The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
AS the industry progresses, you expect to see some huge advances in gaming. Better enemy AI, realistic graphics, better gameplay, and multiple path plots- splits in the story of a game based on your activities.
If, for example, you kill the Russian Ambasidor you were meant to rescue, rather than prompting a game over screen you could instead carry on the game, just without a crucial piece of information. Of course, there would have to be some limits to these splits- you can't just kill all the game characters for example!
But with game based on films and books, things are somewhat different. The plot has to be fixed- you expect to see all the scenes from the book/film in the order of the book/film. In essence, the game is on rails.
This has two effects. On the one hand, you get to play the film- living out childhood dreams. On the other hand the game becomes frustrating... why should I have to get out of the car at this point? I want to complete the next mission a different way from the one given in the mission brief!
However, if you do give gamers the freedom to do things "their way" then you lose the sense of being the games character to an extent.
An example of a compromise is given in Agent Under Fire. The levels are linear, and force you to complete certain objectives. However, there is come flexibility- you can either walk in through the door of the room, or go through an air vent, gaining a "Bond Bonus Move". A nice touch.
However, this still doesn't give you the freedom you might expect. You have to use Q's stun weapon to disable a car, rather than being allowed to shoot out the tires.
So, my two-cents?
Well, letting you play your favourite film/book character is all very well, but forcing the game to follow a plot devised for a film/book is not as effective. Why not just let developers buy the rights to use game characters, and not plots- like Agent Under Fire for example. All that's needed then is for the developers to have the ingenuity to make a plot worthy of the character, but in a way that it'll translate to a great game.
Sonic
If, for example, you kill the Russian Ambasidor you were meant to rescue, rather than prompting a game over screen you could instead carry on the game, just without a crucial piece of information. Of course, there would have to be some limits to these splits- you can't just kill all the game characters for example!
But with game based on films and books, things are somewhat different. The plot has to be fixed- you expect to see all the scenes from the book/film in the order of the book/film. In essence, the game is on rails.
This has two effects. On the one hand, you get to play the film- living out childhood dreams. On the other hand the game becomes frustrating... why should I have to get out of the car at this point? I want to complete the next mission a different way from the one given in the mission brief!
However, if you do give gamers the freedom to do things "their way" then you lose the sense of being the games character to an extent.
An example of a compromise is given in Agent Under Fire. The levels are linear, and force you to complete certain objectives. However, there is come flexibility- you can either walk in through the door of the room, or go through an air vent, gaining a "Bond Bonus Move". A nice touch.
However, this still doesn't give you the freedom you might expect. You have to use Q's stun weapon to disable a car, rather than being allowed to shoot out the tires.
So, my two-cents?
Well, letting you play your favourite film/book character is all very well, but forcing the game to follow a plot devised for a film/book is not as effective. Why not just let developers buy the rights to use game characters, and not plots- like Agent Under Fire for example. All that's needed then is for the developers to have the ingenuity to make a plot worthy of the character, but in a way that it'll translate to a great game.
Sonic
Well, I think you've hot the nail on the head there.
Films and books were never written to make good games plots. Indeed, the very fact that games are interactive should make developers look at games in completely different ways.
You often find that things in films have been made to lead the person watching it through the world of the character. In games though, the person playing the game IS the character, and this means a very different attitude to the plot and gameplay is needed.
You expect changes you make in the gaming world to make impacts to the whole game- something that sticking to film plots does not allow. Maybe in years to come, we'll see games that really do allow you to have dozens of different routes through them.
What would be a shame, however, is that these routes would be displayed very obviously. Nowadays, I often see games where you simply have to chose between two doors. This is almost like forcing the player to think "Oh, now the developers want the plot to split". Far better would be to make the player decide where the plot splits. Here's and example:
In the Jame Bond game, your mission is to infiltrate a base, and rescue a hostage who can tell you where the secret missile facility is. Now, you could do this and then go to the facility through the secret enterance that the hostage tells you about. OR, the hostage could die in a gun fight, making your new objective in that level to get out of there as soon as possible, and forcing you to do another mission to find the location of the base. Then, when you get to the base, you won't know about the secret enterance, making the level far harder than had you completed the first mission successfully.
