it has to be based on the same events as the film.
If you're stuck to doing the same things that were in the movie, there won't be any surprises for the gamer, and there'll be a load of parts where the gamer is distracted by the game being a bit different from the movie because it was impractical to make it exactly the same. And if it's a combat-heavy game, as most of them are, there have to be way more bad guys for you to fight than in the movie - either that or every enemy you meet plays like a boss character, like the bourne conspiracy, and that just got exhausting.
They need to do spin-offs - games based on the same characters but not just going over the same events as the movie. Like Riddick - EFBB, the best movie game ever, because all it took from the film was 2 characters, and it had a story and setting designed to make a good game rather than a good film. A load of star wars games that had nothing to do with the films were good too... and all of the star wars games based directly on the films were crap.
Isn't it quite the newsflash. Licensed games on the other hand can be fantastic; take Rebel Strike on the Gamecube. The engine used for it put the Gamecube up to par with the XBOX, and the number of missions is surprising considering the tiny disc. Star Wars is a franchise that usually prides itself in good games. It's that very reputation and difficulty to grab a license that perpetuates it. The crucial difference between the two types is that licenses aren't under much time pressure. Tie-ins will always be crap because a developer can pay peanuts for a license on a franchise usually not as established. And yes, deadlines. No matter how much or little work is done, some deadlines can be impossible to reach with a satisfactory piece of work. What the developers need to do is to research good games carefully, and understand fully the techniques and design theory used; a clear vision saves time and revisiting areas during the design stage.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
(well, technically my younger brother's PlayStation is mine 
