IS anybody surprised about the way the industry is treating shooters?: http://www.ign.com/blogs/vmev/2012/02/22/is-anybody-actually-surprised

This week, a bunch of reviews have been released for some shooters, and they haven't been particularly "high" scores, in the vein of what's "amazing". Despite my anticipation for Syndicate, it received a "good" but mellow score of 7.5 from the folks at IGN. Similarly another (third person) shooter, Binary Domain, was reviewed by IGN and received the same score.  It seems the rise of the shooter has not only made it the biggest beast of gaming genres, but also the most mass produced.

Shooters do provide a great experience, especially when done well. The level of immediacy as you shoot, move and see everything happen right before your eyes is all the immersion you could ever ask for. But with giants such as Call of Duty, and Battlefield redefining mass appeal of military shooters, as well as the Mass Effect games championing multiple genres, how much room is there really left on in this overflowing genre?

Jeerm

Do you think shooters (first or third person) are the the titans of the genre? Or rather, are they the overweight guy who ate your cake? Have your say in the comment section below!

-Michael

Hey MyIGN, thanks for all your comments, opinions and replies from my last write up about video game movies, they were really great and definitely showed some diverse thinking among the community. I want to take this opportunity to follow up on some of the great opinions and comments you all left. I'm still going to give my own theory about how and why some pretty bad video game movies are made despite their almost always poor critical reception.

No Luigi... No.

Comments - general replies

"Max Payne the movie was shit"

-A rather general opinion, and I agree. The film itself kept some elements and themes from the game, but nowhere near enough to retain interest or intrigue.

"You clearly haven't played enough Resident evil games if you think there are no female protagonists"

-True. Also true is that none of those female protagonists are the most featured model in the world who run around dual wielding sub-machine guns in skin tight leather while stabbing and punching zombies like it ain't nothin' but a thang.

"I liked the Prince of Persia movie!"

-Sorry to break it to you but this is the reason why Ubisoft opened their own motion picture department. The film's poor acting, terrible premise, and awkward moments caused it to be a critical bust.

"Video games aren't meant to be made into movies (television perhaps)"

-Okay here's a bit of a contentious one. I don't think it's impossible to make a video game into a good or even great film, but the current approach in making a video game film is wrong. I'll elaborate more in the section below.

"The biggest VG>Film is the super mario bros film. THEY COME OUT OF DINOSAUR EGGS!"

ಠ_ಠ

If only... Not really. 

Why video game movies suck - an opinion

A popular opinion that was raised several times in the comments was that the crossing of mediums is causing the story, and key elements to get lost somewhere along the way. However the more specific theories as to how and why this is happening is pretty diverse. Ezekiel3840 and LeCambrioleur share a similar opinion; that a film simply cannot portray the often 8+ hour story of a video game in a single 2 hour period, especially with interactive components making the experience more compelling and/or unique than a film. Militaryveterangamer takes a different stance and believes that the serialisation of video game stories is the way to go, whether it be television, cable, or direct to DVD to allow more creative control. This is a fair point seeing as it can allow more liberty and segmented building of character and setting. And finally SinfulSoxfan84 states "people, gamers, are under the assumption that video games as source material are actually good enough to adapt to films." Valid point my fellow IGNer, where some comics have decades of interpretations, where some video games only have a short legacy of continuity of about 5 years long, it's a daunting task in comparison.

I think the first aspect that has to be looked at before judging a film, based on a video game, is that the experience is completely different. The medium of film is a passive form of entertainment that is, at the best of times, hypnotic as the lights dim, and the sound blears in this huge screen that obscures your field of view. In the case of video games, rarely is the experience taken in one sitting and due to the interactive nature, your attention isn't always fully focused on just what's happening on screen.

Another issue that seems prominent in video game films is the lack of relevant talent, and no, I'm not talking about actors who look like the characters. More often than not video game films are helmed by writers with little credit on their belt and directors nobody has heard of, and if you have, you probably thought their past work was crap (Uwe Boll).

At this point in time I think a good video game film is still possible, but the current ability to attract talent who understand and can stay true to the core of the narrative seems to be a misnomer. How to correct this is something beyond my own knowledge, but I'm adamant we'll reach that milestone some day.

*facepalm*

Have your say in the comment section below!

-Michael

I recently learned that a platform collapsed on the set of the latest Resident Evil film, injuring a number of cast, and when the EMTs came in to help they had trouble figuring out the real injuries from the make up. Great, so now we're injuring people on the set of shitty movies. Who knew that it was possible to make the RE franchise look like such a heaping bag of shit with films for this long? Not only have they lost the plot as far as character, story and other key elements that define the series, but it just doesn't match up any more. Among the Resident Evil franchise, video games have made preposterously bad films to date, I'm gonna take a moment to look at the ones that should have never been.

Staying on topic...

Max Payne

If ever you were a fan of this film, then you're into weak plots, bad casting/acting (Ludacris playing the fat white police chief? come now), and a successful crucifixion of detective noir. The video game is notable for some great moments and rather strong characters, from Max's self destructive way of dealing with his loss, to Mona Sax's apathetic loss of her husband, everyone seemed in place... Until the film.  All of a sudden Max Payne (Mark Whalberg) was semi suicidal and angry at everyone, Mona Sax (Mila Kunis) was whining and asking flamingly obvious questions without the sexual tenacity she once held, not to forget the that amazing tense chemistry between the two had dissipated somewhere else (probably into their bank accounts). The plot diverged from the cannon story, though not as poorly as some other offenders.

The visual style of the film was pretty awkward too, some how everyone on the street had a penance for violence which meant all thirteen residents of New York. Beyond that, some continuity issues plagued the way the film progressed, antagonists and locations that made little to no sense.

Far Cry

You probably played the game and had fun. But you didn't watch the movie. Either did I. Uwe Boll eat your heart out.

Feelsbadman

Resident Evil

FTS. We're coming up to the 22nd RE game, and sixth entry into the main series, and the story has NOTHING to do with that of the film. Like most of you, I do enjoy seeing Mila Jojovich in skin tight clothing, but what's with the aerial platforms, dual wielding sub-machine guns, and disregard for close combat with zombies? I don't remember RE being a run and gun game, or having a female protagonist. The only thing at this point in time that the film and games have in common are their inability to act.

I don't remember where or when Resident evil became a prelude to bad good looking porn.

Doom

That game about demon portals, and using hardy space marine weapons to fight your way out. LOL JKs, it's now about genetic mutation. That's the plot. It also behoves me as to why they needed to change so many elements to depart from the original, from small things to big things. It's worth mentioning that there is virtually nothing identical to the film and the games other than the planetary setting (Mars). They did include a BFG for the fans, but they made it shoot blue plasma sludge... Yeah I don't get it either. If you have information as to how and why they fucked up this bad, please leave it in the comments below!

Hmm... How do I shoop da woop?

Hitman

Agent 47 is a traditional bad ass in the video games, he's cold, calculating, remorseless, a chameleon among men and has a vicious strike. In the film he likes to mumble and hang out with prostitutes. The film released shortly after Blood Money where you were given the opportunity to best your previous score by using whatever means possible, notably not losing/dropping weapons and only killing your targets. NOPE forget that in the film, blow up your own sniper rifle after one shot, and kill everyone for the lols. Also why the hell is Agent 47 (Timothy Olyphant) mumbling the whole time? I know he's pretty talentless and can't do a British accent, but mumbling doesn't hide it.

Remember Agent 47's double chin and American accent? Neither do I!

I've realised at this point in time that I have too many words to share, and not enough reader interest to capture it all. Beyond that I've also admitted to seeing too many video game films than I probably should have.

What video game films have you seen that made absolutely no friggin' sense? Better yet, vent with me and have you say in the comment section below.

-Michael

The Max Payne 3 trailer was astonishing, full of action, story, conspiracy, and a sneak peek at some great acting ahead. Incase you haven't seen it yet, do your self a favour, and see it now. For your convenience, I've linked you to the Youtube and IGN version.

Enjoy!

-Michael

With the recent surge in games that allow player choice, such as the Mass Effect and Witcher series', a collective perception has been created that seems to believe linear story telling  something to be frowned upon. I have seen plenty of comments and blog posts complaining about "linearity" in video games, often citing it as a major issue or flaw in a game's design. I want to make it very clear that this perception is misconstrued and a very strange opinion formed around a concept that has only been at large with the video game medium for less than a decade.

I personally believe games as an interactive medium of entertainment should allow for the player to have certain "freedoms", which is what makes them so captivating in the first place; the ability to explore new worlds, and repeat playthroughs with a renewed experiences. However linearity has been a mainstay of story telling since it's inception, and allows whatever medium that is in use to bring a direct controlled experience to you. This is not to say forcing you to watch set pieces in a narrow corridor is a good thing, but rather, being able to make "choices" and alter the story to result in a different ending isn't necessarily "better" than playing a game that has a set story/experience.

The collective thought that thinks choice in story telling is "better" than a linear story is very new idea, it's only in the last century or so that choose your own story books have existed, and now video games have adopted this method too. This by no means makes it a superior method of story telling, just a more interactive one. How often is it that while watching a masterful film or listening to a song and you think it requires audience participation? I understand an argument can be made that "Games are an interactive medium, hence choice should be an option", but merit is given to a good story  not just one that you create and/or alter. Some stories are better told when the game/developers is in control, take Red Dead Redemption for example. The game's main story presents to you a vast open world environment, piece by piece using multiple forms of transport, as well as meeting interesting and varied characters, not to mention some very touching moments all within the confines of a linear pre-written narrative. You played vicariously through the eyes of John Marston, which is what provided the unique and rich experience. Much to its success, I would go as far as to say it's the best ending to any video game so far.

The likes of Mass Effect is the great example of interactive story telling, while giving choice to the player. Though as much as I do love the M.E. series, it is in fact more linear than you might think. You aren't given the freedom to choose your ultimate mission (ie. forget the Reapers and become a space pimp or pimpette). When you do attempt missions you run around a pre-made environment, with pre-made cinematics, as well as scripted events and a set amount of enemies who all have a set amount of health.

I think the animosity toward a linear story is from poor pacing resulting in a nullifying, repetitive experience, and not just because you didn't get to choose how your player acted out.  Perhaps I'll write more on this subject in the future, but here lies my thoughts thus far.

Let the discussion begin - leave a comment in the section below!

-Michael