The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
The_Vottanator wrote:
"I'd like to see you try to act out E dNorton's part in Amrican History X. And I would laugh in your face!"
I was talking about acting, yes. It's over-rated as an art.
I also went on to say:
"But there are some VERY talented actors out there, but it's far over-rated."
"I'd like to see you try to act out E dNorton's part in Amrican History X. And I would laugh in your face!"
I was talking about acting, yes. It's over-rated as an art.
I also went on to say:
"But there are some VERY talented actors out there, but it's far over-rated."
Grix Thraves wrote:
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.
WHAT?!?!? Are you talking about them taking on a different role in their acceptance speech or actually acting on film? If you're talking about the latter then I have to say this:
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKNIG ABOUT?!?!?
I'd like to see you try to act out E dNorton's part in Amrican History X. And I would laugh in your face!
If you weren't talking about that, then I apologise. :-D
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.
WHAT?!?!? Are you talking about them taking on a different role in their acceptance speech or actually acting on film? If you're talking about the latter then I have to say this:
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKNIG ABOUT?!?!?
I'd like to see you try to act out E dNorton's part in Amrican History X. And I would laugh in your face!
If you weren't talking about that, then I apologise. :-D
The next Fincher wrote:
Perosonally, i think Hugh Jackman would make a great
> Snake.
KURT RUSSELL!! They blatantly modelled the character on him. Not just the name (Snake and Plissken) but the face and voice too. He is a spitting image in MGS2 and his "I didn't kill your father" IS Kurt Russell.
There is no debate here! If MGS is ever made, it is Kurt Russell!
And for Raiden, we can have......Kylie Minogue?
Perosonally, i think Hugh Jackman would make a great
> Snake.
KURT RUSSELL!! They blatantly modelled the character on him. Not just the name (Snake and Plissken) but the face and voice too. He is a spitting image in MGS2 and his "I didn't kill your father" IS Kurt Russell.
There is no debate here! If MGS is ever made, it is Kurt Russell!
And for Raiden, we can have......Kylie Minogue?
The next Fincher wrote:
Tomb Raider was only watchable
> because of the lovely Angelina Jolie,
Yes, she was nice wasn't she? But still not as good as in Gone in 60 Seconds? Ooooh those dreadlocks!
Anyway, Chris Barry is funny too. Hilarious in fact.
"Don't you stay up too late"
Tomb Raider was only watchable
> because of the lovely Angelina Jolie,
Yes, she was nice wasn't she? But still not as good as in Gone in 60 Seconds? Ooooh those dreadlocks!
Anyway, Chris Barry is funny too. Hilarious in fact.
"Don't you stay up too late"
ADH, your words are like sweet music to my ears that sadly turn to nothing but yellowy wax.
What i am trying to say is, you are always very reliable (you and martin both). I love your dry sarcasm, and thanks. I will wear an extra pair of pants on monday evening, if i get scared then you will have Silent Hill 2 back on tuesday. If i can remain untouched then maybe i will play it for a couple more days. But as you know, i never keep things for too long as it makes me feel as if i am taking advantage of people's kind gestures.
What i am trying to say is, you are always very reliable (you and martin both). I love your dry sarcasm, and thanks. I will wear an extra pair of pants on monday evening, if i get scared then you will have Silent Hill 2 back on tuesday. If i can remain untouched then maybe i will play it for a couple more days. But as you know, i never keep things for too long as it makes me feel as if i am taking advantage of people's kind gestures.
Things went good.
We got all the stuff we needed and it's really easy to get to. I also decided on some of the roles i'm going to assign to my "assistant", and at the moment it's looking thus : Me - everything, Him - nothing.
I'm kinda happy with that. I based it on a song by a group called the New Radicals. "You Get What You Give"
Anyhow, i'm sure you can stomach Silent Hill 2, it'll be with ya' on Monday.
We got all the stuff we needed and it's really easy to get to. I also decided on some of the roles i'm going to assign to my "assistant", and at the moment it's looking thus : Me - everything, Him - nothing.
I'm kinda happy with that. I based it on a song by a group called the New Radicals. "You Get What You Give"
Anyhow, i'm sure you can stomach Silent Hill 2, it'll be with ya' on Monday.
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].
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.
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?
Page: