The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I recently come across my SEGA megadrive the other day. I had all my old faves lying next to it; Moonwalker, Sonic 1-3, Haunted, Monster Football, Jurassic Park, Lemmings ETC.
Then i thought; "How come films make better games than games being good films?" and if we are all honest with ourseleves this is true.
Take Final Fantasy, Tomb Raider, Street Fighter, and Mortal Combat. These are all milestones in computer history. I don't care what any of the minority think, these games were scientificly proven to be crud films. SF and MC were blank and just full of fighting, because that is all we expect of the characters (not to mention the 'acting' abilities of Van Dame and Kylie 'CAN'T GET HER OUT OF YOUR HEAD BECAUSE SHE IS ALWAYS ON THE SODDIN@ T.V' Minogue). Tomb Raider was only watchable because of the lovely Angelina Jolie, and FF....we'll the graphics were nice.
I grew up with Lu Kang and Guile, and Lara Croft was there through my teens. These characters have spent all of there time on consoles having a 2D personality, as far as i am concerned, there life ends when i choose to 'FINISH HIM' of simply turn the computer off.
Films on the other hand prove to be a different medium. A director has somewhere between one and a half hours and three hours to present characters, biuld their personality, put them in a situation and create some closure at the end. Films become an experience where the people we see on screen have make shift lives, and we are just entering it for a while. So when Sam Neil appears on the mega drive killings polygons that look something like dinosaurs, we know who this person is. We understand the situation and in a funny way, feel as if we are in control of this actor.
Granted, some film games are poo. That is normally becuase the film does not have much li-way to be put onto a game. I have yet to watch a film based on a game that not only gives me a third dimension to the person i usually have no sympathy for, but to also put them in a new and interesting situation.
That is another point. When you play a game, you have as long as you like to take control of the situation and generally enjoy yourself. When we watch a film about a game character, the director has to guess what you would do with the character and what the character would do themself. This is because a film character has no background and can be created from scratch, but game characters have a fan base. The fans usally only get to see the character jump up and down and most of the time fire some form of weapon. So when Lara Croft steps onto the big screen, we have to see the Lara we know and another Lara who is a 'real' person with a 'real' background not just a life like adaptation.
Comic books and novels do not work on the same premiss as games, because the characters only do what the writer and artist has made them do. So these are basically films on paper.
I think the only game that would seemlessley work as a film is.... you guessed it, Metal Gear Solid. This is because the games have been made in the style of a film. Although we paly the game each time and have our own control, Snake seems to have a personality. We know and understand each character. So when and if that character reaches the silver screen, we know that we can expect a rugged, mullet sporting special agent. Perosonally, i think Hugh Jackman would make a great Snake.
What i have written so far probably does not make much sense, or is written in a unreadable style. So to put it in lamens terms; game characters only have the history that each individual player gives them, they only have the look and personality that the game desingers give them. film characters are un-known, we as an audience have never met them before (ex-cept sequels, but it all works the same). The person on the screen is going to do whatever the writer and director want them to do, they are going to look and act the way that the director and writer have told them to. So the audience have no control, and when this character is a game character on the big screen, we feel out of control and the character seems to be different from what we expect, in-turn, disappointing us.
What does everyone else think? Am i being a bit sinical or do i spout some essence of the truth?
Then i thought; "How come films make better games than games being good films?" and if we are all honest with ourseleves this is true.
Take Final Fantasy, Tomb Raider, Street Fighter, and Mortal Combat. These are all milestones in computer history. I don't care what any of the minority think, these games were scientificly proven to be crud films. SF and MC were blank and just full of fighting, because that is all we expect of the characters (not to mention the 'acting' abilities of Van Dame and Kylie 'CAN'T GET HER OUT OF YOUR HEAD BECAUSE SHE IS ALWAYS ON THE SODDIN@ T.V' Minogue). Tomb Raider was only watchable because of the lovely Angelina Jolie, and FF....we'll the graphics were nice.
I grew up with Lu Kang and Guile, and Lara Croft was there through my teens. These characters have spent all of there time on consoles having a 2D personality, as far as i am concerned, there life ends when i choose to 'FINISH HIM' of simply turn the computer off.
Films on the other hand prove to be a different medium. A director has somewhere between one and a half hours and three hours to present characters, biuld their personality, put them in a situation and create some closure at the end. Films become an experience where the people we see on screen have make shift lives, and we are just entering it for a while. So when Sam Neil appears on the mega drive killings polygons that look something like dinosaurs, we know who this person is. We understand the situation and in a funny way, feel as if we are in control of this actor.
Granted, some film games are poo. That is normally becuase the film does not have much li-way to be put onto a game. I have yet to watch a film based on a game that not only gives me a third dimension to the person i usually have no sympathy for, but to also put them in a new and interesting situation.
That is another point. When you play a game, you have as long as you like to take control of the situation and generally enjoy yourself. When we watch a film about a game character, the director has to guess what you would do with the character and what the character would do themself. This is because a film character has no background and can be created from scratch, but game characters have a fan base. The fans usally only get to see the character jump up and down and most of the time fire some form of weapon. So when Lara Croft steps onto the big screen, we have to see the Lara we know and another Lara who is a 'real' person with a 'real' background not just a life like adaptation.
Comic books and novels do not work on the same premiss as games, because the characters only do what the writer and artist has made them do. So these are basically films on paper.
I think the only game that would seemlessley work as a film is.... you guessed it, Metal Gear Solid. This is because the games have been made in the style of a film. Although we paly the game each time and have our own control, Snake seems to have a personality. We know and understand each character. So when and if that character reaches the silver screen, we know that we can expect a rugged, mullet sporting special agent. Perosonally, i think Hugh Jackman would make a great Snake.
What i have written so far probably does not make much sense, or is written in a unreadable style. So to put it in lamens terms; game characters only have the history that each individual player gives them, they only have the look and personality that the game desingers give them. film characters are un-known, we as an audience have never met them before (ex-cept sequels, but it all works the same). The person on the screen is going to do whatever the writer and director want them to do, they are going to look and act the way that the director and writer have told them to. So the audience have no control, and when this character is a game character on the big screen, we feel out of control and the character seems to be different from what we expect, in-turn, disappointing us.
What does everyone else think? Am i being a bit sinical or do i spout some essence of the truth?
Page:
I recently come across my SEGA megadrive the other day. I had all my old faves lying next to it; Moonwalker, Sonic 1-3, Haunted, Monster Football, Jurassic Park, Lemmings ETC.
Then i thought; "How come films make better games than games being good films?" and if we are all honest with ourseleves this is true.
Take Final Fantasy, Tomb Raider, Street Fighter, and Mortal Combat. These are all milestones in computer history. I don't care what any of the minority think, these games were scientificly proven to be crud films. SF and MC were blank and just full of fighting, because that is all we expect of the characters (not to mention the 'acting' abilities of Van Dame and Kylie 'CAN'T GET HER OUT OF YOUR HEAD BECAUSE SHE IS ALWAYS ON THE SODDIN@ T.V' Minogue). Tomb Raider was only watchable because of the lovely Angelina Jolie, and FF....we'll the graphics were nice.
I grew up with Lu Kang and Guile, and Lara Croft was there through my teens. These characters have spent all of there time on consoles having a 2D personality, as far as i am concerned, there life ends when i choose to 'FINISH HIM' of simply turn the computer off.
Films on the other hand prove to be a different medium. A director has somewhere between one and a half hours and three hours to present characters, biuld their personality, put them in a situation and create some closure at the end. Films become an experience where the people we see on screen have make shift lives, and we are just entering it for a while. So when Sam Neil appears on the mega drive killings polygons that look something like dinosaurs, we know who this person is. We understand the situation and in a funny way, feel as if we are in control of this actor.
Granted, some film games are poo. That is normally becuase the film does not have much li-way to be put onto a game. I have yet to watch a film based on a game that not only gives me a third dimension to the person i usually have no sympathy for, but to also put them in a new and interesting situation.
