More_Badass
Member
The actual writing in the game doesn't matter for a film.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Why do Video Game Movies suck so much and how can a good one be made?
- Thread starter NandoGip
- Start date
- Status
Dark Ninja
Member
I don't get people saying that video game movies tend to follow the plot too much, when normally the plot of the game is thrown out the window for the movie. You can't tell me the Resident Evil movie followed the game closely. Silent Hill is the only one that somewhat tried to keep the plot SOMEWHAT.
dancingphlower
Member
As some have pointed out, a straight adaptation of a video game story just doesn't work. Assassin's Creed had the right approach, by crafting an original story around the lore of the game rather than retelling the game's story wholesale. It's a shame that it doesn't seem to pay off in a good film, but I hope they get another shot at it. They had the right idea, just not the right execution, it seems. I would be really interested in a Mass Effect film, since that world is rich in lore and is rife with many storytelling opportunities.
This is a good point, and probably the biggest issue I take with people saying that game movies stories are bad because game stories are bad. IMO, a lot of games heavy on narrative, even ones considered subpar, at least have really cool concepts for that narrative. The execution usually just isn't there because people writing for games usually aren't great writers. When people criticize game storytelling the writing is far and away the biggest issue. But that wouldn't necessarily matter if the filmmakers take enough liberties with the source material.
mortal
Member
I completely agree with this.
I think it's silly for games to be adapted into movies to begin with, especially more recent titles. The one thing games have over passive visual mediums like film & television, is that it is also an interactive experience.
It gives the oppurtunity to play with narrative in very unique ways.
For example, when a game like Uncharted gets made into a blockbuster movie or whatever, it pretty much defeats the purpose. It's drawing from action and adventure films and making the experience interactive. That is the whole point.
Nothing wrong with drawing inspiration from something familiar, although I wish game developers would stop trying to emulate film or television all and all. Game design is inherently a different craft, don't see the point in dressing it up as another.
benjipwns
Banned
Doom would have worked better had it hewed closer to the lore of the game I contend. Instead it went off to some sci-fi mumbo jumbo extra chromosomes and super powers in humans bullshit that it wasted too much time on along with goofy movie marine antics and shit that completely wastes not only Karl Urban but The Rock as well. Instead of something that was more like Aliens except with DEMONS FROM HELL which you don't really need to explain ever.
Oh, and its grand finale was a fist fight.
IIRC, a few years ago The Rock came out and said it was a perfect example of how to ruin a good premise with bad writing and plotting which doomed* it from the start. And that he still didn't totally understand it.
*lol
Oh, and its grand finale was a fist fight.
IIRC, a few years ago The Rock came out and said it was a perfect example of how to ruin a good premise with bad writing and plotting which doomed* it from the start. And that he still didn't totally understand it.
*lol
benjipwns
Banned
Silent Hill to me is a great example of I guess where many video game films that try to stick to the games have stumbled. It's actually great throughout as it stays a mystery. Then it stupidly tries to explain everything but it can't go back to the games to lift that because not only has the plot been cobbled together from multiple games in the series but it has been altered in a number of ways. And proceeds to lose almost everything it has going for it.
One thing Silent Hill really copied well was the look and feel of the world. Really, up until the cult characters take over the story.
Never saw the sequel.
Pyramid Head ripping that dude's flesh off was probably the peak of the film in so many ways.
Mortal Kombat worked out, for a bunch of reasons.
1. The people who actually cared to see a Mortal Kombat movie, got to see the movie, while they were still in their prime period of caring about the game.
2. Mortal Kombat has a very basic premise and the characters aren't any deeper than what they look like + their 5 sentence paragraph in the game manual.
3. In light of point #2, that basic premise fit an existing movie type, very well. The fight tournament movie. Enter the Dragon. Bloodsport. The Quest, etc. And not to mention, movies with lots of fighting, in general. There is a market, for that. Especially back in 1995. The characters didn't need much adapting and you just sprinkly in some aesthetic, on top of a fight tournament movie. Which it so happens, is a perfect way to adapt a fighting game. I mean, so far, everything is falling into place. You have a marketable movie type for general viewers and you also have a movie which reminds fans a whole lot of the game.
