An AP story about game adaptations of movies mentions that the developers of the Terminator Salvation game worked "under the same roof" as the film crew, in hopes of making something that doesn't, well, suck.
Noting the checkered history of movies made into games (which is still much, much better than games made into movies) the AP talked to four different studios about why they think this year's crop of movie-games won't repeat 2008's largely unremarkable quality.
Joby Otero of Luxoflux, which is developing "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," thinks somehow that studios "get it" more this year than they did last year, which gave us Iron Man, Kung Fu Panda and other check-cashing projects.
"I think Hollywood is communicating with the games industry on a different level now. There's a recognition that a game's quality can impact the overall franchise. I think part of the reason is that more of the key creative decision makers grew up as gamers themselves. There's an understanding of how wrong these things can go."
Jason Enos of Electronic Arts, which is handling G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (can we please be done with the "Rise of" subtitles?) sees his game as an extension to the movie, not its adjunct.
We pick up where the movie ends. We tell a genuine story that's exclusive to the game but ties in key plot points in the film. That also allows us to leverage the larger 'G.I. Joe' universe - characters, vehicles, things you're not going to see in the film but you'll get in the game.
Call me cynical, but no one is asking or answering the essential question of why these games should be done in the first place. What is their point, what is their value proposition to me as a gamer? Sure, films and games may not be mutually exclusive formats; what makes them mutually inclusive?
Don't bother coming up with a creative answer, because we already know it: Money. Pure colour-by-numbers money-making strategy.
Summer Movie Video Games Seek to Terminate Stigma [AP hosted by Google]