On Filmmakers and Videogames

By: Michael Carusi | December 14th, 2009

A while ago, Ben Croshaw of Zero Punctuation fame gave a less than flattering review of Ghostbusters.  It was nothing out of the ordinary for him, but one line did speak to something that’s been happening with increasing frequency in the video game industry:

“This [Ghostbusters] isn’t the first time this sort of thing has happened.  People or properties more commonly associated with famous movies, books, birthday card messages, etc, decide to grace the video game industry with their presence and everyone’s all like, “Ooh, show us how it’s done great sensei, because we’ve honestly just been guessing up to now!” It belies not only the endless disrespect video games receive, but also gaming’s collective self-esteem problem.”

This got me thinking about the video game adaptation of James Cameron’s Avatar, which hit the shelves recently.  Cameron went to surprising lengths to hype this up and went as far as appearing at E3 to assure gamers everywhere that “For the movie ‘Avatar’ we are creating a world rich in character, detail, conflict and cultural depth. It has the raw material for a game that the more demanding gamers of today will want to get their hands on – one that is rich in visuals and ideas, and challenging in play.”

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that “demanding gamer” is another way of describing the type of veteran gamer who demands high production value, detailed scenery, extensive replay value, and exciting gameplay (presumably most people on Gamer Limit).  Cameron is right that character, detail, conflict and cultural depth are raw materials for a superb game – so that means Avatar: The Game has to be stellar, right?  Whoops.  Reviews are generally mixed, but I’ve heard much more hostile reactions from friends who have actually sat down and played it.

Is the problem really that movie makers, even a genius like James Cameron, can’t make videogames?  Let’s back up a second.  Last year Steven Spielberg created Boom Blox in conjunction with Electronic Arts.  Having had the opportunity to review this, I can say it’s easily one of the best third party games on the Wii.  It’s imaginative and makes superb use of the Wii motion controls, and this was before the MotionPlus was out.  It’s also worth noting that Cameron developed Avatar: The Game in conjunction with Ubisoft Montreal, the same studio behind Prince of Persia and the Assassin’s Creed games.  So what’s the main difference between these two directors (as opposed to the fact that Boom Blox wasn’t released alongside a movie)?

Simple: Spielberg is an avid gamer.  He owns all three seventh generation consoles and enjoys Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.  In the past he’s criticized overuse of cutscenes.  In a nutshell, he knows specifically what makes a movie good, and what makes a video game good.

Certain moviemakers who partake in video game development seem to use a generic formula that does little to stand out.  The Clive Barker games are another great example of this.  The difference between Boom Blox and Avatar: The Game is that the former is a video game, while the latter is just an adaptation of a movie styled as a video game.  The problem is that people associated with other mediums assume they know how video game development works without understanding the subtleties of it in the way that Spielberg does.  This way even big budget video game tie-ins like Avatar may look very pretty but never rise above mediocrity.

This is of course assuming the movie maker or whoever happens to be involved with the project really wants to make a good game, rather than a cheap cash-in.  If this is the case, then bravo; wanting to make good games is the first step in making good games.  I’m even willing to believe that video games released in tandem with a movie have the potential to be good; if you’re going to spend that much time developing a film that stands on its own, why not let the video game stand on its own as well?

As for gaming’s “self-esteem” problem, all I’ll say is this: Movies aren’t a superior medium to games, even if movies have been around much longer.  As much as filmmakers need to understand the importance of learning how video game development works, gamers need to learn not to get too worked up if a developer graces the E3 stage.

The solution for this type of problem is simple: Research.  Video gaming is a media form enjoyed by millions around the world, not a fad that you can test out and maybe profit off of if you happen to have a movie in development.  Video games have their own nuts, bolts, essentials, and lists of what to do and not to do.  If people involved with other media forms sincerely want to make good games, again, that’s wonderful; it’s just a matter of learning the ways of video games as they would with any other medium.  I would end this article by saying that video game development isn’t something you can just throw together, but it’s essentially been that way ever since the E.T. video game set fire to the industry.