Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
XBox (Games) Entertainment Games

Chronicling Riddick - Making A Decent Movie-Licensed Game? 73

Posted by simoniker from the heavens-to-betsy dept.
Thanks to Eurogamer for its two-part feature discussing developer Starbreeze's path to making a high-quality licensed videogame in Xbox FPS Chronicles Of Riddick, as the author asks of movie licenses: "Should they mimic the structure of the film and allow players to relive key events? Should they act as a supplement to the main picture, fleshing out secondary characters and back-stories whilst adhering to the tenets of genre?", before analyzing the development of the well-received title, which has drawn impressive scoring from GameSpot, who rated it "one of the most-impressive games on the Xbox and seems destined to be remembered as the most inspiring collaboration between Hollywood and the gaming industry yet." The Eurogamer article concurs with this, praising the "very cohesive first-person game blending elements of stealth, all-out action and storytelling." What did Starbreeze do right?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chronicling Riddick - Making A Decent Movie-Licensed Game? More

Chronicling Riddick - Making A Decent Movie-Licensed Game?

Comments Filter:

  • So... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hookedup ( 630460 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @08:22AM (#9375708)
    Are they just assuming that the movie will do well when they start creating a video game for it?

    What if the movie flops a-la waterworld, then you're stuck with boxes and boxes of a game that is doomed to the 10 dollar bin at office depot..

    • Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BigDork1001 ( 683341 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @09:00AM (#9375956) Homepage
      Well if the game is good enough it shouldn't matter how well the movie does? Sure it will affect sales some but if it's one of the best titles yet for X-box why wouldn't people go out to buy it?

      The same can be said for movies that are based on video games. If Hollywood were to make a movie based on some terrible video game but it was one of the top movies in the past couple years I'm sure it'd do well. I think people, for the most part, are smart enough to look at the movie and video game as completely seperate things and make decisions as such.

      • Re:So... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by chromaphobic ( 764362 )

        I agree, for the most part.

        If Half-Life had been Waterworld:The Game, would it have been as successful? Probably not, the stigma from it's association with a flop like that would hurt it some. Would it still have been a hit though? I think so, a good game is a good game. Period.

        Hell, look at Goldeneye for the N64. The movie wasn't a flop, but it was no big hit either. But the game was one of the most successful N64 titles.

        • Re:So... (Score:3, Informative)

          by Reducer2001 ( 197985 )
          The movie pulled in over $350,000,000 dollars worldwide(from IMDB). I would consider that a pretty big hit!!
          • Indeed, it made some money. But there was so much bad buzz around it, everyone went to the theatre, not to see a movie, but to take a peek at the train wreck! How many people have left the theathre thinking about getting a Waterworld game? The movie was a bore-fest!

            (by the way, the Waterworld game sucked too...)
        • Not a bash on the N64, but wasn't that as much due to the number and quality of the other games on that machine? Goldeneye, Zelda and Marioworld seem to get continuous praise, but most fans of the console I know, tend to say there wasn't a lot of choice. As to the film vs. game argument, I think it depends on how much hype the 'less good' original has. Waterworld is not a fair example since it was news simply by existing and the critics wanted failure. I seem to remember Ocean's Robocop 3 (many years ago
    • Ha! I got my copy of Waterworld (Virtual Boy! Heck yeah!) for $4.99!
  • He just ghosted two guys and they didn't even see him coming.

    We should go, what do you think?

    I think you're my new gunner, grab a Gat.

    oh.... theres a game? /fp/

  • Already been discussed... (Score:5, Informative)

    by GodHead ( 101109 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @09:07AM (#9376006) Homepage
    As usual Tycho has the goods. And it's not whoreing if I don't care about karma right?

    ----
    These are the things the game establishes: First, the title should be used to add contour and gradient to the existing property - not merely repackage the film plus interactivity. That's a pretty important distinction, how the license can inherently break the simulation. If my only two choices are to a) continue the preordained story from the movie or b) die, those don't actually count as choices. You have a single choice and the consequences of making that choice. If being interactive means that my decisions are relevant, in the context of a movie narrative - a kind of discrete, linear destiny - in real terms, volition is nonexistent.

