The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I also put this message in the film, book, TV forum becuase i feel it applies to both the area of film and game.
I recently came 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?
I recently came 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?
I also put this message in the film, book, TV forum becuase i feel it applies to both the area of film and game.
I recently came 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?
I recently came 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?
Hey man this might just be a total coincidence but i posted this topic on the 11th. Did you look at mine and write your own version of the topic.
My one i posted is in the sony ps1/ps2 room. Go read it.
My one i posted is in the sony ps1/ps2 room. Go read it.
Ok no problem man I was just a but suspicious but I know you probably wrote it before in word and then posted it on the 12th.