The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
before anyone says anything about this, these two types of entertainment are in the same catagory for us, you only really watch a film with your mates or family, and you only ever play a game with mates(sort of the same). Anyway, on to the topic.
making a film is very costly, and even though it takes only a year to produce a box office film, it can still cost up to £40,000,000, which some of you will agree will take along time to get on the lottery or 'Who Wants To be A Millionaire', It does make ahuge profit, like 'The matrix' must have raked in more than double that from the America and Europe alone, I doubt it was shown anywhere else. Whereas a game can be made in between a month and two years, it doesn't matter how much money is spent on it, the cheaper game could be better if it has more imagination and more originality, whereas it's usually hardwork and graphics that get the big numbers. Perfect dark for example, eveyone with an N64 wanted it for their console but it wasn't as good as it's predesessor Goldeneye, it's the same for every console, don't think i'm favoring Nintendo.
You don't have to pay actors and argue about how the shot should be done, if you don't make the move you don't get the job, it's not as if the game actor isn't replacable, but i don't think you'd see some director kicking Bruce Willis out of the film. When making a game, it's like writting a book, your imagination can run wild, no restraints and not many people judge you, if it's a low cost game I don't think they'd care. If you make a film, producers directors actors and maybe even the cleaners have a say in what happens to the final production.
I want to know what you think, I know I have missed something out here.
making a film is very costly, and even though it takes only a year to produce a box office film, it can still cost up to £40,000,000, which some of you will agree will take along time to get on the lottery or 'Who Wants To be A Millionaire', It does make ahuge profit, like 'The matrix' must have raked in more than double that from the America and Europe alone, I doubt it was shown anywhere else. Whereas a game can be made in between a month and two years, it doesn't matter how much money is spent on it, the cheaper game could be better if it has more imagination and more originality, whereas it's usually hardwork and graphics that get the big numbers. Perfect dark for example, eveyone with an N64 wanted it for their console but it wasn't as good as it's predesessor Goldeneye, it's the same for every console, don't think i'm favoring Nintendo.
You don't have to pay actors and argue about how the shot should be done, if you don't make the move you don't get the job, it's not as if the game actor isn't replacable, but i don't think you'd see some director kicking Bruce Willis out of the film. When making a game, it's like writting a book, your imagination can run wild, no restraints and not many people judge you, if it's a low cost game I don't think they'd care. If you make a film, producers directors actors and maybe even the cleaners have a say in what happens to the final production.
I want to know what you think, I know I have missed something out here.
Actually making a game makes more profits too...
Pokemon Gold and Silver sold 1.4 million copies in one week in its first week, which amounts to 42 million dollars. Toy Story 2 took 41.5 million in its first three months of release! Seems a better profession doesnt it!
I would say though that making games is a hell of a lot better- espically as Ive been a games tester this year and its the best job Ive ever done, and I want to be making games definately when I finish my degree.
Pokemon Gold and Silver sold 1.4 million copies in one week in its first week, which amounts to 42 million dollars. Toy Story 2 took 41.5 million in its first three months of release! Seems a better profession doesnt it!
I would say though that making games is a hell of a lot better- espically as Ive been a games tester this year and its the best job Ive ever done, and I want to be making games definately when I finish my degree.
before anyone says anything about this, these two types of entertainment are in the same catagory for us, you only really watch a film with your mates or family, and you only ever play a game with mates(sort of the same). Anyway, on to the topic.
making a film is very costly, and even though it takes only a year to produce a box office film, it can still cost up to £40,000,000, which some of you will agree will take along time to get on the lottery or 'Who Wants To be A Millionaire', It does make ahuge profit, like 'The matrix' must have raked in more than double that from the America and Europe alone, I doubt it was shown anywhere else. Whereas a game can be made in between a month and two years, it doesn't matter how much money is spent on it, the cheaper game could be better if it has more imagination and more originality, whereas it's usually hardwork and graphics that get the big numbers. Perfect dark for example, eveyone with an N64 wanted it for their console but it wasn't as good as it's predesessor Goldeneye, it's the same for every console, don't think i'm favoring Nintendo.
You don't have to pay actors and argue about how the shot should be done, if you don't make the move you don't get the job, it's not as if the game actor isn't replacable, but i don't think you'd see some director kicking Bruce Willis out of the film. When making a game, it's like writting a book, your imagination can run wild, no restraints and not many people judge you, if it's a low cost game I don't think they'd care. If you make a film, producers directors actors and maybe even the cleaners have a say in what happens to the final production.
I want to know what you think, I know I have missed something out here.
making a film is very costly, and even though it takes only a year to produce a box office film, it can still cost up to £40,000,000, which some of you will agree will take along time to get on the lottery or 'Who Wants To be A Millionaire', It does make ahuge profit, like 'The matrix' must have raked in more than double that from the America and Europe alone, I doubt it was shown anywhere else. Whereas a game can be made in between a month and two years, it doesn't matter how much money is spent on it, the cheaper game could be better if it has more imagination and more originality, whereas it's usually hardwork and graphics that get the big numbers. Perfect dark for example, eveyone with an N64 wanted it for their console but it wasn't as good as it's predesessor Goldeneye, it's the same for every console, don't think i'm favoring Nintendo.
You don't have to pay actors and argue about how the shot should be done, if you don't make the move you don't get the job, it's not as if the game actor isn't replacable, but i don't think you'd see some director kicking Bruce Willis out of the film. When making a game, it's like writting a book, your imagination can run wild, no restraints and not many people judge you, if it's a low cost game I don't think they'd care. If you make a film, producers directors actors and maybe even the cleaners have a say in what happens to the final production.
I want to know what you think, I know I have missed something out here.