    So, Riddick sidesteps that by being a prequel that details important developments in the character. The second lesson is that voice talent needs to be of even quality. I don't even want to think about how many janitors or friends of the producer I've had to tolerate in games, busting right through even the best ones and forcibly ejecting me from a more pure translation into the experience. I'd imagine it's the "Universal" part of Vivendi Universal that helped the most with this, but this thing has some of the most pristine voice work to date. Make a note of it: actors pretend to be other people as their job. And if you want to see just how much a voice can bridge that wide span between a 3D model and a human being, go rent The Chronicles of Riddick.

    So, original story, don't skimp on the voices. These aren't bad things for any game, but when we're talking about converting a cinematic property they're critical. Riddick throws in something that isn't, in my opinion, necessary - but when added to the other two creates the startled look you see on these reviewers. It has flashes of technical brilliance. This is the sort of graphical presentation we should be expecting at this point. They aren't next generation graphics, even - it's the way this generation should look, and Farcry is the only other game that comes to mind which really presents the argument for modern hardware. The game isn't long enough for the honeymoon period to be over, even by the end you'll still be marvelling at just how immersive an environment can be when its surfaces capture and reflect light properly.
    ---

    Spot on from last weeks penny-arcade.

  • Tivo Preview (Score:5, Interesting)

    by justanyone ( 308934 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @09:07AM (#9376008) Homepage Journal
    Tivo [tivo.com] pushed a 2-minute 'preview of'/'making of' 'Chronicles of Riddick' out to my Tivo unit this last Sunday as per their normal marketing arrangements.

    It claims (IIRC) that the movie starts where the quite good action sci-fi adventure 'Pitch Black' [imdb.com] left off. The character played by Vin Diesel [imdb.com] was apparently too intriquing to let go, and a numbered sequel [rockythemovie.com] (a la` Pitch Black II) was probably too ordinary.

    I admit the universe presented in Pitch Black is interesting. They got a good bit of science right in that they used a planetary eclipse for the mating time, which is unusual enough to be a natural idea. I would have liked to see some vegetation to support this biological system, but on the whole it seemed pretty good.

    The spacecraft, the concept of a prison ship, this is pretty normal stuff, but I like the concept of either electromechanichal or biologically enhanced eyesight as a mini-superpower, given present technology trends this seems reasonable given the rest of their technology structures.

    If anyone has a further comment on the hard-sci-fi tech aspect of these movies, please post, I am interested if they conform to the almost-reasonable traditions of Niven and Asimov.

    -- Kevin J. Rice
    Justanyone.com [justanyone.com]

    • Re:Tivo Preview (Score:5, Informative)

      by Echo5ive ( 161910 ) <echo5ive@gmail.com> on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @09:37AM (#9376282) Homepage

      Riddick speaks of his "shine job" in Pitch Black.

      In "Chasm City" by Alastair Reynolds, a character gets an "eye shine", by adding some snake DNA to his eyes so they grow a reflective coating inside of the eye, giving him better night vision by bouncing the light several times against the receptors -- with the minor disadvantage that it makes his eye glow like a cat's. Sort of like Riddick's.

      Riddick apparently can't turn his shine job on/off at will in Pitch Black, but he can in the game (though that may just be an abstraction of him removing his goggles).

      In Chasm City, Cahuella is able to engage/disengage it by triggering "local cancer growths" that add/remove the eye shine in a few days.

      Pitch Black is from 2000. Chasm City is from 2001. And I doubt either of them is the first with the idea of eye shines. (I recommend Alastair Reynolds if you like hard sci-fi.)

      The Riddick game is damn good. I finished it yesterday, and today I started replaying it to find a few things I missed or didn't try the first time through. I rarely replay games that quick after finishing them.

      There's a few parts in the game where you can advance the plot in several ways. Both of them have the same outcome, but the path is way different. I like that.

      If you have an Xbox, give this game a spin. Rent it, at the very least.

      • The Riddick game was excellent, albeit an incredibly short game. It seems a bit much to pay 30-50 (whereever you are at) for a game that can be beaten in 4 and 1/2 hours. Even it if you stare at every surface you still have plenty of time to get through it prior to the movie.

    • Re:Tivo Preview (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MrScience ( 126570 )
      You're right, they got a lot of it correct. The thing that bugged me was the "and they seemed to move as one" increadibly-long eclipse. Did you see how fast the planet was coming up? I figure it should have lasted two hours, tops.

      • Re:Tivo Preview (Score:3, Interesting)

        by justanyone ( 308934 )
        Did you see how fast the planet was coming up?

        I agree that the planet approached the sun very quickly. Great observation. I might postulate that the eclipse duration could be explained by an eccentric orbit (sorry I don't remember the orbital mechanics graphic they put in the movie though).

