Huh? *scratching head* What about X-Wing and Tie Fighter on the PC? They probably don't have the same sales figures as an N64 title since PC gaming was a relatively small market, but both were excellent titles. Dark Forces was a decent FPS based in the Star Wars universe. I pumped a lot of quarters into Star Wars - The Arcade Game and Return of the Jedi in the arcades during the 80's.
While I haven't played any of the arcade games, I do happen to have most of the entire 90's collection, as well as a few 80's,
Star Wars games sitting in the hallowed areas of my gaming center(centre). I haven't forgotten them. (I'm primarilly missing some games from the
Rebel Assault and
Rogue Squadron series)
However, I kinda discount them, primarily because most of the games weren't based off of a movie, only a franchise; there was a lot more to that franchise than just the original trilogy, so it would've been just as silly to say "a graphic novel based on the movies," for instance. This applies to what are largely regarded as the best
Star Wars titles,
Dark Forces,
X-Wing,
TIE Fighter,
X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter, and
Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight.
One can make a somewhat stronger argument in favor of the actual
Star Wars/
Super Star Wars titles, and indeed, they weren't really bad games at all. However, once you removed the movie license, they lost part of what made them shine; in my opinion, at least, such games were merely
decent action games, rather than truly great ones.
While the Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom arcade game wasn't that great, Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine wasn't too bad of an adventure game from LucasArts.
Although not really a movie property, Star Trek - Judgement Rites and Star Trek 25th Anniversary were actually quite good. I found the console versions a bit lacking as was the case most of the time when games were released on both the PC and a console.
Well, I do agree that
Infernal Machine was pretty good, though I must also note, it came out AFTER
GoldenEye. (1999, wasn't it?) And unless I was mistaken, it wasn't made after a movie, but again, made after the franchise in general.
But Rob's point is well taken...there have been some good games based on movies and lately that situation seems to be improving. However, there haven't been any truly spectacular movies based on video games. Super Mario Bros. was a laughable 80's film and quickly dismissed...very campy and not intended to be otherwise. I didn't like the Wing Commander movie (I actually thought the movies from WCIV and WC: Prophecy were better) although I thought the animated series was decent. By the way, did anyone ever see the Mutant League animated series based on the EA sports titles for the Genesis? Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter were silly bad. I actually liked Resident Evil (but not Apocalypse...awww...that's so sad...the big mean ugly monster has feelings and is just a victim of corporate greed like all the people it slaughtered...'No dear...I'm not crying...I've got something in my eye...snif snif') and Tomb Raider (the first more than the second). Doom was disappointing, but watchable. We needed slightly more reason to care. Silent Hill looks promising.
And the one that I think you forgot which I really liked, but I don't know how closely it follows any of the games because I've never played them: Final Fantasy - The Spirits Within. I actually own that DVD. It's still the only animated feature that attempts to have realistic humans as the main characters, and I thought they did well. The story is a bit too environmental preach-y for me, and there's a definite anime-type flavor to the story (not a fan of anime, the style or the over-the-top storytelling methods), but I like the movie...enough to buy it and showcase it on my home theater.
Well, that's an interesting one to pick... As it happens,
Final Fantasy, as the movie, had absolutely zero to do with the games, aside, perhaps, form the fact that there's a "Dr. Cid" character, (every FF game since the Japanese III has had a technologically-adept "Cid" character, though the form has always been different) and the planet it takes place on is referred to as "Earth."
That seems to be part of the problem; even if it was good (reviews were mixed, and while some liked it, many found it poor in quality) the only thing
Final Fantasy about it was that it used the franchise to attempt to sell more tickets/DVDs.
Obviously, I'm not doing very well in withholding my dollars from Hollywood, but in my defense, I've only seen those movies on DVD or TV...never paid theater admission to see one.
