The Witcher games were based off a series of Polish fantasy novels, and the Icewind Dale games take some cues from the trilogy of the same name by R.A. Salvatore.
In general, my assumption is that any book series that’s ripe for adaptation is going to have the rights bought by a studio before a game developer, simply since the former have more money to throw around and movies tend to gross more in terms of dollars than even the best-selling video games do.
And books that are popular enough to make video games out of are also popular enough to make movies or TV shows out of.
Yeah. I was actually discussing this with a sci-fi author once who’s books would be perfect for the game treatment. He believes it doesn’t happen very often because even the greatest novel doesn’t have even half the audience of a terrible TV show or movie.
not true, the big games bring in more cash then anything holywood can produce
but…
Only because games cost more than theater tickets. But when you factor in DVD sales, TV showings and swag, any average large movie will be bigger than the average large game.
games have swag, right?
and what about world of Warcraft? show me a movie that made that amount of money
About 15 years ago, there was a “Return to Ringworld” game. My favorite game of all time, since I got paid to play it.
For a movie to compare with WoW, it would need to keep coming out with versions and upgrades for years on end, plus swag. People would have to be paying not just once, but many times over the course of their consumption of what is essentially the same story, maybe with a few upgrades along the way. Of course, the old guard will claim that the upgrades are changes for the worse, but they’ll still keep consuming.
So, Star Wars, I guess.
There have been three Discworld video games, plus a still-active MUD. There’s also a hard-as-balls Hitch-Hiker’s Guide text-based adventure game.
I would pay good money for an Assassin’s Creed game based in Ankh-Morpork, as well. Eidos have the engine, they just need to plug in the map 
And Red Storm Rising originated as a Harpoon scenario.
…That’d be awesome. Heh. Never happen though.
Also, Thief would work well there too. That, at least, has an editor so a fan could try.
Heck, I remember playing a Rendezvous with Rama adventure game on my old Commodore 64…
There are loads of comic book-inspired games, but I guess those don’t qualify.
Isn’t Bioshock pretty strongly (and acknowledged as being) based on the book Atlas Shrugged?
Similarly, Fallout: New Vegas, whilst not “based on” a book, does have noticeable elements of The Postman in it, and pretty much every sword-and-sorcery game ever made owes at least something to Tolkein somewhere along the way.
There was a Hitch-Hiker’s Guide To The Galaxy text adventure back in Ye Olde Days of home computing, but ultimately I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that licensing a book trilogy (for example) isn’t going to be cheap and even a compartively well known series is still likely only going to be familiar to a small percentage of the gaming market, minimising the benefits of getting the electronic entertainment rights for the source material in the first place.
It’s an interesting OP, though… I remember reading an interview a while back with someone in the entertainment industry about how come games make such terrible movies, and they observed that even the most “story-driven” game (Half-Life and BioShock were the examples used, IIRC) would still basically translate to two hours of the protaganist killing pretty much everything they encountered and then searching for keys and ammunition.
Perhaps the converse is true for games-from-books? There might be (perceived to be) too much talking and exposition and not enough “action” or “practical involvement” for the gaming market?
(Un)interestingly enough, I’m playing a seriously scary game based off Lovercraft stories, Amnesia: dark descent. Come to think about it, I would say that plenty videogame creators get their inspiration for storylines from books and movies. Half Life 2 gets their setting from Orwell’s 1984, Halo from Ringworld and so on…
It’s an interesting question. From my game library I can think of 4 game series based on books - The Witcher, Metro 2033, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., and Dune (though the only one I played, the first one, seemed to be based on the film with Kyle MacLachlan rather than the book). All except Dune were made by small Eastern European studios and based on books that were hugely popular in their region (Sapkowski’s Witcher books spawned a Polish TV series, and I read that Glukhovsky’s Metro 2033 was a bit of an internet sensation - the book was apparently released online before appearing in print).
My guess is this - games that are film tie-ins don’t generally spend much time or effort on plot or character, partly because the player has presumably seen the film and partly because the game studio can just copy/paste stuff from the film as necessary. The games themselves then tend to just make use of the sandbox the film created; simple and easy, compared to crafting everything from scratch, and typically that’s all the gamer wants.
A good book, I think, needs either characters or the setting (preferably both) to be interesting, fleshed-out, and compelling as well as having a decent plot, and I think that requirement becomes a necessity for games based on them too to a much larger extent than games based on movies. As such, Metro 2033 and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. really make use of the setting (I still consider them the most atmospheric games I’ve ever played), while the Witcher games have the best characterisation I’ve ever seen in a game (and capture the setting well too). Building great atmosphere or developing really 3-dimensional compelling characters appears to take much more of a back seat to gameplay mechanics and action in game development in general, and is really difficult in some genres (strategy comes to mind). Finally there’s also the focus placed on graphics for a modern game - for a film tie-in you can just copy the aesthetic of the film and create likenesses of the actors, but for a game you have to create an aesthetic from print (which fails often enough in film adaptations of books) and try to catch what the reader might have seen in their mind’s eye.
So the TL;DR version is, essentially I think that apart from the problem of exposure of books vs. film/TV, capturing the spirit of a book requires much more effort and more elements than film.
I’d agree that quite a lot of games take significant cues from books, rather than adapting them outright. Games also seem slightly more likely than movies and TV to “play with” books, meaning they’ll take standard storylines, characters, and elements from a book and change them around, point out the flaws, and other things. Books and movies do this a lot too, of course, but modern video games seem to do it almost more often than not.
Also, I heavily disagree about game stories not being important, it’s just presented differently. Yeah, there’s always the fact that there are long stints of “nothing” where you’re grinding or whatever, but even the gameplay often drives the story in a good story driven game. A good game, even if you’re still mentally aware you’re in a game, gets you connected, and you feel that there’s a reason you need ammo, or health, or to get from point A to B. Even if nobody is speaking or doing anything important, just the journey contributes a lot to how you view characters based on how they’re used, or their specialties, or how the scripted encounters meant to challenge you can reveal about your enemy. Even in good non story-driven games, there are often complete mini-stories that can emerge, even if the AI is just buggy, and always says the same thing, talk to any 10 people about Minecraft, or Civilization, or a game with a “skirmish mode” and you’ll get these bright eyed stories that reveal overarching plots, with motivations and encounters. Sure, maybe not every response is written in prose, and a lot of the “complexity” is just buggy AI patterns, but it still creates a very similar effect to a novel or movie, even if the avenue that it accomplishes this task is very different.
I think that’s another reason you don’t see too horribly many book adaptations, the avenue for creating an amazing game story just doesn’t combine with a great book story. In a book, you’re watching all these people grow and care for each other and fight their battles, in a game you’re getting a player invested and trying to cause the player’s personal growth, conflicts, and relationships.
Nah, Garrett would keep getting beat up for being an independant contractor rather than a Guild member :D. Also, they say there’s a werewolf in the Watch.
That, or he’d just hand the front door guard his card, then proceed to swipe all the loot in plain view of everyone without bothering with the sneaking. “Yearly robbery, ma’am, your husband paid for the bronze protection contract rather than the gold membership. May I have those pearls, please ? I could bop you across the bonce if that helps.”
I was thinking more along the lines of Vetinari between the events of Night Watch & his becoming Patrician. You’d be picking up info, rather than loot, along with the occasional assassination.
Heh…or even Vimes’ Night Watch in the bad old years before Guards, Guards. Instead of enemies being guards, they’d be gangs, thieves, hired muscle, etc. The odd bit of larceny would fit right in, there.
And most games that do rely on storytelling don’t necessarily rely on a great sophistication in storytelling so the game company can pay someone to write a new (possibly derivative) story instead of licensing a story from an independent third party (who will probably want money, creative control, etc.). E.g. in theory, Bioware can make just as much money from Dragon Age and Mass Effect as they could from D&D and Star Wars. (Although I don’t know how the Star Wars MMORPG fits in there…)
I think companies tend to focus on either story or action, but seldom both. Bioware is an odd duck here in that they try to include so much story in their titles that people don’t really even give them credit for it anymore. To paraphrase Yahtzee Croshaw, “Of course it’s well written, it’s a Bioware game. They don’t get points for that anymore.” That’s a sad thing to me
Video games departed from stories like Monkey Island or even Myst because the gaming audience expanded beyond the bookish nerds it started out entertaining.
The masses buy click and shoot games. Even in the case of Mass Effect and Dragon Age, there were a lot of people who bought the games only to click randomly and skip dialogue. Baffling as it is to me, they just wanted something to fight their way through.
I am sick to death of FPS games, but companies keep making them because people keep buying them. I could live with Mass Effect because it actually had a story and characters that held my interest. Same thing with Dragon Age. I couldn’t suffer Bioshock for more than a cursory play, even though I heard great things about it.
As long as less thought and more action is the norm, I don’t see much hope for making anything more cerebral based on a book.
There are plenty of games with terrific stories, but most of those aren’t quite mass-market enough to get made into games. Mass Effect 1 and 2, Dead Space 1 and 2, along with a slew of other games with stories decent enough for an average summer action movie are out there.
I suspect the reason more books aren’t adapted is because of the rights issues involved, and the constraints the books would put on the game design. Why license someone’s sword and sorcery book, when you can make your own, and not be limited by the narrative in the book? The same thing would go for movies, but since movies and video games are both primarily visual media, it’s easier to go from movie to game.