        Okay, here's PITCH BLACK MOVIE's presumption (I don't have the game, so no comment on that): A moon around a gas giant around a binary system, right? The binary suns are almost always separated enough in the sky to
        • it's been awhile since I saw it, but I thought there were 3 suns in the galaxy that Pitch Black took place in. which only complicates the math involved, I would think.

          I think this is one of those situations where someone came up with a plausible theory and then it was altered to better fit the story. In other words, this mathematical proof ends up as "false".

          Good movie, though.

        • Hmm. I don't think a circular orbit is ever the natural type you get, but I may be wrong. The Earth's orbit is certainly elliptical but I don't think it's massively pronounced.

          Off hand I'd just go with the set up being bogus. I can't really think how you'd get an incredibly long eclipse. I've seen Pitch Black - is that what you're talking about (as oppose to the sequel), because I really don't remember much more than it being at night. Hmm...

          As to the distance between binary stars, I'd imagine it woul
    • As far as I could tell, Pitch Black didn't really have a "universe". The sci-fi setting was just an excuse to get the characters in that situation and make an interesting monster. Not that that negatively impacts the movie in any way, of course.

  • Heres What They Did Right (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Slyght ( 784581 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @09:08AM (#9376009) Journal
    First off, let me say that I have never been a fan of Vin Diesel's work. Fast and the Furious was one of the worst movies I've ever seen, XXX was cheesy. I've never seen Pitch Black, and had no intention of seeing the new Riddick movie, but after playing Escape from Butcher Bay, I'm probably going to go see them. Here's why: 1) It tells a part of the story of Riddick not found in the movies. This game is a whole new part of the story of Riddick, and an intregal part, as it explains how Riddick got his night vision. Since this story is exclusive to the game, the developers had more freedom in what the player can do, and therefore the player isn't limited to the constraints of what happens on screen, a common problem with movie-licensed games.

    2) It's visually impressive. This is one of the best-looking games I've seen on the Xbox, with lighting only rivalled by Splinter Cell.

    3) First-person brawler. It's funny that it took ten years since the invention of the first-person shooter for developers to start making first person games that use one's fists in a more realistic manner than Goldeneye's karate chop. While Escape from Butcher Bay isn't the first to try this, it's probably so far the best implementation. Snapping somebody's neck in first-person is very satisfying, as well. 4) It's immersive. Escape from Butcher Bay really makes you feel like you're Riddick as you play this, and not just because you're playing through the eyes of him. The game has a very immersive, cinematic feel to it, similar to Half Life or Call of Duty. As you first get walked into Butcher Bay with the opening credits on the screen, you can look around, hearing fragments of prisoners' conversations as you walk by, hearing screams of prisoners getting beaten in the distance, you can see the dried blood and filth on the walls, the flies swarming around the trash...you feel like you're in Butcher Bay.

    Although not the longest game in the world, it's incredibly enjoyable, and I suggest everybody with an Xbox at least go out and rent it. I think a lot of development companies can learn a lot from this game, especially those that develop movie-licensed games.

    • It's funny that it took ten years since the invention of the first-person shooter for developers to start making first person games that use one's fists in a more realistic manner than Goldeneye's karate chop.

      I don't know... I think "Oni" (PS2, PC, and Mac) did a pretty good job of it 4 years ago.

    • I find it very interesting that you make that first point without having seen Pitch Black. I've never played the game, and don't intend to. But I thought the movie did a pretty good job of explaining Riddick's eyes. I don't frankly see a need for making a whole game about it.

      • I didn't think Pitch Black explained his eyes at all, other than Riddick saying that he "paid a slam preacher 20 Menthols for them".

        It's hinted pretty heavily in the game that there is something else pulling Riddick's strings.

        • I got the impression that the eyes weren't at all uncommon in prisons. It's like asking someone where they got their glasses from, and the guy saying that he paid the doctor $100 for them, or won them in a card game. I mean, you COULD go on to explain the whole scenario behind it, but honestly... what's the point?

          I'm not saying that it couldn't be a nice little side story. But seeing it as one of the big selling points of the game? uh uh.
    • Vin Diesel plays one character in every movie he's ever been in: himself. That said, he plays himself very well, and involves himself in projects that are appropriate to his character.
      No one ever accused John Wayne or Clint Eastwood for being great actors, but their performances were still enjoyable because they choose the right projects (Bridges of Madison County notwithstanding).
      • If you think John Wayne wasn't a great actor, you haven't seen very many John Wayne movies. I'd suggest Stagecoach, The Searchers, The Quiet Man, Red River, and the entire cavalry trilogy (Fort Apache, She Wore A Yellow Ribbon, and Rio Grande).