That is another point. When you play a game, you have as long as you like to take control of the situation and generally enjoy yourself. When we watch a film about a game character, the director has to guess what you would do with the character and what the character would do themself. This is because a film character has no background and can be created from scratch, but game characters have a fan base. The fans usally only get to see the character jump up and down and most of the time fire some form of weapon. So when Lara Croft steps onto the big screen, we have to see the Lara we know and another Lara who is a 'real' person with a 'real' background not just a life like adaptation.
Comic books and novels do not work on the same premiss as games, because the characters only do what the writer and artist has made them do. So these are basically films on paper.
I think the only game that would seemlessley work as a film is.... you guessed it, Metal Gear Solid. This is because the games have been made in the style of a film. Although we paly the game each time and have our own control, Snake seems to have a personality. We know and understand each character. So when and if that character reaches the silver screen, we know that we can expect a rugged, mullet sporting special agent. Perosonally, i think Hugh Jackman would make a great Snake.
What i have written so far probably does not make much sense, or is written in a unreadable style. So to put it in lamens terms; game characters only have the history that each individual player gives them, they only have the look and personality that the game desingers give them. film characters are un-known, we as an audience have never met them before (ex-cept sequels, but it all works the same). The person on the screen is going to do whatever the writer and director want them to do, they are going to look and act the way that the director and writer have told them to. So the audience have no control, and when this character is a game character on the big screen, we feel out of control and the character seems to be different from what we expect, in-turn, disappointing us.
What does everyone else think? Am i being a bit sinical or do i spout some essence of the truth?
Then i thought; "How come films make better games than games being good films?" and if we are all honest with ourseleves this is true.
Take Final Fantasy, Tomb Raider, Street Fighter, and Mortal Combat. These are all milestones in computer history. I don't care what any of the minority think, these games were scientificly proven to be crud films. SF and MC were blank and just full of fighting, because that is all we expect of the characters (not to mention the 'acting' abilities of Van Dame and Kylie 'CAN'T GET HER OUT OF YOUR HEAD BECAUSE SHE IS ALWAYS ON THE SODDIN@ T.V' Minogue). Tomb Raider was only watchable because of the lovely Angelina Jolie, and FF....we'll the graphics were nice.
I grew up with Lu Kang and Guile, and Lara Croft was there through my teens. These characters have spent all of there time on consoles having a 2D personality, as far as i am concerned, there life ends when i choose to 'FINISH HIM' of simply turn the computer off.
Films on the other hand prove to be a different medium. A director has somewhere between one and a half hours and three hours to present characters, biuld their personality, put them in a situation and create some closure at the end. Films become an experience where the people we see on screen have make shift lives, and we are just entering it for a while. So when Sam Neil appears on the mega drive killings polygons that look something like dinosaurs, we know who this person is. We understand the situation and in a funny way, feel as if we are in control of this actor.
Granted, some film games are poo. That is normally becuase the film does not have much li-way to be put onto a game. I have yet to watch a film based on a game that not only gives me a third dimension to the person i usually have no sympathy for, but to also put them in a new and interesting situation.
That is another point. When you play a game, you have as long as you like to take control of the situation and generally enjoy yourself. When we watch a film about a game character, the director has to guess what you would do with the character and what the character would do themself. This is because a film character has no background and can be created from scratch, but game characters have a fan base. The fans usally only get to see the character jump up and down and most of the time fire some form of weapon. So when Lara Croft steps onto the big screen, we have to see the Lara we know and another Lara who is a 'real' person with a 'real' background not just a life like adaptation.
Comic books and novels do not work on the same premiss as games, because the characters only do what the writer and artist has made them do. So these are basically films on paper.
I think the only game that would seemlessley work as a film is.... you guessed it, Metal Gear Solid. This is because the games have been made in the style of a film. Although we paly the game each time and have our own control, Snake seems to have a personality. We know and understand each character. So when and if that character reaches the silver screen, we know that we can expect a rugged, mullet sporting special agent. Perosonally, i think Hugh Jackman would make a great Snake.
What i have written so far probably does not make much sense, or is written in a unreadable style. So to put it in lamens terms; game characters only have the history that each individual player gives them, they only have the look and personality that the game desingers give them. film characters are un-known, we as an audience have never met them before (ex-cept sequels, but it all works the same). The person on the screen is going to do whatever the writer and director want them to do, they are going to look and act the way that the director and writer have told them to. So the audience have no control, and when this character is a game character on the big screen, we feel out of control and the character seems to be different from what we expect, in-turn, disappointing us.