4. The production didn't suck. In 1995, cool visual effects were still novel and cutting edge. and all of that just felt like hyper real adaptation of the game's rough graphics and effects. and even people who didn't care about mortal kombat were like "holy $#!T awesome!" when Scorpion's snake thing came out his hand, etc. and people hadn't yet seen Jet Li take apart a gun with a single hand snatch. So, Sub Zero got VFX points on that, too.
Goro was done by a real creature shop.
Mortal Kombat had real movie making magic put into it. and viewers got real magic, out of it.
5. And with the visuals, as whole: it was a good, fairly direct interpretation of the game's art direction and graphics. It was "Hyper real" Mortal Kombat. It was actually cooler looking, than the real thing, the game, itself.
6. Dance music was hot right about then and they made that crap catchy and dancy. My mom was head of a cheer squad at the time and you can bet she worked Mortal Kombat in, between Jock Jams tracks. and our football team was like hell yeah our cheerleaders are playing Mortal Kombat!
Mortal Kombat isn't a good movie. But, it was just the right experience for fans. And had plenty of crossover appeal, with general movie fans and pop-culture. and it happened at a key time, when that was more than enough.
1. The people who actually cared to see a Mortal Kombat movie, got to see the movie, while they were still in their prime period of caring about the game.
2. Mortal Kombat has a very basic premise and the characters aren't any deeper than what they look like + their 5 sentence paragraph in the game manual.
3. In light of point #2, that basic premise fit an existing movie type, very well. The fight tournament movie. Enter the Dragon. Bloodsport. The Quest, etc. And not to mention, movies with lots of fighting, in general. There is a market, for that. Especially back in 1995. The characters didn't need much adapting and you just sprinkly in some aesthetic, on top of a fight tournament movie. Which it so happens, is a perfect way to adapt a fighting game. I mean, so far, everything is falling into place. You have a marketable movie type for general viewers and you also have a movie which reminds fans a whole lot of the game.
4. The production didn't suck. In 1995, cool visual effects were still novel and cutting edge. and all of that just felt like hyper real adaptation of the game's rough graphics and effects. and even people who didn't care about mortal kombat were like "holy $#!T awesome!" when Scorpion's snake thing came out his hand, etc. and people hadn't yet seen Jet Li take apart a gun with a single hand snatch. So, Sub Zero got VFX points on that, too.
Goro was done by a real creature shop.
Mortal Kombat had real movie making magic put into it. and viewers got real magic, out of it.
5. And with the visuals, as whole: it was a good, fairly direct interpretation of the game's art direction and graphics. It was "Hyper real" Mortal Kombat. It was actually cooler looking, than the real thing, the game, itself.
6. Dance music was hot right about then and they made that crap catchy and dancy. My mom was head of a cheer squad at the time and you can bet she worked Mortal Kombat in, between Jock Jams tracks. and our football team was like hell yeah our cheerleaders are playing Mortal Kombat!
Mortal Kombat isn't a good movie. But, it was just the right experience for fans. And had plenty of crossover appeal, with general movie fans and pop-culture. and it happened at a key time, when that was more than enough.
Video game movies tend to suck because the people making the movies don't get what's appealing or compelling about the games they license.
You could make a great movie based on any number of games, you just need to figure out what the hooks are and dress them up to the nines. Mortal Kombat was schlock but it was great schlock, because the martial arts action and the fun, tropey characters were what made the game fun. The lore was a bonus, and downplayed in favor of supernatural ninja magic.
Silent Hill worked because it stuck to the most compelling monster designs and a simple narrative of monster encounter, then dreamlike fugue state, then monster encounter, repeat, then barbed wire and Pyramid Head.
Warcraft worked because it was all lore all the time.
DOOM was a blast because it was monsters and explosions and The Rock and big fuckin guns.
Street Fighter didn't work because the characters were unrecognizable and the story was halfassed.
Double Dragon didn't work because it had nothing to do with the game.
Wing Commander didn't work because it didn't have anything to do with the game. Also, no aliens. Also, sound in space as a plot point rather than an incidental or atmospheric choice.
Need for Speed almost worked, but they abandoned the fast cars, and faster drivers aspect for the plot of The Crew.
Super Mario Bros didn't work because what in the fuck was that madness?!
You could make a great Mirror's Edge movie by taking the plot of any number of "innocent courier has thing" movies and using Fayth and the City of Glass.
