Ubisoft’s video game adaptation of “James Cameron’s Avatar” has a launch date. The publisher has confirmed that the title will come out on all platforms Dec. 1 – 2.5 weeks before the film.

The film crew and game maker have been working closely together on the game, doing their best to integrate Cameron’s vision for the film. It was Cameron’s lobbying, in fact, that led Ubisoft to make the game available in stereoscopic 3D – a bold move, but ultimately a pretty useless one, since there aren’t a lot of TVs on the market (and even fewer in homes) that will take advantage of the effects.

While movie-goers are excited about Cameron’s first cinematic release since “Titanic,” the gaming world hasn’t exactly been clamoring for the title. It will likely do well, as followers of the director and fans of the movie grab a copy – but don’t be surprised if the game fails to crack the year’s Top 10 when they’re calculated at the end of December. 

Three years ago, Gearbox Software announced plans to make a game based on the 1995 film “Heat,” starring Al Pacino and  Robert De Niro and directed by Michael Mann. And oddly, there was a bit of excitement in the gaming world.

While movie-based games have a poor track record, the story of “Heat,” focusing on two men on opposite sides of the law, had the potential to combine the best elements of “Grand Theft Auto” with new points of focus. Also, Gearbox Software, the developer that held the rights to the game, was a quality shop, with solid games to its credit.

That was about the last we heard about “Heat.” the video game, so it’s probably not real surprising to learn that Gearbox has abandoned the game.

“In a nutshell, we're nowhere,” Gearbox president Randy Pitchford tells GameSpot. “We have passionate game makers that would love to do it. We've got filmmakers that think it's a great idea that would love to see it done. We have publishing partners that would love to publish it. But we have no time. That's the limiting factor.” 

The IP still remains in Gearbox’s hands for now, but the developer said it is willing to give up its rights to another developer who would do a good job with the property. (Warner Bros., of course, would also have a say in the matter.)

It’s one of the frustrations of the video game industry. Games that tie-in with current movies often have rushed production schedules, resulting in truly awful end-products. But (“Ghostbusters” aside) games that don’t have the tie-in with a studio’s PR campaign tend to fall down the priority list quickly.

A quick one before we head off for the weekend. Kotaku recently put together a wonderful feature on the gaming tie-ins to some of the biggest summer movies of all time.

The majority were terrible, though to be fair, the majority discussed here are fairly old titles - and movie tie-ins have slowly been getting better. The lesson for Hollywood to learn, though, is that while a bad movie might ultimately be regarded as a camp classic, a bad game never gets any better.

Check out the feature here.

Danny, Sandy, The Pink Ladies and the T-Birds are headed to Nintendo-land.

505 Games today announced it has secured publishing rights for a video game based on the iconic musical “Grease”. Working with Paramount Digital Entertainment, the company will create versions of the game for both the Wii and Nintendo DS.

Details are scant right now, though the publishers says the game will take advantage of the Wii’s motion-sensing controller and microphone, meaning you may get the chance to sing along with some of the play/movie’s better known songs.

Movie-based games based on older properties are hot these days. The just-released “Ghostbusters” from Sony and developer Terminal Reality was cheered by critics, gamers and non-gamers alike and is expected to be one of June’s top selling titles.

Paramount last year announced plans to work with Legacy Interactive on a game based on the films “Clueless,""Mean Girls" and "Pretty in Pink." The studio previously worked with Electronic Arts on two games based on “The Godfather” franchise, which have boasted solid, though not remarkable sales numbers.

Ubisoft has added another pair of Hollywood heavyweights to its partner list.

The company, which is currently working with director James Cameron on the gaming tie-in with “Avatar,” announced today it would be working with Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy of the upcoming “Tintin”. The publisher also will re-team with Peter Jackson, who it worked together with on 2005’s “King Kong”.

“We can create good games, but we are still very junior at creating movies, so why not join forces with the best of the best to make our visions come to life?,” said Yves Guillemot, president and CEO of Ubisoft.

Ubisoft has been beefing up its Hollywood presence significantly in recent years. The company acquired special effects house Hybride Technologies last year. The company also owns a computer animation studio in Montreal called Ubisoft Digital Arts.

I'm just putting together a piece for NPR that features an interview with Paramount's senior VP of interactive (essentially the top video games guy) John Kavanaugh and noticed that he dropped an interesting tidbit that won't make the final piece: The studio is making downloadable games based on "Top Gun" and "Days of Thunder" for Xbox Live Arcade and Playstation Network.

It's not Paramount's first experimentation with those "classic" (as long as I can remember seeing a movie in theaters I refuse to call it "classic" without quotes) franchises as games. There's already a "Days of Thunder" iPhone game and one about to come out for "Top Gun."

For Paramount, which is taking a "crawl, walk, run" approach to games, as Kavanaugh puts it, moving those franchises to XBLA and PSN is pretty obvious. After releasing a slew of iPhone games, the studio is taking the next step into downloadable titles with "Star Trek: DAC" and the upcoming "Warriors." If you have well known franchises that fit perfectly into casual video game genres -- flying and racing -- well, it's not too big a leap. (Not like doing, say, a "Watchmen" game in which you awkwardly shove the film into a familiar video game genre).

Plus, really, can there ever be enough games where you get to live out your fantasies of being Tom Cruise? When there's a "Cocktail," or "Eyes Wide Shut" game, I am so there.

Paramount is also trying its hand at casual titles targeted at female audiences. I forgot to link to it when it was published, but Leigh Alexander wrote an excellent and amusing review of Paramount's three-pack of games based on "Clueless," "Mean Girls" and "Pretty in Pink." Check it out.

When Activision Blizzard buys a development studio, it generally asks one simple question: Which one of our franchises can these guys work on?

The publisher's business model is based entirely on brands that it "exploits" (sequelizes and spins off) on a regular basis. Once in a while a studio gets to make a new property, like Raven is doing with "Singularity," but most of the time, they're working on a franchise. Infinity Ward has "Modern Warfare," Neversoft took ownership of "Guitar Hero," Vicarious Visions does Wii versions of "Guitar Hero," etc.

So after Activision merged with Vivendi Games last summer and its management took control of the new entity, you know CEO Bobby Kotick and his executive team had only one thought as they perused Vivendi's development studios: Which ones fit a need for one of our franchises?

Meaning no offense to the talent at High Moon Studios and Radical Entertainment, the two of Vivendi's six studios kept on, but it wasn't for their sheer talent alone. Yes, Activision apparently believed enough in Radical's "Prototype," already well into production last year, to finish it up. But in both cases, they have been put to work on their new owner's established franchises (with Radical, of course, potentially going onto a "Prototype" sequel if the first one sells well).

According to several sources, those franchises are "Transformers" for High Moon and "Spider-Man" for Radical. This summer, Activision is releasing its second "Transformers" game tied to a movie, developed by Luxoflux. But CEO Bobby Kotick has already said he wants to turn the shape-shifting robots into an annual franchise. The 2010 non-movie tie-in is being made by High Moon, I have learned.

That's a bit of a surprise, since the obvious franchise for High Moon might have been "James Bond," given that its last game was "The Bourne Conspiracy." And its previous (and first) release was horror action title "Darkwatch." Nonetheless, Activision saw technology it thought could be applied to "Transformers." We'll get to judge the results sometime next year.

As for Radical, its work on "Spider-Man" is more obvious. "Prototype" features an agile hero who jumps and runs along walls in an open world version of New York City. Add web slinging and you've got "Spider-Man" to a tee.

In addition, Activision clearly needs a new developer to help with yearly "Spider-Man" games. Treyarch has previously produced many of them, but it is already making "Call of Duty" and "James Bond" games every other year. It could easily afford to give up the franchise and let Radical share it with Shaba, which worked with Treyarch on 2008's "Spider-Man: Friend or Foe." (I'm not sure which studio is making the "Spider-Man" game expected for this fall, though it's probably not Radical given that it just entered the Activision "family" last summer.)

With that information, it seems like a good time to look at Activision Blizzard's 16 studios and what franchises they're working on. This list is based on publicly available information and my own reporting, but is probably a bit incomplete. And certainly doesn't include any potential new franchises that haven't yet been announced or uncovered.

Beenox: DreamWorks Animation games; "Guitar Hero" compilation "Smash Hits"

Bizarre Creations: "James Bond" games and an original racing title

Blizzard Entertainment: "World of Warcraft"; "Starcraft"; "Diablo"; something new

Budcat: Playstation 2 versions of "Guitar Hero" (which sell surprisingly well)

Freestyle Games: "DJ Hero"

High Moon: "Transformers"

Infinity Ward: "Modern Warfare"

Luxoflux: "Transformers"; DreamWorks Animation titles

Neversoft: Lead "Guitar Hero" developer for PS3 and 360

Radical: "Prototype" and "Spider-Man"

Raven Software: "Singularity," "Wolfenstein," Marvel games like "Wolverine"

Shaba: "Spider-Man"

7 Studios: "Scratch: the Ultimate DJ"; "DJ Hero" (7 was just acquired a few weeks ago and it's in the middle of a lawsuit, so its role is still TBD)

Toys for Bob: DreamWorks Animation games

Treyarch: "Call of Duty"; "James Bond"

Vicarious Visions: Core "Guitar Hero" titles for the Wii; other ports for the DS

(This story previously said I was more confident in the High Moon part than the Radical part. But I have since heard from another source and am equally confident in both halves of my reporting here.)

When you're playing a video game based on a movie, you have to make comparisons. Not in the "Is one better than the other?" sense, of course, since they're fundamentally incomparable media.

But I do believe that a video game should be thematically and narratively consistent with the film on which it's based; it should extend (or at least retell) the movie's fiction in a way that naturally fits; and, most of all, it should be respectful of its source material. You know how when you go camping you're supposed to leave your campground cleaner than when you left it? I think that's a good idea for video games based on movies as well.

By that standard, "Godfather II" is an abysmal failure. To be sure, the film sets a high bar: It's one of the all-time greats of American cinema, dealing with family, loyalty, betrayal, morality, and, of course, the American Dream (kind of like "Grand Theft Auto IV," except better).

But the game? As I wrote in my recently posted review, it's pretty much all downhill from the start when the developers at EA Redwood Shores decide to try and follow the plot of the film while shoehorning in a new Corleone family don controlled by the player:

Achieving this requires an almost epic rewrite, however. At the beginning of the game, Michael decides to lay low for awhile and make the player’s character, Dominic, don (perhaps just as well, since EA doesn’t have the rights to Al Pacino’s voice or likeness). With the flashbacks to Robert DeNiro’s young Vito entirely erased, “Godfather II” works its way through some of the highlights of Michael’s story, such as the attempted murder of Frankie Pentangeli and Sen. Pat Geary’s rude awakening in a brothel, with Dominic awkwardly grafted onto events.

The plot increasingly strays from the movie, culminating in a ridiculous sequence where Dominic tries to single-handedly assassinate Fidel Castro and fight his way out of Havana. By that point, it’s clear EA isn’t paying homage to a great American film so much as abusing its legacy for a game that could and should stand on its own.

To EA, apparently, "The Godfather Part II" is not a great American film that deserves respect. It's a brand that can be slapped onto a half-finished mafia game.

"Godfather II's" flaws are many, and mostly of the type that scream the publisher simply ran out of interest (or marketing research) to fund it to completion: Sub-par graphics, repetitive missions, a nearly empty "open world" (there's literally nobody in the airport; apparently all 20 people who live in this version of New York City are afraid to fly).