In this scenario the player does not know what the splits in the games will be- just like in real life. It is not until the hostage dies that you think "Ok, I have to do this another way"- which is far more realistic than giving you two doors to chose from.
Of course, if you have a 10hour game, and a split can occur every 30mins, say, then you'll have 2^20 possible games to play. So, either you have to reuse levels- which means that the splits make lisstle impact on the game- or you just can't do it with today's techniques.
To the future! (b)
Sonic
Films and books were never written to make good games plots. Indeed, the very fact that games are interactive should make developers look at games in completely different ways.
You often find that things in films have been made to lead the person watching it through the world of the character. In games though, the person playing the game IS the character, and this means a very different attitude to the plot and gameplay is needed.
You expect changes you make in the gaming world to make impacts to the whole game- something that sticking to film plots does not allow. Maybe in years to come, we'll see games that really do allow you to have dozens of different routes through them.
What would be a shame, however, is that these routes would be displayed very obviously. Nowadays, I often see games where you simply have to chose between two doors. This is almost like forcing the player to think "Oh, now the developers want the plot to split". Far better would be to make the player decide where the plot splits. Here's and example:
In the Jame Bond game, your mission is to infiltrate a base, and rescue a hostage who can tell you where the secret missile facility is. Now, you could do this and then go to the facility through the secret enterance that the hostage tells you about. OR, the hostage could die in a gun fight, making your new objective in that level to get out of there as soon as possible, and forcing you to do another mission to find the location of the base. Then, when you get to the base, you won't know about the secret enterance, making the level far harder than had you completed the first mission successfully.
In this scenario the player does not know what the splits in the games will be- just like in real life. It is not until the hostage dies that you think "Ok, I have to do this another way"- which is far more realistic than giving you two doors to chose from.
Of course, if you have a 10hour game, and a split can occur every 30mins, say, then you'll have 2^20 possible games to play. So, either you have to reuse levels- which means that the splits make lisstle impact on the game- or you just can't do it with today's techniques.
To the future! (b)
Sonic
Spiderman does look impressive and should do quite well.
Sticking to the story of the film to closely can spoil a game sometimes, maybe just use parts of it and add extras could work better?
One I would like to see is a game based on the A-Team or knightrider but sadly I doubt we will ever see a game on either of these. I think both have potential as there isn't really a fixed story to them so developers could expand on previous ideas or create a whole new story for them.
Sticking to the story of the film to closely can spoil a game sometimes, maybe just use parts of it and add extras could work better?
One I would like to see is a game based on the A-Team or knightrider but sadly I doubt we will ever see a game on either of these. I think both have potential as there isn't really a fixed story to them so developers could expand on previous ideas or create a whole new story for them.
That's why games should be 'based on' movies and not try to play like the movie.
Apparently the Planet of the Apes game isn't very good. If I had a license to make PotA games, I'd turn them into RTS games. Monkeys versus humans. Using the humans basic weapons and skills against the strong armies of monkey.
I'd buy up the Shaft license, and turn it into a 1st/3rd person shooter, with the fantastic theme playing throughout.
Back to the Future would be the best game ever though, but I'm not going through why again just yet!
Some developers are working hard on stories, and I feel that sticking to a story too closely can destroy a game (unless of course you go down the multiple path event driven story route).
Trouble is, the movie character guarentee sales, so the game sometimes comes second to the look of it.
Apparently Spider-Man the movie (coming to all platforms) is looking promising. They seem to have just taken the enemies from the film, and some of the scenarios. Thing is, if you're playing as Spiderman, you're going to want to do things the Spidey way, sling webs, swing around buildings, climb walls, because Spiderman rules.