        I'll give you Clint Eastwood, though.
        • I've actually seen all those movies, and most of his 100 some-odd movies. It was required of us as pledges,as he is one of the more famous members of my frat (Sigma Chi). He played himself in every movie. They were great movies, and VERY entertaining, but he is not a character actor like Tom Hanks or William H. Macy.
          • Wow, I guess we're miles apart if you think Tom Hanks is a great actor; I guess I see in him the same kind of "sameness" you see in John Wayne.

            Nobody but nobody can argue about William H. Macy, though. The man is phenomenal; I'll see anything he's in. He brings dignity, even to crap.

            Wallace Shawn is good too.

    • Re:Heres What They Did Right (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bigman2003 ( 671309 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @11:38AM (#9377585) Homepage
      I think that your first item "It tells a part of the story of Riddick not found in the movies." is the most important.

      Halo (the game) 'inspired' 3 books. The first two I read were great- Fall of Reach and First Strike. They told stories from the Halo universe (I hate that term) and I thought they were interesting.

      After going through those books very quickly, I started to read "The Flood" which is the book based on the events of the game.

      Oh crap this is so damn boring. Yes, they did a great job detailing the game. I can read the book and know that when he opens a particular door there will be a shade on his left, and right- and one of them will be manned, the other will have a grunt sleeping next to it. Yes, I know this already from playing the game, I don't need to read a book about it!

      For me at least, anytime two forms of media try to tell the exact same story, it gets very boring. Harry Potter had this problem for me. The books were great, and the first two movies were pretty much exactly what I had imagined while reading the book. But that made the movie boring. I don't really need the affirmation of my imagination up on the screen.

      So...in conclusion...I'm glad they didn't base Chronicles of Riddick on the same story as the movie.
      • It's not that the movie will make the game boring or vice versa. It's that movie plots never work in games. And vice versa. What Starbreeze did right was completely ignore the movie and just make a good game where they created a plot specifically for a video game.

        It is amusing to see a game go through some really convoluted contrivances just to get you to reenact a scene from a movie. Even if your means make no damn sense whatsoever in the context of the game.

      • Actually, the problem is that 'The Flood' was written by an idiot, while the other two were written by a thoughful, intelligent author.

        "The Flood" commited the most unforgivable thing; it turned the Covenant aliens into human beings with rubber masks. The other two novels do a very good job of making the aliens seem alien.

      • "The books were great, and the first two movies were pretty much exactly what I had imagined while reading the book. But that made the movie boring."

        I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that about every book-to-movie translation. I don't think many people who saw the "Lord of the Rings" movies would say they were bored because they knew what would happen next from reading the books.

    • First off, let me say that I have never been a fan of Vin Diesel's work

      Come on, Vin was in an Academy Award winning movie. ;-) Saving Private Ryan, the trooper who helped the girl out of the damaged building and was then immediately shot by a sniper.

  • ...it says that this is based on a film --- what film? Looking at the article and a few related links doesn't show anything. I'm probably not looking in the right place, but I would have expected someone to at least mention the title. Somewhere...

    • Re:So, uh... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Acidic_Diarrhea ( 641390 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @09:24AM (#9376146) Homepage Journal
      The Chronicles of Riddick [imdb.com], which is a sequel to Pitch Black [imdb.com].

      Pitch Black was a somewhat enjoyable sci-fi movie, if you haven't seen it. I have yet to see Chronicles of Riddick but TechTV keeps showing a making of the game special, which I haven't watched either.

      • Yes, I worked that out eventually; the title was mentioned in the article, but it wasn't clear that it was the name of the film, and not the game (who makes a film with a name as cheesy as The Chronicles of Riddick these days, anyway? Apart from George Lucas, that is).

        And Pitch Black was awesome.

      • The Chronicles of Riddick is the series. The new movie is "The Chronicles of Riddick", but i remember there being something on the end of that at one point, but the latest release of the first movie is being called "The Chronicles of Riddick: Pitch Black", theres a third one coming out eventually, dark something...
      • The director's initial intention was for Chronicles to be the first of a trilogy. There's some talk of all that in this interview. [moviehole.net]

        I remember when I saw "Pitch Black" years ago, friends and I would say that the Riddick character was probably among the top ten bad asses in recent movies. Dislocating his own shoulders to escape from being tied up? C'mon!