 But there's one key feature of the game that almost makes up for all those problems:

[T]he sequel adds what it calls the “Don’s View,” a three-dimensional map on which Dominic can send Corleone goons to take over rackets or defend their own from attacks. The “Don’s View” is a truly impressive interface, allowing players to manage the family, call in favors and scan sizable maps without ever feeling overwhelmed. It accomplishes this not only through clear visuals and well-laid-out controls, but also aural cues. Soft moans and the cocking of a pistol, for instance, help to indicate whether one is looking at a business involved in adult entertainment or gun running.

"The Don's View" should have been the core innovation behind a great mafia game. Instead, it's the only impressive feature in what's otherwise an interactive middle finger to Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo.

Sometimes, video games based on kids' movies turn their source material into a fun and dynamic package that outdoes gamers' extremely modest expectations and provide a solid experience that can stand on its own. Think "Lego Star Wars," for instance, or "Kung Fu Panda," or Cartoon Networks' "Fusion Fall."

But too often, they return to a pathetic mean. That's what Variety critics Tom Chick found with Activision's latest Dreamworks adaptation, "Monsters vs. Aliens":

There's nothing here that hasn't been done better in numerous other games. When the "God of War"-style button-pressing sequences, in which players just occasionally press buttons while watching a cutscene borrowed from the film, appear, it's clear the developers have run out of ideas.

To its credit, "Monsters vs. Aliens" moves quickly. Though there's not much variety (it's probably not a good idea to have one of the characters regularly comment on how repetitive the game is), and it's chopped into short alternating segments that might distract a child from noticing he or she is essentially replaying the same bits, but with a slightly different background.

The game does make a nod toward replayability, Tom notes, but not in a very good way. Players can earn unlockables via a "DNA strand" that, well, doesn't actually resemble DNA at all (way to educate the youngsters!).

And there are opportunities to replay a level via a "director's commentary," that's actually the same gameplay, but alternate jokes coming out of the characters' mouths. Given that Tom says the jokes weren't too good the first time around, I would hold out high hopes for that. And, really, since when is the "director" of a video game the person who comes up with alternate dialogue? That analogy doesn't even work for films, let alone games.

Full review: Monsters vs. Aliens

If I had been in business with Brash, I wouldn't want to brag about it either. Nonetheless, it's amusing to see the company erased from corporate history.

Today Majesco announced its deal with Fox to publish the "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian" video game, which I reported two weeks ago. Included in the press release was this quote:

Of course, Majesco isn't "creating" a "Night at the Museum" game at all. The game was created by Brash -- or, more properly, developers Pipeworks and Amaze under Brash's supervision. Majesco simply bought publishing rights to the completed game. It's the equivalent of complimenting Ubisoft for its great work creating "Wheelman."

Still, if you gave video game rights for one of your top films to a publisher that went bankrupt in little more than a year, you probably wouldn't bring it up either. Just remember, Majesco has always been making the "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian" game. And Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

I'm definitely a fan of games that limit their scope and fulfill all of their ambitions as expertly as possible. It's much better than games that do too many things half-assed. But no matter how good the execution, there's such a thing as too limited a scope, particularly given current business realities.

Case in point: "Wanted: Weapons of Fate." Universal definitely impressed me with its first self-published AAA title. It's almost impeccably executed. The studio took a risk waiting seven months after the movie's release, and three months after the DVD, in order to get the game to a high quality bar, but it was worth it, as I wrote in my recently posted review:

But with a full priced 360/PS3 title, gamers can reasonably expect they'll have a lot to do with these awesome mechanics. That's where "Weapons of Fate" fails. The single player campaign takes about five hours to complete. That's it. Unless you're really compelled by harder difficulty settings or the option to play through the game as a different character from the movie, the game is over. There's no multi-player, even though the bending bullets and slo-mo shooting could have made for a fantastic twist on the standard online deathmatches (tough to execute, I'm sure; but nonetheless it feels like a glaring omission).

In today's market, putting out "Wanted" with so little content seems like a crazy choice by Universal. "Weapons of Fate" screams rent it or buy it used (no surprise, then, that it topped Gamefly's rental charts for this week). Games rely on selling a certain number of new, full-priced copies to turn a profit. But players have too many options to skip that step if a title isn't compelling enough to justify buying it at $60. And there's simply no reasin in the world to buy and keep "Weapons of Fate." Helll, there are plenty of downloadable titles for $10 or $20 with substantially more gameplay.

Which means, I suspect, "Wanted: Weapons of Fate" will be played and enjoyed by many, but still not do much for Universal's bottom line. The best case scenario might be taking the mechanics of "Weapons of Fate" and expanding them into a sequel with ambitions high enough to justify a $60 disc.

Full review: Wanted: Weapons of Fate

Pyramid Head, say hello to your new brother Jigsaw.

Konami has confirmed an earlier Cut Scene report that it bought the rights to bankrupt publisher Brash's in-production video game based on "Saw." It will be released this fall on PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 to coincide with Lionsgate's "Saw VI." (As you've probably noticed, Konami provided us with the first ever screenshots from the game as well).

Though there's obviously no sequel plans yet, the Japanese publisher is undoubtedly hoping "Saw" will become its second survival horror franchise, alongside "Silent Hill."

"Because we have leadership in the survival horror genre, we're passionate about it and wanted to find another property on par with 'Silent Hill," explained David Daniels, director of marketing for Konami.  "'Saw' has grossed over $600 million worldwide and sold over 28 million DVDs, so we felt like it was a great opportunity to align ourselves with one of the most successful horror film franchises in history."

After Brash went bankrupt last fall, rights to the game reverted back to movie studio Lionsgate, which considered but ultimately rejected the idea of handling publishing itself. Konami then picked up the license and engaged developer Zombie, which was handling production for Brash, to finish "Saw" under its direction.

The game's plot will be original, tying into but not directly adapting any of the films. As "Saw" fans might expect, gameplay will center on torturer Jigsaw's signature traps, turned into puzzles. Players control a character in an asylum who has to decide whether and how to solve the puzzles and save Jigsaw's victims.

"One of the big pillars of 'Saw' is the maniacal, twister serial killer Jigsaw's very unusual traps and you can expect that's something we'll carry forward," explained Daniels. "Some traps will even be a direct translation from the movies, particularly the iconic ones fans love."

Daniels declined to comment on whether actor Tobin Bell will voice his character Jigsaw, but I've confirmed from other sources that he will. No word on whether anyone else from the film is involved, except that the producers at Twisted Pictures have been consulting.

Brash had a lot riding on "Saw." It was going to be the company's first AAA title, its first not based on a kids' movie, and its first sure to earn an M rating. As I was reporting on Brash's demise last fall, employees repeatedly said "Saw" was one of a few games in development they had been counting on, if the cash hadn't run out, to help turn around the company's reputation for low quality.

Konami has the opposite problem. Its signature franchise is one of the two biggest in survival horror, along with Capcom's "Resident Evil" (although whether that still qualifies as horror after the last installment is an open question). It doesn't have much to gain with "Saw," critically speaking, but it has lots to lose if the game doesn't measure up. The last thing Konami needs is to lose its survival horror credibility by putting out a mediocre licensed title.

If it works, however, Konami could end up with a pair of horror franchises that complement each other well: One that screws with gamers' minds and the other their stomachs.

"'Silent Hill' is more about psychological terror, but 'Saw' for us is more about graphic, intense horror that overwhelms you," explained Daniels. "We want players to turn away from the screen for just a moment because of the visual intensity."

When you've got a video game based on a movie with a studio/publisher (Paramount), developer (Naked Sky), production company (Bad Robot) and licensor (CBS, which technically owns all interactive rights to "Star Trek" and is licensing them to Paramount here), it can take a long time just to get two screenshots approved.
So, to anyone who read my unofficial coverage of "Star Trek: DAC" three weeks ago and official interview last week and is interested in what the game looks like, you can finally get a peek. I've updated last week's post with a couple of screenshots showing the Enterprise in battle against what appear to be Romulans.

Paramount's "Star Trek: D.A.C." game will be all-out, top-down, multi-player space battles.

That's the word from three of the folks behind it, whom I just sat down with at GDC. I reported a few weeks ago that the downloadable game will come out along with the movie and will be a top-down space action title.

But unlike most movie games, it turns out, this one doesn't replicate the story of the film, or even tie into it. There's no single-player campaign. "It's all multiplayer, team-based battles," explains Ben Hoyt, a senior producer with Paramount Digital Entertainment, which is publishing "D.A.C." (And no, I didn't find out what that stands for). "It's designed to be quick and fast-paced. There are multiple ship classes and battles and several different game modes."

Up to 12 people can play the PS3 and 360 downloadable game, which features battles that are inspired by the movie, but not seen in it. Some of the starship designs, as well as the music and sound effects, are taken directly from the film, though.

"Star Trek" fans will remember that the movie was originally supposed to come out in December, but got delayed to May. That's good news for people looking forward to the game,which has been made on a tight schedule. The studio chose to make a downloadable game, rather than a disc one,  so that it could get a high quality title in time for the theatrical release (Just as Warner Bros. did with "Watchmen"). But even that would have been very difficult to get done by December, given that they've been working long hours to get it complete for May.

"We had it structured to develop the game for December," recalls Dave Baranoff, who oversees interactive for "Star Trek" director J.J. Abrams' production company Bad Robot. "But the push of the movie sealed the deal that we would be able to get out a quality game title we all believe in."

Those extra five months won't only help with polish, but have may have played a role in some of the major gameplay decisions. "Going in we said it was going to be a certain way, but luckily we ended up with time to explore and come up with some different things," notes Josh Glazer, Chief Technology Officer of developer Naked Sky.

"D.A.C." marks something of a step forward for Paramount. The only games it has self published previously are iPhone titles. So it's negotiating its first distribution deals with Sony and Microsoft  for this title.

It's also, in a bizarre corporate twist, a licensed game for Paramount, even though it's releasing the movie. When Viacom split into CBS and Paramount, CBS held onto the interactive rights for Captain Kirk et al. So Paramount is actually licensing the property from CBS, much like traditional game publishers usually license properties from studios like Paramount.

But there was one potential barrier bigger than CBS, Sony, Microsoft, or any release date standing in the way of "Star Trek: D.A.C.": J.J. Abrams. As with most movie-based games, the director, along with producer Bryan Burke and others involved in the project, have seen designs and given notes along the way. But the game never got an official greenlight from the director, and thus the studio, until there was a playable version that Abrams came in to try and approve.

"That was a scary meeting," admits Hoyt. "It was do or die for the game." 

Obviously it was "do." Gamers will find out whether they agree with Abrams' call in May.

P.S. Electronic Arts announced today at GDC that it's developing a "Star Trek" mobile game tied to the movie. But after initially offering to show the title, it backed out. So I don't have any more information than the fact that it's in the works

Updated with screen shots, finally.

With only two months to go until the theatrical release, Brash's "Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian" game has been picked up by Majesco.

A source close to the game confirmed the deal, as did a search on the ESRB's ratings website.

Licensor Fox and Foundation 9, parent company of the game's developer Pipeworks, have been looking to find a new publisher for the game since Brash went out of business in November. But apparently it was a close call, with the deal only coming together in the past few weeks, and final details still being worked out now. (Don't confuse it with Majesco's own "Escape the Museum" that comes out Tuesday.)