What does everyone else think? Am i being a bit sinical or do i spout some essence of the truth?
Sinical...excellent.
I don't think films do work as games. Mostly because Hollywood always have to tinker with things.
Take Resident Evil for example. The film is supposed to be the usual poor-quality non-event. Why? The makers have tampered with the story.
The original game was perfect for film exactly as it was - there was no need to change anything. Yet directors, producers and scriptwriters always have to mess around with things. The companies spend a lot of time working on scripts for these games, so why does someone always feel the need to re-write it?
Take Resident Evil for example. The film is supposed to be the usual poor-quality non-event. Why? The makers have tampered with the story.
The original game was perfect for film exactly as it was - there was no need to change anything. Yet directors, producers and scriptwriters always have to mess around with things. The companies spend a lot of time working on scripts for these games, so why does someone always feel the need to re-write it?
Styrke, thank you for your kind words.
And Wookie, i think RE has failed as a film becuase they studios took the project away from George Remiro. He (along side Sam Raimi) is the king on Zombie flicks.
And as for your tampering idead.....well, money means power and sorry to say this, but the more powerfull companies have rich bosses who all think they have great ideas, and everyone is too afraid to tell them that their ideas suck. Lets just hope that the next game adaptation has a cast and crew ideal for it, i.e. John Woo for Metal Gear, or Tony Scott for Max Payne, Dominic Sena for GTA. I think they would be good choices.
Or maybe they should just draw the line between films and games....but hey, if someone had the bright idea of letting Birtney Spears and Eminem sell out to Hollywood then there is no stopping anyone.
And Wookie, i think RE has failed as a film becuase they studios took the project away from George Remiro. He (along side Sam Raimi) is the king on Zombie flicks.
And as for your tampering idead.....well, money means power and sorry to say this, but the more powerfull companies have rich bosses who all think they have great ideas, and everyone is too afraid to tell them that their ideas suck. Lets just hope that the next game adaptation has a cast and crew ideal for it, i.e. John Woo for Metal Gear, or Tony Scott for Max Payne, Dominic Sena for GTA. I think they would be good choices.
Or maybe they should just draw the line between films and games....but hey, if someone had the bright idea of letting Birtney Spears and Eminem sell out to Hollywood then there is no stopping anyone.
Which is stuck up it's own r's more? The film industry, or the games industry?
Hmmmm.
On one hand, you have the oscars, with women and men crying because they think they've made a difference to our lives. No, really, you haven't. You've just read some lines, and pretended to be someone else for a while. That's not hard, it's not creative, and you need little talent to do it.
But there are some VERY talented actors out there, but it's far over-rated.
Look in comparision to games. Sure, I'll be the first to admit that the plots of games are really, really pap in comparision with films... and you can hardly judge the directing...
But whose fault is that? The developers, the designers. They don't really take themselves that seriously, and unfortunatly, when they do, they end up with stylised crud that lasts a few minutes [Metal Gear Solid 2, anyone?]
Speaking out of experience, I better add. Just not for me.
But there is one game, that's beautifully directed, with a great plot, some superb acting [or at least, the acting that's been created by the animators...], and characters you can fall completely in love with, laugh at, and just be fantastic to watch.
Skies of Arcadia, of course. You want me to stop going on about it? Go buy it, and then I won't have to, because you'll be doing it for me. :0D
But Skies of Arcadia is what I see as the first of the new. Games up until now have been very unrealistic affairs, when you compare them to films. Games are the younger brother of film, in which any old monkey can get into and make a decent game.
That's going to change, and that's my aim in life. To take games to a level where they can be seen not as a child's toy, but as a serious competitor to film. I'm not talking completely out of my anus here, I'll love to make some damn decent games, but I want others to make them too. It IS an art, and I just need to prove it. :0)
Hmmmm.
On one hand, you have the oscars, with women and men crying because they think they've made a difference to our lives. No, really, you haven't. You've just read some lines, and pretended to be someone else for a while. That's not hard, it's not creative, and you need little talent to do it.
