Let's talk about the original RPG.
For the two of you living under rocks, it was the pair of Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson who helped give birth to the cultural juggernaut that is Dungeons & Dragons. D&D itself was primarily inspired by two major set of novels. The first, obviously, was Tolkein's Lord of the Rings, but the second is the slightly more obscure Fafhrd and Gray Mouser series of fantasy novels by Fritz Leiber.
Of course, this is mainly a video game blog, so why bring this up? Well, because video games have been drawing on D&D for influence from the very beginning.
It starts with Wizardry, the classic series of computer RPGs. The first came out in 1981, and proved to be a fair success...but in Japan, calling it that would be an understatement. It was huge, and all of the JRPG genre resulted from game producers over there trying to copy what Wizardry. This led to the birth of the hugely popular Dragon Quest series.
Another such attempt came at the hands of a company on the verge of bankruptcy, who decided to give it an appropriate title for their final product. In doing so, Squaresoft blatantly ignored copyright laws and ripped every idea they could from D&D to create their Final Fantasy. (Even the trio of mage classes - White Mage, Red Mage, Black Mage - came from the D&D Dragonlance setting.) Which, of course, saved the company, and now you can look up news about the impending release of Final Fantasy XV.
Meanwhile, the western sphere was both producing new RPG series like Ultima and Might & Magic, as well as official licensed D&D games, referred to as the Gold Box games because of their...gold boxes. (We're real imaginative, can you tell?) These were followed up by the Eye of the Beholder trilogy (some call these Silver Box games, but I just ignore that) and their spinoff Dungeon Hack.
Meanwhile meanwhile, other people had been busy creating their own tabletop systems, including Steve Jackson's GURPS. A company named Black Isle attempted to acquire the rights to use GURPS for their own post-apocalyptic video game, but that fell through. As a result, they developed their own SPECIAL system...and the result was the romp known as Fallout.
While RPGs waned in popularity in the later 90s, a new company, founded by a pair of medical doctors, acquired the rights to make a new D&D game. Black Isle (sounds familiar?) agreed to publish this game. The result was Baldur's Gate, and the company Bioware has become a fixture of RPG making since.
I could keep going, but you get the point. D&D's fingerprints are all over video games, to the point where studying their history without acknowledging the work of Gygax and Arneson is basically pointless. I don't want people to buy into historical inaccuracies, so...here we are.
Of course, there's another side to this, the cultural legacy that extends from D&D. And unfortunately, this isn't quite as pretty as just a list of games that wouldn't exist without it. But since this blog post is a little long as is, come back next week for the second part, where I'll dig into that matter...and the problems that came with it.
Sunday, July 31, 2016
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
Looking back: System Shock 2
Well, number 3 is coming out, and the first game is getting a remake, but what about the game that sits in between the two?
System Shock 2 was released in 1999, which put it up against the original Half-Life. While critics praised it, it was heavily overshadowed by this other FPS, leading to it never escalating beyond cult hit status during its normal sales run. However, its influence goes well beyond that.
This game has been wide touted as one of the scariest games ever made. The thing to realize here is that it relies on a different brand of scariness than modern horror games, which make heavy use of jumpscares and extremely limited lighting to freak the player out at specific points.
2 leans more on a sense of overall tension; while the enemies aren't that scary (at least, not unless you stop and think about what they are), the music, atmosphere, and limited resources put players constantly on edge, with limited breathing room. Of course, the reason this isn't popular is that it's too easy (by some views) to paint yourself into a corner by using too much ammo or healing items. The difficulty (which was fairly hard, even by standards back then) did not help matters.
While it took years for an official sequel, many games were influenced by it. The Bioshock series began as a direct spiritual sequel to the game, and circumstantial evidence indicates that the first Dead Space game may have started development as a sequel. More directly, it helped blend the FPS and RPG genres, in a way that would be echoed (although not copied) by later series like Borderlands.
Oh, and SHODAN. Many, many video game AIs have taken cues from SHODAN and her brand of insanity. From Halo's Cortana to Portal's GLaDOS (note the use of capital letters) to Angel from the aforementioned Borderlands, female AIs have become surprisingly standard since this game's release. A trope, if you will, that goes back to "L-l-look at you, hacker..."
The final coda is the legal rights snafu that was the main reason it took so long for ''3'' to come out, due to the rights being divided among several different companies. Trying to sum up just how those rights were divided over the years would be very complicated, so I'll settle for just saying that the sequel rights, the distribution rights, and the trademark rights have changed hands multiple times. (At least it's in a better position than No One Lives Forever...)
Either way, it's another piece of gaming history that deserves to be highlighted. SHODAN's glory may not quite be what she wants, but in terms of being the center of a memorable game, she's earned a fair amount of respect, right?
"Nah."
Oh, no one asked you, Goggles.
System Shock 2 was released in 1999, which put it up against the original Half-Life. While critics praised it, it was heavily overshadowed by this other FPS, leading to it never escalating beyond cult hit status during its normal sales run. However, its influence goes well beyond that.
This game has been wide touted as one of the scariest games ever made. The thing to realize here is that it relies on a different brand of scariness than modern horror games, which make heavy use of jumpscares and extremely limited lighting to freak the player out at specific points.
2 leans more on a sense of overall tension; while the enemies aren't that scary (at least, not unless you stop and think about what they are), the music, atmosphere, and limited resources put players constantly on edge, with limited breathing room. Of course, the reason this isn't popular is that it's too easy (by some views) to paint yourself into a corner by using too much ammo or healing items. The difficulty (which was fairly hard, even by standards back then) did not help matters.
While it took years for an official sequel, many games were influenced by it. The Bioshock series began as a direct spiritual sequel to the game, and circumstantial evidence indicates that the first Dead Space game may have started development as a sequel. More directly, it helped blend the FPS and RPG genres, in a way that would be echoed (although not copied) by later series like Borderlands.
Oh, and SHODAN. Many, many video game AIs have taken cues from SHODAN and her brand of insanity. From Halo's Cortana to Portal's GLaDOS (note the use of capital letters) to Angel from the aforementioned Borderlands, female AIs have become surprisingly standard since this game's release. A trope, if you will, that goes back to "L-l-look at you, hacker..."
The final coda is the legal rights snafu that was the main reason it took so long for ''3'' to come out, due to the rights being divided among several different companies. Trying to sum up just how those rights were divided over the years would be very complicated, so I'll settle for just saying that the sequel rights, the distribution rights, and the trademark rights have changed hands multiple times. (At least it's in a better position than No One Lives Forever...)
Either way, it's another piece of gaming history that deserves to be highlighted. SHODAN's glory may not quite be what she wants, but in terms of being the center of a memorable game, she's earned a fair amount of respect, right?
"Nah."
Oh, no one asked you, Goggles.
Sunday, July 3, 2016
Japan vs. the world
Let's be honest, video games would not be where they are now if it weren't for the Japanese companies who made them. Nintendo alone basically ensured that gaming would not be PC only (we'd be in a very different world if the NES hadn't happened).
Well, as usual, you have to know the "but" lurks in there. The fact is, Japanese companies in the past few years have kind of fallen off the wagon here. Everyone knows how Konami kind of just turned into a laughingstock, Nintendo made us all cringe with their "explanation" of how Link can't be female, and so on. But enough bashing companies.
What we're looking at here is actually Japanese business culture becoming more conservative, which isn't surprising, given that's an overall trend in AAA game development the world over. The big studios don't want to take any chances, and that mentality means they will play it safe, as unfortunate as it is for us gamers.
The twist here is that Japanese culture makes a huge point about distinguishing itself from...well, everyone else. Getting into the specifics of how and why this is would take too long, but it's an attitude that colors everything from tourism to politics to creating fiction, including video games. So what happens when these factors come together?
You get a scenario where games are made mainly for the Japanese market, with few (if any) considerations for international audiences. Which, outside the giant mobile market in Japan, is the biggest audience they can reach. The failure of these companies to keep doing so is pretty clear evidence that reaching these people is not high on their priority list.
Obviously, there are exceptions, like Square Enix, which has the advantage of specifically buying out Western companies and their IPs, like Tomb Raider and Deus Ex. Nintendo still has its fans, and at least they are trying some new things with their mobile push...oh wait, no, that's still Japan-based. Well, at the very least Zelda is going to be open-world, so...whee?
No one from Japan is probably going to read this blog post, let alone take it into consideration. After all, thousands of fans have clamored and argued against what has happened over the past few years, but it hasn't accomplished much. Japanese gaming will continue to focus on developing for their home market first - and fall into irrelevance elsewhere.
It's kind of sad really. So, I propose a toast - to the great games that came out of Japan in the past. While a few more may still come, it will never be the same. So crank them up - that old Final Fantasy, that classic Castlevania, that amazing Mega Man - one more time, for memories' sake. Because while there may be other games of their ilk...most won't be made by Japanese companies. (Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night possibly being the one exception I'm aware of.)
Cheers!
Well, as usual, you have to know the "but" lurks in there. The fact is, Japanese companies in the past few years have kind of fallen off the wagon here. Everyone knows how Konami kind of just turned into a laughingstock, Nintendo made us all cringe with their "explanation" of how Link can't be female, and so on. But enough bashing companies.
What we're looking at here is actually Japanese business culture becoming more conservative, which isn't surprising, given that's an overall trend in AAA game development the world over. The big studios don't want to take any chances, and that mentality means they will play it safe, as unfortunate as it is for us gamers.
The twist here is that Japanese culture makes a huge point about distinguishing itself from...well, everyone else. Getting into the specifics of how and why this is would take too long, but it's an attitude that colors everything from tourism to politics to creating fiction, including video games. So what happens when these factors come together?
You get a scenario where games are made mainly for the Japanese market, with few (if any) considerations for international audiences. Which, outside the giant mobile market in Japan, is the biggest audience they can reach. The failure of these companies to keep doing so is pretty clear evidence that reaching these people is not high on their priority list.
Obviously, there are exceptions, like Square Enix, which has the advantage of specifically buying out Western companies and their IPs, like Tomb Raider and Deus Ex. Nintendo still has its fans, and at least they are trying some new things with their mobile push...oh wait, no, that's still Japan-based. Well, at the very least Zelda is going to be open-world, so...whee?
No one from Japan is probably going to read this blog post, let alone take it into consideration. After all, thousands of fans have clamored and argued against what has happened over the past few years, but it hasn't accomplished much. Japanese gaming will continue to focus on developing for their home market first - and fall into irrelevance elsewhere.
It's kind of sad really. So, I propose a toast - to the great games that came out of Japan in the past. While a few more may still come, it will never be the same. So crank them up - that old Final Fantasy, that classic Castlevania, that amazing Mega Man - one more time, for memories' sake. Because while there may be other games of their ilk...most won't be made by Japanese companies. (Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night possibly being the one exception I'm aware of.)
Cheers!
Saturday, June 25, 2016
Upgrading expectations
Well, my first blog post typed out on my new computer. I'm still getting used to the keyboard...
It has been about seven years since I got my last computer, so I was overdue for an upgrade...right? I mean, trying to run Skyrim at single-digit framerates isn't exactly appealing. It was old, it was tired, it was creaky, and now it's sitting off to the side gathering dust.
So, yes, I did need an upgrade. And I hope that this new PC lasts just as long, if not longer. As a matter of fact, it should. Not in the sense that I'm going to take special care of it to make it live long, but in the understanding that all gaming platforms should have that kind of longevity.
This is where I toss out a term that so many critics misuse and misunderstand - consumer friendliness. Consumer friendliness is about maximizing the value of consumer purchases, which really should be self evident. So if someone buys a PC or a game console, someone who advocates for consumer friendliness should be advocating for it to have as long a usage life as possible, with all that comes with it.
Of course, people want to know about graphical upgrades, but here's the thing. We've reached a point where graphics are great. Even indie titles can use the cheap Unity engine, and with the proper art direction they can look fantastic by almost any standard. The race for better graphics should be a null issue; no one should care.