I'm told that Ubisoft was very interested and almost picked it up, before ultimately deciding to pass. It was shopped to numerous other publishers, but many were concerned about the extremely short timeline. A source at one publisher said they were interested in the game when they say it last month, but simply didn't think they'd have enough time to put together a marketing plan building up to the film's Memorial Day weekend release.

For Ubisoft and most other publishers, "Night at the Museum 2" wouldn't be a big deal -- just a blip on their slate. But it is a big deal for Majesco. The relatively successful but still tiny publisher of "value" titles hasn't released any games based on movies since 2006's horrible "Jaws Unleashed." In addition, it will be only the second game ever released on the Xbox 360 by Majesco, which has been focused on Nintendo's Wii and DS for the past few years. Of course, given its kid appeal, "Night at the Museum 2" will also be released for Nintendo's two consoles.

"Night at the Museum 2" is the last Brash game set for release this year to get a new publisher (save for "Prison Break," which appears to be consigned to the video game dust heap). "Tale of Despereaux" was already released by Atari and "Six Flags Fun Park" by Ubisoft. "Saw" has been picked up by Konami, though the Japanese publisher has yet to announce the deal. It remains to be seen whether any publisher want to pick up Brash's games in the works for 2010, like "Clash of the Titan," "Superman," "The Flash," etc. and pay to finish production.

Reps for Majesco haven't yet responded to a request for comment.

Paramount and developer Naked Sky have yet to confirm any details about the downloadable "Star Trek" game they're making to go with the movie, which I reported on last week. They haven't even stated that it's happening.

But Naked Sky has left an amusing clue on its website. The game, as some leaked promo art from the upcoming season one Blu-ray release demonstrates, is called "Star Trek: D.A.C." With that in mind, check out the statement that's currently on Naked Sky's home page. I've bolded some letters to help make the message clear:

Hmmmm

It's no surprise that THQ is shuttering or spinning off some development studios given its recent decision to lay off a staggering 24% of its workforce.

But it's perhaps instructive to notice about which of its 11 remaining studios it is now spinning off or selling (after previously closing five). One that really stood out to me on a list reported by Crispy Gamer is Heavy Iron. It has been around since 1999 and has worked on nine titles for THQ in that time. But if you look at its four most recent releases and the one it's currently working on, you'll notice a trend:

Heavy Iron has become THQ's go to studio for lead development on Pixar games. But that deal is about to be over. Disney is taking development of the Pixar games internal starting with 2010's "Toy Story 3." Which pretty much leaves Heavy Iron without a raison d'etre. THQ doesn't have any more licenses to assign. And given how conservative the publisher is now being about original properties, we can't expect it to keep many, if any, internal developers alive for that purpose.

Of course, Disney will probably be on the hunt for talent to help it make Pixar games. The only internal studio it has that focuses on kids' games, Avalanche Software, is already pretty busy making games based on the Disney Animation Studios films. So as Heavy Iron looks for assignments, or its staff looks for new jobs, it's possible they could be working on Pixar games for a new publisher.

What about the other two studios being spun off or sold? Well, Incinerator Studios never really got off teh ground since it was founded in 2006. At the time, the publisher said it looked forward to Incinerator bringing "its own ideas for next generation development." But all it made in its short life was versions of "Cars" for the Wii and 360, "Cars: Mater National" for the PS3 and Wii, the Wii and PS2 versions of "MX vs ATV: Untamed" and Wii/PS2 game "Nicktoons: Globs of Doom." Once again, experience working on Pixar titles probably didn't help.

The fact that those two developers are being spun off as independents, rather than shut down, indicates that some people involved must think they can get work. Which makes some sense given their history working on licenses. The road is tougher for RTS/RPG specialist Big Huge Games, which THQ has said it will either sell or shutter. The publisher only bought it last year, but has apparently quickly given up hope of competing in that space favored only by core gamers. It will probably be an uphill climb to find another publisher or investor willing to bet money on a developer like Big Huge at this time, even given what's probably a dirt cheap price.

Marvel has been a comic book publisher for over 70 years, but in the past few years, it has become a whole lot more -- launching its own movie studio that released "Iron Man" last year and has a sequel, "Thor," "Captain America" and "The Avengers" in the works.

So if Marvel can raise over $500 million to control its own movies rather than license them out to studios, can it do the same for games? After all, Disney and Warner Bros. and Universal and Paramount are all doing it.

When talking to worldwide consumer products president Simon Phillips today about his company's ten-year MMO licensing deal with Gazillion, I asked him. Here's his answer:

Rest easy Activision, THQ and the rest. It'll be a while until Marvel tries to make you as irrelevant as it's making the big movie studios.

We all know the drill with video games that become movies and vice-versa. If it starts as a game, the movie comes out several years after the game first becomes popular and, in an effort to reach a mass audience without alienating the core fans, usually ends up pleasing no one. If it starts as a movie, its gets licensed 15 months before release, giving the developers barely enough time to get a game out, let alone one that's high quality.

Some folks in Hollywood are trying to find a new way around that conundrum. The formula is simple: Get some geeky producers, video game developers, studio executives, etc. together at the creation of a property, before there are any dollar signs, release dates, or unit sales to get licensing folks' attention, and develop it for multiple media all at once.

Today comes a really intriguing example of that new approach: Fox Atomic has made a deal with production/management company Union Entertainment and developer Zombie Studios to turn the tactical military game "Blacklight" into a movie and comic book (that's concept art from the project around this post). You haven't heard of "Blacklight?" That's because it's in early development at Zombie, the Seattle-based maker of "America's Army" and the upcoming "Saw." It doesn't even have a publisher yet.

Union, which specializes in putting together games, movies and comics (they made the deal for "The Darkness" game and have the video game concept "Zero G" set up at Fox) took at look at "Blacklight," saw the multi-media potential, and helped sell it to Fox Atomic, the studio's youth-skewing division.

Fox Atomic is now developing "Blacklight" as a movie and comic book and has hired Jason Dean Hall to write the feature script and also create the world that will be drawn on for all media. Meanwhile, Zombie is taking the momentum of a movie deal with it to seek a publisher. Union is attached as a producer on both the game and movie side.

I got on the phone today with everyone involved to find out how this unusual project got put together and what it might mean for the future of games and movies. The conversation included Zombie co-CEO and "Blacklight" creator Mark Long; Fox Atomic development director and comics editor-in-chief R. Eric Lieb; and Union's president Richard Leibowitz, Creative Director Dan Jevons, and manager Dmitri Johnson, who are attached as producer and executive producers, respectively. Here are some excerpts:

Ben Fritz: First tell me what exactly "Blacklight" is and how it was created.

Mark Long: About a year ago, I started thinking about where we were going to go next. We specialize in military [first person shooters]. I began thinking about a team tactical shooter set in the near future. A near enough future that it could be based on science fact, not fiction.

When you have the ability to come up with fantasy weapons, games almost design themselves because you can come up with fun things. But when you're in the tactical realism category, it's really hard. For instance, try to find one real weapon somebody hasn’t already put in a game. That’s how we decided on a covert ops team set 25 years in the future that's given the mission of hunting down and capturing or killing the former commander of their team.

 It's kind of a "Heart of Darkness" story. You deal with your dark self and the repercussions of your policies in a region. It's set in the imaginary city of Balik, Kajikistan. We chose that region deliberately so we could have a Romanesque architecture that has fallen into ruin. Now, 25 years in the future, it's covered with ubiquitous banal advertising. Think "Blade Runner" meets Bulgaria.

BF: And what's different about your game from, say, the Clancy titles or "Call of Duty?"

It appears that Frodo is coming home. Not to the Shire, but to Warner Bros.

Though neither company said anything about it, New Line's licensing deal with Electronic Arts for "Lord of the Rings" games expired at the end of last year. Originally set to end in 2007, the two companies agreed on an extension that March until the end of 2008 (the pact also included literary rights holder Tolkien Enterprises).

The last game released under the deal was January's poorly received, soft selling "Lord of the Rings: Conquest" (one of the reasons the game turned out so badly may have been that developer Pandemic had to get it done before EA's rights expired at the end of 2008, though apparently the publisher got a two-week reprieve to release it in early January).

Since EA first got its hands on the "Lord of the Rings" license back in 2001, New Line has transitioned from an independent studio under the Time Warner corporate umbrella to a label for Warner Bros., which now handles most of its business operations. Warner, of course, has its own videogame unit, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, that has grown from a licensing unit to a full-fledged publisher with its own slate of AAA titles.

So, you own a major publisher... you just got back the interactive rights to one of the top entertainment properties in the world... Can you guess where I'm going? It's a safe bet that Warner Bros. won't be licensing out "Lord of the Rings" again. Instead, based on logic and what some sources have told me, expect Warner Bros. to start producing "Lord of the Rings" games itself soon (whether they're based solely on its films, or also stuff from the books, will depend whether it makes a deal with Tolkien Enterprises).

What, oh what, kind of games might Warner do with the "Lord of the Rings" license? Well, there are two "Hobbit" movies that New Line is producing with MGM for 2011 and 2012. Not only is there an obvious movie tie-in or two, but that could also help revive interest in any games set in Middle Earth.

A Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment rep declined to comment.

As movie studios increasingly handle their own videogame publishing, this will continue be the trend. Why keep licensing out your best stuff if you can make the games yourself? Disney, for instance, is in the process of taking back the Pixar license from THQ, which has the rights to make games based on "Up" and one more film, most likely 2011's "Newt" (Disney is doing 2010's "Toy Story 3").

Of course, while "Lord of the Rings" is big, Warner Bros. has another videogame license currently in the hands of EA that it's no doubt salivating to bring back home: Harry Potter. That won't happen for a while, though. EA's deal extends through Warner Bros.' last film, which will be part 2 of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" in 2011. (Although, according to reports, WB may already have its studio Traveller's Tales working on "Lego Harry Potter," perhaps in some kind of co-publishing deal with EA.)

Update: Joystiq picked up this post and added a good additional point I forgot about: Warner Bros. is a major equity holder in Turbine, developer of "Lord of the Rings Online,"  and published the most recent expansion "Mines of Moria." That means it has the "LOTR" console and MMO videogame rights all wrapped up internally. How precious.

Update 2: Another bit of evidence confirming this report comes from GamesIndustry, which reports that an animator at developer Traveller's Tales revealed on a resume that her company had pitched Peter Jackson on a "Lego Lord of the Rings" game. Traveller's Tales is owned by Warner Bros.

As movie studios increasingly publish their own video games, and confront the reality that they usually can't publish a quality AAA game on a film's production schedule in time for theatrical release, downloadable is the new trend.

Warner Bros. did it with "Watchmen: The End is Nigh" and now Paramount is doing the same with its "Star Trek" film reboot. I've actually been looking into this project for a little while, trying to nail down all the details, but they came out today in a surprising way, via leaked art for an insert in the upcoming season one blu-ray release.

As the art indicates, the game is coming out in May and it's being published by Paramount and produced by Naked Sky Entertainment, an L.A. based developer that made the game "Roboblitz."

Based on conversation I've had, it appears the game has been in development for under a year and it's aimed for release on Xbox Live Arcade and Playstation Network (the 360 and PS3's downloadable services) day-and-date with the film on or around May 8. Perhaps no surprise given the relatively short development cycle, it's probably not a fully 3-D adventure, though it is obvious from the artwork that players control the Enterprise in space battle.

