How to make a video game movie that works

See, we have to start recognizing that films and video games are totally different mediums that require different things to succeed. Only the most basic of story elements is necessary to crafting a top-tier game. All a game requires is motivation to continue. And really, I think that's when most are at their best. We haven't yet found a way to craft an intricate story into gameplay and perhaps never will. You step into the circumstance you're playing. Creating a character with articulated layers and depth can counteract one's personal identification with a protagonist.

What I'm saying is games are at their most gripping when the main character is a Keanu Reeves, blank face type.

The primary thing that makes a video game good or not is its gameplay. This is not what film should capture. It needs to focus on what draws you into the game and work from there. Don't focus on any of the particulars drawn up by the game; its the feel that's important. The experience of a game is much more visceral and first hand than that of a film. Because your investment in a game is predicated on feeling like you're a part of a world, games do naturally invest you more than a film of a similar caliber would.

So strive to capture a game's aura. As much as most games are ten hours of shoot-em-up, kill-em-all ****, the thing that i think is important is to ask yourself not "what happened in the game", but how did it make you feel? I would say that most games don't lend itself to anything other than a "like a badass" kind of response, but I think a Legend of Zelda movie or tv series would be awesomeeeeee if done correctly. It makes me feel lost in this giant world when it starts. It makes me feel progressively less and less powerless until I'm finally taking out the big bad. It makes me like an explorer. Capture the feelings of a video game on film, rather than the actions - in fact, run the **** away from any of the specific details or happenings and change the story in whatever way is needed - and I think you could have a hit.

*Gasp* Shaq's back!

Just for reference's sake, what kind of non-videogame narrative do you hold up as your standard for "intricate story", as you put it? I was thinking of the Mass Effect series since it spent several games building a galactic epic littered with well-developed characters and complex story developments depending on a player's choices. Even though your character is something of a blank slate, they could still have multiple back-stories or different personalities based on the choices you made. Alternatively, games like Deus Ex: Human Revolution, BioShock Infinite, and Spec Ops: The Line have no problem giving you clearly-defined protagonists with considerable depth beyond their generic "scruffy white male" appearances, which make them interesting on a level that goes beyond them simply being the people you play as.

This is debatable at best and irrelevant at worst. I already stated that plenty of clearly-defined videogame protagonists are kind of generic-looking white males (see point #3) and the idea of a "default" person being a white (presumably straight) male is one that is already present in action films. I see where you're coming from in that giving a game protagonist as little definition as possible makes it easier to project one's self onto the character more easily, but that kind of simplicity shouldn't fly these days. Not every character needs to be the Doom guy. Even the movie version of Doom tried to give him some back-story because viewers need some reason to care about this character beyond the simple fact that he's the sole hero fighting against a murderous alien menace.

But how is that significantly different from a film's attempts at immersion? Shouldn't a film also try to make you suspend your disbelief and feel like you're right there experiencing the same sort of dangers and emotions that a protagonist might feel? Entertainment is entertainment regardless of medium differences.

Yeah, this sounds like pretty standard "hero's journey" stuff that films have been working to capture since before videogames even existed. Star Wars is as good an example as any with its hero going from being an ordinary farmhand to a powerful warrior over the course of three films, to say nothing of the makers' ability to create a world so massive that countless spin-offs and tie-ins have been produced since the original film's release almost forty years ago.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I think The Last of Us has the best shot at being a decent video game adaptation. If they leave the original story mostly-intact and replace the gameplay moments with some well-executed action scenes then I really can't see why it wouldn't being decent.

I think because a lot of video games are so complex and detailed, that a lot of them would probably be better off being adapted into a TV series?

Though I disagree with them on other points, I think mlaturno had a point in that you'd beter off trying to capture the overall spirit of the franchise rather than trying to nail every single detail and plot development within the confines of a feature-length film. Just look at how Super Mario Bros. took a bright and colourful fun-for-all-ages fantasy game and decided to turn it into an extremely grim and nightmarish dystopia film, thus becoming a disaster. Even something as simple as changing the monsters in Doom from demons to science experiments gone wrong is enough to be a major sticking point. It's all about balance.

Most of the time it's about the director and writer.


Paul WS Anderson and Uwe Boll being the most prominent game-to-movie adaptors. Now, these guys can't make a decent movie, let alone a game movie. They also tend to write and direct... it's a case of Micromanaging their movies.


Silent Hill, was written by Roger Avary, the guy behind Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, and it's a pretty damned good film.
Now, Silent Hill was directed by Christophe Gans, a similar director to Anderson and Boll in that he tends to work only with game-movie adaptions. This is a director that, when he directs he makes a good film, but just like Paul WS Anderson and Uwe Boll, when he writes as well, his movies are gash.


An example is the sequel Silent Hill 2, it was written and directed by the same person... and it suuucked!


The trick to decent, or even half-decent game movies, is having a strong writer, and someone else to direct it.


Game movies suffer though, in that most of the time the only people who will take on the challenge, are guys who want to micromanage the project.

__________________

I think the video game movie will eventually come around. Studios don't seem to take the audience seriously right now. Kinda like patting a kid on the head, "Now take this, run along, don't bother us for a while."

Stuff like Uncharted and Gears of War would just be Indiana Jones and Aliens rip-offs respectively. I love video games but storytelling ain't their strongpoint and they usually peak with superficial stuff that would be considered bad in movies.


Movies are way beyond games in that regard. The Last of Us was a step in the right direction tbf.

If Disney or Pixar decided to do a full-blown Kingdom Hearts adaptation, I'd be all in for that.