Last week, I picked up a copy of the PS2 version of Peter Jackson's King Kong for the PS2, which is the "official game of the movie". I had recently watched the film again, which despite its faults, has some of the best action sequences ever put on celluloid. (Specifically, the battle in the insect pit is just about one of the coolest/scariest/awesomest things ever.) So when I saw the game for ten bucks at Best Buy, I decided to check it out. The game has a stellar pedigree, with both Peter Jackson and Michel Ancel (Rayman, Beyond Good and Evil, etc.) directly involved in the design. Sounds great, but don't most "offical" movie tie-in games suck balls? Not always, rabbit. Try King Kong for yourself, I'm sure Best Buy still has copies. All I can say is: wow. Again, the low expectations thing wins again: the game totally blew me away. It's sort of a mish-mash of action, survival horror, FPS and beat-em-up. The atmospherics are amazing, the level design is clever, and just about every sequence has something that makes you lean forward in your chair. (The monsters are especially cool!) The game is basically a bunch of action setpieces strung together...in many ways, just like the movie. Though the story is a departure from the film narrative, it doesn't matter or take away from enjoyment of the game. In fact, it gives you a newfound appreciation of how carefully thought out Peter Jackson's film environments are, and how this attention to detail translates directly to the game world.
I thought to myself, how is this possible? This game came and went as quickly as the movie. And what did the critics have to say? (Turns out, they really loved it, much to my surprise.) When it comes to licensed games, the critics can't win...if they give a movie game a good score, I simply assume they are doing the mouthpiece work of the movie studio. If they give the game a bad score, well, they quickly reinforce what we already know: licensed games suck!
But do they? As King Kong proves, not always. In fact, I would wager that a good licensed game can stand head-and-shoulders above any original IP out there. The problem is that games featuring licensed characters are usually a quick cash-in for the game publisher, providing a low-risk opporunity to get a decent return on their investment. (Kids' titles are particulary guilty of this crime, probably because kids have even lower expectations than grown-ups.) If the profit is virtually guaranteed, what is the company's motivation to spend money on the front-end to make a good game? Unfortunately, not much...
But then again, look at King Kong. The game is excellent. I have no idea if this translated into sales, but I have to assume it did. Isn't cash the best motivator around? Make a good game, and the audience will come. Is it really that simple? The stigma associated with licensed games is unfortunate, as many people (myself included) will turn up their nose at an "officially licensed" product and move on to something else. But as franchise lovers, aren't we all dying to play a great Batman game, or Battlestar Galactica game, or Transformers game? Wouldn't we buy them by the truckloads if they were actually any good? I would say, without a doubt, YES. Audiences are already invested in the characters and settings of licensed properties, and for good reason: they are usually much more interesting than original IP. However, when the licensed games fail to live up audience expectations (as they so often do), players get used to the disappointment and quickly move on. Let me give a personal example: having really enjoyed the X-Men action RPGs from Activision, I finally checked out Marvel Ultimate Alliance recently. Though the opening cinematics are spectacular, the game under the hood is simply awful. Not only is the battle system repetitive, but the characters are remarkably interchangeable. And the story? Wait a minute...I'm fighting Winter Soldier and Radioactive Man on a SHIELD Heli-Carrier? You make no sense. Goodbye.
(Granted, I think Activision bit off a little more than they could chew with that game. All those characters!)
What I keep returning to is: quality control. To make licensed games better, bring the production in-house. As the mighty "old media" entertainment companies become bigger and bigger, with more pronounced interest in digital media (read: games), I think we will see this happening more in the future. LucasArts is a great example: though I know many of their Star Wars titles are licensed out to third-party development houses, they keep a clampdown on the quality of the games. By and large, this works. Generally speaking, the majority of Star Wars games are pretty good, with the occasional clunker here and there -- but some are real winners. (No one can hit it out of the park all the time, and sometimes a base hit on the PSP is all you really need.) Audiences love a good game based on their favorite comic/movie/TV show, so why can't the publishers see that delivering on this promise equals a win-win situation for all?
On a personal note, our Cartoon Network game is being produced internally (but being developed in Korea). We can give it the kind of attention that no third-party ever could, and I think players will see this when the game releases. And hopefully, we will all reap the rewards!
(Damn, that was a ramble.)
No comments:
Post a Comment