You could make a fun parody of action movies with Viewtiful Joe, or a brotastic Magnificent Seven or Dirty Dozen style movie with Gears of War. Or make a psychological thriller out of Killer7. Find a game with great characters or a compelling world and set a movie there.
You could probably make a fantastic Metroid movie if you had the balls to make it almost entirely silent, and focused on the design and cinematography of the alien world, but I can't imagine that ever happening.
You could make a great movie based on any number of games, you just need to figure out what the hooks are and dress them up to the nines. Mortal Kombat was schlock but it was great schlock, because the martial arts action and the fun, tropey characters were what made the game fun. The lore was a bonus, and downplayed in favor of supernatural ninja magic.
Silent Hill worked because it stuck to the most compelling monster designs and a simple narrative of monster encounter, then dreamlike fugue state, then monster encounter, repeat, then barbed wire and Pyramid Head.
Warcraft worked because it was all lore all the time.
DOOM was a blast because it was monsters and explosions and The Rock and big fuckin guns.
Street Fighter didn't work because the characters were unrecognizable and the story was halfassed.
Double Dragon didn't work because it had nothing to do with the game.
Wing Commander didn't work because it didn't have anything to do with the game. Also, no aliens. Also, sound in space as a plot point rather than an incidental or atmospheric choice.
Need for Speed almost worked, but they abandoned the fast cars, and faster drivers aspect for the plot of The Crew.
Super Mario Bros didn't work because what in the fuck was that madness?!
You could make a great Mirror's Edge movie by taking the plot of any number of "innocent courier has thing" movies and using Fayth and the City of Glass.
You could make a fun parody of action movies with Viewtiful Joe, or a brotastic Magnificent Seven or Dirty Dozen style movie with Gears of War. Or make a psychological thriller out of Killer7. Find a game with great characters or a compelling world and set a movie there.
You could probably make a fantastic Metroid movie if you had the balls to make it almost entirely silent, and focused on the design and cinematography of the alien world, but I can't imagine that ever happening.
spazchicken
Member
Stick to the plot, characters and tone of the game and don't deviate one inch.
You only hurt fans and non-fans wouldn't know the difference either way. Nobody benefits.
You only hurt fans and non-fans wouldn't know the difference either way. Nobody benefits.
Game stories are usually made to serve game mechanics in some way. Usually this means the story is very high concept which makes it more difficult, though not impossible, to do right. I think where they mostly go awry is trying to cater to what they think "gamers" want, rather than just focusing on making a good movie.
spazchicken
Member
I agree 100%.
You forgot Final Fantasy Spirits Within. Up to that point the games were mainly swords, dragons and magic so naturally the movie would be about futuristic Marines, aliens and guns?
Why?
Remember when they were going to make the Uncharted movie and have Mark Walburg, Robert Denero and Joe Peschi and Italian family of jewel thieves?
Why?
It's like they can't just make you a regular bowl of oatmeal. They always have to boil it in hotdog water and mix dill relish in it.
Deus Ex has a more interesting story no matter how you spin it. Of course the Martian is better because it has better character development which is what most people refer to when they say "story"
benjipwns
Banned
Even decades later the director of Super Mario Bros. contends that the darker, adult, method was the better way to go:
Though he is in agreement with Dennis Hopper, Bob Hoskins, John Leguizamo and everyone else on things overall:
Though he is in agreement with Dennis Hopper, Bob Hoskins, John Leguizamo and everyone else on things overall:
Dennis Hopper said:
Again, this!! Video game stories aren't any worse than a plethora of nonesense books that's out there cough cough twilight. The difference is that the protagonist or characters are made to serve you the player so they don't have enough emotional range or shift. Look at the end scene from the last of us, everyone hated Joel for what he made the player do, that's because he suddenly wrestles control away from the player to complete his own arc
Final Fantasy is a weird beast, because the underlying premise is actually the same as the one at the heart of every Final Fantasy game. Balancing science and progress with The stewardship of the world, advancing through peace and unity and love, etc.
The problem was that the people who make the games didn't understand why people actually like the games.
Like, if the guy who created Metroid made a Metroid movie it would likely be more Other M than Prime.
I actually really like Spirits Within, if we're being honest.
Stallion Dan
Member
Because most of them take the concept of the game and then write whatever. With faint references to source material at best.
Great example,the RE movies don't follow the games story at all, so quality of source material is irrelevant.
It doesn't help we now have movies based on games copying movies.