Interestingly, Paramount's deal to do a "Star Trek" movie game is entirely separate from Bethesda Softworks' license to do its "Star Trek" games and Cryptic's upcoming "Star Trek Online." Latter two are licensed by CBS, which still owns the TV show, while Paramount, which was previously part of Viacom with CBS, has the interactive rights tied to the movies.

"Star Trek: D.A.C.," as the game is called, will be the biggest self-published title to-date for Paramount's young interactive group, which just started getting into games last year. So far it has only released several iPhone games, as well as three casual PC titles it co-published with Legacy Interactive.

I expect I'll have more details soon on what the game is like, how the downloadable title came together in under a year, and what the hell D.A.C. means.

Imagine how annoyed fans we would all be if Hollywood took our favorite video games and turned them into movies by simply remaking existing films and inserting the games' characters and settings.

Yet that's exactly what we tolerate, again and again, the other way around when games adapt movies. The latest example is "Watchmen," for which the creative process appeared to consist of answering the question: "Into what existing game genre can we just drop some characters from the movie and comic?"

The answer, of course, is a brawler, and so we get "Watchmen: The End is Nigh," which might better be called "Bad WatchDudes" or "Who Watches the Double Dragon?" (If they wanted to give the game a title in the form of a horrible pun, that is)

That might be fine, if you were dealing with a property that's all about kicking ass and taking names, with a somewhat ironic take to make up for the fact that the gameplay is so very retro. It does help that brawler games were popular in the '80s, when "Watchmen" came out, but the comic and movie are decidedly not ironic.

As I wrote in my review for Variety, "The End is Nigh" turns a "dense and cerebral comics classic into a distressingly shallow videogame in which there's nothing for players to do but beat the living crap out of everyone they see."

Sure, there's some excuse in that the game takes place in the '70s when playable characters Rorsach and Nite Owl were kicking ass as crimefighting partners, but it's still "Watchmen." There should be something to do besides take down literally every single person you encounter (isn't there a single innnocent citizen walking around New York?). But that's literally all you do for six chapters, culminating in a lame boss fight where you have to take out a guy wearing body armor, which means it takes several dozen punches, kicks, and crowbars to the head to knock him out.

There is a plot that attempts to be "Watchmen"-esque, but it's just as old fashioned as the brawling in the sense that it's not connected at all to the gameplay. To make matters worse, it's not even connected to the characters. Rorsach and Nite Owl are just clueless pawns in somebody else's conspiracy, a conspiracy pretty thoroughly described in the comic, meaning anyone who read it won't be very surprised to see what happens.

The result, unsurprisingly, is that it's hard to build up much motivation to engage in 20 year-old gameplay with no connection to the story.

That being said, players who just want a brawler will appreciate that it's well made. The animations are fluid and detailed, the controls are responsive (if a bit too easy for hard core players), and the graphics are out outstanding, especially for a $20 downloadable title.

But I couldn't escape the same feeling I had while playing "Quantum of Solace," which basically just took "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare" and slapped James Bond and some scenes from the movie into it. Of course we have to be respectful of the fact that we're unlikely to get the most originality out of movie-based games, since they're always made on tight schedules (although allegedly "Watchmen" was made downloadable to help ameliorate that problem). But if you're going to turn a movie (or any source material) into a video game, I really feel strongly that you need an idea that respects the spirit of the source material. Not just an existing genre and set of mechanics that you can justify, somehow, using for the movie's purposes.

Full review: Watchmen: The End is Nigh

Joystiq has been reporting that Sega has pulled funding from two big games based on Fox's "Aliens" franchise: the RPG at Obsidian and "Colonial Marines," in development at Gearbox. There has been speculation that the games might be canceled as a result.

However, I've just spoken to a source in a very good position to know what's up with both games who told me that they're definitely not canceled. Production is expected to continue and the games, both of which are well into development, will come out. But quite possibly not with the developers they're at. It's looking like it could be a "Splatterhouse" situation (if you don't know what that means, find out here).

My source described the situation at both Obsidian and Gearbox as "fluid," having to do mainly with the quality of the work. Sega, apparently, is not seeing what it wants on the schedule it wants to see it. Which is probably why, as Joystiq reported, it has pulled funding and those developers are hurting.

It remains to be seen how Sega will proceed, whether and when it will assign the games to new developers, and when they'll come out. But the plan definitely remains that gamers will be getting an Aliens RPG and "Aliens: Colonial Marines," as well as the recently announced "Aliens vs. Predator," in the not-too-distant future

"Saw," one of the highest profile games left orphaned when Brash Entertainment went out of business, has been picked up by Konami.

Sources close to the project have confirmed that Konami has made a deal with Lionsgate, to whom the rights reverted when Brash breached its contract, and developer Zombie Studios. The game will come out this fall along with the sixth "Saw" film (I almost wrote "Saw VI," but that series is getting so long in the tooth I'm wondering if they'll take a cue from the seventh "Star Trek" movie and just drop the numbers).

Konami is an obvious choice to pick up "Saw," since it has experience selling horror with a little franchise called "Silent Hill." But the game almost took a very intriguing twist: no publisher at all.

Or rather, no traditional publisher. Several sources told me that after it got the game rights back from Brash, Lionsgate strongly considered holding onto it and jumping into the videogame business by making "Saw" its first self-published game. Like every other movie studio (some of whom have gotten into videogames, the rest of whom are considering it), Lionsgate was tempted by potential profits in the fast growing videogame biz. But in the end, execs there apparently decided they couldn't properly model sales, or weren't sure they could market a videogame, and went the safer route of licensing it to a new publisher.

The "Saw" game hasn't been shown publicly, as far as I know. But the many Brash ex-employees I interviewed late last year uniformly said that it was looking really good, nothing like the three embarassments the defunct publisher released in its brief year-and-a-half of existence.

Apparently they've got Jigsaw himself, Tobin Bell, doing voice work and the game looks to be a bloody, violent M that's just as hard as the movies' R. I don't know much about gameplay, but I gather that it's based on the puzzles that Jigsaw likes to rig for his victims in the films. I do know it's for PC, PS3 and 360. Which is a bit of a shame, because while I understand that the typical Wii and DS owners aren't exactly the target market, I can't help but think of all the disturbingly awesome things you could do in a "Saw" game with a touch screen or a Wii-mote. (If it's a hit, maybe they'll use the "Dead Space" example and follow it up with a Wii version).

As is common with movie licenses these days, Konami's deal with Lionsgate is long term, meaning that if the first one's a hit, the games could become just as much of a never ending -- and never endingly profitable -- institution as the movies.

Reps for Lionsgate, Konami and Zombie all declined to comment or didn't respond to requests for comment.

(That's a teaser poster Brash made for the game above. Unsurprisingly, whoisjigsaw.com isn't working anymore.)

Three years ago, Electronic Arts had the James Bond License, while Vivendi Games was starting work on its first Jason Bourne game after buying the Robert Ludlum estate license. In 2006, Activision bought the Bond license away from EA. Then last year, Activision merged with Vivendi and dropped the Ludlum license since it was competitive with Bond and the first release, "The Bourne Conspiracy," didn't sell too well.

Today, the circle is complete, EA has bought videogame rights to the Robert Ludlum estate in a new ten year deal. And it's starting work on its first Bourne game, which I'm told is targeted for release in summer 2010 (not too coincidentally when Universal is planning to release its fourth Jason Bourne movie).

Back when the Activision-Vivendi merger happened in late July and Bourne got dropped, I reported that the Ludlum estate was considering options including finding a new publisher or self funding its own games.

Today I spoke to Ludlum estate CEO Jeffrey Weiner, who told me that talks with EA started soon after and that the basic principles of the deal were concluded by October, with the last three months being taken up with lawyers and paperwork. He said that while Ludlum spoke to several different publishers, EA was the first choice and always in the lead because its CEO John Riccitiello almost bought the license in 2005 before it went to Vivendi.

"John was at [VC firm] Elevation [Partners, former owner of Bioware/Pandemic] at the time and was a real serious bidder," Weiner explained. "So when Activision decided to terminate the license we reached out to him because we like John and it's a great company. We feel we're in a much better position now."

Keith Boesky, the independent agent who reps the Ludlum estate, echoed, the sentiment and added that while Vivendi made a very strong bid for the property initially, it didn't handle the property too well, as evidenced in the rather lackluster launch for "The Bourne Conspiracy."

"EA came in the strongest, had the best take on the property, and they know how to grow the IP and have unquestioned worldwide market reach," he said. "We're dealing with grown ups now."

As I previously reported, Vivendi actually had a second Ludlum game in the works, "Treadstone," based on Bourne's super spy program, in development at Radical Entertainment (which is now part of the Activision family and working on "Prototype"). "Treadstone" is officially scrapped, however. Starbreeze is starting from scratch on its project. No info yet on what's in the works, but given the expertise the Sweden-based developer showed in first person combat and storytelling on "The Chronicles of Riddick" and "The Darkness," it's a pretty exciting choice.

With a full ten years on the deal, it's interesting to consider that EA could, and surely wants to, develop the Ludlum brand beyond "Bourne." The deal includes everything Ludlum wrote, including the "Covert One" spy series, which Vivendi was originally planning to adapt when it bought the rights.

The big question yet to be answered: Will EA fix Vivendi's failure and get Matt Damon to give his likeness and do voice work for Bourne this time around? Especially if the game comes out along with the next movie? Or will Jason Bourne once again be a generic white guy?

Disney Interactive Studios is starting work on a new Tron game at the same time it's joining the long list of companies laying off staff and consolidating development studios.

A spokersperson declined to comment, but sources tell me DIS is talking to developers about a "Tron" game that will be tied to "TR2N," the film sequel that its sibling studio is producing. The movie, which will star Jeff Bridges, Garret Hedlund and Olivia Wilde and be directed by Joseph Kosinski, is tentatively scheduled for 2011, which is when we can expect to see the game too.

This is, of course, a no-brainer. "Tron" was a movie about videogames that spawned several successful arcade games (classics of my youth), as well as a sequel in 2003. So with a new movie coming out, what were the odds Disney was not going to do a new videogame?

Nonetheless, it's exciting news to have a full fledged new Tron coming. And it's good news that the movie is more than two years out (i'll go out on a limb and say Disney won't release it in the Winter), since that means the game will have a solid amount of production time.

But it's not all light cycles and ricocheting discs at Disney Interactive. The media conglomerate's videogame arm laid off almost 30 people at its Propaganda Games studio in Vancover, maker of last year's fairly well received (I thought it was pretty good), so-so seller "Turok." According to Kotaku, that's tied to the cancellation of "Turok 2." From what I can gather, a sequel isn't necessarily dead, since Disney retains the rights it to the character it optioned from Classic Media, and two teams remain at work at Propaganda. But it is likely a follow-up is on hold, or back to the drawing board.

Also feeling the pinch are a pair of DIS's six internal developers: Fall Line and Avalanche. The two Salt Lake City-based studios are merging together into one entity that will focus on games based on Disney animated films. That has already been Avalanche Games' raison d'etre, while Fall Line's latest game was "Ultimate Band," which didn't sell too well or win over many critics (Variety's Chris Dahlen panned it). A Disney rep said that Fall Line will bring Avalanche expertise on Wii and DS, which are more than ever the platforms that matter for kid-focused titles. Upcoming games in the works from the newly merged studios include "Toy Story 3" for 2010 and, though it hasn't yet been announced, probably "The Princess and the Frog" for this December.