Where I disagree is that it's hurting our industry...non-gamers probably don't even realize that Silent Hill is a video game...very few non-gamers would recognize Doom or Wing Commander or Resident Evil as video games. Most people realize Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter were popular arcade games (especially with the notoriety surrounding Mortal Kombat), but those games were always mass consumption anyway. I don't exactly tout either franchise as being standouts in the video game industry...revolutionary?...perhaps...best of the genre...uh uh.
I'm not sure those movies were really intended to be commercials for the video games. MK and RE are still very active series. Doom and Tomb Raider are somewhat active, but I'm not sure the movies would put off non-gamers from buying Doom III or the recently released Tomb Raider. Non-gamers probably wouldn't buy them anyway. Most non- (if they're trying to get into the hobby) or casual gamers will buy either what their friends recommend, what the store clerk recommends, or what everyone else is buying.
Myst and the Sims sat on top of the video game charts for way too long...but it was self-perpetuating. People just wanted to buy the most popular (ie best selling game) game.
Well, this is where it comes to be that you have to ask what the point of a movie spun-off of a video game is; to Hollywood, as the problem has been shown, it's clear that the purpose is for them to make a quick buck using somebody else's franchise.
However, a truly successful movie should be one that not simply uses the name, but also keeps to the story, but may be willing to part with it in places where the medium truly calls for something different. But most important of all, the movie needs to maintain the same feel and theme as the game, or whatever the source material may be.
If done properly, the movie should cast a good light on the source matieral, and bring it back to the front of people's minds. With luck, the movie-goers who aren't the shallowest will become intrigued by the movie's source, and the movie will succeed in actually breathing some more life into the series.
As for the
Myst series, I do believe it actually never made it to 1 million copies; it merely retained its "best-selling PC game" title for most of the 90's because PC gaming was largely dormant then. (heck,
Doom actually only sold some 300,000 copies!) It was clearly knocked from its spot by
Jedi Knight, and then
Half-Life and
StarCraft. I might be a bit off on that, though.
As for
The Sims, as I'll comment below, it may be that the figures for the game are over-stated, and at least
StarCraft, if not
Half-Life or even other PC games have out-sold it. After all, aside from their sports series, EA has little else to actually go on; every other genre's titles tend to bomb, so it's reasonable for the company seen as the "leader" to milk any great success for all that they can.
The Marvel comic properties seem to have done well as movies for the most part because it seems like Marvel was involved. Marvel had to protect their X-Men and Spiderman franchise, and they were decent quality movies with stories based on the well written comics.
Rob, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ignore the call to arms, but if you set up an online petition, I'll beg Blizzard to make a CGI movie in their Warcraft universe a la Final Fantasy.
Indeed, I think that heavy involvement from the franchise creator has almost always been what keeps it true. When it was the original products, the true ones, that were popular, it's of critical importance to keep any spin-offs as close to this norm as possible. Unfortunately, Hollywood monkeys rarely have the brains to see that story and theme do matter, as we've witnessed from the endless background of "vehichles" made for some "famous star" or other. That really only ever worked for one movie (
Titanic) and it's quite clear that any movie that simply puts itself out and assuming that people will dump tons on it because it's using a big name, and has "star" names in it, are always set up for a nasty fall.
As for Blizzard's games, that's something that remains to be seen. I would note that
StarCraft, widely regarded as the most-successful PC game ever, (most
The Sims sales figures include separate expansion packs, so actual numbers are hard to find; it is believed "only" 6 million stand-alone copies were sold) has spawned a fairly successful spin-off community, with a lot of fiction books written.
However, Blizzard likely knows that, being one of the few companies that have really never missed the spot with a game, any movie that they wouldn't be embarrased of using their name will require a LOT of work, and likely why we haven't seen one yet; the obvious solution is to keep the company's lead developers as the producers of the movie, and have strong influence over the director, but oddly enough, Hollywood loathes such an idea.
...all the while realizing the "B-ness" of the flick. There is a subtle charm to a good B-Movie.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram