New Review Posted: King Kong

[Daniel Weissenberger]

Mike reviews Peter Jackson's King Kong: The Official Game of the Movie, and naturally, his first comments are about the title:

"With what may be the most unnecessarily long title ever, Peter Jackson's King Kong: The Official Game of the Movie lumbered onto shelves just ahead of the eagerly anticipated holiday blockbuster. I've no idea why the game needed such a superfluous title—it's not like there are ten other King Kong games vying for attention on gamestore shelves. So, instead, I can only assume the title is yet another concession to Peter Jackson's rapidly growing ego (which is growing almost as fast as his waistline was until he dropped all that extra girth while making this movie)—the same ego that says a movie about a giant ape in love with a human female should be at least three hours long."

He discusses more game-related details here.

[David Stone]

Wow. Other than the length problem (and those damned wooden stake puzzles), I can't agree with most of what you said, Mike. And that's pretty rare.

I felt that King Kong was one of the first games that was literally a movie. Movies aren't meant to explore, they're meant to tell a story. Think of King Kong as an interactive storybook - and imagine it priced about 20 bucks cheaper - and suddenly it changes. There's a reason you can't go exploring: that's not the story that's meant to be told. A movie doesn't suddely stop and ask, "Would you like to see this side mission that has nothing to do with the plot?" Why does a game have to? The only deviation is the special second ending that Jackson himself want to have in the movie, but knew he couldn't film it.

The reason the reticule isn't on-screen (nor any HUD) is to increase immersion. And it does. There's a button that you press simply to get a status report from Jack. It's a neat way to keep track of your "inventory", inasmuch as you have one. If you REALLY need a reticule, you do have the option of turning one on. But I rarely had a problem aiming.

I do agree with you that the King Kong sections were underdeveloped. And New York seems more of an afterthought. But nonetheless, King Kong is a much stronger game if you have the right attitude about it.

[Sajon]

Originally Posted by GC_Danny

"I can only assume the title is yet another concession to Peter Jackson's rapidly growing ego (which is growing almost as fast as his waistline was until he dropped all that extra girth while making this movie)—the same ego that says a movie about a giant ape in love with a human female should be at least three hours long."

This is sounds like one of those "I'm going to use this review of the game to take pot shots at the movie" game reviews. So did your frustration with Jackson's ego sour you to the game as well? Because with an opening like this it sure sounds like it.


-Matt

[Hypatia93]

Wow.

I've neither seen the movie nor played the game, but I intend to do both -- eventually. (Kong after Brokeback, which, btw, actually opens tomorrow!)

As for the game, I do plan to get it cheap -- an X360 version after I get an X360 -- probably after it's been out a year and it's had a price cut. That way, even if the title's short and not as well done as you think, it'll still be worth the price.

[Mike Bracken]

Originally Posted by Sajon

This is sounds like one of those "I'm going to use this review of the game to take pot shots at the movie" game reviews. So did your frustration with Jackson's ego sour you to the game as well? Because with an opening like this it sure sounds like it.

Nah, I just had that one opportunity to rip on PJ, so I took it. I didn't like the game for the game. I didn't like the movie for a whole set of other reasons.

Mike B.

[Mike Bracken]

Originally Posted by bassbeast

I felt that King Kong was one of the first games that was literally a movie. Movies aren't meant to explore, they're meant to tell a story. Think of King Kong as an interactive storybook - and imagine it priced about 20 bucks cheaper - and suddenly it changes. There's a reason you can't go exploring: that's not the story that's meant to be told. A movie doesn't suddely stop and ask, "Would you like to see this side mission that has nothing to do with the plot?" Why does a game have to? The only deviation is the special second ending that Jackson himself want to have in the movie, but knew he couldn't film it.

Well, this opens up a whole can of worms in regards to whether games should really be emulating films in terms of being stories. I think games need stories, but I also think games need to be games--and in Kong, a lot of the game takes a backseat to the story of the film. If I want the story, I'll go see the film--I wanted a game and didn't get much more than a linear and slightly interactive slideshow of the movie.

The reason the reticule isn't on-screen (nor any HUD) is to increase immersion. And it does. There's a button that you press simply to get a status report from Jack. It's a neat way to keep track of your "inventory", inasmuch as you have one. If you REALLY need a reticule, you do have the option of turning one on. But I rarely had a problem aiming.