Other Disney studios unaffected by the layoffs include U.K.-based Black Rock, maker of "Pure" (a racing game I loved that just missed my top ten for 2008), Junction Point in Texas, Warren Spector's company that's rumored to be making some kind of platformer starring Mickey Mouse, and China-based Gamestar, which does outsourcing work.

Last year there were rumors about a "Dark Knight" game from EA that might have come out with the blockbuster film's DVD, and then further rumors that the game had been killed, which it obviously was.

Kotaku Australia has a good story of how things went wrong. Why Kotaku Australia? The game was in development at EA subsidiary Pandemic Studios' Brisbane office (which has recently gotten the axe amongst EA layoffs). The basic story is the oldest one in the book when it comes to licensed games: Not enough time to make the game (only 18 months) so then, when the studio encountered technology problems (as happens so often with videogame development) it couldn't possibly hit its date in time with the movie, not even the DVD date. 

With all the talk about quality and making sure games, especially licensed ones, have the necessary development time from both EA and Warner Bros., it's pretty sad that it's the same old story here.

It's a shame for numerous obvious reasons, not the least of which is that a game based on the biggest movie of the year could have made a lot of money, even if it wasn't all that good.

Of course it won't be too long until we get a new Batman game, since Eidos is working on "Arkham Asylum," based on its license of the comic book IP in 2006.

 There are plenty of surface problems with EA's new "Lord of the Rings: Conquest" that make it a badly executed game: the visuals are mediocre; characters spawn out of thin air right in front of you; gameplay is repetitive and sometimes tedious; on-screen directions are sometimes unclear; and so on and so on.

But the real problem with the game is a conceptual one. "Lord of the Rings," whether in book form or movie, is an epic fantasy. That's really it's defining trait. It's three books that are 600,000 words long in total taking place in an entire land with numerous regions, species, and landmarks. The characters are big (some physically, some just personality wise), the themes are big, the story is huge, the battles are massive.

And then you have "Lord of the Rings: Conquest." Choose one of four different character types and relive the books/films' greatest battles via small missions that feature as many as several dozen enemies on screen at a time (or up to 16 in multi-player) and no sense of what's going on around you. Notice a problem? Here's what I wrote in my review:

There are some cool moments, like the first time you control an ent (giant trees) or balrog (big stone monster) and the beginning of the "evil" campaign when you have to stop Frodo from throwing the one ring into Mount Doom (that's one of the very few levels in which you actually understand the larger point of your goals). But they're fleeting.

Other allegedly exciting moments, like controlling the "Rings" heroes like Aragorn and Gandalf, aren't, since they are simply new models of the same characters you've played before (Gandalf's a really powerful mage, Legolas is a really powerful archer, etc.), with not very good sound alike actors imitating the film stars.

So yes, it's not a very well executed game. But more importantly, it's not a misguided approach to a really great property.

Full review: Lord of the Rings: Conquest

Call me cynical, but when a Hollywood production company with no history in the space announces it's getting into the videogames business, I don't take it all too seroiusly. After all (shocking news!), a lot of people in the entertainment industry say they're going to do a lot of things and many of them don't really happen.

But Red Eagle Entertainment, a company formed solely to produce media based on the "The Wheel of Time" fantasy novels (I've never heard of them, but they're apparently a big deal, having sold 44 million copies worldwide) apparently has its act together enough to sign up an impressive partner: Electronic Arts, which will distribute the "Wheel of Time" game (or games) worldwide through its EA Partners program.

The plan is to develop a series of games for "all major platforms," as well as an MMORPG, which EA will distribute at retail.

At a minimum, this means Red Eagle Games (the company's videogame division, natch) really has the money to finance these titles and impressed EA enough to show they know what they're doing when it comes to making them.

Don't expect the games anytime soon, however. There's no release date announced and a source I spoke to said that Red Eagle doesn't yet have a developer working on production. So it's going to be a couple of years, at least.

Meanwhile, as Variety reported last summer, Universal has the rights to develop a "Wheel of Time" movie, or movies.

We interrupt this top ten games of 2008 countdown for our final videogame review of the year in Variety: The Tale of Despereaux.

As loyal readers and videogame business nerds (mostly the same, I hope) know, Atari is distributing this game after the demise of Brash. But the origin of the game is a bit more complicated. While Brash funded and oversaw production of the PC, PS2 and Wii SKUs (as well as a 360 SKU that disappeared), licensor Universal Studios was actually overseeing the DS version. Wanna bet which version was pretty good and which sucked?

The answer is obvious, I suppose. Poor, poor Brash. Here's what our critic Chris Dahlen had to say in today's Daily Variety:

The DS version... is a straightforward platformer with elements as old as the first “Super Mario.” Players jump, scurry up walls, swing on nails and solve simple puzzles. The graphics are surprisingly good for Nintendo’s handheld system, with lovingly illustrated levels including the mazelike chutes from the kitchen to the coalmine-like castle dungeon. The rat’s coliseum, where two rather clever boss battles take place, rewards combatants with a colorful three-dimensional backdrop and silhouetted rodents who jeer from the stands...

By contrast, the Wii version proves that there’s nothing as irritating as a platformer that doesn’t quite work. The look and idea are very similar: Despereaux has to navigate one level after another by scaling giant books, jumping from candle to candle or hitching a ride on a moving cup. While the mouse-eye perspective should make the world engaging, the environments lack atmosphere, even in the dankest, most sewage-swamped depths of a dungeon. Poor visibility and dark colors occasionally obscure the path even in well-lit areas, and the camera frequently looks the wrong way or loses track of Despereaux altogether.

It looks like the last game to see a release that was produced entirely under Brash's watch won't exactly bolster the company's reputation. Though there's still a good chance some of the games in the works for next year which will probably see the light of day ("Night at the Museum 2," "Saw") will at least show Brash can start developing a good game.

As for Universal, its new videogame publishing initiative -- which reps the studio's first entry into the space since it sold Universal Interactive to Vivendi nearly a decade ago -- is off to a solid start, critically speaking, at least. After the film's soft opening (due in part to the weather, but oh well), commerical prospects for the game might not be so great.

Full review: The Tale of Despereaux videogame

The first of Brash's many orphan games has found a new home.

As I'm reporting in tomorrow's Daily Variety, Atari has bought North American publishing rights for the PC, PS2 and Wii version of the game from Brash (though not the 360; so much for that). It has also picked up the deal Brash made to distribute the DS version for Universal, which is funding and producing that game itself. (Details on the original deal between Universal and Brash are here)

I've been hearing for a little while that Atari was going to pick up a few of Brash's completed games that need a publisher ASAP. Apparently it didn't (or hasn't) bought the completed Wii version of "Six Flags Fun Park," but "Despereaux," which needs to come out before the film's Dec. 19 release date, was more appealing.

Atari, of course, has been on a bit of a spree buying homeless movie-to-videogame adaptations of late, since it also picked up Sierra cast-offs "Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena" and "Ghostbusters" from Activision Blizzard in October (details here).

The newly revived publisher also announced some new games in the works at a London event today, including a new Wii music title from the creator of RezHD, Lumines Live and Every Extend Extra Extreme. GameSpot has a good summary.

Atari won't have any time to market the game and will be relying on primarily on some promotions Universal has in the works. But, as is always true, if a kids' movie is successful and the tie-in game is halfway decent, it should sell just fine. Even the famously abysmal "Alvin and the Chipmunks" moved a few hundred thousand units last year. And Brash ex-employees assure me that "Despereaux" is much better.

The deal is so last minute that Brash actually had the game in production when it shut down. So while Atari is publishing, the box art will say Brash. Making this game, in a sense, the last hurrah for Hollywood's (dearly?) departed videogame publisher.

You may have already seen today's announcement that there's a "Terminator: Salvation" videogame coming this May along with the movie. Not exactly a surprise, especially since Halcyon Games, a division of "Terminator" rights holder Halcyon, said last year it was going to make that game.

But things have evolved since then. Today's announcement featured five separate companies involved in the game. I spoke to Warner Bros. and Halcyon today to sort it all out. Here's everyone involved:

-Halcyon Games. It owns the rights and is the licensor. Halcyon Games president Cos Lazouras (who used to run Vin Diesel's videogame procdution company Tigon) is overseeing the development at...

-Grin, the Swedish maker of "GRAW" and the upcoming "Bionic Commando" game.

-Equity Games Productions, a Swiss copany that's funding production of the game, along with...

-Evolved Games, a Brithsh/American firm that's apparently closely tied to Equity and helping fund it.

-Warner Bros, which is distributing the game, as well as handling PR and marketing, worldwide, through its Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment division. WB is also distributing the film domestically, while Sony Pictures is handling it internationally.

Got it? Good. Now what about the game? I don't know too much, except that it's an action game in which players control John Connor, who's played by Christian Bale in the film. Apparently movie director McG has been involved in the game production. No consoles have been announced, but since it's an action game based on a likely R-rated movie (which means a T- or M-rated game), Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 are very safe bets, with possibly a PC version too.

I think "Terminator: Salvation" now replaces "Arkham Asylum" as the most convoluted videogame business deal fo the year.

Our last two videogame reviews at Variety were both Activision-published movie adaptations and they  had one specific quality in common: they didn't remotely capture the film on which they're allegedly based.

One is a mini-game collection and the other's a virtual copy of a hugely popular title with a new skin. I bet you can already guess which is which. But here's some more details anyway:

-"There’s little sense of the source’s plot," in the videogame version of "Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa," according to Variety critic Leigh Alexander, " save for a short intro scene that summarily reintroduces the characters before plunking them down amid a series of disjointed minigames."

Particularly in the story mode, the mini-game progression is "ardous" and at times, surprisingly difficult, Leigh notes. Older players will find the lack of context and the repetition tedious, while the kids at which this game is aimed will find it flat out hard, not to mention lacking in fun. It's especially surprising that the "arcade" mode, where players can pick whatever mini-games they want, doesn't contain many of the best ones from the story mode.

That kind of relates back to my main complaint about "Rock Band 2": Why do developers make us unlock all the good stuff in casual games? We paid you money, just let us have our fun!

Full review: Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa

-If James Bond were Rambo, then the videogame version of "Quantum of Solace" would be perfect, says I. Unfortunately for developer Treyarch, he's not, so dropping him into what's essentially a re-skinned version of "Call of Duty 4" in which he shoots dozens of bad guys until the level arbitrarily ends, then starting again in the next scene from the movie (or a flashback from "Casino Royale") just doesn't cut it.

James Bond is supposed to be a spy. So how about letting him do some spying? Or get into a cool car chase? Or re-live the poker showdown from "Casino Royale?" Those are all gameplay types that have been done before, so I'm mystified and annoyed that Treyarch didn't even try to include them.

Instead, it just used the "Call of Duty 4" engine to make a decent shooter. Which is fine for what it is, but a failure when it comes to actually makes a James Bond videogame. It is interesting that there's online multi-player, since that's so rare for movie-based videogame, but once you realize the multi-player is even more a rip-off of "CoD4" that the campaign, you won't be so impressed.

One thought that occurred to me as I finished this review is that, of course, the universally loved "Goldeneye" is more a shooter than a spy game. Which is true. But, to borrow a phrase, I know "Goldeneye," and "Quantum of Solace" is no "Goldeneye." If "Quantum of Solace" pushed the boundaries of action videogames as much as "Goldeneye" did, I'd be far more forgiving of how much it strays from the source material.

Full review: Quantum of Solace

More problems at Brash Entertainment. As I'm reporting in today's Daily Variety, the troubled movie-license focused videogame publisher has laid off 20 staffers, is working with studios to either return licenses or sell them to other videogame companies, and is searching for new cash or a buyer.