Example, The Descent/Descent 2 > Tomb Raider, and soon a Tomb Raider movie.
A movie based on a creatively dead series made of stolen ideas.
Great example,the RE movies don't follow the games story at all, so quality of source material is irrelevant.
It doesn't help we now have movies based on games copying movies.
Example, The Descent/Descent 2 > Tomb Raider, and soon a Tomb Raider movie.
A movie based on a creatively dead series made of stolen ideas.
A few reasons:
1. A lot of game adaptations try to copy the source material 1:1, which doesn't work for film. And what ends up happening is you getting a film where, unless you're a fan to begin with, you don't really understand the concepts of the plot, or the context for anything that happens (Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within & Advent Children), or you end up with long bouts of exposition to explain everything, wasting the viewer's time (Assassin's Creed).
2. They always seem to focus on what makes the games less endearing. I don't know who gave the studio that made the AC film the idea that having a focus on the present that fans not only hate, but isn't even one of the essential portions of the games' plot... but that person should be fired.
3. Not every genre works for film, and if you want to take a certain genre and make it into a film, you need to take liberties with plot & visual design. A lot of our favorite games were born from a place of cheese & ham, like the fighting game genre. Mortal Kombat was a great film because the makers of it took the liberty of wanting to have fun with the film, even though MK is one of the cheesiest, cliched games in the genre. However, both Street Fighter films were awful because the first had all the cheese with no self-awareness, and the other had no cheese at all.
4. Casting is important. This isn't a game adaptation, but... casting Scarlett Johannson as Motoko Kusanagi in the new Ghost in the Shell film was an awful move for many, many reasons. One of which is, physically, she doesn't fit the look that the Major has in the classic animated film. Another is that she's not a good enough actor to match Major's stoic personality. You can't just have any actor play any role. AC has Michael Fassbender not because he fit the role, or he blew away the audition... he got the role because he's Michael Fassbender, and the studio wanted to have a big name to attach to the film so that it leaves the ground. People see through that kind of casting. Especially if it's an adaptation that stars a minority lead character being played by a big name White actor.
1. A lot of game adaptations try to copy the source material 1:1, which doesn't work for film. And what ends up happening is you getting a film where, unless you're a fan to begin with, you don't really understand the concepts of the plot, or the context for anything that happens (Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within & Advent Children), or you end up with long bouts of exposition to explain everything, wasting the viewer's time (Assassin's Creed).
2. They always seem to focus on what makes the games less endearing. I don't know who gave the studio that made the AC film the idea that having a focus on the present that fans not only hate, but isn't even one of the essential portions of the games' plot... but that person should be fired.
3. Not every genre works for film, and if you want to take a certain genre and make it into a film, you need to take liberties with plot & visual design. A lot of our favorite games were born from a place of cheese & ham, like the fighting game genre. Mortal Kombat was a great film because the makers of it took the liberty of wanting to have fun with the film, even though MK is one of the cheesiest, cliched games in the genre. However, both Street Fighter films were awful because the first had all the cheese with no self-awareness, and the other had no cheese at all.
4. Casting is important. This isn't a game adaptation, but... casting Scarlett Johannson as Motoko Kusanagi in the new Ghost in the Shell film was an awful move for many, many reasons. One of which is, physically, she doesn't fit the look that the Major has in the classic animated film. Another is that she's not a good enough actor to match Major's stoic personality. You can't just have any actor play any role. AC has Michael Fassbender not because he fit the role, or he blew away the audition... he got the role because he's Michael Fassbender, and the studio wanted to have a big name to attach to the film so that it leaves the ground. People see through that kind of casting. Especially if it's an adaptation that stars a minority lead character being played by a big name White actor.
spazchicken
Member
I like it as a movie and I admire it as a relic of it's time and I agree that the underlying theme of Mana or Gaia or whatever (I can't remember) is on point with the games but the main thing for me was that at face value, it wasn't Final Fantasy. It was more in common with Aliens or Starship Troopers.
Also, the enemy was so cheap and it made the action kind of pointless feeling. They were basically out there wasting ammo, shooting at ghosts and the slightest brush of the breeze from a passing alien meant instant death for the characters.
Spirits Within was ballsy as heck. It took some of the best themes and story elements from the games and the manga and anime they have been inspired by; melded it into cutting edge visuals about space ghosts and sci-fi soldiers with big guns.