People still do, because people cling to what they know. And there was a time when the push for improved graphics was necessary, because what could be done was relatively crude. I know, I was there. These days, there's not much room for graphical upgrades. Textures and definition are reaching the point where most people honestly will never notice the change from one console generation to the next.
And yet, the gaming market, as enforced by AAA titles, keeps pushing the graphical envelope even when there's not a lot of point. Upgrades that aren't strictly necessary, because the games could be made without them. And consoles and PCs would still wear out and need replacing, so there's no reason why things need to keep being upgraded.
That is not consumer friendly. And the longer it goes on, the less consumer friendly it becomes. I want to see advances in gameplay and story, mechanics and presentation. This does not need new hardware. It may have once, but not any more. And anyone - anyone - who says otherwise doesn't understand the current state of gaming. (Or, for the more cynical, they are just trying to fleece money out of you.)
Either way, I will enjoy my new PC. Here's to another seven years of gaming, writing, blogging, and whatever else I do on it. And I sincerely hope you get the same out of your gaming machine, whatever it is.
It has been about seven years since I got my last computer, so I was overdue for an upgrade...right? I mean, trying to run Skyrim at single-digit framerates isn't exactly appealing. It was old, it was tired, it was creaky, and now it's sitting off to the side gathering dust.
So, yes, I did need an upgrade. And I hope that this new PC lasts just as long, if not longer. As a matter of fact, it should. Not in the sense that I'm going to take special care of it to make it live long, but in the understanding that all gaming platforms should have that kind of longevity.
This is where I toss out a term that so many critics misuse and misunderstand - consumer friendliness. Consumer friendliness is about maximizing the value of consumer purchases, which really should be self evident. So if someone buys a PC or a game console, someone who advocates for consumer friendliness should be advocating for it to have as long a usage life as possible, with all that comes with it.
Of course, people want to know about graphical upgrades, but here's the thing. We've reached a point where graphics are great. Even indie titles can use the cheap Unity engine, and with the proper art direction they can look fantastic by almost any standard. The race for better graphics should be a null issue; no one should care.
People still do, because people cling to what they know. And there was a time when the push for improved graphics was necessary, because what could be done was relatively crude. I know, I was there. These days, there's not much room for graphical upgrades. Textures and definition are reaching the point where most people honestly will never notice the change from one console generation to the next.
And yet, the gaming market, as enforced by AAA titles, keeps pushing the graphical envelope even when there's not a lot of point. Upgrades that aren't strictly necessary, because the games could be made without them. And consoles and PCs would still wear out and need replacing, so there's no reason why things need to keep being upgraded.
That is not consumer friendly. And the longer it goes on, the less consumer friendly it becomes. I want to see advances in gameplay and story, mechanics and presentation. This does not need new hardware. It may have once, but not any more. And anyone - anyone - who says otherwise doesn't understand the current state of gaming. (Or, for the more cynical, they are just trying to fleece money out of you.)
Either way, I will enjoy my new PC. Here's to another seven years of gaming, writing, blogging, and whatever else I do on it. And I sincerely hope you get the same out of your gaming machine, whatever it is.
Saturday, June 11, 2016
Random number gameplay
All praise the random number gods...right?
Games like Hearthstone are very much dependent on random factors. While some passionately argue that skill at such games trumps the effects of luck, and that players should specifically tailor their play around the randomness of card draw. The question then becomes "how do you do that?"
The key is that there are three answers that players have come up with for this question. The first is to fill your card deck with cheap aggressive cards to take control of the game and punish your opponent for not playing fast enough - the aggro decks. Insert your curses about face hunter here, since this also has the side effect of making the randomness work against your opponent by limiting the turns he has to draw answers.
The second approach is fill your deck with strong card draw tools that allow you to get whatever cards you need, regardless of what cards you start with. This kind of thing has been met by heavy nerfs (hi there, miracle rogue), so clearly it's frowned on. The third is to basically use removal and control cards to extend the game as long as possible, so that card draw will eventually even out over the course of a whole game. Control decks are here for you.
So, to take a step back from Hearthstone, this is actually a sign of player behavior when faced with random factors. Given everything else, the logical conclusion is that players gravitate towards whatever playstyle mitigates the randomness of RNG-based obstacles.
I'm no less guilty of this myself. It's why I play Amber so much in Armello - my entire strategy is about mitigating the randomness of perils in order to move around the board that much more easily. Other people I see run the Dig amulet when they want Spirit Stones. And there are fewer and fewer players trying for kingslayer victories...because it's too random for them.
The fact is that random factors in gameplay exist, at least in the minds of many players, just so they can figure out ways around them. And when they can't, outrage erupts, leading to arguments over what is the "right" amount of randomness.
I think that game designers need to account for this in the future. People don't mind randomness; what they dislike is randomness controlling the outcome, invalidating the player's own skill and choice. If faced with a random factor, they'll take whatever option weighs the odds in their favor. And me, I can't blame them. Video games are about empowering audience participation, and gamers are the audience.
So roll the dice if you want, but you may want to pick a game where you can add a bonus to your dice roll. Because when all's said and done, you may not find the dependency on luck to be all that enjoyable.
Games like Hearthstone are very much dependent on random factors. While some passionately argue that skill at such games trumps the effects of luck, and that players should specifically tailor their play around the randomness of card draw. The question then becomes "how do you do that?"
The key is that there are three answers that players have come up with for this question. The first is to fill your card deck with cheap aggressive cards to take control of the game and punish your opponent for not playing fast enough - the aggro decks. Insert your curses about face hunter here, since this also has the side effect of making the randomness work against your opponent by limiting the turns he has to draw answers.
The second approach is fill your deck with strong card draw tools that allow you to get whatever cards you need, regardless of what cards you start with. This kind of thing has been met by heavy nerfs (hi there, miracle rogue), so clearly it's frowned on. The third is to basically use removal and control cards to extend the game as long as possible, so that card draw will eventually even out over the course of a whole game. Control decks are here for you.
So, to take a step back from Hearthstone, this is actually a sign of player behavior when faced with random factors. Given everything else, the logical conclusion is that players gravitate towards whatever playstyle mitigates the randomness of RNG-based obstacles.
I'm no less guilty of this myself. It's why I play Amber so much in Armello - my entire strategy is about mitigating the randomness of perils in order to move around the board that much more easily. Other people I see run the Dig amulet when they want Spirit Stones. And there are fewer and fewer players trying for kingslayer victories...because it's too random for them.
The fact is that random factors in gameplay exist, at least in the minds of many players, just so they can figure out ways around them. And when they can't, outrage erupts, leading to arguments over what is the "right" amount of randomness.
I think that game designers need to account for this in the future. People don't mind randomness; what they dislike is randomness controlling the outcome, invalidating the player's own skill and choice. If faced with a random factor, they'll take whatever option weighs the odds in their favor. And me, I can't blame them. Video games are about empowering audience participation, and gamers are the audience.
So roll the dice if you want, but you may want to pick a game where you can add a bonus to your dice roll. Because when all's said and done, you may not find the dependency on luck to be all that enjoyable.
Saturday, May 28, 2016
The great framerate debate
Thirty? Or sixty?
There is a huge debate over this, with many people defending games that are being locked to thirty frames per second as not a bad thing. Some call it cinematic, some call it a stylistic choice...and some call it a really dumb idea. So...what do we do?
The answer, of course, is that we turn to SCIENCE.
Each human eye is different, and every person sees reality at a different frame rate. Older people tend to see things at a lower framerate, but that's not a hard-coded rule, just a strong tendency. On average, a human being can distinguish around 45 to 50 frames per second, with people who have gotten specialty training going up to insane numbers like in excess of 200 frames recognizable.
So, it does seem that sixty frames per second would be beyond the average human's ability to perceive, but thirty frames would be too little. Not exactly; a person who has plenty of experience with FPS games and the like probably has greater twitch reflexes than the average Joe - and twitch reflexes are dependent on seeing precise fractions of a second in which to press a button.