Brash acknowledged the layoffs in a statement. But I've already been hearing from numerous sources of the company's latest problems. Apparently it has stopped paying developers, at least temporarily. And it has been talking to the studios from which it has acquired licenses to either return some of those properties or sell them to new publishers. Basically, Brash doesn't have the cash to continue. It's trying to find more, or a buyer.

Seems weird, doesn't it? Just last year, Brash launched and announced it had raised $400 million. And even the worst run company couldn't burn that much cash in a year. As it turns out, only some of that money was immediately available. The rest, which was supposed to be available for future needs, has apparently dried up amidst the financial crisis. Though the recent resignation of co-founder Thomas Tull, who has the Wall Street connections and headed up the private equity funding, probably didn't give investors a lot of confidence.

Brash only confirmed that two games are still in the works: "Six Flags Fun Park" and "Saw." That leaves a long list of titles in limbo: "Tale of Desperaux," "Prison Break," "Night at the Museum 2," "Clash of the Titans," "300," and one other that it hasn't announced and hasn't yet been reported: "Superman." Remember when Brash announced it was working with "Rogue Squadron" and "Lair" developer Factor 5 on an unannounced game? Turns out it was "Superman."

Getting information from Brash was even harder than usual since among the many no longer working there is EA and Ubisoft vet Tiffany Spencer, who was VP of corporate communications. The question is: Who's left? I'm still waiting to find out how many employees remain at Brash. But based on what I've heard from sources, it's not many.

Full Story: Brash Entertainment short on cash

Also see: Thomas Tull leaves Brash

Activision Blizzard's analyst day presentation yesterday was over three hours long and I admit I haven't gotten to listen to more than about half an hour so far. Rather than wait for me to have another 2.5 hours free to look for the nuggets of info, here's the relevant news gathered from other reports and analysts who were there:

-There will be a new James Bond game every year going forward. Activision's planning to turn the British spy into one of its trademark annualized franchises. Also, as it does with "Spider-Man," it planning to but out new Bond games regardless of whether there's a new film to tie the game to. Which means it must think its first Bond game, "Quantum of Solace," is pretty good. That game bombing would throw a kink into Activision's plans.

-It's planning to double the number of "Guitar Hero" skus' for next year and triple them by 2010. This year there's a total of four games with 12 sku's that I count (six for Aerosmith, one each for On Tour and Decades, and four for World Tour). So that would mean around 24 versions next year and 36 in '10. If you generously assume a few DS specific titles and that every band/genre related game is on all six available platforms (PS2, PS3, 360, Wii, PC, Mac), you're still probably talking like 4 console games and maybe two or three handhelds next year, with five or six console games in 2010. They can't be thinking that anyone but the most hard core fan will buy every one, but I guess the idea is there are now multiple points of entry to "Guitar Hero" no matter what kind of music you like, what your favorite band is, how you like to play, etc. (MTV News confirms that one of the "Guitar Hero" franchise games coming next year is "DJ Hero," from newly acquired developer Freestyle Games. It was originally being developed for Vivendi Games, which is a nice confluence of events for Activision now that it has merged with that company.)

-The sixth "Call of Duty" is indeed coming from original developer Infinity Ward, but not until 2010. How will we survive through 2009 without a new game? And more importantly, how will Activision survive without one of its biggest franchises? Lots of downloadable content for this year's "Call of Duty: World at War," with exciting new options to pay (more) for it.

-Not that it's news, but in the part I was listening to, ActiBlizzard CEO Bobby Kotick was pointing out that videogames are one of the best values for the entertainment dollar (undoubtedly true) and used as evidence that the typical "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare" player is only spending about 52 cents per hours not counting online play. I frankly don't see how that's possible. At $60 per pop, that's around 120 hours of play. The campaign takes like 15 or so hours to play. I would think he was mistaken and meant with online (I guess it's possible the average "Call of Duty" player has spent 100 hours online, given that a hard core minority has easily spent hundreds and hundreds), but he then made a separate point that including online, it's more like 15 cents per hour. So somehow, in a way I'm not seeing, ActiBlizzard really thinks that stat is true.

The fact that Electronic Arts today officially delayed its "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince" game from November to next summer is of course not news at all, since anyone who did just a bit of reporting and had a smidge of common sense would have known that was happening the moment Warner Bros. delayed the movie last month (as I wrote at the time).

What is interesting, however, is that the delay has forced EA, in an SEC filing, to disclose exactly what kind of revenue and profit it expected from the game. And it's impressive: $120 million in revenue and a profit of 13 cents per share, which, based on a simple calculation, looks like it would be about $41 million. While it's tough to say how many units $120 million equals, given the varying prices for different SKUs and the various players (retailers, console makers, licensor Warner Bros.) who get a cut, but suffice it to say, that's many millions. Plus a very healthy profit margin of around one-third of revenues, which is very impressive and indicates that the game doesn't cost that much to make (perhaps not a surprise for a licensed sequel).

EA will of course be fine, with the same revenue and profits just pushed back to its next fiscal year. But it's pretty impressive that this one game represents about 2.5% of this mega-publisher's expected revenue and a much more hefty 10% of profits (both on a non-GAAP basis, for the accountants out there).

Goes to show that despite all the talk about the importance of original IP, a license based on a hit property with broad appeal around the world and in all demo's can be extremely valuable to a videogame publisher.

On a related note, Reuters' assertion that the delay is the reason for a 3% drop in EA stock today seems highly dubious. Anyone who trades EA shares and didn't immediately assume the the movie's delay last month meant the same thing for the game would have to be a total fool.

Back in June I was writing about how rare it is for a game tied to a movie launch to have multi-player, so I should make note of the rather bizarre announcement today that Sega has released a multi-player expansion pack for "The Incredible Hulk," about three months after the game was released to very enhhhh reviews (including our own). Sega and developer Edge of Reality must have had this little add-on in the works already and figured it was worth just finishing, since given the game's reception, there wasn't exactly a clamor to get new content, despite the fact that, according to TeamXbox, the content was originally promised back in late June (did anyone notice that?). And since it's free, it's no more money in Sega's pocket. If anyone has the game and a friend with it, they can now do some co-op missions, for what it's worth.

There's already speculation online about whether Warner Bros.' decision to delay "Harry Potter and the Half Blood prince" from November to next July will force Electronic Arts to delay its tie-in videogame. Allow me to put the speculation to rest: It definitely will.

No, EA hasn't made any official statements to me. But based on everything I know from covering the nexus of Hollywood and videogames for a few years, I'd call it as much of a lock as this industry every gets, for two reasons:

-The game contains many assets -- backgrounds, character models, plot points borrowed or cut from the book, etc. -- from the film that Warner Bros. would not allow EA to release to the public before the film comes out. That's why publishers are always so paranoid when doing previews of videogames based on movies. They get in big trouble if they leak anything before the studio is ready.

-EA's business plan is based on Warner Bros. spending tens of millions, if not 100s of millions to market the "Harry Potter" film. All that hype can result in big sales for the videogame regardless of its actual quality (see, for example, "Iron Man"). There's no way EA would forego all the money WB is planning to spend next summer in order to support the game launch entirely on its own.

Yes, as Lazard analyst Colin Sebastian said Friday, this could easily mean $120 million of revenue for EA delayed to 2010. But better waiting a little while for that money than making a fraction of it this year and alienating a major studio partner in the process.

EA has just put out its firs trailer for "The Godfather II" (if you don't know all about the game already, click here for a full report).

Now they've put out the first trailer for the game. It almost feels more "Goodfellas" than "Godfather" to me in its use of rock music and the overly stylized use of cuts, colors, etc. The gameplay itself, meanwhile, is pretty reminiscent of the first "Godfather" game, save for the new "Don's view" that lets you see the whole city and what you control in it from an overhead strategic POV. And, of course, with no involvement from Al Pacino, Michael Corleone looks nothing like he did in the films. Which makes including him in the trailer a slightly bold/bizarre choice by EA.

While reporting on EA's "Godfather II" yesterday, I started thinking about other games based on great '70s / early '80s movies. There was Majesco's godawful "Jaws Unleashed," there's Warner Bros. forever-in-development "Dirty Harry" (but still not canceled, WB swears), and there was Vivendi's perfectly decent "Grand Theft Auto" knock-off "Scarface: The World is Yours" (remember fondly by many of us for its innovative "balls meter.")

And then I remembered a story from late last year that fell off my radar after the Activision Blizzard merger was announced: "Scarface 2." As I noted when I first reported on the "Ghostbusters" game last year, a sequel to 2006's "Scarface: the World is Yours," which sold over 2.5 million units worldwide, was in the works. A high level source at Vivendi Games confirmed that for me. I don't know whether Radical, which made the first game, was working on it, or how far into production the game got. Obviously not too far, since it was never announced by Sierra and thus couldn't have been scheduled for any earlier than 2009.

But "Scarface" was not on the very short list of Sierra franchises that Activision Blizzard picked up, which means Tony Montana is now without a videogame home. The rights have reverted back to Universal, which will undoubtedly be looking to find another publisher interested in open-world, drug empire building, hip-hop influenced, non-stop-swearing mayhem. Or perhaps, now that it has started producing videogames with "Wanted," the studio could make "Scarface 2" itself.

Apologies for taking a few hours to catch up with my story in today's Daily Variety, but I figured you'd all still want more details on EA's "Godfather II"...

EA execs have dropped a few hints about its "Godfather" sequel in the past year. But today we've finally got tons of details about "The Godfather II," which comes out in February. Much of it is fresh news, though thanks to a British magazine that apparently came out today (d'oh!), I guess they're not all completely new I've also got some cool screenshots thoughout this post that you can also see in a photo gallery.

First I'll just summarize the key details about the game. Then below are excerpts from my interview with EA Games' GM and Paramount's top videogame exec talking about what's new in "Godfather Part II," why the first "Godfather" felt like two unintegrated games on one disc,  why they still can't get along with Francis Ford Coppola, and more.

-"Godfather II" comes out in February for PC, Playstation 3, Xbox 360 (more platforms probably coming later). It's being developed at EA Redwood Shores.

-The original "Godfather" game sold over 4 million units worldwide, a solid if not quite epic performance.

-Players once again control and up-and-comer in the Corleone crime family. This time it's someone who worked for the fictional protagonist in the original "Godfather" game. The story weaves in and out of "The Godfather: Part II" film, but only the stuff that takes place in the '60s, not the parts with Vito Corleone's early life that starred Robert DeNiro.

-Features Robert Duvall's voice as Tom Hagen, who is a key advisor to the player. John Cazale (Fred), Lee Strasberg (Hyman Roth), Michael V. Gazzo (Petangeli) and G.D. Spradin (Senator Geary) all provide their likeness. As in the first game, there's no deal with Al Pacino to play Michael. Since Pacino did provide likeness rights for the "Scarface" game, I'd wager this is a matter of simple money -- Pacino wanting more of it than EA would pay.

-It takes place in New York, Miami and Havana, all of which are open worlds, but are smaller than New York was in the first game.

-Gameplay includes third-person action, the first game's signature "black hand" intimidation, and driving. There's also, as previously reported, the "Don's view" (pictured right) that lets players control the resources of their crime family from a high level, though the developers insist it's not truly an RTS.

-There is multi-player, which will feature organized crime families doing battle with each other. I don't have all the details, but I undersand it will be more of a family vs. family (vs. family, etc.) kind of thing where players make alliances and try to take control of a city, rather than a "Halo" or "Gears" type battle.

Now here's excerpts from my interview with Nick Earl, senior VP and GM of the EA Games label:

Was it always your intention to follow up the "Godfather" game with a sequel? Or were you not sure until you saw how the first one performed?

The original vision was definitely a long-term approach. That being said, if the first game had not met a certain level in terms of learning and critical and commercial success, we probably would have rethought the plan.

As it happened, we did well enough with the first and had some amazing learning in terms of doing an open world game that we felt it was absolutely the right thing to do "Godfather II."

What exactly do you feel you learned in making the first "Godfather." Both in terms of things you did right and things you want to improve upon?

It was the first open world game we've done at Redwood Shores and I think across EA's worldwide studios. It was a huge learning in terms of the technology, tools and pipeline we put in place.

We feel we did great work in the second-to-second action. The "blackhand" in particular, where you could grab people and throw them off rooftops or through windows, punch them while threatening or just pretend to punch. The driving and simulation of the world were strong. Also the way we derived our missions from the movie.  We stuck very closely to the movie, moreso than we are doing on "Godfather II."

One key learning in retrospect is that we look at "Godfather" 1 as two games that shipped together on the same DVD. One is a linear mission-based story and the other is an open-world sandbox where you go around and infiltrate businesses. They were distinct worlds that didn't have much of a connection. In "Godfather II" we've realized we need to integrate it all into one holistic experience. That's one area that I think is far better. It's a much tighter product.

Does this game take the same approach as the first one and weave in and out of the story of the film's story?

"Godfather II" takes place in the key environments of the movie "Godfather: Part II": Miami, Havana and New York. We're expanding outside of New York, where we were "Godfather" 1. We're hitting all the major touchpoints of the film, like the meeting with Hyman Roth in Cuba and driving Senator Geary.

What about the parts of the "Godfather: Part II" movie that are flashbacks to Vito Corleone's early life that starred DeNiro? Are those in the game?

We talked about this a lot and where we ended up is focusing on the '60s, the present day of the movie. We don't do the flashback component. The flashbacks that are so great as a film experience don't really work for a game.

In the first game the main character was a new guy in the Corleone family. Is it the same protagonist in the sequel? Or a new character?

The main character is someone who was part of the crew of your character in the first game. In similar fashion to the first, he becomes a right hand man to Michael and works his way up from being a junior streety guy to a captain and ultimately Godfather.

Your character is someone you create like in "Godfather 1." You build him up, take on a crew and become more powerful.

What about the RTS (real time strategy) elements of the game that we've already heard some hints about?

It has a top-down view that we call  the "Don's view." At any moment in the experience you can hit a button and it pulls out so you can see the world from a purely strategic view as if you were a Godfather running the city. It gives you a sense of what's going on from a high level: There's a break-in over there, a fire here, a major fight there. You can move your soldiers around from place to place. It's not quite as free-flowing as an RTS but it has a little bit of that feel.

We think it's distinctive and gives a new view into the game. But we still think about this as an action game. This is a whole new view that's really accessible even for action gamers.

So it's still primarily an action game with the same controls as the first "Godfather?"

It's third-person action for the majority of the game with an over-the-shoulder camera. You're mostly running around streets, hopping in an out of cars, going into buildings and on rooftops. There's a lot of "blackhand" intimidation.

We've updated the controls a bit, especially the locomotion and the blackhand. It will feel natural to somebody who played the first one. We looked at some of the other production on the market, taken what's best out there, and put our own spin on it.

Are you using the same technology you developed for "Godfather" 1?

A lot of the components came from "Godfather" 1. But this is also being built [in Redwood Shores] right on top of "Dead Space." It's actually the same basic technology we developed and used for "The Simpsons," even though that was a very different game.

So you have three cities now instead of one. Does that mean the game world is three times as big?

New York is slightly smaller this time. We had a philosophical change where we decided to go with a slightly smaller footprint, but denser gameplay. One of our learnings from the first game was there was a little too much driving across town. It could take four-to-six minutes to drive from one side of New York to the other. Driving was a nice mechanic but that could become monotonous.

We we have smaller footprints in our three different cities, which all have a distinct look and feel. There's more density to the buildings, interactions and feature sets.

What actors from the movie are in the game this time? Were you able to get Pacino, who wasn't in the first "Godfather?"

Tom Hagan [played by Robert Duvall] is crucial in the game. He's your guide who helps you through the experience. It's the perfect way to deliver instructions. We also have Hyman Roth, Fredo, Senator Geary, and others.

Pacino passed on both the last game and this one.

Is it tough to make the game authentic if Michael Corleone, the main character of the movie, looks and sounds different?

It's not crucial because your character is an analogue to Michael. He plays a small role in the game.

What about Francis Ford Coppola? He publicly complained about the first "Godfather" game. Have you gotten him involved at all?

We' ve had no contact with him. There's really no need to. But if he's ever interested in seeing the game or reaching out, we'd love that.

And now some excerpts from Sandi Isaacs, senior VP of interactive and mobile at Paramount, which of course made the "Godfather" movies and licensed the rights to EA.

When you made your deal with EA for the first game was it your hope and intention to see a sequel?

From the beginning of our relationship with EA, we had always looked at it as building a franchise within the gaming industry. So many movie-based games are just one-offs, so to create a franchise, especially off a property from the 1970s, is pretty phenomenal.

What do you think is new, interesting, maybe better in the second game?

With "Godfather" 1, we had hoped to see certain gameplay mechanics that weren't able to get in there that we're now able to see in "Godfather II."  It's definitely about deeper long-term thinking and more strategy elements that add to the drama and character development. You control and manage the destiny of your family as well as your own character.

 Will there be any integration with a DVD re-release or anything like that?

We're working closely with our home entertainment and pay TV groups, talking about a lot of fun marketing tie-ins.

Working at the studio, you obviously play a big role in getting film talent to cooperate on your games. What happened with Francis Ford Coppola?

We would love to have him involved in any way, shape or form that he'd like to be involved. At this point we haven't seen that interest.

How did Paramount feel about the performance of the first game? Were you always sure EA would agree to do a sequel?

There was a staggered release [across different consoles] so it wasn't like we knew right away from the launch period. But we were all happy with the performance across all the platforms happy that we took the time to make it polished. If we had held to the initial release date [the first game was pushed back from holiday 2005 to March of 2006], we might have seen a sequel.

We're really happy that we made that decision with EA to hold it. It's a definite advantage of not having to tie into a new movie release. You can take the time to make the game that you want to make.

As we all know, Activision Blizzard is killing Vivendi Games' Sierra label and all the crappy, and some of the not-so-crappy, games it was publishing (some might even argue it's keeping a few of the Sierra franchses that are crappy, but that's a separate issue).

But there was one crappy game that was so close to being published, and was literally being manufactured with "Sierra" on the box as the merger happened a few weeks ago, that Activision Blizzard couldn't stop it. And so the final game to go out under the Sierra label is "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor," a PS2 and Wii game based on the crappy film of the same title. Do I even have to tell you it's terrible?

Sierra, of course, was an awesome publisher back in the '80s, making classic games of my childhood like "King's Quest," "Space Quest," and (when I got a little older) "Leisure Suit Larry." The first time I remember ever laughing at a videogame was definitely a Sierra title. There's a great Wikipedia entry on Sierra that goes from its founding by Ken and Roberta Williams (who made the first ever adventure game with graphics) through its heyday in the '80s to the corporate machinations in the late '90s and early 2000's and eventually being turned into Vivendi Games' label for everything non-Blizzard.

You can be excused if you didn't even know Sierra was making a "Mummy" game. There was no PR around the release that I saw. The Sierra website says the game is coming out in "summer" and that the rating is pending. And according to Metacritic, it has gotten two reviews from gaming websites so far.

But as always when it comes to movie-based games, we're there for you. So just how bad is Sierra's "Mummy" game? In the words of Variety reviewer Tom Chick:

"Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" is two parts "Tomb Raider" clone, one part mindless punch fest, one part shooting gallery, and one part repeating boss battles. The Wii version throws in a few motion-sensing gimmicks (Pull doors! Yank chains! Turn cranks!) for an extra bullet point on the back of the box... If "Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" were a better game, the challenges to upgrade the weapons might have given it some replay value. But that's hard to consider without having much play value the first time around.

Like Atari, the Sierra name has a lot of value and it's possible somebody will pick it up and make it great again. If not, maybe "Mummy" can be erased from the official history.

Those who want more details on how terrible the game is, including the part when you turn into the abominable snowman (my favorite detail for sure), can read the whole review here.

Downsizing much loved film and TV properties into casual games can be a dicey proposition (see our reviews of last year's "Battlestar Galactica" and "The Office," for instance), but "The Princess Bride" has turned out to be a breezy and fun surprise, albeit kinda short.

Variety reviewer Matt Peckham says the new downloadable version of the beloved 1987 comedy fairy tale (itself based on a 1973 book by William Goldman) is a "worthy tribute" that "delivers the goods." Sure, it's flash animated and involves some point-and-click mechanics you've seen before, like managing inventory and mixing potions. And it's pretty short (only two hours to finish the whole thing, though there are extra challenges) for its $20.

But there's a wide variety of challenges, many of the film's actors are back doing voices (Robin Wright Penn, Mandy Patankin, Wallace Shawn), and it hits all of the film's high points, from Miracle Max to matching wits with Vizzini to, of course, battling the R.O.U.S.

Here's a bit of Matt's review:

More than 20 years after its initial release, "The Princess Bride"  has made the transition to videogame via this breezy, animated romp through the lands of Guilder and Florin. Downloadable PC game integrates a broad variety of gameplay elements while hewing closely to the plot and iconic countenances of Rob Reiner's beloved 1987 adaptation of William Goldman's 1973 swashbuckling spoof. A bit pricey for its short length, this worthy tribute nonetheless stands to do brisk business if publisher Worldwide Biggies can get the word out.

And you can read the whole thing here.

Just a few hours ago I got on the phone with Jeff Weiner, CEO of Ludlum Entertainment, to talk about the Robert Ludlum estate's plans for its videogame license now that the rights have reverted back following the Activision - Vivendi Games merger. (The Ludlum estate signed a 10 year licensing deal with Vivendi Games back in 2005)

As many people, including me, predicted, Bobby Kotick and his team decided to not keep making Bourne games, most likely because they're too similar to the James Bond games it already has in development. Weiner told me it was a very simple process: "They decided internally after the merger what they wanted to continue publishing and what they didn't. The decision was made. They had the ability to get out of the contract if they wanted to."

But he said his company is "certainly going to stay in the interactive business." Vivendi's first Ludlum game, "The Bourne Conspiracy," got generally good reviews when it was released last month (including from me), though it seems like sales weren't too big out of the game (it didn't make NPD's top 20 for June). Weiner did grant that all the attention taken by the pending merger "certainly impacted the marketing support" that the game got.

So what happens now? Weiner says his company is definitely looking to do a new long-term deal to make more Bourne games. "Videogames are capital intensive and time intensive to develop," he noted. "We don't want to do one-offs."

The question now is whether Ludlum  Entertainment will make a deal with a new publisher or raise money to finance them itself. "We have been approached by financing sources and publishing partners," he told me.

Just as movie studios like Paramount and Universal and Warner are increasingly publishing their own games rather than licensing them out, independent IP owners like Ludlum are now thinking the same thing.