It's almost impossible to have a problem with aiming because the aiming system is so generous that if you just point in the direction of something you wind up hitting it nine times out of ten. I understand the whole immersion thing, but it didn't really do much for me.

I do agree with you that the King Kong sections were underdeveloped. And New York seems more of an afterthought. But nonetheless, King Kong is a much stronger game if you have the right attitude about it.

I'm not sure you can entirely defend the game with the sentiment "if you have the right attitude about it"--by that logic, even the shittiest game becomes great if you just change your thinking.

Mike B.

[Hypatia93]

Originally Posted by Mike_Bracken

I didn't like the movie for a whole set of other reasons.

Mike B.

Oh, do tell. Perspiring minds are /dying/ to know. (That would be me. )

[David Stone]

Originally Posted by Mike_Bracken

I'm not sure you can entirely defend the game with the sentiment "if you have the right attitude about it"--by that logic, even the shittiest game becomes great if you just change your thinking.

Mike B.

Absolutely, you can. Look at the "Guilty Pleasures" thread, wherein many of us admitted to loving games that were generally panned. And you're telling me that the same thing can't be said about movies? If you go into King Kong with the expectation of a GTA free-roaming, secret-opening romp, you'll be mistaken. If you go in and know that you're literally "playing" the movie (whether or not you agree with the principle) then King Kong succeeds in a number of the ways you dictate its failure.

Hell, even Bebe's Kids for SNES (generally regarded as the worst game ever created) could be good by changing your thinking with some good drugs or a strong hammer!

[Mike Bracken]

Originally Posted by bassbeast

Absolutely, you can. Look at the "Guilty Pleasures" thread, wherein many of us admitted to loving games that were generally panned. And you're telling me that the same thing can't be said about movies? If you go into King Kong with the expectation of a GTA free-roaming, secret-opening romp, you'll be mistaken. If you go in and know that you're literally "playing" the movie (whether or not you agree with the principle) then King Kong succeeds in a number of the ways you dictate its failure.

Hell, even Bebe's Kids for SNES (generally regarded as the worst game ever created) could be good by changing your thinking with some good drugs or a strong hammer!

Heh, I still disagree. I can think of no circumstances that would make something like Aquaman a good game--and really, why should I have to meet the game halfway (or 3/4ths of the way, or 9.9/10ths of the way) when there are literally hundreds of really GOOD games sitting on shelves that don't require me to do anything other than play them in order to enjoy them?

That being said, I don't think Kong is a bad game (although for something created by Michel Ancel...I expected more)--I just think it's pretty average. It looks nice, and it's fun for the first hour, but then it runs out of ideas and spends another four hours herding you from point A to point B so you can do all the same crap over and over again.

It has a few moments where it shines (the T rex raft chase, for instance), but for every good part, there are two where it falls short.

Mike B.

[David Stone]

Originally Posted by Mike_Bracken

Heh, I still disagree. I can think of no circumstances that would make something like Aquaman a good game--and really, why should I have to meet the game halfway (or 3/4ths of the way, or 9.9/10ths of the way) when there are literally hundreds of really GOOD games sitting on shelves that don't require me to do anything other than play them in order to enjoy them?

Now THAT I agree with - for you, anyway. I felt the game, while lacking as a "game" per se, was a refreshing take on the tired movie-to-game conventions. I think I was disappointed in different ways from you about the game, but I'm not terribly concerned with the linearity when the game never gave me any expectations of anything to the contrary.

[Hypatia93]

Yo, Bracken, I have a thread (with question) dedicated to your geekdom on the non-gaming page.

And.. if you feel like it, you can answer my oh-so-important question there.

[Snack Eater]

I think it makes some steps forward in terms of providing a cinematic experience. You can tell that not only did a good director take part in the production of it, you can tell the aforementioned good director is also a gamer. That doesn't make the constant, repetitive spear-chucking, bush burning, and lever-turning any more bearable, but in five hours there are at least two moments every hour that work better than anything in gaming in a while.

And King Kong the movie was good, not Lord of the Rings or Braindead good, though, but as I left the theater the ushers were stapling Purple Hearts to people's asses.