The movie tie in curse?

 

Not too long past there was a time when the phrase 'movie tie in' was a curse uttered upon the gaming world. For those with more power than sense would see the production of a movie as synonymous with that of a game, and expected a full quality game to be whipped up within the year or so of filming in order to coincide with movie release schedules. This would, obviously, result in the worst possible games as developers desperately struggled to produce something working under the horrific constraints which inexplicably made a reputation and a bit of money because of the name association alone. At least, that was until they grew so bad that people knew not to waste their time anymore. Now the movie game is largely just a thing of myth, but every now and then one does pop around to surprise us and raise the question- does the curse of the movie tie-in still exist?

The early 2000's were rotten for the worst of games like these, with some coming out as little better than a mobile trash product from an amateur coder might. Of course I'm talking about the original Iron Man game- good god that disaster haunts me in my sleep and I only played the demo! Ugly, unintuitive, boring- just the worst of all worlds. At least people who fell for the 'Thor' tie in game got a terrible God of War rip off to pass the time with. Not exactly glowing- quite atrocious actually, but at least they got the Hemsworth to voice for it. And Tom Hiddleston! And the music of Inon Zur? (I need to stop reading the Wiki before I end up playing the thing.) For my money the best of that era, at least within the confines of the MCU was Ang Lee's Hulk the movie the game. Not as iconic as Ultimate Destruction, but a competant little smash 'em up action game with a totally unique narrative set after the film that touched on areas of Hulk lore I've not seen addressed outside of a comic since. Ravange, Madman, Flux- when the last time you heard any of their names?

Of course there are some genuinely good tie-in games. The King Kong game was way better than it had any right to be, presenting itself as half a semi-horror shooter game where you have to survive the mutant monstrosities of Skull Island, and the other-half a third person Kong fighting game. And then there's the king of movie licence games, a game so good it set an example that similar games tried to top over the next 14 years- Spiderman 2. What can anyone say about Spiderman 2 that hasn't already been sung from the rooftops? It was freeing, fantasy encapsulating, graphically pretty, mechanically sound, stuffed full of memorable encounters and moments, and accompanied by one of the best Super Hero movies ever made. So if you want evidence against the existence of a curse at all- those will be your best bet. Alongside Golden Eye, I guess?

But lo, just recently this very month we had ourselves a movie tie in title in 'A Quiet Place: The Road Ahead'- a first person survival game that appears to fancy itself a 'survival horror' despite featuring no significant resource management. (Are there no standards to genre picking anymore? Simply having to survive being murdered does not itself warrant the 'survival' addendum, else Until Dawn would be a 'survival Horror' now wouldn't it?) The Road Ahead is actually half decent, kind of borrowing the vibe of Alien Isolation to a small degree it mimics the core conceit of keeping super quiet by jacking into your computer mic and listening in on your breathing. (After you allow it to, of course.) All under a goofy little storyline that believes itself to be more dramatic than it honestly is. (Love a little silly horror plot now and then.) I would commend the game for slapping down the curse... but what movie release is this supposed to coincide with exactly? Day One? That movie dropped in June! (Eh, it's close enough, I suppose.)

Of course there are also movie franchise tie-ins, that are connected to a particular movie but rather a cinematic brand. Actually, there aren't many games like that because there aren't many cinematic brands that can survive past a few entries. I recall a pretty lacklustre VR John Wick game which just got a lot of people back into playing Payday 2, because that was what it played like. And more famously there was the sure-hit certain-success product Avengers which managed to bomb under the utterly moronic direction of the team who made it. Having recently actually tried to play the thing myself I can say first hand how desperately the game buckles under the weight of level gating and side content bloat it just doesn't need! Any designer worth a fraction of their paycheck would have been able to spot that giant flaw in the game's makeup, and if they failed to get that actioned upon then they failed in their role. And in doing so, Avengers failed despite all around it.

In fact, you might say the tie-in curse seems to hit Marvel the worst off. Any Marvel game that isn't directly tied to Spiderman has an inordinate chance of bombing despite the apparent permeability of the Marvel fandom and it genuinely astounds me. Perhaps it's the cynicism surrounding the very apparent over-extension of the brand- or maybe just none of these games really nailing the fantasy that people are searching for. Even Midnight Suns, which I figured to be a pretty decent game, didn't quite capture the heroism it was shooting for and ended up feeling like a half-step away from the XCOM style the studio was known for an a half-step towards something entirely different they weren't confident enough to commit to. Whatever the case- it bombed with all the others.

But could it be considered as bad as, say, Street Fighter the movie the game? Yeah, you read that right. Street Fighter the movie, an adaptation of Street Fighter 2, was adapted into a video game. And you might think- "how does that work"? Cast your mind back to Mortal Kombat and you might remember the stop-frame picture animation work which defined the bizarre style of that original game- which Street Fighter neatly avoided thanks to it's gorgeous animation work. Well the movie game took us back to that Mortal Kombat style only with pictures derived from the movie counterparts of these characters. Yes, it is visually repulsive to witness- and apparently the game plays pretty stiffly as well- which is astounding for an adaptation of a movie of one of the most responsive fighting games of all time.

The movie game curse is a warning that art is nothing to be trifled with, and that the work of making a video game cannot be condensed into the cycle of film development. It truly was born from a superiority complex that games were a lesser form easily squeezed into a Hollywood marketing schedule and it's the pig headed stubbornness of that industry which kept this sordid tradition alive for as long as it did. Maybe video games growing to such a size that they neatly eclipse films what was put an end to this. Why the potential lost revenue of a bag guy far eclipses what an entire movie marketing team can afford to commission- who is going to give them the time of day? At least nowadays those that make the plunge do so with their priorities in check and the power-balance tilted the right direction.

Wierdoes being Weird

There are a few constants in all the world. The sun will rise come morning, the seas will wax and wane through the year, and fans of things will be total unbelievable creeps on Social Media. It's as though people want to desperately to reach out and feel with others that they share overinflated hyperboles of themselves and their own social limits in hopes the exaggeration will overcome the physical barriers and touch others out there. At least, that's my working theory as to why people just plain forget how to act like functional human beings when interacting with each other over a wi-fi connection. And I'm not even talking the penchant to send unsolicited risqué pictures to one another- I don't even know if that's a symptom of social media or just something deeper. Are we certain that wasn't a unspoken about trend of mailing photos of one's privates to one another once photography became popular? I need historians on this one, stat!

I'm talking more about the way that people choose to voice their criticism- they never seem to match the the situation nor the mood. I mean, when I let loose on someone in one of these blogs they are a truly degenerate cretin deserving of my ire- I don't pen my disdain for my own health- I do it to convey the height of my ire. If I'm irked at something miniscule and insignificant, such as- the overall mediocre performances of the English cast of Crisis Core Reunion, I try to be a lot more understanding. I figure- no one wants to disappoint with the work they put out, so that was probably a case of low investment from the publisher to secure proper VA environments, like performance guidance and proper recording conditions. (I'll bet they even had some actors phone their lines in.) What I would never do, is harass the actors themselves in hopes they themselves see mean words I wrote about them. Because that's demented.

And yet that was exactly what the new voice actress for Ada Wong was subjected to upon release of the previews for Resident Evil 4. Lily Gao was brought abroad the cast from Resident Evil 4 Remake following her role as Ada in the live action Resident Evil movie 'Welcome to Raccoon City', which marked the very first time in history the Asian-American character was played by an actual Asian-American! (Well, Asian-north American, if we were to include Canada, but you get the idea.) It was a smart move to bring the distinct mediums of the franchise together and to refresh the cast somewhat. But there was just a little bit of a problem. Resident Evil 4 Remake's Ada had a pretty bad performance. Like- noticeably bad.

