The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Yup, that's definitely the worst problem in Skies. It only affects impatient people though. ;0D
The next Fincher wrote:
> I think we can all agree that some actors, like some games, are
> terablly over-rated. There are also some very good actors, and games,
> out there.
>
> I mean, come one. Ed Norton vs Leonardo di caprio. Come on!!!
>
> Norton CAN act, Caprio is just a pretty face. Sort of like some games
> i could mention.
>
But Di Caprio can act. He is a good actor, but he is given roles that don't fit his face. He looks 12 years old at the most, yet he is given all these grown-up roles. He does a good job, but he's still just 12 years old. It doesn't work.
> I think we can all agree that some actors, like some games, are
> terablly over-rated. There are also some very good actors, and games,
> out there.
>
> I mean, come one. Ed Norton vs Leonardo di caprio. Come on!!!
>
> Norton CAN act, Caprio is just a pretty face. Sort of like some games
> i could mention.
>
But Di Caprio can act. He is a good actor, but he is given roles that don't fit his face. He looks 12 years old at the most, yet he is given all these grown-up roles. He does a good job, but he's still just 12 years old. It doesn't work.
Right. I read that the wrong way there. I thought you were actually saying that directing was easy as well, and the word 'cut' was pretty much it. I got angry there, you see. :-D
Anyway, I never said gaming wasn't an art. I said something like, acting isn't hard but gaming is an art?
Although looking at Skies of Arcadia, it isn't. I had my eye on that for a long time and when it was finally released I rented it first. And I'm happy I did. The running around and exploring was great, but the random battles completely ruined it. The battle system sucked and there were too many battles. Since this ruined it for me, I didn;t play too much into it and so admittedly I didn't really get to know the characters.
Still, I see how making a game is more like directing than acting. But there are so many stages to making a game. Depending on which stage you're talking about, depends on whether it is an art or not.
Like acting, you're either gonna be good with PCs or you aren't. You just have to discover whether you are and then develop it a bit. Creating the textures and things for levels won't be hard once you have been told how to do it and what the level is going to look like. It is actually designing the level that will be the tricky part and will require imagination.
As you said it was getting close to the characters and everything that made Arcadia so good, it wasn't really the game itself that was good. If this is the 'first of the new' then uh-oh, games are gonna go down hill from here.
The gameplay (because of the battles) sucks. The characters may be good, but in a game, gameplay is more important. Characters can make it great, but without the gameplay it can never be a great GAME. After all it is a game, and not a film.
Anyway, I never said gaming wasn't an art. I said something like, acting isn't hard but gaming is an art?
Although looking at Skies of Arcadia, it isn't. I had my eye on that for a long time and when it was finally released I rented it first. And I'm happy I did. The running around and exploring was great, but the random battles completely ruined it. The battle system sucked and there were too many battles. Since this ruined it for me, I didn;t play too much into it and so admittedly I didn't really get to know the characters.
Still, I see how making a game is more like directing than acting. But there are so many stages to making a game. Depending on which stage you're talking about, depends on whether it is an art or not.
Like acting, you're either gonna be good with PCs or you aren't. You just have to discover whether you are and then develop it a bit. Creating the textures and things for levels won't be hard once you have been told how to do it and what the level is going to look like. It is actually designing the level that will be the tricky part and will require imagination.
As you said it was getting close to the characters and everything that made Arcadia so good, it wasn't really the game itself that was good. If this is the 'first of the new' then uh-oh, games are gonna go down hill from here.
The gameplay (because of the battles) sucks. The characters may be good, but in a game, gameplay is more important. Characters can make it great, but without the gameplay it can never be a great GAME. After all it is a game, and not a film.
I think we can all agree that some actors, like some games, are terablly over-rated. There are also some very good actors, and games, out there.
I mean, come one. Ed Norton vs Leonardo di caprio. Come on!!!
Norton CAN act, Caprio is just a pretty face. Sort of like some games i could mention.
Max Payne looks great and plays t**d.
I mean, come one. Ed Norton vs Leonardo di caprio. Come on!!!
Norton CAN act, Caprio is just a pretty face. Sort of like some games i could mention.
Max Payne looks great and plays t**d.
lol
I'm really not trying to turn this into a slagging match, Votta. :0D
You know what I mean. Directors have a much more creative job than actors, but this isn't about directors.
And you still haven't said why games design isn't an art.
I'm really not trying to turn this into a slagging match, Votta. :0D
You know what I mean. Directors have a much more creative job than actors, but this isn't about directors.
And you still haven't said why games design isn't an art.
Hold on, so now you're saying that all a director has to do is say 'cut'?
Acting is a talent like all others. Good actors find acting easy, those that shouldn't act find it hard.
You're given that talent, so use it. It's all in the mind, acting. If you have a mind that you can manipulate, then it's easy. Same with design, if you have the mind for it, the talent, then it's easy. You're either an actor or you're not, there's no easy or hard about it.
That's why I think acting is over-rated. All other arts, those with even more detail, are far under-rated in comparision.
Best actor in a horror, best actor in a romantic comedy set in the second world war, best actress that portrays someone with a troubled past [ooh, lots of competition there].
And what else? Oh, best director. Best soundtrack. You don't get a best female director in an assisting role, do you? So why do we even have best female actor, and best male actor?
It's the oscars that really sum up my feelings about film. People who act do have very interesting minds. They read the lines, they try to become that person, mentally, and then sometimes physically. After that, they'll say the same lines over and over in their mindset, and the director will say cut, do it again.
And games design is an art, if you don't think so, please say why.
You're given that talent, so use it. It's all in the mind, acting. If you have a mind that you can manipulate, then it's easy. Same with design, if you have the mind for it, the talent, then it's easy. You're either an actor or you're not, there's no easy or hard about it.
That's why I think acting is over-rated. All other arts, those with even more detail, are far under-rated in comparision.
Best actor in a horror, best actor in a romantic comedy set in the second world war, best actress that portrays someone with a troubled past [ooh, lots of competition there].
And what else? Oh, best director. Best soundtrack. You don't get a best female director in an assisting role, do you? So why do we even have best female actor, and best male actor?
It's the oscars that really sum up my feelings about film. People who act do have very interesting minds. They read the lines, they try to become that person, mentally, and then sometimes physically. After that, they'll say the same lines over and over in their mindset, and the director will say cut, do it again.
And games design is an art, if you don't think so, please say why.
No....
Goldeneye was a great film with an amazing game.
Tomorrow Never Dies was an absolutely dismal film with a pretty crap game.
The World is Not Enough was an okay film with an okay game.
But was it with the casting people for the last 2 Bond films. Jonathon Pryce is NOT a bad guy, and Robert Carlyle was a poor villain as well. Sea Bean on the other hand, is the greatest Bond villain ever.
Goldeneye was a great film with an amazing game.
Tomorrow Never Dies was an absolutely dismal film with a pretty crap game.
The World is Not Enough was an okay film with an okay game.
But was it with the casting people for the last 2 Bond films. Jonathon Pryce is NOT a bad guy, and Robert Carlyle was a poor villain as well. Sea Bean on the other hand, is the greatest Bond villain ever.
What about all the Bond films?! Golden Eye, Tommorow never dies and The World Is Not Enough were all great films that made great computer games!
So acting is over-rated yet making a computer game IS an art?
Hmmm....okay.
But acting IS difficult. Very!
Hmmm....okay.
But acting IS difficult. Very!
Page: