Movie people have too much money
August 16, 2005 9:29 AM Subscribe
An article describes how the gaming industry is using movie licensing to further themselves in a good way.
Huh? Oddly enough, the Escapist publishes a counterpoint in the same issue.
Why is this worth reading? Allen Varney writes that Warren Spector is saying: "At these Hollywood meetings, the same thing has happened to me more than once, with multiple people," he says. "I describe the game I want to do. I tell them, 'I can deliver you a triple-A title for this cost.'" Spector names a high figure; no one has ever yet written a check that big. "They think it over. Then they say, 'What could you do with twice as much money?'"
Huh? Oddly enough, the Escapist publishes a counterpoint in the same issue.
Why is this worth reading? Allen Varney writes that Warren Spector is saying: "At these Hollywood meetings, the same thing has happened to me more than once, with multiple people," he says. "I describe the game I want to do. I tell them, 'I can deliver you a triple-A title for this cost.'" Spector names a high figure; no one has ever yet written a check that big. "They think it over. Then they say, 'What could you do with twice as much money?'"
This post was deleted for the following reason: self-link, banned
Are we going to post every single article on the escapist?
posted by delmoi at 10:25 AM on August 16, 2005
posted by delmoi at 10:25 AM on August 16, 2005
Is there a text only version of the Escapist? As much as I think the article might be interesting there's only so many pages of 6 sparse paragraphs of text and a GIANT piece of clip art I can take.
posted by davros42 at 10:30 AM on August 16, 2005
posted by davros42 at 10:30 AM on August 16, 2005
When did "gaming" begin to mean "video game" and stop meaning "gambling?" It looks like it happened long ago, and I missed it.
posted by Kwantsar at 10:37 AM on August 16, 2005
posted by Kwantsar at 10:37 AM on August 16, 2005
Why is this worth reading? Allen Varney writes that Warren Spector is saying: "At these Hollywood meetings, the same thing has happened to me more than once, with multiple people," he says. "I describe the game I want to do. I tell them, 'I can deliver you a triple-A title for this cost.'" Spector names a high figure; no one has ever yet written a check that big. "They think it over. Then they say, 'What could you do with twice as much money?'"
Did he? You linked to bios of the two people, but not the article Allen wrote (as far as I can tell)
posted by delmoi at 10:41 AM on August 16, 2005
Did he? You linked to bios of the two people, but not the article Allen wrote (as far as I can tell)
posted by delmoi at 10:41 AM on August 16, 2005
The increasing standardization of taste is something that (in my opinion) is occurring in all varieties of mass media, but it's still especially bothersome to see it cropping up in gaming, a form of entertainment that's arguably still in its infancy. For those who remember when Lucasarts (which basically cranks out Star Wars games now and almost nothing else) released original adventure games on a fairly regular basis, and when Electronic Arts and its imprints used to bring out relatively experimental games by the dozen, the variety of games on shelves these days seems miniscule by comparison, even though there are far more games to choose from.
The last licensed game I bought was 007 Everything or Nothing (only because it was $20, and it received favorable reviews). It bored me near to tears--the cinematic scenes were boring, and because of the game's shoddy controls (and yes, the controls were the problem--regular sessions with shmups and FPSs keep my twitch-gaming skills up to scratch) I kept having to repeat them.
That gets at one reason why the movie licensing trend is problematic, as lucrative as it may be for the industry--with rare exceptions (Goldeneye), adaptations of films as games tend to cripple what games do best: create interesting gameplay mechanics that are free of the need for stories and that can't be accomplished without the assistance of computers. Even though EoN wasn't actually based on a film, it may as well have been, and my point still stands: playing it was like watching the crappiest moments of one of the later Bond films over and over and over, except that I had to manipulate a controller constantly while I was doing it. Since the cinematic elements of EoN were given precedence in its design, it ended up being profoundly uninteresting as a game; since the cinematic elements weren't well-written, it failed on that count as well.
