Hollywood and game makers are becoming wary of each other.

[Zerodash]

...this sounds a little like how Activision (?) sued Paramount Pictures because of how they destroyed the Star Trek franchise- hence rendering the ST game lisence worthless...

If Hollywood starts basing royalty rates on game review scores, that opens the door for game companies to bribe/heckle reviewers to give their games better scores than they otherwise would. Not that this doesn't happen already...

[Damian79]

Like say, Haunted Mansion; the movie was utter shite and ensured that the game sat on shelves, despite being a pretty good game.

Was it that bad? From the trailer it reeked of a "golden child" feel to it. While that movie wasn't spectacular by any means, it was good cheeesy fun. If Haunted mansion is similar, I don't see why it would be so bad.

[Scourge]

This is stupid. I'm all for accountability, but I'd say Hollywood's being awfully one-sided. If they're going to hold videogames to a certain standard, then they should also hold themselves to it. If they expect a superior videogame, they'd better make a superior movie. If a pile of crap movie-to-game conversion like T3 is penalized, what about the other side of the coin? Like say, Haunted Mansion; the movie was utter shite and ensured that the game sat on shelves, despite being a pretty good game. Games like Van Helsing or Enter the Matrix shouldn't face penalties, because the experiences they delivered were right on par with the mediocrity of their movie brethren.

Also, if they're gonna expect a blockbuster game, they'd better make sure the resources for a blockbuster game are provided. Most liscenced games are crap because a) games usually aren't given a large budget in the first place, and even if they are, b) a lot of that budget is gone from the get-go from having to buy the liscense, and c) the devs are working on much tighter schedule and deadline than an original game would. If games are so important for Hollywood's image, then they should be offering their money and resources (Lord knows they have them in greater abundance) to the game makers, not the other way around.

This is completely true. What was the average scores of Van Helsing the movie? Does this mean that the average score of the game has to be higher than that of the movie in some cases? This is really ass backwards.

As for that Atari quote, I have to agree... That game sold extremely well. Why should they be penalized by the studio because it's a piece of crap? You want to penalize Atari for putting out a shit game? Don't buy it.

[mollipen]

This is stupid. I'm all for accountability, but I'd say Hollywood's being awfully one-sided. If they're going to hold videogames to a certain standard, then they should also hold themselves to it. If they expect a superior videogame, they'd better make a superior movie. If a pile of crap movie-to-game conversion like T3 is penalized, what about the other side of the coin? Like say, Haunted Mansion; the movie was utter shite and ensured that the game sat on shelves, despite being a pretty good game. Games like Van Helsing or Enter the Matrix shouldn't face penalties, because the experiences they delivered were right on par with the mediocrity of their movie brethren.

I was just going to bring this up. It's funny that Hollywood wants to bag on video game companies for making crap video games from movies, when Hollywood constantly makes crap movies from video games.

[Bacon McShig]

Uwe Boll would owe Sega trillions for the House of the Dead movie.

[Master]

Let's name all the good movie games ever made...

Goldeneye 007
Terminator 2 (NES)
Lilo & Stich (GBA)
Aladdin (SNES & GBA)

eh...

You mention the Mediocre SNES and GBA Aladdin games but don't mention the spectacular Genesis game made by Shiny?

YUO ARE NINTENDO BAISED!!!!!1 SEGA DUZ WHAT NINTENDONT!!!!!!111 HOMAX!!!

Yeah by GBA I meant Genesis (well MegaDrive since i'm Aussie). My brain farted... like... or something.

Oops

[The_Meach]

Lithium's already touched on this but why should Atari be punished for making Enter the Matrix? That game made WB dumptrucks of money, which, regardless of what one's Marxist English prof would have one believe, is what drives this industry.

There's no way this will stand if it goes to court.

[The_Meach]

Lithium's already touched on this but why should Atari be punished for making Enter the Matrix? That game made WB dumptrucks of money, which, regardless of what one's Marxist English prof would have one believe, is what drives this industry.

There's no way this will stand if it goes to court.

[salmonax]

Lithium's already touched on this but why should Atari be punished for making Enter the Matrix? That game made WB dumptrucks of money, which, regardless of what one's Marxist English prof would have one believe, is what drives this industry.

There's no way this will stand if it goes to court.

Because, shitty games tarnish the public's perception of the license, and in a larger sense, the industry. Using brand names to sell tons of crappy games is what nearly killed consumer confidence in the industry during the 80's. I'm not suggesting that will ever repeat itself, but stricter quality contol is never a bad thing.

[Drewbacca]

How many licensed games sell like Enter the Matrix? Not too many. If a better game had been presented with the Matrix license attached it would have been just as good. You can't call Enter the Matrix anything but living off of the name of a famous franchise, which fans were hungry to have more of.

There's nothing wrong with publishers being stronghanded into taking the time to push their developers to make great pieces of work. It's about brand image, not just sales. Movie studios and companies need to do some research before handing out their properties as well. Acclaim may do well in the markets (or whatever), but any gamer who knows the industry would tell you how shitty Acclaim is... they have a reputation for shit quality games.

It's a good idea.