Apparently the Planet of the Apes game isn't very good. If I had a license to make PotA games, I'd turn them into RTS games. Monkeys versus humans. Using the humans basic weapons and skills against the strong armies of monkey.
I'd buy up the Shaft license, and turn it into a 1st/3rd person shooter, with the fantastic theme playing throughout.
Back to the Future would be the best game ever though, but I'm not going through why again just yet!
Some developers are working hard on stories, and I feel that sticking to a story too closely can destroy a game (unless of course you go down the multiple path event driven story route).
Trouble is, the movie character guarentee sales, so the game sometimes comes second to the look of it.
Apparently Spider-Man the movie (coming to all platforms) is looking promising. They seem to have just taken the enemies from the film, and some of the scenarios. Thing is, if you're playing as Spiderman, you're going to want to do things the Spidey way, sling webs, swing around buildings, climb walls, because Spiderman rules.
AS the industry progresses, you expect to see some huge advances in gaming. Better enemy AI, realistic graphics, better gameplay, and multiple path plots- splits in the story of a game based on your activities.
If, for example, you kill the Russian Ambasidor you were meant to rescue, rather than prompting a game over screen you could instead carry on the game, just without a crucial piece of information. Of course, there would have to be some limits to these splits- you can't just kill all the game characters for example!
But with game based on films and books, things are somewhat different. The plot has to be fixed- you expect to see all the scenes from the book/film in the order of the book/film. In essence, the game is on rails.
This has two effects. On the one hand, you get to play the film- living out childhood dreams. On the other hand the game becomes frustrating... why should I have to get out of the car at this point? I want to complete the next mission a different way from the one given in the mission brief!
However, if you do give gamers the freedom to do things "their way" then you lose the sense of being the games character to an extent.
An example of a compromise is given in Agent Under Fire. The levels are linear, and force you to complete certain objectives. However, there is come flexibility- you can either walk in through the door of the room, or go through an air vent, gaining a "Bond Bonus Move". A nice touch.
However, this still doesn't give you the freedom you might expect. You have to use Q's stun weapon to disable a car, rather than being allowed to shoot out the tires.
So, my two-cents?
Well, letting you play your favourite film/book character is all very well, but forcing the game to follow a plot devised for a film/book is not as effective. Why not just let developers buy the rights to use game characters, and not plots- like Agent Under Fire for example. All that's needed then is for the developers to have the ingenuity to make a plot worthy of the character, but in a way that it'll translate to a great game.
Sonic
If, for example, you kill the Russian Ambasidor you were meant to rescue, rather than prompting a game over screen you could instead carry on the game, just without a crucial piece of information. Of course, there would have to be some limits to these splits- you can't just kill all the game characters for example!
But with game based on films and books, things are somewhat different. The plot has to be fixed- you expect to see all the scenes from the book/film in the order of the book/film. In essence, the game is on rails.
This has two effects. On the one hand, you get to play the film- living out childhood dreams. On the other hand the game becomes frustrating... why should I have to get out of the car at this point? I want to complete the next mission a different way from the one given in the mission brief!
However, if you do give gamers the freedom to do things "their way" then you lose the sense of being the games character to an extent.
An example of a compromise is given in Agent Under Fire. The levels are linear, and force you to complete certain objectives. However, there is come flexibility- you can either walk in through the door of the room, or go through an air vent, gaining a "Bond Bonus Move". A nice touch.
However, this still doesn't give you the freedom you might expect. You have to use Q's stun weapon to disable a car, rather than being allowed to shoot out the tires.
So, my two-cents?
Well, letting you play your favourite film/book character is all very well, but forcing the game to follow a plot devised for a film/book is not as effective. Why not just let developers buy the rights to use game characters, and not plots- like Agent Under Fire for example. All that's needed then is for the developers to have the ingenuity to make a plot worthy of the character, but in a way that it'll translate to a great game.
Sonic