Why are movie based games failing?

While Avatar the movie is a huge hit, it seems that Avatar the video game is a flop. What’s even more interesting is it seems the industry is turning away from licensed franchises. The game industry has a long and lucrative history with licenses, so why are they failing now?

“Our plan is to take more care of our high end franchises, we will leave less place for licensed games,” CEO Yves Guillemot said in a recent call to investors. “So the goal is to reuse the investment and licenses and put more emphasis on the making of our brands bigger and make sure they can come more often with high quality. So it doesn’t mean we will stop but we’re going to spend less in licenses in the future.”

In the days of Atari 2600 and ColecoVision game developers rushed to license content. Of course games in those days were sold based on the box cover. Look at E.T. the game compared to the box cover. They couldn’t be more different. But that isn’t what screwed up E.T. the game and consequently killed Atari, it was the game play itself. It’s practically unplayable.

If you make them somewhat playable you could have a major hit as many developers have learned – Spider-Man, Lord of the Rings, etc. Avatar the game might not have the best reviews but it is no E.T. So why are they all of a sudden not meeting expectations? That might be for two reasons, which can be summed up as evolution.

Nick Saint points out that expectations have risen as game developers home grown franchises turn into brands.

But the biggest problems with licensed games is that more and more game franchises have been built into recognizable and beloved brands. No matter how popular a new movie is, a video game version will never mean as much to gamers as a new Mario, Final Fantasy, or Call of Duty title.

Makes sense, the industry has learned to support their own brands. Not only that, but the games themselves have evolved and learned to embrace the medium. Just as you would never see a beautiful sculpture and think “why don’t I make that into a painting”, you wouldn’t see a game and think that would make a great movie. Oh wait, we do exactly that. But the turning away from licenses is a sign that things are changing. I know Hollywood would love to turn every popular book into a movie, but audiences are learning what screenwriters have known for decades – some stories just don’t transfer well. Probably one of the best page for page translations to film was Watchmen, and see how well that did. Mediums evolve to embrace their defining characteristics and as such can’t support all types of stories.

As for games, look at LittleBigPlanet - the world it creates is wildly entertaining. Super Mario Bros. created a similar world with mushrooms, bricks, and sounds. Those worlds doesn’t transfer well to the movie screen as we saw. Most games also can’t support films, just look at Doom or the trouble Bungie has had trying to get Halo made into a movie. They’re two different mediums.

Avatar the game can put you in a similar enough world to the movie but lacks the story, the character development. I remember playing Spiderman 2, which was a very successful game, but being annoyed I had to save people. I know that’s what Spiderman does, but he does that in the movies if I’m playing him I want to take him somewhere else.

Social gaming’s next big hit – dating sims

The more I study the social gaming phenomenon the more I wonder why Zynga, Playdom, and other casual gaming companies haven’t launched a dating sim? Dating sims, also known as visual novels, are a big hit in Japan. Such a hit that a Japanese man married their girlfriend from a dating sim. Titles like Harvest Moon have even begun to crack the US market.

Dating sims seem to have a lot going for them that would make them appealing to social game makers:

  • Addictive – guy married his virtual girlfriend, need I say more
  • Require continual maintenance – most are structured around the passing of days, not unlike FarmVille
  • Ripe for virtual goods - already well established past time in Japan to buy a virtual girlfriend gifts
  • Appeal to women – It’s not just that it’s romance based, but it’s interpersonal relationships rather than a shoot’em up

So why haven’t the makers of FarmVille and Mafia Wars begun to experiment with dating sims?

One obvious reason is that dating sims aren’t exactly social. But then again what could be more about social media than a dating sim? Just play with the concept of a “social media character” a bit. The girl of your dreams could have a Facebook page. You can leave notes on her wall as part of the dating sim. The ultimate prize would be when she changes her status to in a relationship – with you. Of course others playing the game would be in direct competition for her affection, but that only adds to the simulation.

Another reason might be that social game makers think of dating sims as being too adult. Some of the titles in Japan are but the majority are more an outgrowth of the whole manga and anime culture in Japan. Where as there are a few adult oriented manga titles there are many more targeted for children. It isn’t like American audiences haven’t been exposed to teen romance novels before, anyone remember Sweet Valley High? Really what these dating sims allow you to do is deal with interpersonal relationships. In Harvest Moon you can marry but the courtship is little more than learning a character’s likes and dislikes.

As far as I can tell (not being able to play all the Japanese dating sims) it seems as if dating sims are taking over where anime left off. A natural evolution – as manga lead to anime, anime is now leading to dating sims. It brings interactivity to the storylines where games tend to be ancillary to it. Dating sims are the first truly successful form of interactive drama. They certainly seem addictive enough for someone to marry their virtual girlfriend, so why haven’t Zynga and Playdom begun to experiment with them?

Story isn’t a science, so why does interactive story need AI researchers?

A veteran group of researchers, and not so veteran, from MIT are taking another stab at artificial intelligence (AI). Reading the article from MIT news it initially sounds like they’re taking a new approach, but the further you read the more it falls into the grandiose promises made earlier in AI’s 50 year history. Such as Herbert Simon’s famous prediction from the 1960s.

Machines will be capable, within 20 years, of doing any work a man can do.

What I found most interesting about this supposed new approach to AI was the possibility of the group venturing into interactive story.

Among the concepts the group may explore are concepts for “intelligent,” adaptive books and games — or, as Gershenfeld suggests, “books that think.”

Funny how I didn’t see any writers or artists in the group. When was the last time you read a story from a scientist? Story isn’t science, it’s art. Why would adding interactivity then require the aid of AI researchers and scientists to crack the conundrum? Shouldn’t we be looking to artists for a solution, a creative use of smoke and mirrors possibly?

The future of online entertainment is still way beyond what we see today

Ken Auletta, author of  ”Googled: The End of the World As We Know It“, recently put out an addendum which he titled Media Maxims. Two maxims caught my eye, Digital is different and Don’t think of the Web as another distribution platform. I agree with much of what Auletta is saying, however I don’t think he is going far enough.

Don’t Think of The Web as Another Distribution Platform:

In speeches, Michael Eisner likes to say that the Internet is just another distribution platform. He also says, as he did to me, “I don’t think a lot of the rules for storytelling are unique for the Internet.” I think he’s wrong. The Internet is a totally different medium. It is interactive, allowing not just two-way communication but also a stage for new story tellers. It is not one distribution channel but many thousands of them, each one a website on which stories might nest. There are no scarcity issues – sorry, we have only 21 hours a week of prime time to squeeze your program into; sorry, we have sold every 30-second spot in the Super Bowl. Because there are so many choices on the Web, and only a click away, Web stories will often be shorter, more like “snacks.” According to Scott Moore, who until late 2008 was Yahoo’s Senior Vice President and head of media, on the Web “people have shorter attention spans. We find the ideal length is one to three minutes.” The shorter time is partly a function, he said, of the fact that “prime time is daytime for us”; he means that people looking for diversions at work naturally jump around more. Also, on the Internet, users “expect to be in control,” and they like to roam. The ease of jumping around further attenuates attention spans, making the Internet a less hospitable medium for longer stories.

I  completely agree that it’s not another distribution platform but I would put the emphasis on interaction more than breadth of choice and short attention spans. People have been talking about the birth of a new Hollywood with millions of independent video producers ever since YouTube struck it big. But if you’ve ever tried to create one of these Internet sensations you’ll quickly learn that it’s nearly impossible to tell a compelling story in just 30 seconds or even 3 minutes. Some commercials do a great job of this, but you don’t have to return to commercials every week for the next chapter – they’re pushed at you. On this point Michael Eisner was sort of right, “I don’t think a lot of the rules for storytelling are unique for the Internet.” To pull someone into a story you have to have them identify with the characters, that’s nearly impossible to do in 3 minutes on a consitent basis. Really less than 3 minutes just creams for stereotypical characters and situations.

Look at where film started, they would simply record vaudeville acts or trains coming at the audience. Eventually though they discovered continuity editing and created the modern movie. A modern movie format that is typically a 120 minutes long. Maybe the Web will shorten it to 100 minutes but not down to 3 or less.

What’s actually more interesting than the breadth and length of future entertainment is the interactivity. Auletta dives into it more when he talks about digital.

Digital is Different:

“When a product or industry goes digital, it changes fundamentally and irreversibly, ” Marc Andreessen said. Hardware becomes less important, software more so. “Because software is malleable in a way that hardware is not, it can be adopted worldwide and quickly.” Fewer resources or infrastructure are usually required. A digital newspaper, for instance, is not merely an extension of the print edition. It is a different product, and the software makes it so. Online news doesn’t have to wait for the next morning to appear. And it comes with links to other stories and even publications, to videos or audios that amplify the story. If a reader wants to dig down into a subject, digital archives are available. The function of the letters to the editor page is taken over by blogs, involving communities of readers and also compelling journalists to engage with the public.

The keywords for me are “It is a different product” and more so than just seeing news papers with comments, video, and archives. Where Auletta might see a drastic change from the traditional newspaper to online news site I see just one step in the evolution. Just as short videos on YouTube are an intermediary step to what will ultimately prove successful. Digital storytelling doesn’t mean digital distribution, it means interactive story. Video games experiment with interactive story every day and hopefully artists will stumble upon a technique that unlocks the medium for storytelling rather than relying solely on the game play for engagement. It would be paramount to the early film pioneers discovering continuity editing. It would be the birth of a new medium – interactive drama.

Maybe the slogan should be:

Interactive drama – because the Web isn’t just another distribution platform

3D isn’t good for communication

With 3D sneaking into the browser via Google’s O3D and WebGL many pose the question – is the web going to be 2D or 3D? Some are so confused they ask if social networks will evolve into virtual worlds like Second Life?

This reminds me of a time when communicating with a computer was a hot topic. The geniuses over at Microsoft and of course Bill Gates himself thought the best way this would be accomplished was to talk to your computer.

The PC five years from now — you won’t recognize it, because speech will have come into the interface, the screen will be a flat screen, the performance will be 20 times what it is today.

- Bill Gates

Today it’s obvious they were blinded by the technology as the fastest way to input data has always been the keyboard. I feel like many people today are blinded by 3D.  It’s often said that one of the benefits of virtual worlds is improved communication, but exactly how is that? Sure there are some users who find having an avatar is helpful but the majority see it as a burden, a novelty at best. Just ask some co-workers to have a meeting in Second Life, they’ll ask if they could just give you a call.

The Internet is about communication – email, Twitter, message boards, Skype, instant messaging, etc. Comparitevely 3D offers nothing. 3D isn’t good for communication, at least not the kind that is taking the world by storm these days – asynchronous communication via Twitter, collaboration via Google Wave and Mozilla Raindrop.

3D is for entertainment

What 3D is good at is entertainment - games, interactive story, MMOs, etc. Read my lips, “3D is for entertainment”. I’ve heard the stories of how 3D models helped scientists visualize data in a new way and lead to some breakthrough, but that doesn’t mean it will help me with my email.