Anyone who publishes future "Bourne" games won't necessarily have to start from scratch. Vivendi-owned developer Radical Entertainment (which Activision Blizzard is keeping, but downsizing) was already developing a new Ludlum-based game called "Treadstone." It's a multi-player online game set in the world of the spy agency that trained Bourne. While production has stopped, a new publisher could possibly revive it.

[Interested in the status of Vivendi's "Ghostbusters" game? Click here. Interested in the status of "Brutal Legend?" Click here.]

By now everybody knows that Activision Blizzard didn't include "Ghostbusters," which was scheduled to come out this fall, on the list of Vivendi games it is planning to publish post-merger.

But beyond a vague statement from a PR rep that the game is "not canceled," there's been no indication yet of what will happen to the "Ghostbusters" game. Since it's so close to completion, surely it won't just be thrown to oblivion and never published, right?

I got some answers today from Sony Pictures, which of course owns the rights to "Ghostbusters" and licensed the IP to Vivendi last year. The studio gave me official word that it is working with Activision Blizzard "to evaluate various options surrounding the release of the 'Ghostbusters' video game." That's obviously vague, but it does contain an important nugget: it wants the game to be released, one way or another.

Sony goes on to state that "this has presented [Sony Pictures Consumer Products] with an opportunity to reevaluate the game release marketing strategy to potentially coincide with the 25th anniversary of the original film in '09."

So the studio's plan now is to get the game released in 2009. But who will publish it? There's no official word yet, but my understanding from further reporting is that Activision Blizzard and Sony are talking to other publishers about picking up the game right now. Given the strength of the brand and the marketing that has already gone into the game, I can't imagine the studio will have any trouble finding multiple interested partners. The only question may be whether that new publisher can reach a deal with Activision Blizzard to pay for the millions already spent on development.

Of course regardless of who releases it, developers Terminal Reality and Red Fly now have an extra year to work on the game. So there's no reason it shouldn't be really good.

[Interested in the status of the Jason Bourne games and Brutal Legend? Click on those names.]

Translating wacky cartoon humor to a videogame is really hard. Especially if the source material is something of a cult favorite with comedy that might not be "broad" enough to attract a sizable American audience.

That's why it's promising to hear that Telltale, which successfully turned "Sam and Max" into a series of very funny episodic games, has its hands on the classic Brit claymation comedy due "Wallace and Gromit."

According to this AP story, Telltale is taking the same downloadable episodic approach it did with "Sam and Max" and working hard to preserve the movies' claymation look. Perhaps most importantly, the gameplay will focus on "zany entrepreneurial schemes and tinkering with kooky contraptions," instead of the standard platforming crap.

The failure of 2005's "Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit" (both as a movie and videogame) shows that the inventor and his dog just aren't mass market material in the U.S. But there's certainly enough of us who love the characters to turn a downloadable episodic game into a hit. If Telltale stays true to its plan to keep "Wallace and Gromit's" visual style and comedic spirit, it probably has a very good chance at capturing that small but loyal aud.

The blogosphere is abuzz over the possibility that there will be a "Dark Knight" video game coming out soon, possibly with the DVD release. The evidence is this G4 clip, since pulled by the network from its website but captured in very low quality on GameTrailers, in which the host says the game is "rumored to be released later this year along with the DVD." They then have a brief interview clip with Gary Oldman (Commissioner Gordon in the movie) talking about how they game developers are trying to build a gliding mechanism. (video is embedded below or you can watch it here)

I haven't been able to confirm anything in my reporting, but I'll go out on a limb here and say it's (virtually) impossible that a "Dark Knight" game is coming out with the DVD. Variety's home entertainment reporter tells me that the DVD will come out by December at the latest (to take advantage of holiday shopping, natch) and what do you think are the odds that a major publisher like Warner Bros. (the rights holder, with its own vidgame operation) or EA (which published the "Batman Begins" game in 2005) would have a AAA console game coming out in under five months that it hasn't yet announced?

Given that Warner Bros. just started talking about "Watchmen," which is a downloadable game that comes out next March, and EA was showing off what they claimed to be their full lineup for the year at E3, I'd say it's extremely doubtful.

Yes, Gary Oldman clearly had seen some kind of videogame tie-in being developed. It could be a game concept that never took off. It could be a "Batman" tie-in coming further down the road (since there will inevitably be a "Dark Knight" sequel given the mega-box office numbers). But a "Dark Knight" videogame coming with the DVD this year? I'd bet a lot against it at this point.

Most videogame executives at studios are well aware of the deservedly bad reputation that movie-based videogames have. The smart ones (and many of them are smart) are trying to find ways to improve the quality of the genre, as recent news from Marvel, Universal and Paramount all demonstrate (click through for details).

Today brings the news that Warner Bros. is taking an innovative, and I think quite promising, new approach with "Watchmen." Turning this fan favorite comic turned movie into a videogame is, of course, a no brainer. But making a AAA console title in time for the film's release this March would, as is always the case with the tight schedule of theatrical releases, be difficult.

Warner's solution is to turn "Watchmen" into a series of downloadable episodic videogames. Two are already in the works from Danish developer Deadline Games, and if they're successful there could be more. Warner Bros. Interactive's senior VP of production and development Samantha Ryan says this model lets the studio make a game that's just as high quality as a AAA disc-based game ("complete with shaders and physics"), but have it done in time for the theatrical release by simply making it shorter (the second installment should come out with the DVD).

If "Watchmen" goes well, I think we can expect Warner and other studios to follow this example, since it's a good way to put out a game that takes advantage of the huge studio marketing spend on a movie release without putting out something that's embarrassing to the producers and ultimately harmful to the IP.

For full details on the "Watchmen" game, check out my story in today's Daily Variety. But for even more in-depth info, here are some excerpts of my interview with Ryan about the strategy and the game:

Me: Why make "Watchmen" into downloadable games? Is it simply a matter of time?

Samantha Ryan: What we're trying to do with "Watchmen" is create the best quality game that delivers the experience fans expect from what we believe to be a great movie and a great property. Rather than the more traditional "time is limited squeeze the puppy onto the market" route, we wanted to craft something that's the best possible game it can be.

There's a great crossover between "Watchmen" fans and gamers. It's a hard core property and a hard core movie and a hard core game. A downloadable game allows us to deliver the experience that fans expect.

Me: So this is the same quality as an AAA game, but just shorter?

SR: It's not a 10 or 20 hour retail game. But it's a solid game experience for what it is and will be priced appropriately.

Me: You obviously didn't feel you had the time to make a high quality disc-based game. So how long do you have to work on the downloadable "Watchmen" games?

SR: Just over a year. We really feel like we're setting a new bar for what it means to be a downloadable game. It's not an Xbox Live Arcade title where we're recreating "Tetris" or a simple fighter. The graphics look as good as any traditional PS3 or 360 game sitting on the shelf at retail.

Me: Are you confident a short game will satisfy "Watchmen" fans?

SR: We still feel this game is satisfying and delivers what people want. It's more "Watchmen." We just don't want to get lost at retail. We don't want to have a low quality game. There's already tons of that out there. We'd rather give this the focus and care and attention it deserves.

Me: When will the episodes come out in relation to the movie?

SR: There will be a chunk with the film release. Several hours of gameplay with the film. After that there's another. They're both about equal in length. [The second is expected with the DVD]

Me: "Episodic" game implies that it can keep on going. So if "Watchmen" does well, would there be more than two episodes?

SR: We'll play that by ear. We're treading into a space where no one has tread before. No one has synced a downloadable game with a film of this magnitude. Very few have put out a downloadable game of this quality. It's a fairly significant investment of time and money. If it works, it could be a new delivery mechanism that we explore further.

Me: For movie-based games especially, this seems to make a lot of sense?

SR: You're thinking how I think when we have to get games done on incredibly tight schedules. Especially when they're adult games. When you're talking about content of this rich nature with a huge fan base, it deserves some tender loving care. With over a year to go, some people would have said "Sign me up for a retail sku." Maybe for a kids game, that would be fine. Not for "Watchmen."

(Wondering about the details of the game? All I know so far is that it's a brawler where you can play as Night Owl or Rorsach. Sounds like there's a good chance of co-op, though that's not confirmed. Ryan promises that the art style is fantastic and "captures the grim and gritty look of 'Watchmen.'" Hopefully I'll be able to see for myself and report back soon.)

Two big stories about movie studios publishing videogames in today's Daily Variety...

First, Universal is the latest to get into the biz. Apparently I was out of the loop last week and several other news outlets saw a preview of an upcoming game based on the Universal movie "Wanted" that was shown at E3 last week. Not only did I miss that one, but I didn't know it existed.

However, I did some reporting today and found out... It's the first videogame that Universal is self-financing and producing (at least since it had Universal Interactive back in the '90s, which eventually got folded into Vivendi Games when Vivendi bought Universal). I spoke to Bill Kispert, head of Universal's videogame business, and he said the studio is selectively starting to invest in its own games both to get a foothold in the business and get production started sooner so it doesn't have to wait the several months to make a licensing deal (those can be several important months when you're on the already tight schedule of a movie license).

For full details on the "Wanted" game and Universal's approach to videogames, read the story in Daily Variety.

For those keeping count at home, that makes Universal the fourth movie studio spending money on games (either internally or through a sibling business unit), along with Disney, Warner Bros., and Paramount.

Particularly interesting is that Warner Bros. is handling worldwide publishing for Universal. I think that marks the first time that one movie studio has ever published a videogame for another. I'm sure we'll see more of that going forward, just as studios work together on films all the time.

Of course, all the studios have a different approach. Universal is spending tens of millions on a AAA console title for PC, PS3 and 360. Paramount, on the other hand, is starting off small, co-publishing casual titles based on some of its library properties.

Today we have details on Paramount's first three games: Clueless, Mean Girls, and Pretty in Pink. Probably not the most obvious videogames that ever popped into your head, but in the world of casual titles, they make a lot of sense. Personally, I'm hoping to get the chance to play as Ducky. That poor guy deserves to finally kick some ass.

Paramount is co-publishing its first few games with Legacy Interactive. And it has several more in the works for this year and even more on the slate for next year.

Just as with the other story, you can get the full details in my Daily Variety article.

Last week in the middle of the E3 craziness, I escaped for a couple of hours to moderate a panel at AdAge's Madison & Vine conference, which was all about entertainment marketing.

My panel featured Take-Two Chairman Strauss Zelnick, Pandemic president Josh Resnick, T-Mobile director of media marketing Brett Dennis, and Marvel EVP global digital media (meaning he's in charge of videogames) Ira Rubenstein.

I didn't take notes since I was busy moderating, but a few things that Rubenstein, who is new at the job, said during the panel discussion stuck out in my mind. If you, like me, love some Marvel super-heroes and have been disappointed at the quality of some recent games (like the awful "Iron Man"), you may be interested to know:

-He thinks Marvel should start making more games based on its heroes without necessarily tying and timing them to a movie

-When there is a movie, he wants to get to work earlier, even before a script is final. He said he's telling Sega to get started on the "Thor" and "Avengers" games (based on the movies coming out in 2010) now.

-He thinks Marvel should consider making more downloadable and casual videogames based on its properties.

Of course the most interesting question to me, which didn't come up during the panel, is whether Marvel might start using the same self-financing model it has been using for movies (quite successfully this year) and start applying it to videogames. It makes a lot of sense to me that we might soon see Marvel as a videogame publisher.