But there are some VERY talented actors out there, but it's far over-rated.
Look in comparision to games. Sure, I'll be the first to admit that the plots of games are really, really pap in comparision with films... and you can hardly judge the directing...
But whose fault is that? The developers, the designers. They don't really take themselves that seriously, and unfortunatly, when they do, they end up with stylised crud that lasts a few minutes [Metal Gear Solid 2, anyone?]
Speaking out of experience, I better add. Just not for me.
But there is one game, that's beautifully directed, with a great plot, some superb acting [or at least, the acting that's been created by the animators...], and characters you can fall completely in love with, laugh at, and just be fantastic to watch.
Skies of Arcadia, of course. You want me to stop going on about it? Go buy it, and then I won't have to, because you'll be doing it for me. :0D
But Skies of Arcadia is what I see as the first of the new. Games up until now have been very unrealistic affairs, when you compare them to films. Games are the younger brother of film, in which any old monkey can get into and make a decent game.
That's going to change, and that's my aim in life. To take games to a level where they can be seen not as a child's toy, but as a serious competitor to film. I'm not talking completely out of my anus here, I'll love to make some damn decent games, but I want others to make them too. It IS an art, and I just need to prove it. :0)
No one is denying the art of games. It takes alot of talent to make a good game. Games are enjoyable, but on a different level to films. My brother can sit for hours and play games, but he gets bored after 30 minutes of watching a film. Where as i am the other way round, except with good games (some being; Alien vs predator, the sims, MGS, GTA3, Vampire: The mascerade ETC). But games are very 2-D and not ready to become films.
Films are not there to entertain for hours. Just as much as games are not ment to be completed in a few moments (COUGH may payne). Games serve a different purpose in life to films. That is why i think they should be treated seperately, just like the music industry (boy, how that is changing for the worse) please Hollywood! No more film adaptations of games!
Films are not there to entertain for hours. Just as much as games are not ment to be completed in a few moments (COUGH may payne). Games serve a different purpose in life to films. That is why i think they should be treated seperately, just like the music industry (boy, how that is changing for the worse) please Hollywood! No more film adaptations of games!
My personal take on this is, certain games are designed/structured to work as both a narrative and as a quick entertainment form.
Some games just work as games because they provide good fun, and don't ask too much mentally. On the other hand, there are of course those games that really try and envelope the player in the story and evoke some emotion. Silent Hill 2 is a prime example of this. As far as i'm concerned, that's one game that could DEFINATELY work as a film, with the right people behind it.
Certain games just aren't designed that way though. Sure Metal Gear COULD work as a film because of the good storyline (at least in some people's eyes), but that's what it rests on, the storyline. Something like Silent Hill though, is more based on the way the game makes you feel.
Both Silent Hill games had something in common, and if a film could capture THAT, then it'd be a sure success.
The problem with making a game from a film or a film from a game is that the two are still very different industries, and in both cases people have pre-conceptions prior to playing/watching.
People slated the Tomb Raider film because it destroyed the legacy of Tomb Raider, but would it have been critiscised that heavily if it hadn't come off the back of such a successful game?
There needs to be much closer collaboration between the film producers and original developers for any future crossovers to be successful.
Some games just work as games because they provide good fun, and don't ask too much mentally. On the other hand, there are of course those games that really try and envelope the player in the story and evoke some emotion. Silent Hill 2 is a prime example of this. As far as i'm concerned, that's one game that could DEFINATELY work as a film, with the right people behind it.
Certain games just aren't designed that way though. Sure Metal Gear COULD work as a film because of the good storyline (at least in some people's eyes), but that's what it rests on, the storyline. Something like Silent Hill though, is more based on the way the game makes you feel.
Both Silent Hill games had something in common, and if a film could capture THAT, then it'd be a sure success.
The problem with making a game from a film or a film from a game is that the two are still very different industries, and in both cases people have pre-conceptions prior to playing/watching.
People slated the Tomb Raider film because it destroyed the legacy of Tomb Raider, but would it have been critiscised that heavily if it hadn't come off the back of such a successful game?