It's particularly flat and wooden in a manner that would actually be right at home in Crisis Core Reunion, but alongside the otherwise solid performances of everyone else it actually sticks out like a sore thumb. And it's an anomaly to be sure, but one worth dog-piling on the actress for? Mocking ruthlessly until she is chased off social media? Why? What does that achieve? Honestly, she is the only recast member of the cast and I suspect that decision might have been made pretty late into development. My guess, she was rushed through her sessions and wasn't given a chance to actually perform. It's not as though Lily doesn't have talent. The woman is an actress, she has demonstrated an ability to act several times before. This is a situation of process, without a doubt, letting her down and ruining an otherwise solid casting. It just sucks that she won't get a chance to redeem herself until Resident Evil 6 Remake, which is a ways off considering Code Veronica is next. (Which is the one game they swore they wouldn't do! Might as well do Survivor at this rate!)

And, of course, there is the whole 'Mary Jane' debacle from Marvel's Spider-Man 2. Insomniac decided to remodel Mary Jane between games and what they ended up with was a character who looked like an entirely different woman to the MJ from the original, and given how painfully obsessive people are with the unquestionable 'perfection' of that original game- tensions would soon flare. Fans have harassed and harangued Insomniac over the change, (as well as a great many other bizarre choices by the team. Not least of all to try and white-wash the entire Spanish language.) and the chaos spilt over to the actress. That's right, the actress for Mary Jane has had to deal with nattering and poking from the audience of this game that has spilled into her private life and resulted in people calling her up at her day job. Actual criminally liable stalker behaviour here, from Spider-Man fans! (This is what happens when you don't give chuds their Game of the Year awards!)

This particular controversy is so ridiculous in particular because of the subject. The voice actress has nothing to do with the art departments choices, and though it was her face used as a basis for both models- (apparently, as unrecognisable as they are) that doesn't mean it's her responsibility to bear the brunt of fan dissatisfaction. Of course, these same fans are still harping on about the fact that they changed Peter's face to appear more young, which fits in line with the motion capture artist, although they still insist it is to bear a resemblance to Tom Holland. (Which it doesn't, by the way. Just looks like a young guy and Tom happens to be young. How bad do you think the modellers are that they couldn't properly depict one of the most famous actors in the world if they wanted to?) What I'm trying to say is- Spider-Man fans need to keep their critiques limited to the game itself, they got a bit loopy when they try to comment on anything wider.

And though it has literally nothing to do with the world of gaming whatsoever, we might as well throw in an honorary mention to Star Wars' Kelly Marie Tran who committed the crime of- being in The Last Jedi. (That is quite the sin, to be fair.) Everything about The Last Jedi has generated nothing but misery and conflict, which is why I don't think I'll ever be in the mood to finally watch it. One such miserable conflict was around Kelly and the every encroaching boogey man that haunts the dreams of scared white folks- diversity! (Woo!) Kelly is Asian, and that is scary to people, therefore she became one of the reasons why The Last Jedi was bad in the minds of people who wanted to burn the movie to the ground. Literally, I haven't heard a single comment about her performance or role or anything substantive- just the race thing and 'diversity quotas' or some such guff. Just weirdoes being weird, I guess.  

Of course, it isn't lost on me that many of real life people caught at the centre of my examples today are women, which no doubt had it's own influence in the respective dramas- emboldening the aggrieved to poke where perhaps they might have otherwise merely seethed in silence. But of course the issue touches male celebrities as well, just look at Kpop stars! It's the illness of being in some form of contact with the blinding glitter of stardom that touch something feral in people, something dark and nasty- that most people would never have discovered were it not for the supposed anonymity of being online. (Most of the time they don't even take the time to be actually anonymous anymore, they'll post their insane lunacy on verified accounts with their real names on it- because the physical and virtual distance alone is a shield in itself.) And the solution to all this? Play more games, whine less.

'Fallout' of the Year Award

 The battles rage

Quick disclaimer, I thought up the name of that title before I remembered there's actually a very famous games series, that I speak about a lot, named 'Fallout'. I was not referring to that game but rather the concept of a 'fallout', as in the consequential wake of an event. See it was a... not really a pun but more a... look just stick with me okay, it makes sense. I think. So the Game Awards went by in a flash and barring some controversy about the way that Geoff decided to run the show and shoe winners off stage with a broom for fear they would sully the time for the almighty advertisers- it was a decent showing. Somehow Hollow Knight Silksong did not make an appearance, and that is the only thing I care about so I consider the show an abject failure, but I have it on good authority that some people out there have other aspects of life they care about or something? Like eating and stuff? (Eh, I don't get the appeal.) But there has been one topic of conversation which keeps popping up again and again; the winner of the big award, and whether or not they deserved it.

Now you would be very hard pressed to call Baldur's Gate 3 a surprise winner of the award considering how everyone already raised the game on their shoulders and carried it off the pitch in slow motion like the final act of a coming-of-age sports movie, but that doesn't mean there was no other game this year with a swinging chance. Heck, back when a lot of us were still naïve believers in the peace there was a genuine belief that Bethesda's very own Starfield was going to be a shoe in. You know, until we actually played the thing and found out how underbaked it really was. (I try to get back into it every week and end up with 4 minute play sessions I just abandon.) In fact, this year was so strong there are several games that never even made the nomination list for Game of the Year that sent people a bit loopy, so of course the winning itself was going to be contentious, no matter how 'pre ordained' it felt.

Between the big five I think only Resident Evil 4 raised eyebrows about it's conclusion for merit of it being 'just a remake'. But I have to honestly call bull on that- Resident Evil 4 is so much of a remake that it takes the basic story beats, locations and characters and totally rebuilds them from the ground up. To call is a 'basic' remake is a total misnomer, it was a fresh game totally of it's own right. Now if a remaster was on the list, or maybe The Last of Us Part 1, then I'd understand the side-eye. Seriously, Resident Evil 4 is not a 'side by side' remake by any stretch of the imagination, it earnt it's aplomb purely by being a premier action adventure game. Just as Alan Wake 2 earned it's nomination. And Spiderman 2. (Disgrace the hyphen!) And Tears of the Kingdom.

Funnily enough, despite it's ravenous fanbase I haven't heard a lot of grumblings about Alan Wake 2 not winning Game of the Year. That audience seem happy enough winning Narrative game of the year, which makes sense given no other candidate really threw their narrative prowess to the test, now did they? At least we're not getting a 'Elden Ring' style controversy wherein people complain "I didn't pay attention to the story and I skipped all the dialogue, which means the game had no story and shouldn't be nominated!" Alan Wake 2 was lucky enough to avoid that crowd of 'geniuses'. The other big games on the list however? Yeah, their fans have had something to say- and it's building up into quite the shouting match. (It's like 'Football' over here, everyone's getting uppity like they're actual members of the team.)

There was a time early on in this year when organised queen-bashing title: Tears of the Kingdom was considered a shoe-in for game of the year for it's increadibly robust mechanics that breathed a new world of creativity into the base of Breath of the Wild. There's little doubt that Breath of the Wild was already a spectacular and wide game to conquer, and so to set a sequel on that exact same landmass yet have it be even more full of activity, non-standard world interactions and flexible gameplay systems built atop on another- it was astounding! It's nomination was a foregone conclusion and the fact that it didn't win was a testament to how incredible of a year for gaming this has been. It's fans seem at peace with the award it did win, and don't seem to complain too much.

Spiderman 2, on the otherhand. (Woah boy.) Apparently the 'honour of being nominated' doesn't rub off on Spiderman fans who are so indignant that they've declared active war on all things Baldur's Gate. Specifically for the loss of two awards, best actor (although I'm quite surprised people expected to win that, most of the pre-show buzz had Ben Starr as the favourite second pick, not Yuri) and the big award itself. For a time Twitter was writhe with 'comparison videos', pitting the combat of Baldur's Gate 3 against Spiderman and critiquing, what exactly? The speed? Of an action game next to a turn based game? Maybe they were championing the relatively mindless affair of thug punching next to the comparatively involved rigors of thinking your way through one of Larian's deviously designed encounters. Essentially fans were dead set on missing the forest through the trees and start a war where no one wanted one.