They did not market it enough to the general public.
8 years later, Avatar slammed the box office and was actually a worse movie in a couple of ways. But it was marketed and hyped to infinity.
They did not market it enough to the general public.
8 years later, Avatar slammed the box office and was actually a worse movie in a couple of ways. But it was marketed and hyped to infinity.
The main issue I feel is they're based on video games which aren't really best source.
They also tend to have sub-par writing, direction, etc.
A few have managed to be at least on solid TV movie level but that's about it.
They only really exist to try and tap into a defined audience but that's hardly best creative reason.
Silent Hill had the potential to be best but suffered from some weak structural/script elements and felt too derivative.
Which is the final problem I see. Most video games are already diluted versions of other media when it comes to story/narrative: further diluting them back to a film just highlights the weakness in the source material.
Best bet would be to simply take whatever core could be translated and fitch everything else and write a good script from scratch.
They also tend to have sub-par writing, direction, etc.
A few have managed to be at least on solid TV movie level but that's about it.
They only really exist to try and tap into a defined audience but that's hardly best creative reason.
Silent Hill had the potential to be best but suffered from some weak structural/script elements and felt too derivative.
Which is the final problem I see. Most video games are already diluted versions of other media when it comes to story/narrative: further diluting them back to a film just highlights the weakness in the source material.
Best bet would be to simply take whatever core could be translated and fitch everything else and write a good script from scratch.
Conciliator
Banned
Eventually, there will be a director/writer person or team that is legitimately good, and legitimately cares about there being good video game movies. Ultimately it will happen when it matters to the people making it.
CadetMahoney
Member
Silent Hill 1 wasn't amazing but it did a very good job of capturing the atmosphere of the games.
Very few games have movie worth plotlines, if they do or did, why would they even need to be made into a movie? I think this is the big issue, buying a brand's rights to force some story on it to make sales. I'm yet to see something I'd consider an actually good movie based on a video game, Silent Hill wasn't too bad, atmosphere was pretty decent but they just chucked in the monsters from the game which had very little meaning to the main character which is usually the point...
Nobody cares. No the directors, not the actors and sometimes not even the audience since crap movies can make their money back.
Nobody seems to have any enthusiasm or drive towards the source material (video games) and why should they? It's the worst written medium in existence.
Nobody seems to have any enthusiasm or drive towards the source material (video games) and why should they? It's the worst written medium in existence.
Imp the Dimp
Member
Mortal Kombat is 10/10
^Whoever made Edge of Tomorrow knew exactly what they were doing when adapting a concept to the film medium (which doesn't always mean being faithful), they fucking knocked it out of the park. Honestly, given the premise of the story, I would probably use Edge of Tomorrow as an example of how video game films could be done right, because that movie was video gamey as hell.
I think Warcraft almost worked. They got at least half of it right (the orc story), where the movie really fell apart for me was the atrocious editing. They really couldn't think of a better way to cut the story together than inserting clips of traveling places by mount? Give me a fucking break, that shit was lazy.
I think Warcraft almost worked. They got at least half of it right (the orc story), where the movie really fell apart for me was the atrocious editing. They really couldn't think of a better way to cut the story together than inserting clips of traveling places by mount? Give me a fucking break, that shit was lazy.
benjipwns
Banned
And it fell apart when it tried to go beyond just that. It worked far better as a semi-low key horror mystery with only a few "normal" characters.
True Savior
Member
Most video game movies were adapted by terrible filmmakers. The games itself are not particularly innovative and interesting narratives and, most of the time, their structures might be hard to adapt to movies.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I argue that Final Fantasy Advent Children was one of the better video game movies just because it didn't lie to itself and went full on fanservice throughout the whole damn movie.
Caddywompus
Member
Maybe the people in charge of the industry are too old to appreciate video games. They didn't grow up with video game characters and if they did maybe Pac-man is there only point of reference.
You just need some young blood with a vision that can turn the tide on the impending wave that will be Video Game Summer Blockbuster. It will happen at some point, probably when Marvel is rebooting and Disney runs out of films to remake. There will come a time where we all look forward to the upcoming video game adaptation.
You just need some young blood with a vision that can turn the tide on the impending wave that will be Video Game Summer Blockbuster. It will happen at some point, probably when Marvel is rebooting and Disney runs out of films to remake. There will come a time where we all look forward to the upcoming video game adaptation.