There needs to be much closer collaboration between the film producers and original developers for any future crossovers to be successful.
Thats what i am trying to say.
Films should steer clear of games. Although i think i have completely lost the idea of films working as games, that has become some what ambiant.
The guy behind The Others would be a great director for Silent Hill the movie. The Others is great, you don't see the ghosts, but you still brown your pants (a great film to look at for a certain project, ADH).
I can see the title now; Silent Hill: Town of the damned. Or something scary sounding. But knowing Hollywood, this would have many sequals, each worse than the other.
MGS would be great for a summer blockbuster, kinda like how all the other game adaptations were planned out. Havn't played Silent Hill 2 yet, sad to say i get a bit scared playing them sort of games (its a family curse).
Perhaps one day i can overcome my fear and perhaps ask ADH if you would be so kind as to let me borrow it. But not yet, i am still a bit of a girl's blouse. :)
How did things go today ADH?
Films should steer clear of games. Although i think i have completely lost the idea of films working as games, that has become some what ambiant.
The guy behind The Others would be a great director for Silent Hill the movie. The Others is great, you don't see the ghosts, but you still brown your pants (a great film to look at for a certain project, ADH).
I can see the title now; Silent Hill: Town of the damned. Or something scary sounding. But knowing Hollywood, this would have many sequals, each worse than the other.
MGS would be great for a summer blockbuster, kinda like how all the other game adaptations were planned out. Havn't played Silent Hill 2 yet, sad to say i get a bit scared playing them sort of games (its a family curse).
Perhaps one day i can overcome my fear and perhaps ask ADH if you would be so kind as to let me borrow it. But not yet, i am still a bit of a girl's blouse. :)
How did things go today ADH?
The next Fincher wrote:
"My brother can sit for hours and play games, but he gets bored after 30 minutes of watching a film. Where as i am the other way round, except with good games (some being; Alien vs predator, the sims, MGS, GTA3, Vampire: The mascerade ETC). But games are very 2-D and not ready to become films."
And therein lies the problem. :0D
How old is your brother? 14, 13 right? Around that age, I expect. You're probably a good few years older, 17 nearing 18, perhaps?
Let me tell you. All those games you named are made for one thing, well, bar MGS, but that failed in it's attempt, it seems. Fun. Pure simple pick up and play fun, then put down again and walk away.
This is why I call Skies of Arcadia the first of the new. It's not serious, it's not "arty", but it's an absolutely fantastic experience, that you don't pick up just to pass the time and press buttons really quickly... trust me, play this from start to finish, and you'll see what I'm getting at.
In no film will I ever become attached to a character as much as I did in Skies. It hasn't got a really fantastic plot, it's basically just another save the world thing... but it does it SO well, it's really something nobody should pass by through simple misread understandings.
Oh, and go watch Cannonball Run and Battle Royale. Those are my definitions of film.
"My brother can sit for hours and play games, but he gets bored after 30 minutes of watching a film. Where as i am the other way round, except with good games (some being; Alien vs predator, the sims, MGS, GTA3, Vampire: The mascerade ETC). But games are very 2-D and not ready to become films."
And therein lies the problem. :0D
How old is your brother? 14, 13 right? Around that age, I expect. You're probably a good few years older, 17 nearing 18, perhaps?
Let me tell you. All those games you named are made for one thing, well, bar MGS, but that failed in it's attempt, it seems. Fun. Pure simple pick up and play fun, then put down again and walk away.
This is why I call Skies of Arcadia the first of the new. It's not serious, it's not "arty", but it's an absolutely fantastic experience, that you don't pick up just to pass the time and press buttons really quickly... trust me, play this from start to finish, and you'll see what I'm getting at.
In no film will I ever become attached to a character as much as I did in Skies. It hasn't got a really fantastic plot, it's basically just another save the world thing... but it does it SO well, it's really something nobody should pass by through simple misread understandings.
Oh, and go watch Cannonball Run and Battle Royale. Those are my definitions of film.
But you are right, Games and films should stay apart. But games should be taken more seriously [and then we'll actually get some more decent ones], and film shouldn't take itself so seriously [so we'd get more Cannonball Runs and less Pearl Harbours].
Page: