The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Ever noticed two games that look strangely alike? Seeing a film that is similar to a game and vice versa is a bit more common, and what about games which are designed to replicate the film with more interactivity, like Tomorrow Never Dies on the PS2, or GoldenEye on the N64. But if that is the case, then why have most of the games based on films failed? I mean, take the James Bond games and films, for example. GoldenEye on the N64 was the most popular James Bond-based game ever, but why was this? The other James Bond games have failed miserably. Well, most of them. I won’t be so extreme to say they all have failed. So why was it the most popular? Maybe it was the extras.
Rare worked very hard on GoldenEye, trying to make it as similar to the film as possible, without ruining the fun, and they even threw in some extras. I mean, it is called GoldenEye because it is based on GoldenEye, but what about the extra missions towards the end of the games? What about the Moonraker level, and Egyptian, based on “The Man With the Golden Gun”? Plus, the extra levels featured in the GoldenEye part, but Bond didn’t actually do those missions, like Silo, Bunker and Dam? Yes, Bond does run across the Dam at the start, but he doesn’t do the mission that is in the game, on the Dam. See what I mean?
Now, lets look at another game. Lets take GTA3, shall we? It is an original title, well, maybe not in theme and objective, but a 3-dimentional game, where shapes are perfect, speed and detail are just right and it runs nicely and smoothly. But that is running off the point of similarity. What exactly is it similar to? Well, Driver and Crazy Taxi looked pretty familiar when I played them after playing through GTA3. Drive a taxi on GTA3, in a taxi mission, where you pick up people wanting a ride, and transport them to specific points on the map, which always seem to come up more than once. They never want to go to the place next to, or two doors away from Bolt Burgers, do they? No, they always want Bolt Burgers, or the Church, or the Construction Site. See what I mean? Crazy Taxi brings on a sense of Déjà Vu, but it might be the other way round if you played Crazy Taxi before GTA3, which I didn’t.
Yes, I know, several games are similar to other games, but I bet the ones you’re thinking of are two from the same series, like GTA3 and GTA: VC, or Smugglers Run And Smugglers Run 2. Obviously, they are going to be similar. They’re from the same stem, the same family, for Christ sake! They are different in their own little ways, but generally they are very similar.
I could go on for ages about two completely different games actually have far too much in common, so lets move on instead. Ever noticed how a film can be similar to a game? And vice versa?
As I said before, games that are similar to films were designed to capture some of the fame, glory and popularity that the film generated, and the majority of these games are complete rubbish. But what about the other way round? Tomb Raider was a good film based on the PlayStation classic, and it was quite good at attracting audiences. But maybe that wasn’t for the film itself! You know what I mean?! But seriously, what does make these films popular? I reckon it is most likely to be the popularity of the game that makes these films rush high in the charts. But why? Why don’t people realise that, like games made from films, that they are generally rubbish? But again, that is shifting away from the main point of the topic, similarity. Maybe films are made too similar to the game that they are trying to recreate. Perhaps it is the fact that there is less interactivity with a film compared to a game? Like, watching a film, you sit in front of a screen, maybe big, or small, perhaps munching a packet of crisps, a box of popcorn or something like that, but that is all you do, basically, stare at a screen. Whereas, with a game, you actually control the character(s), and therefore control the outcome, and this can change the whole feeling altogether. Especially with games that allow more than one way to complete your mission. See where I’m coming from?
And, again, I could go on for ages about this, so many different concepts to cover, which is why I’ll wrap it up here. Hopefully you found this thought provoking, so lets see what you think and how you could argue my points.
Thanks for reading
Happy days
Twain
Rare worked very hard on GoldenEye, trying to make it as similar to the film as possible, without ruining the fun, and they even threw in some extras. I mean, it is called GoldenEye because it is based on GoldenEye, but what about the extra missions towards the end of the games? What about the Moonraker level, and Egyptian, based on “The Man With the Golden Gun”? Plus, the extra levels featured in the GoldenEye part, but Bond didn’t actually do those missions, like Silo, Bunker and Dam? Yes, Bond does run across the Dam at the start, but he doesn’t do the mission that is in the game, on the Dam. See what I mean?
Now, lets look at another game. Lets take GTA3, shall we? It is an original title, well, maybe not in theme and objective, but a 3-dimentional game, where shapes are perfect, speed and detail are just right and it runs nicely and smoothly. But that is running off the point of similarity. What exactly is it similar to? Well, Driver and Crazy Taxi looked pretty familiar when I played them after playing through GTA3. Drive a taxi on GTA3, in a taxi mission, where you pick up people wanting a ride, and transport them to specific points on the map, which always seem to come up more than once. They never want to go to the place next to, or two doors away from Bolt Burgers, do they? No, they always want Bolt Burgers, or the Church, or the Construction Site. See what I mean? Crazy Taxi brings on a sense of Déjà Vu, but it might be the other way round if you played Crazy Taxi before GTA3, which I didn’t.
Yes, I know, several games are similar to other games, but I bet the ones you’re thinking of are two from the same series, like GTA3 and GTA: VC, or Smugglers Run And Smugglers Run 2. Obviously, they are going to be similar. They’re from the same stem, the same family, for Christ sake! They are different in their own little ways, but generally they are very similar.
I could go on for ages about two completely different games actually have far too much in common, so lets move on instead. Ever noticed how a film can be similar to a game? And vice versa?
As I said before, games that are similar to films were designed to capture some of the fame, glory and popularity that the film generated, and the majority of these games are complete rubbish. But what about the other way round? Tomb Raider was a good film based on the PlayStation classic, and it was quite good at attracting audiences. But maybe that wasn’t for the film itself! You know what I mean?! But seriously, what does make these films popular? I reckon it is most likely to be the popularity of the game that makes these films rush high in the charts. But why? Why don’t people realise that, like games made from films, that they are generally rubbish? But again, that is shifting away from the main point of the topic, similarity. Maybe films are made too similar to the game that they are trying to recreate. Perhaps it is the fact that there is less interactivity with a film compared to a game? Like, watching a film, you sit in front of a screen, maybe big, or small, perhaps munching a packet of crisps, a box of popcorn or something like that, but that is all you do, basically, stare at a screen. Whereas, with a game, you actually control the character(s), and therefore control the outcome, and this can change the whole feeling altogether. Especially with games that allow more than one way to complete your mission. See where I’m coming from?
And, again, I could go on for ages about this, so many different concepts to cover, which is why I’ll wrap it up here. Hopefully you found this thought provoking, so lets see what you think and how you could argue my points.
Thanks for reading
Happy days
Twain
Strafex wrote:
> You liked Streets?
>
> It was fun the first time, but I didn't like it after that!
> The tank is slow and boring, the mines are a pain, and you don't even
> get to chase a car around busy streets like they did on the film.
>
> If it had been a bit more like the film then it would've rocked.
>
> Still, the N64 was only so powerful...
Yes, it would be quite difficult, with the N64 only 64bit, to make all the effects from the film, like the cars in the Streets level. The only reason I liked Streets was because there was a tank in it, so maybe it wasn't my favourite "level", it just had my favourite thing in the game in it! The tank! If I had to choose a level without the tank for my favourite, then I would go for Cradle, though. I think it's terrific. But for some reason, when I play a game, the last level is always my favourite. I just like to see the start of the credits at the end. That's the onlyr reason I play Skedar Ruins on PD, to see the credits. It makes me feel proud of mysaelf, to complete the game, and Rare make great music that plays in the background while the credits roll! Cradle is a great level in itself, though. So I think I do liek it for the level instead of the credits!
> You liked Streets?
>
> It was fun the first time, but I didn't like it after that!
> The tank is slow and boring, the mines are a pain, and you don't even
> get to chase a car around busy streets like they did on the film.
>
> If it had been a bit more like the film then it would've rocked.
>
> Still, the N64 was only so powerful...
