Movies and Video Games

Separately, movies and video games each have a rich tradition of excellence. Movies have been around since the late 1800's, and video games from the early 60's (although they didn't really get going until the mid 70's. As soon as computers were invented, people started playing games on them, but the lack of promulgation meant that computers weren't widespread until home video games systems like the Atari 2600 and such).

Together, however, movies and video games have a terrible tradition of suck. Video games based on movies suck. Movies based on video games suck. Video games based on movies based on video games (Street Fighter: The Movie: The Game) are especially awful, but are rare enough that we don't often venture down into that particular region of awful.

Why do they suck? Well, the main reason, in both cases, is time. Most video games are between 10 and 15 hours in length (or 5 to 10 minutes, for those addicting pop-cap games). Most movies are 2 to 3 hours long.

To make a video game into a movie, a large section of plot has to be hacked off. Either that, or a similar plot written with a lot fewer elements. Sometimes this can be a good thing. Video games that take dozens of hours because the character chases after 8 pieces of one artefact and 6 pieces of another (we're looking at you, Zelda) can easily lose some of the repetitive sections without losing any plot elements. However, even with that, a lot of plot will go out the window. With the plot, also goes a lot of the reason for character development. So either the characters remain static (differing from the game and angering fanboys) or the characters grow more mature for absolutely no reason (making for a terrible movie).

There are more problems with turning a video game into a movie. For one, a lot of the game might be impossible to film (due to physics or gravity or whatnot). It's possible that the characters’ models might not be able to act, so the people on film look and sound different from the people in the game (Max Payne! Among numerous other problems). Large casts might have to be cut down, making for boycotts of the movie when favourite characters are left out. And of course, the most hated two words in the movie or gaming industry: Uwe Boll.

Similarly, time works the other way when turning movies into video games. Movies being two hours, and video games being ten hours, the makers of the video game have to invent 80% of the content. Some of them can do that well, but are often pressured to include elements of popular games, even if the genre doesn't fit. Which is how you can end up with sandbox-like sections in games where the movie was fairly linear, or racing sections in games that have no business having racing sections. Grand Theft Auto and Need for Speed are popular, so wedge similar parts into games, or people will complain!

Time works in another sense as well. Games these days take quite a while to develop, from concept to publishing. The problem is that video games based on movies don't have that much time, because they have to match the release date. Often, the makers will get the first script and go from that (so revisions go into the movie, but not the game). They may have a year to get everything done, if they're lucky. More bugs than usual make it in, because they're rushing to get the programming done, and more bugs make it through Quality Control because they only have half the time they need. The end result is a lot of bugs in a crappy game. Whee.

Next, the characters’ looks. Instead of seeing a film of Shia LaBeouf running around with the Allspark, we get a poorly rendered version of a creepy looking LaBeouf that's smack dab in the middle of the uncanny valley. So we really don't care if it gets run over by a giant transforming truck or not (some of you want this to happen to the real one as well. Shame on you. I'd never mess up a real giant transforming truck that way).

Can these problems be avoided? Yes indeed they can. For movies into video games, taking a lot of time to make sure everything runs correctly is a great step. Goldeneye came out quite a while after the movie, but was incredibly good. This may also be due to the fact it was ridiculously fun to play with friends. Which also points out the fact that if you have to put extraneous things in your game that weren't in the movie, make sure they're fun (and make sure no one picks Oddjob as well).

The biggest thing is probably not to make a video game based directly on the movie, but more on the universe they're set in. Batman: Arkham Asylum was one of the best reviewed games in 2009. While similar in style to the two most recent Batman movies, it was simply set in the Batman universe. Transformers: War for Cybertron is pretty good, but not based on any Transformers movie. The actual games based on the movies were pretty bad, from what I can tell.

Making successful movies based on games is a lot trickier, and hasn’t been done yet. The closest we’ve come is probably Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (which threw in a female character because you can’t have a movie without a love interest) or Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. The former is perhaps the best reviewed (a backhanded compliment if I’ve ever heard one) and the latter has been the most successful commercially.

I’m not sure what the problem is, but I guess Hollywood just doesn’t know how to make good transfers. After Valve made Half-life (an incredibly good first-person shooter, surpassed only by its sequel), they were inundated with offers to make a movie of it. After the torrent of horrid ideas had passed, they realized they’d have to make their own movie of it if they wanted it to be any good. Apparently, all writers are hacks. Which gives me hope that I might one day write a movie script, but also fills me with dread, because World of Warcraft (one of my favourite games) is being made into a movie and Mass Effect (another one of my favourite games) has been optioned for a movie. I love both of those games, and will be bitterly disappointed if the movies don’t live up to my expectations. I think Hollywood will have the last laugh, though, because I’ll end up paying money to support it. But beware, Hollywood – I have a blog, and I’m not afraid to use it!

The history of suck between video games and movies probably started in 1982, when Atari tried to capitalize on the popularity of E.T. by making a video game of it. They had one guy program it in 5 weeks and then mass produced the snot out of it. One urban legend is that there were more cartridges of it than were Atari's sold at that point (so way to get ahead of yourselves, there). It was an incredibly terrible game (I know, I played it) and killed video games for two years until Super Mario saved the day (like he usually does. It's like Fun was kidnapped by the video game slump, and Mario stormed into the castle and saved it ... what, I'm not smoking anything ... I'm not)!

The first movie based on a video game I can remember sucking was, ironically, Super Mario Brothers (by the way, how much did Luigi get shafted when that pairing got named? Known only by your brother's name? That's gotta suck). It was abysmal, and everyone involved wishes you would just forget it.

But the sorry contributions have continued on both sides ever since people thought gamers would pay for an awful film with some familiar elements, or buy terrible games based on their favourite movies. I’d post a list of examples, but it might make your eyes bleed. And besides, we promised we’d forget these abominations, and I intend to honour that. You know, until the next mindless movie comes out.

If you want more (accurate) information, you can go here and here.