In that sense, increased framerate is beneficial for games dependent on quick reactions to sudden events. The FPS genre is one of them, and quite a few other genres reach that level in top competitive play (RTS games like Starcraft II come to mind). Sixty might not even be enough in that case.
For the rest, 30 FPS is a little slow. It's not required for us to see units move in a turn-based game at a higher framerate, but it sure would look better and less jerky. I'd prefer it if games aimed for a 48 FPS number, which would fit nicely in with average human vision. And games like that are still necessary; there are always going to be people who have motion sickness, and we don't want to leave them completely out of the fun, do we?
So there you have it; neither is a precise magic number, but instead it's more about catering to broad groups. Sixty ain't bad, but we can do better. And thirty isn't good, but it's tolerable, I suppose. (And anything is better than games that dip into single digit FPS numbers, let me tell you. Ugh...)
There is a huge debate over this, with many people defending games that are being locked to thirty frames per second as not a bad thing. Some call it cinematic, some call it a stylistic choice...and some call it a really dumb idea. So...what do we do?
The answer, of course, is that we turn to SCIENCE.
Each human eye is different, and every person sees reality at a different frame rate. Older people tend to see things at a lower framerate, but that's not a hard-coded rule, just a strong tendency. On average, a human being can distinguish around 45 to 50 frames per second, with people who have gotten specialty training going up to insane numbers like in excess of 200 frames recognizable.
So, it does seem that sixty frames per second would be beyond the average human's ability to perceive, but thirty frames would be too little. Not exactly; a person who has plenty of experience with FPS games and the like probably has greater twitch reflexes than the average Joe - and twitch reflexes are dependent on seeing precise fractions of a second in which to press a button.
In that sense, increased framerate is beneficial for games dependent on quick reactions to sudden events. The FPS genre is one of them, and quite a few other genres reach that level in top competitive play (RTS games like Starcraft II come to mind). Sixty might not even be enough in that case.
For the rest, 30 FPS is a little slow. It's not required for us to see units move in a turn-based game at a higher framerate, but it sure would look better and less jerky. I'd prefer it if games aimed for a 48 FPS number, which would fit nicely in with average human vision. And games like that are still necessary; there are always going to be people who have motion sickness, and we don't want to leave them completely out of the fun, do we?
So there you have it; neither is a precise magic number, but instead it's more about catering to broad groups. Sixty ain't bad, but we can do better. And thirty isn't good, but it's tolerable, I suppose. (And anything is better than games that dip into single digit FPS numbers, let me tell you. Ugh...)
Saturday, May 14, 2016
Movies and video games, oh my
Why do video game movies keep failing? Okay, maybe some of them don't fail as such, but there hasn't been one yet that has been an all-out blockbuster? It's a question that many many many people have asked, and so, since it's something I wonder as well, I'd like to take a stab at answering it.
First, I'd like to point out that by video game movies, I mean movies ostensibly based off the plot of video games. (Whether or not they actually stick to this plot is not a factor). So no, I am not going to include Wreck-It Ralph in this blog post. (Which is unfortunate, because I liked Wreck-It Ralph it.) I'm also going to focus on Western films - I know Japan has its own adaptation, but I'm not familiar with them enough to cover them.
To travel back to the early ones like Street Fighter and Super Mario Bros., back then video games didn't really have much in the way of plot, so the writers were having to invent it wholesale or the game companies were trying to dictate what had to be done without understanding the different nature of film. The results were cheesy at best and dreadful at worst; but those early movies were just that, early, and probably couldn't be taken too seriously.
It's a shame that critics did. During the 90s, video games were still very much a niche hobby, and not quite in mainstream culture they were now. So film critics back then had no good ground for evaluating these movies, leading to them panning them. Mortal Kombat is a good example; these days, most people recognize it as a solid film that embraced the cheesiness of its premise. A shame that the CGI was so crude back then.
The first major breakthrough was the less-than-stellar Resident Evil film (2002). While not good by any stretch, it rode its action flick status to box office profits and several sequels, which got progressively worse while still continuing to make money. And maybe this was the path forward; aim for the summer action movie crowd, and ignore the rating. Except, of course, the actual people who played the games, who were not too happy.
