Why is it that successful videogame brands rarely translate into successful movies? Apparently, Keith Boesky, the former president of Eidos, gave a talk on this very subject at the Austin Games Conference last week. Variety's games blogger Brad King was there to summarise...
It seems that Boesky provided two explanations:
a) Games don't work as movies because games don't have much of a plot. b) Games don't work as movies because the target audiences for the two media are different.
I'm not sure I buy the first one. How many of this year's blockbuster movies had a plot any more sophisticated than, say, Vice City, Call of Duty or Fatal Frame 2? Plot has fallen way down the list of ingredients for a successful film, currently languishing several positions below 'awesome special effects', 'killer license', 'gross-out comedy moments' and 'starring Ben Stiller'. Meanwhile, over in videogames, Doom 3 has just drawn a lot of criticism for its lack of compelling narrative.
I'm more convinced by the second argument. Most publishers still pander to a very narrow demographic of dedicated young male gamers and this market isn't big enough to create significant box office. Ironically, the games that appeal outside of this niche - things like SingStar, Dance UK and The Sims - wouldn't work as movies because they have no pre-defined stories or characters; the player's own actions provide the entire focus of the gameplay dynamic. A Sims movie seems plausible as the game appropriates the 'rage-to-riches' stencil employed continuously by mainstream films. But without player interaction, it's just a formless slice-of-life docu-soap populated by soulless automatons barely able to function as thinking, interacting beings. Hmmm, wouldn't work as a movie, but as Saturday night TV...