And then we have 'Super Mario Bros Wonder'. Honestly, I ain't heard jack about this game from the fanbase. It's as though Nintendo lovers have their own cubby-hole of reality that they enter from which no sound escapes, in which they love their little Mario game exclusively. I was genuinely surprised when the game was nominated for the Ultimate prize, and when it didn't win- no one seemed to be angry or aggrieved. The most I ever saw was a speculative article from a thought experiment that asked what Super Mario Bros Wonder might do which would qualify it for a game award. The best they could come up with? 4 player co-op. Baldur's Gate 3 has 4 player co-op! (Although Wonder does have 4 player local co-op, which does make it a bit of a unicorn in today's landscape. Game of the year worthy? That's debateable.)

What Baldur's Gate 3 brought to earn it's reward is bigger than the way it played, the complexity of it's narrative or the.. existence of co-op play. It brought a return to pushing the boundaries of gaming in a way that challenges to the confines of the medium, not just of the tech running the programs. Baldur's Gate 3 oozes with a weave of complex reactionary content that would make most Bethesda writer's heads spin, and consequence that would make DONTNOD and Telltale blush. They slapped in a complex and alive Role Playing heart with consequence, not the trite 'flat RPG building' architecture that so many other RPGs have- and what's more, it was accessible. That's the key to all of this, not just what it does but how it invited in everyone. Showing people that properly deep and complex games are actually worth the investment. Giving Baldur's Gate 3 Game of the Year was a testament to believing in the art of games and gaming, and that was what brought it into the very rare league of it's own.

Marvel's Spiderman 2

 Talk about getting busy

I'm swinging through the streets of New York, dangling nearly a thousand feet from the ground, swapping web for web  at speeds so rapid that the screen has that blurry effect on the character that we wouldn't all collective realise looks awful until several years from now. This is it, the greatest possible realisation of the webslinging dream, unbound by mission constraints, unafflicted with a non-existent street level, boasting webs that accurately pretend to stick to buildings- the only way this could feasibly be any better would be, oh wait: there it is! The voice of Bruce Campbell admonishing me for what I don't know, but gracing me with his presence all the same. See the many virtues that will forever make the 2004 Spiderman 2 game the greatest Peter Parker simulator known to man. (Although from everything I'm told I guess Marvel's Spiderman is a close second.)

And yet Insomniac games have the gall to try and dethrone my ageless king with their very own Spiderman 2! Such to the extent where, now if I type in 'Spiderman 2 game' into Google, theirs has already clogged up search results. (It won't even be done for another two years, guys, calm down!) I will not hide my utter repugnance at the very suggestion that Spiderman 2 can be bested, but perhaps that throne may be shared and if anyone could whittle away a comfy seat there, it would have to be Insomniac. (Unless they manage to finagle Bruce Campbell to show up in their game as well. Then I'd actually be having a crisis of faith) And they better live up the name they've built for themselves and put something out that's fantastic, because seeing two AAA Marvel games apparently be under development by them at the same time, I have to wonder if everyone knows what they're doing over there.

Marvel's Wolverine and Marvel Spiderman 2? So what- we talking simultaneous development here? My observations have always seen that companies who conflate their development schedules usually do so to the detriment of every single project that they're working on. Heck, look at Assassin's Creed back when they were still deadset on doing yearly releases, forcing them to overlap every game with the next one coming out. Every title started to become monotonous and samey, serious player feedback was so outdated that it became irrelevant when it was addressed and the heart of these games just felt absent, probably due to a lack of passion from overworking, alongside other big issues. Call of Duty slipped into the same pattern, although they were at least smart enough to try and rectify this with various different studios who would attack each game in rotation. But it only worked a little, the yearly schedule still did the series no wonders. So is that what we can expect from Insomniac in the near future?

I seriously hope not, because as I recently said in another blog about The Wolverine game; few companies have risen to the legendary status that Insomniac have managed over pretty much a single console generation. That's the sort of legacy that needs to be protected, the kind of legacy that demands everyone of their AAA games be treated like kings, and given the care, attention (and development space) they need to thrive as the best they can be. Spiderman Miles Morales was already a disappointment due to it's size and scope not really justifying the stupid full price on the tag. (Yes, I know Sony are deadset on convincing us that £70 is the new 'full price', but they can choke on that crap for all I care.) Insomniac have stated how that won't be the case again, but I look at this schedule and I worry. (What's the catch then? There's gotta be a catch!)

As for the game itself; sure I'm crazy excited for it. For all my jests, Marvel's Spiderman for the PS4 did the impossible and took a character who has enough games to choke a whale on and still managed to put out a definitive competitor to the entire subgenre. I mean sure, old hats like me will always rate the classics, Spiderman 2 (original), Web of Shadows and Ultimate Spiderman; but there's no denying the impact that Marvel's Spiderman had. The game looked beautiful, explored an original narrative, went in interesting directions with the character of Peter Parker and revitalised some old villains. And that was just the story stuff it did. The combat, which I actually do have experience with, is Batman Arkham levels of tight and the detail and design of the world is simply flawless. Although that final point would be a lot more impressive if New York wasn't one of those skylines that have been in more games than Nolan North.

Spiderman Miles Morales, on the otherhand, managed to dupe people into buying a half a game at full price, but also succeeded in bringing a hugely successful alternate Spiderman to life with his very own style and life to him. It also inspired a cringe game reviewer to utter a sentence commenting on how his unique animation quirks were "full of the exaggerated swagger of a black teen"; so this game granted us all kinds of entertainment. Spiderman 2 is going to bring both of these protagonists together in a confirmed co-op space which is, and I'm using effortless hyperboles here but I can't help myself, just incredible. Playing with the precision of Spiderman but stretched across two spidermen at the same time? Both with their different levelling trees and stuff? Man- Insomniac must have cancelled all of their holidays if they think they can got the time and space to meet their schedule. But heck, I'm rooting for them!

And none of what I've said so far is to even touch on the most exciting part of the game was saw teased. I mean sure, Kraven the Hunter was obviously narrating the thing; he's a character that a lot of fans simply love but I never really saw the appeal so that's 'whatever news' to me. No, I wanna talk about the big slobbery dude at the end, ducked in the shadows there; because Venom is my spiderman villain/sometimes Anti-hero of choice. He's literally just Spiderman reimagined as a monster with teeth, and who doesn't love an idea like that? He's miles better than ManSpider who- urgh, I hate that I had to google him to remind myself that was definitely his name. (Seriously, if you've never seen ManSpider before: he's a deformed human sized spider in a suit; there, now you don't need to look it up.) The Venom chapters were my favourite parts of Ultimate Spiderman, (both the proper version and the crappy gameboy advanced version which only I in the whole world played) now I get pumped for everyone of best-boi-symbiote's gaming appearances. (And doubly so when my man is being voiced by the legendary Tony Todd- Way to bring the talent, Insomniac!)

Spiderman has never been in better hands (in terms of videogames) than it is today, and given the number of hands that the franchise has gone through that really is a testament to it's current arbiters. Were this calibre of spiderman game coming out back when I was still a kid, I wouldn't have ever looked at another Superhero. However the concerns I have about the project, and Insomniac overworking themselves, still looms over the whole thing like a vulture, and I know just how easily everything can fall apart even from the height of near perfection, and so I can't just put those worries to the side. Still, Insomniac believe in themselves, and maybe that'll be enough to carry them through what's looking to be the most hectic two years of development in the company's history. (I'm excited for the results)