  • Star involvement? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by chromaphobic ( 764362 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @09:38AM (#9376289)

    From what I've read/seen, Vin himself was involved in the game's design, to what extent I don't know, but was involved further than just recording some dialog and sitting still for a body scan.

    He's said to be a pretty avid gamer, so maybe this made the difference in this case? Not saying he made the game better, but it could be assumed that he knows the difference between a good game and a bad game and wasn't going to let his image be used in a crap game.

    So maybe the fact that he was able to pop his head in at various points in the game's development and put the kibosh on anything that sucked (and his ability to tell suck from not suck) kept the whole thing from turning into the usual fubar license.

    • Re:Star involvement? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Echo5ive ( 161910 )
      He's listed at several places in the credits. Not quite director, but he was directly involved in the plot and story of the game.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Star involvement? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Blakey Rat ( 99501 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @01:28PM (#9379101)
      Vin Diesel founded Tigon studios. A *lot* of the work in this game was done by Tigon studios. (I think their logo is first in the sequence when it loads up... they have a cool tiger logo with glowing eyes.) To my knowledge, this is also the first game Tigon has been really involved with as it is a very new company.

      But, in short, yes Vin Diesel had a lot of involvement in the making of the game. A lot more than a bit of motion capture and voice-overs.

      (On that note, one of the things that makes Chronicles of Riddick so impressive is the motion capture. It's flawless! When Riddick reaches out to grab something, he actually grabs it instead of the object hovering a few centimeters away from his fingers.)

      • So maybe it does have a lot to do with the fact that at least someone that was involved with the movie was also involved with the development of the game as well, let alone the star.

        Could help explain why this movie license didn't turn into a big bag of suck.

        Regardless, it's still really interesting to see an actor form his own game development company just to develop the game tie-ins for his movies, especially as he's actually involved in the development process instead of just pawning it off on a squad

        • Regardless, it's still really interesting to see an actor form his own game development company just to develop the game tie-ins for his movies,

          Actually, I've heard it said that's Vin's an avid gamer and just wanted to make his own games.

          -B

          • Indeed (Score:3, Informative)

            by August_zero ( 654282 )
            If you don't frequent Fark.com you might have missed this, but here is some proof for your theory [darkhorizons.com] as to Vin's gamer background.

            And here seems as good a place as any for my 3.14 cents: COR is a really good FPS. The first person fighting is top notch, the shooting scenarios are well done, the stealth is well implemented, and there is even a very nice little surprise if you make it all the way to the end of the game to. (the last stage is simply one of the best endgames I have ever played)

  • don't overlook the studio (Score:5, Informative)

    by fireduck ( 197000 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @10:29AM (#9376819)
    it doesn't hurt that the studio puts out high quality games. looking up the titles they have listed on their website [starbreeze.com] at gamerankings, you'll see that all of them are rated >50%, with several very high individual reviews. So releasing high quality games, either original content or based on a movie tie-in, isn't something that's all that surprising. This might just be an example of a good company getting chosen to design the game, and just implementing what they know is good game design...
  • ...am I the only one here who's wondering if this supposedly awesome game will make it to the platform that FPS games are meant to be played on? WASD fo' life, y'all!

  • The real innovation of this game (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mordant ( 138460 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @01:42PM (#9379263)
    is that it allows one to participate in a prison economy, to kill other inmates in exchange for packetts of cigarettes, drag (and toss!) bodies around, shiv guards, etc., all without committing a Class C felony in the first place. ;>
  • It was ok. All about the normal mappings. Riddick looks better than doomIII on an ntsc monitor (though hirez doom destroys riddick)

    oblink: http://www.g4techtv.com/episode.aspx?episode_key=1 362

  • Can you say...NO RELEASE ON THE PC!!!! i knew that you could you pinstriped suite wearing acountant BASTARD!
    • The reason it was Xbox only was because that way the developers knew EXACTLY what hardware they were building for and could optimize the heck out of it, as they were dealing with a single platform. When you add more platforms in the mix (PC != Xbox, regardless of what you might think) you run into LCD syndrome. (Least Common Denominator) To cut costs, cross-platform libraries are developed or reused (hello EA) so that the bulk of the game's codebase is the same. This results in releases that don't take full

Slashdot Top Deals

1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.

Close