Camper Van Beethoven
Banned
Because when you're basing your content on a video game, what you're doing is taking the vision of somebody not good enough to make movies and then trying to make that vision a movie.
Video games are by far the worst storytelling medium in existence.
Video games are by far the worst storytelling medium in existence.
SargerusBR
I love Pokken!
I will forever defend Warcraft. It's the best and most faithful movie adaptation of a video game ever.
Octavianus
Banned
breadtruck
Member
I thought the first Silent Hill and Resident Evil were pretty decent. Not great, but they seemed to be heading in the correct direction. But the sequels... changed that.
Abilidebob
Member
Indeed. The absolute hate I see from Neogaf, and Americans in general, about this movie is just baffling to me.
JimmyRustler
Gold Member
You can say it 1000 times, I does not make it true. Most games have quite decent writing actually.
Case in point, with lukewarm reviews of AC trickling out one can ask the valid question of why the makers had to write a shitty new story instead of using the existing one. Like, the entire Ezio ark in AC was very well written. Especially AC2 had everything you need for a good movie. Likeable characters, drama, conspiracy, historic setting.
Why the fuck didn't they just make an Ezio movie? We'll probably never know.
I still don't buy the idea that video game narratives are hard to adapt to a movie. Books are usually very dense in concept, perhaps not all but a lot within the fantasy genre are and we had movies which were great like Lord or the rings and Harry Potter. The issue is that of understanding both mediums and finding compromises that serves both. Essentially a good movie director who understands video games direction. In most games, the protagonist is usually very one note and is so because he's just an avatar for the player to experience the world. In a movie however, the protagonist is a person who the viewer follows through the course of the movie, there's obviously big difference here so of course a movie director has to know what kind of protagonist he's creating first, before then bringing them into the context of the games world and narrative. Video game stories aren't bad, just misunderstood, I mean, for crying out loud, we have a LEGO movie!!
I feel like people who say that game narratives are bad know nothing about story telling or have never written a story themselves. They just follow the myth that game narratives are bad as if to say there's just one note to the whole medium
Videogame stories are shit.
When they're not shit, they're very pedestrian (Last of Us).
They should just either stop trying, or stop caring about "being faithful" and just do a movie that works, taking hints from the lore/whatever they need of the source material.
Mortal Kombat was good though, because nobody expected anything but a dumbass film that was just funny, sometimes unintentionally so, and it delivered.
EDIT: I also agree with those saying Super Mario was good, at least, it was the right direction to go in.
The Ezio arc only looks good in the context of it being a videogame.
Especially one in a series full of trashy stories you want to skip most of the time (Assassin's Creed).
When they're not shit, they're very pedestrian (Last of Us).
They should just either stop trying, or stop caring about "being faithful" and just do a movie that works, taking hints from the lore/whatever they need of the source material.
Mortal Kombat was good though, because nobody expected anything but a dumbass film that was just funny, sometimes unintentionally so, and it delivered.
EDIT: I also agree with those saying Super Mario was good, at least, it was the right direction to go in.
The Ezio arc only looks good in the context of it being a videogame.
Especially one in a series full of trashy stories you want to skip most of the time (Assassin's Creed).
I've yet to see it myself but from the very start it seemed to me like it'd be unapproachable for someone who isn't already a Warcraft fan. I simply don't have time for movies but I should try and sneak it in somewhere.
More_Badass
Member
The Ezio arc is basic storytelling 101. Man seeks revenge, joins a cause greater than himself, learns to fight for the cause, etc, etc.
Again, it doesnt matter how the story was done in the game. A film isn't a direct adaptation. Only the broad strokes and general concept matter
Isn't that generally the case with regards to the difference in mediums. A game that features a character that's emotionally robust is one that's often boring or too movie like which wrestles control away from the player, by contrast, a movie with a protagonist seeking revenge has to follow a human approach. For example Kratos vs Movie revenge guy, in a movie Kratos cannot work compared to the countless movies revenge guys that has worked, you know the Arnold and Stathams and Segals and those movie revenge guys can't work for games too because they will be frustrating for the player to control
Badlucktroll
Member
Has anyone here read the George A Romero Resident Evil screenplay? I think it would have been bad as well. It does have some stuff that carried over into the Paul WS Anderson screenplay, most notably the laser room.
- Status