You see, a video game movie has to walk the fine line of being both a good movie and pleasing the fans of whatever video game its based on. And since a good number of the things that make a video game good are not elements that can really be recreated in film...well, there's part of your problem. Even if it was appealing to game fans, a lot of film critics would bash it for trying to do so. And so, for that matter, would a number of gamers, since some of them (surprise) would understand what makes a film good.
Meanwhile, in Germany, an aspiring film director decided to take advantage of a tax loophole and produce several movies very loosely based on video games. You guessed it...Uwe Boll. Most of his work is low budget flicks designed to exploit popular trends (this also applies to his films covering things other than video games). It was his work that really cemented the idea that video game movies were inherent failures. And that's all I'm going to say about him, because there's nothing else left to say about Boll that's polite.
Between all this, several other companies attempted movies. Some went to theaters, while others opted for the direct-to-video approach. None met with any major commercial or critical success, further driving home the message that video game movies fail.
This brings us to 2016, with a couple of films looking to shake up the status quo. Warcraft comes out in a month, and in December we're getting the Assassin's Creed movie. Can they break through the obstacles I've noted above and appeal to critics, movie fans, and gamers? Well, we'll just have to wait and see. At least if the Angry Birds early reviews (it comes out next week) are any indication, critics are going to be much more favorable...
First, I'd like to point out that by video game movies, I mean movies ostensibly based off the plot of video games. (Whether or not they actually stick to this plot is not a factor). So no, I am not going to include Wreck-It Ralph in this blog post. (Which is unfortunate, because I liked Wreck-It Ralph it.) I'm also going to focus on Western films - I know Japan has its own adaptation, but I'm not familiar with them enough to cover them.
To travel back to the early ones like Street Fighter and Super Mario Bros., back then video games didn't really have much in the way of plot, so the writers were having to invent it wholesale or the game companies were trying to dictate what had to be done without understanding the different nature of film. The results were cheesy at best and dreadful at worst; but those early movies were just that, early, and probably couldn't be taken too seriously.
It's a shame that critics did. During the 90s, video games were still very much a niche hobby, and not quite in mainstream culture they were now. So film critics back then had no good ground for evaluating these movies, leading to them panning them. Mortal Kombat is a good example; these days, most people recognize it as a solid film that embraced the cheesiness of its premise. A shame that the CGI was so crude back then.
The first major breakthrough was the less-than-stellar Resident Evil film (2002). While not good by any stretch, it rode its action flick status to box office profits and several sequels, which got progressively worse while still continuing to make money. And maybe this was the path forward; aim for the summer action movie crowd, and ignore the rating. Except, of course, the actual people who played the games, who were not too happy.
You see, a video game movie has to walk the fine line of being both a good movie and pleasing the fans of whatever video game its based on. And since a good number of the things that make a video game good are not elements that can really be recreated in film...well, there's part of your problem. Even if it was appealing to game fans, a lot of film critics would bash it for trying to do so. And so, for that matter, would a number of gamers, since some of them (surprise) would understand what makes a film good.
Meanwhile, in Germany, an aspiring film director decided to take advantage of a tax loophole and produce several movies very loosely based on video games. You guessed it...Uwe Boll. Most of his work is low budget flicks designed to exploit popular trends (this also applies to his films covering things other than video games). It was his work that really cemented the idea that video game movies were inherent failures. And that's all I'm going to say about him, because there's nothing else left to say about Boll that's polite.
Between all this, several other companies attempted movies. Some went to theaters, while others opted for the direct-to-video approach. None met with any major commercial or critical success, further driving home the message that video game movies fail.
This brings us to 2016, with a couple of films looking to shake up the status quo. Warcraft comes out in a month, and in December we're getting the Assassin's Creed movie. Can they break through the obstacles I've noted above and appeal to critics, movie fans, and gamers? Well, we'll just have to wait and see. At least if the Angry Birds early reviews (it comes out next week) are any indication, critics are going to be much more favorable...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)