Yes, it would be quite difficult, with the N64 only 64bit, to make all the effects from the film, like the cars in the Streets level. The only reason I liked Streets was because there was a tank in it, so maybe it wasn't my favourite "level", it just had my favourite thing in the game in it! The tank! If I had to choose a level without the tank for my favourite, then I would go for Cradle, though. I think it's terrific. But for some reason, when I play a game, the last level is always my favourite. I just like to see the start of the credits at the end. That's the onlyr reason I play Skedar Ruins on PD, to see the credits. It makes me feel proud of mysaelf, to complete the game, and Rare make great music that plays in the background while the credits roll! Cradle is a great level in itself, though. So I think I do liek it for the level instead of the credits!
You liked Streets?
It was fun the first time, but I didn't like it after that!
The tank is slow and boring, the mines are a pain, and you don't even get to chase a car around busy streets like they did on the film.
If it had been a bit more like the film then it would've rocked.
Still, the N64 was only so powerful...
It was fun the first time, but I didn't like it after that!
The tank is slow and boring, the mines are a pain, and you don't even get to chase a car around busy streets like they did on the film.
If it had been a bit more like the film then it would've rocked.
Still, the N64 was only so powerful...
or not, I just skimmed through this at first... oops...
Oi! I made a topic like this not so long ago *Pops his old topic "Games and Films" back up.
Strafex wrote:
> Good point with Goldeneye.
>
> Rare actually went as far as to change the storyline to suit the
> game.
>
>
> There's small differences like how you only meet 006 at the END of the
> facility, and how you get to the airoplane with a tank rather than
> jump into it from a motor bike...
Yeah, it's a shame you don't meet Alec Trevelyan in the same place as he does in the game. Facility is littered with guards, and it would make it a bit more fun, trying to wipe them all out without catching him in the crossfire. And the motorbike bit on the runway would be far to diffficult, I reckon, but it is really fun in the game having the tank. Don't bother using it to get to the plane! Just wait ofr all the reinforcements to come after you, and count up how many you manage to crunch when you run them over!
> And then there's other parts added in like the Train and Depot levels
> - in the film, Bond stopped the train by blowing up the front with the
> tank and leaving the tank on the runway to stop it.
> Had Rare followed the film exactly, some of the levels would've been
> very dull indeed. No fight on train, cradle a hand to hand fight, no
> caverns, no fight in the jungle apart from where you shoot a
> helicopter down to get rid of (can't remember that woman's name, but
> you all know who I mean!), etc.
>
> Interesting that.
Yeah, I agree with that. It's like the extra Surface and Bunker levels. Bonddoesn't actually do anything in the film on the surface. Maybe that was what made it so popular, because of those little extras and differences from the film. Plus, some things have been left out from the film in the game, which improves it even more. Like, when Bond is swimming and gets interrupted by Xenia (that girl), he has a quick fight with her. That would be boring in my opinion.
I still think the best level in the game is Streets. It is also the best part of the film, I reckon. Makes me want to go back to being a Ninty. Why oh why did I agree to my brothers' request for a PS2?!
> Good point with Goldeneye.
>
> Rare actually went as far as to change the storyline to suit the
> game.
>
>
> There's small differences like how you only meet 006 at the END of the
> facility, and how you get to the airoplane with a tank rather than
> jump into it from a motor bike...
Yeah, it's a shame you don't meet Alec Trevelyan in the same place as he does in the game. Facility is littered with guards, and it would make it a bit more fun, trying to wipe them all out without catching him in the crossfire. And the motorbike bit on the runway would be far to diffficult, I reckon, but it is really fun in the game having the tank. Don't bother using it to get to the plane! Just wait ofr all the reinforcements to come after you, and count up how many you manage to crunch when you run them over!
> And then there's other parts added in like the Train and Depot levels
> - in the film, Bond stopped the train by blowing up the front with the
> tank and leaving the tank on the runway to stop it.
> Had Rare followed the film exactly, some of the levels would've been
> very dull indeed. No fight on train, cradle a hand to hand fight, no
> caverns, no fight in the jungle apart from where you shoot a
> helicopter down to get rid of (can't remember that woman's name, but
> you all know who I mean!), etc.
>
> Interesting that.
Yeah, I agree with that. It's like the extra Surface and Bunker levels. Bonddoesn't actually do anything in the film on the surface. Maybe that was what made it so popular, because of those little extras and differences from the film. Plus, some things have been left out from the film in the game, which improves it even more. Like, when Bond is swimming and gets interrupted by Xenia (that girl), he has a quick fight with her. That would be boring in my opinion.