Film is by nature a passive medium, which is fine enough--the problem is that film's passivity often carries over to games that are licensed off the films as well, and in those games such passivity becomes a liability.
posted by Prospero at 10:47 AM on August 16, 2005
The last licensed game I bought was 007 Everything or Nothing (only because it was $20, and it received favorable reviews). It bored me near to tears--the cinematic scenes were boring, and because of the game's shoddy controls (and yes, the controls were the problem--regular sessions with shmups and FPSs keep my twitch-gaming skills up to scratch) I kept having to repeat them.
That gets at one reason why the movie licensing trend is problematic, as lucrative as it may be for the industry--with rare exceptions (Goldeneye), adaptations of films as games tend to cripple what games do best: create interesting gameplay mechanics that are free of the need for stories and that can't be accomplished without the assistance of computers. Even though EoN wasn't actually based on a film, it may as well have been, and my point still stands: playing it was like watching the crappiest moments of one of the later Bond films over and over and over, except that I had to manipulate a controller constantly while I was doing it. Since the cinematic elements of EoN were given precedence in its design, it ended up being profoundly uninteresting as a game; since the cinematic elements weren't well-written, it failed on that count as well.
Film is by nature a passive medium, which is fine enough--the problem is that film's passivity often carries over to games that are licensed off the films as well, and in those games such passivity becomes a liability.
posted by Prospero at 10:47 AM on August 16, 2005
Did he? You linked to bios of the two people, but not the article Allen wrote (as far as I can tell)
The "An Article" link to the Escapist is the Varney article.
Interesting, thanks cleverusername!
posted by Western Infidels at 10:56 AM on August 16, 2005
The "An Article" link to the Escapist is the Varney article.
Interesting, thanks cleverusername!
posted by Western Infidels at 10:56 AM on August 16, 2005
Did he? You linked to bios of the two people, but not the article Allen wrote (as far as I can tell)
It's the first two words in the post
posted by cleverusername at 10:58 AM on August 16, 2005
It's the first two words in the post
posted by cleverusername at 10:58 AM on August 16, 2005
Scott Miller has an interesting take on the licensing issue. Seems to me it's like a short term versus long term thing. Like Doom was originally going to be an Aliens license, luckily that fell through... while doing an Aliens game might have brought in more money initially now id have their own Doom franchise that's worth millions.
posted by bobo123 at 11:02 AM on August 16, 2005
posted by bobo123 at 11:02 AM on August 16, 2005
while doing an Aliens game might have brought in more money initially now id have their own Doom franchise that's worth millions
Is the Doom franchise really worth that much? I always imagined that they were raking in money from licensing their engine. At least, that's the way it went with Quake. If that's the case, it wouldn't have mattered how it was implemented.
posted by mkultra at 11:41 AM on August 16, 2005
Is the Doom franchise really worth that much? I always imagined that they were raking in money from licensing their engine. At least, that's the way it went with Quake. If that's the case, it wouldn't have mattered how it was implemented.
posted by mkultra at 11:41 AM on August 16, 2005
i'd rather play a game based on a movie than see a movie based on a game.
come to think of it, most of the time i'd rather do neither.
posted by hypocritical ross at 12:09 PM on August 16, 2005
come to think of it, most of the time i'd rather do neither.
posted by hypocritical ross at 12:09 PM on August 16, 2005
The single best licensed property of the past four years has got to be "Lego Star Wars Episodes I, II and III". Simple to play, easy to learn, you can play it two-player with weird combos of people (friend of mine and his girlfriend were going through some of the Ep I stuff as Young Obi-Wan and Darth Maul as a team). Loads of fun.
But most of the licensed propery games are pretty much suck on a stick.
posted by mephron at 7:29 AM on August 17, 2005
But most of the licensed propery games are pretty much suck on a stick.
posted by mephron at 7:29 AM on August 17, 2005
« Older Pres. Bush: Defender of democracy. | A Wild Perfection: The Selected Letters of James... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by cleverusername at 9:31 AM on August 16, 2005