I still think the best level in the game is Streets. It is also the best part of the film, I reckon. Makes me want to go back to being a Ninty. Why oh why did I agree to my brothers' request for a PS2?!
Good point with Goldeneye.
Rare actually went as far as to change the storyline to suit the game.
There's small differences like how you only meet 006 at the END of the facility, and how you get to the airoplane with a tank rather than jump into it from a motor bike...
And then there's other parts added in like the Train and Depot levels - in the film, Bond stopped the train by blowing up the front with the tank and leaving the tank on the runway to stop it.
Had Rare followed the film exactly, some of the levels would've been very dull indeed. No fight on train, cradle a hand to hand fight, no caverns, no fight in the jungle apart from where you shoot a helicopter down to get rid of (can't remember that woman's name, but you all know who I mean!), etc.
Interesting that.
Rare actually went as far as to change the storyline to suit the game.
There's small differences like how you only meet 006 at the END of the facility, and how you get to the airoplane with a tank rather than jump into it from a motor bike...
And then there's other parts added in like the Train and Depot levels - in the film, Bond stopped the train by blowing up the front with the tank and leaving the tank on the runway to stop it.
Had Rare followed the film exactly, some of the levels would've been very dull indeed. No fight on train, cradle a hand to hand fight, no caverns, no fight in the jungle apart from where you shoot a helicopter down to get rid of (can't remember that woman's name, but you all know who I mean!), etc.
Interesting that.
Yes what?
yes mr twain
Ever noticed two games that look strangely alike? Seeing a film that is similar to a game and vice versa is a bit more common, and what about games which are designed to replicate the film with more interactivity, like Tomorrow Never Dies on the PS2, or GoldenEye on the N64. But if that is the case, then why have most of the games based on films failed? I mean, take the James Bond games and films, for example. GoldenEye on the N64 was the most popular James Bond-based game ever, but why was this? The other James Bond games have failed miserably. Well, most of them. I won’t be so extreme to say they all have failed. So why was it the most popular? Maybe it was the extras.
Rare worked very hard on GoldenEye, trying to make it as similar to the film as possible, without ruining the fun, and they even threw in some extras. I mean, it is called GoldenEye because it is based on GoldenEye, but what about the extra missions towards the end of the games? What about the Moonraker level, and Egyptian, based on “The Man With the Golden Gun”? Plus, the extra levels featured in the GoldenEye part, but Bond didn’t actually do those missions, like Silo, Bunker and Dam? Yes, Bond does run across the Dam at the start, but he doesn’t do the mission that is in the game, on the Dam. See what I mean?
Now, lets look at another game. Lets take GTA3, shall we? It is an original title, well, maybe not in theme and objective, but a 3-dimentional game, where shapes are perfect, speed and detail are just right and it runs nicely and smoothly. But that is running off the point of similarity. What exactly is it similar to? Well, Driver and Crazy Taxi looked pretty familiar when I played them after playing through GTA3. Drive a taxi on GTA3, in a taxi mission, where you pick up people wanting a ride, and transport them to specific points on the map, which always seem to come up more than once. They never want to go to the place next to, or two doors away from Bolt Burgers, do they? No, they always want Bolt Burgers, or the Church, or the Construction Site. See what I mean? Crazy Taxi brings on a sense of Déjà Vu, but it might be the other way round if you played Crazy Taxi before GTA3, which I didn’t.
Yes, I know, several games are similar to other games, but I bet the ones you’re thinking of are two from the same series, like GTA3 and GTA: VC, or Smugglers Run And Smugglers Run 2. Obviously, they are going to be similar. They’re from the same stem, the same family, for Christ sake! They are different in their own little ways, but generally they are very similar.
I could go on for ages about two completely different games actually have far too much in common, so lets move on instead. Ever noticed how a film can be similar to a game? And vice versa?
As I said before, games that are similar to films were designed to capture some of the fame, glory and popularity that the film generated, and the majority of these games are complete rubbish. But what about the other way round? Tomb Raider was a good film based on the PlayStation classic, and it was quite good at attracting audiences. But maybe that wasn’t for the film itself! You know what I mean?! But seriously, what does make these films popular? I reckon it is most likely to be the popularity of the game that makes these films rush high in the charts. But why? Why don’t people realise that, like games made from films, that they are generally rubbish? But again, that is shifting away from the main point of the topic, similarity. Maybe films are made too similar to the game that they are trying to recreate. Perhaps it is the fact that there is less interactivity with a film compared to a game? Like, watching a film, you sit in front of a screen, maybe big, or small, perhaps munching a packet of crisps, a box of popcorn or something like that, but that is all you do, basically, stare at a screen. Whereas, with a game, you actually control the character(s), and therefore control the outcome, and this can change the whole feeling altogether. Especially with games that allow more than one way to complete your mission. See where I’m coming from?
And, again, I could go on for ages about this, so many different concepts to cover, which is why I’ll wrap it up here. Hopefully you found this thought provoking, so lets see what you think and how you could argue my points.
Thanks for reading
Happy days
Twain
Rare worked very hard on GoldenEye, trying to make it as similar to the film as possible, without ruining the fun, and they even threw in some extras. I mean, it is called GoldenEye because it is based on GoldenEye, but what about the extra missions towards the end of the games? What about the Moonraker level, and Egyptian, based on “The Man With the Golden Gun”? Plus, the extra levels featured in the GoldenEye part, but Bond didn’t actually do those missions, like Silo, Bunker and Dam? Yes, Bond does run across the Dam at the start, but he doesn’t do the mission that is in the game, on the Dam. See what I mean?
Now, lets look at another game. Lets take GTA3, shall we? It is an original title, well, maybe not in theme and objective, but a 3-dimentional game, where shapes are perfect, speed and detail are just right and it runs nicely and smoothly. But that is running off the point of similarity. What exactly is it similar to? Well, Driver and Crazy Taxi looked pretty familiar when I played them after playing through GTA3. Drive a taxi on GTA3, in a taxi mission, where you pick up people wanting a ride, and transport them to specific points on the map, which always seem to come up more than once. They never want to go to the place next to, or two doors away from Bolt Burgers, do they? No, they always want Bolt Burgers, or the Church, or the Construction Site. See what I mean? Crazy Taxi brings on a sense of Déjà Vu, but it might be the other way round if you played Crazy Taxi before GTA3, which I didn’t.
Yes, I know, several games are similar to other games, but I bet the ones you’re thinking of are two from the same series, like GTA3 and GTA: VC, or Smugglers Run And Smugglers Run 2. Obviously, they are going to be similar. They’re from the same stem, the same family, for Christ sake! They are different in their own little ways, but generally they are very similar.
I could go on for ages about two completely different games actually have far too much in common, so lets move on instead. Ever noticed how a film can be similar to a game? And vice versa?
As I said before, games that are similar to films were designed to capture some of the fame, glory and popularity that the film generated, and the majority of these games are complete rubbish. But what about the other way round? Tomb Raider was a good film based on the PlayStation classic, and it was quite good at attracting audiences. But maybe that wasn’t for the film itself! You know what I mean?! But seriously, what does make these films popular? I reckon it is most likely to be the popularity of the game that makes these films rush high in the charts. But why? Why don’t people realise that, like games made from films, that they are generally rubbish? But again, that is shifting away from the main point of the topic, similarity. Maybe films are made too similar to the game that they are trying to recreate. Perhaps it is the fact that there is less interactivity with a film compared to a game? Like, watching a film, you sit in front of a screen, maybe big, or small, perhaps munching a packet of crisps, a box of popcorn or something like that, but that is all you do, basically, stare at a screen. Whereas, with a game, you actually control the character(s), and therefore control the outcome, and this can change the whole feeling altogether. Especially with games that allow more than one way to complete your mission. See where I’m coming from?
And, again, I could go on for ages about this, so many different concepts to cover, which is why I’ll wrap it up here. Hopefully you found this thought provoking, so lets see what you think and how you could argue my points.
Thanks for reading
Happy days
Twain