The future of video game movies

I recently read an article by Devin Faraci on BadassDigest.com, where he suggested that we could be on the cusp of finally seeing a good film based on a video game. To my mind he seemed overly optimistic and I have to say I'm not sure the two examples given there will lead to great movies. Splinter Cell especially, the mere announcement of Tom Hardy as Sam Fisher didn't particularly inspire me. Okay so the games have the potential to make either a good action blockbuster or a taut thriller but one good actor doesn't really make a film. Certainly when I heard that the Prince of Persia movie was going to feature Jake Gylenhall and Ben Kingsley I thought they were good choices but it was still fairly disappointing.

It got me thinking about what has been the best adaptation so far but looking at a list of films based on video games, I think I'd forgotten how universally terrible they've been. Even though it scores the best in terms of Rotten Tomatoes ratings, I wouldn't really count 'Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within' among the rest as it's essentially an original story. You're then left in the rather embarrassing position of having Resident Evil and Dead or Alive joint third after the Prince of Persia film. I'd probably be among the first to mock Paul W. S. Anderson's efforts but sadly on a personal level, I actually kind of enjoyed his take on Mortal Kombat back in the day - as a straight adaptation of a game it's probably the most accurate. Given that I wouldn't really rate anything on that list very highly, it feels like the old comic book movies that Devin describes have nothing on games to be honest, where even before breakout hits like X-Men and Spiderman, there were at least reasonably rated adaptations of its leading franchises in Superman and Batman.

So I would say we're really waiting for our first passable game adaptation, rather than being in a situation where plenty of great films are suddenly going to appear. I think an Assassin's Creed film has potential, though but it will take something special to make a truly memorable film. My first thought is that with Michael Fassbender on board, he should play both Altair and Desmond (and Ezio if he comes into it). I really liked how the first few games basically used the same model with a few tweaks for each ancestral character, relying on the voice acting to differentiate them. It made you wonder whether what you saw was totally historically accurate or if it was coloured by the person using it, even if the real reason for doing this was probably just to cut modelling time. I was a little disappointed that the developers seemed to bottle it and start making major changes to the character models in Revelations, at the same time severing this perceived link to the past.

Having the same actor play multiple roles would be a nice nod to its video game roots (and their frequent re-using of assets), while at the same time being a challenge that most actors would relish. It's something that has also been done recently in the Wachowski's take on Cloud Atlas (perhaps stealing some thunder from this idea). I think that there would need to be a bit more depth to the characters of Altair and Desmond though, to either distinguish them or to draw parallels between them more clearly. I've always thought that the games never really clicked with me until Ezio was introduced, giving someone whose journey you actually want to follow.

As mentioned in Devin's article, when translating from game to movie it's important to remember the different strengths that each medium has and I think another way of making the distinction between the two media would be to change how the Animus system works. Since films are missing the aspect of interaction it could focus more on the visual aspects and have the past memories be like a film within a film. Make it more clear that when in the Animus the subject has to be an actor and put in a convincing performance, not just be a passive observer of the action. That would really work well with the concept of real life and virtual reality becoming blurred as you spend more time in the system (a little like Avatar perhaps).

Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself in thinking of things to make it a truly great film but I think it's important to aim high, rather than end up with just another passable attempt. Overall I think that Assassin's Creed shows promise because it has a lot of good ideas that could be adapted but that I'm not overly precious about the story, so a film could tread its own path - in fact if the film ended up slavishly following the plot of the games it's probably guaranteed to put me off. The same is probably true of other games that I wouldn't mind seeing as films - Halo is one example where I thought that the combination of the religious zealotry of its alien antagonists, its 'rampant' AI characters and the hidden purpose of the halo device could make for something interesting without directly adapting one of the games. The same could possibly be said for the Mass Effect universe but I think with that series so centred around player choice, there's less of a desire to see one definitive story put on film - and if they went with a male Shepherd it would be wrong!

I suppose the question is how many people really want to see movies based on games. I know that when I was younger there was certainly a feeling that it would see the medium justified but I think I've moved past that and can appreciate their differences. There was also the desire to see some games fully realised in a way that primitive 16bit graphics could never achieve but that's much less of an issue now. When games can look almost as good as a CGI movie, would it be improved in any way by appearing on film with human actors? But if these films are perhaps no longer being made specifically to cater to the demands of gamers, maybe it bodes well for the creation of something worthwhile on their own.

Revelations?

I had a whole post written about Assassin's Creed: Revelations and its nitty gritty details but the more I tried to finish it, the more boring it seemed. Yes, I could have ranted on about the tower defence mini game and terrible horse & cart sections but these have all been picked apart elsewhere and there's not much more that I could add. There's good and bad in its gameplay but it's largely the same as it was in Brotherhood, with some tweaks here and there (mostly for the better I would say). What disappointed me most was probably the fact that it didn't really live up to its name.

I've mentioned before that I wasn't a huge fan of Brotherhood but you can't deny that it was better named. This however didn't really have anything interesting to reveal, especially if you've been carefully following the lore of the previous games (I hadn't really but there still didn't seem to be much new here). I'm not sure what I was hoping for really, it's not like there was much manoeuvring room to fit any explosive revelations into the story but you still hoped for it anyway. The only way it could possibly be worded is that they were revelations to the main character Ezio, but even then I was sure he knew a lot of the story too.

I think the series as a whole has struggled to focus on the characters that I have really been invested in. The first game is mostly based around Altair's boring textbook redemption storyline, when for the most part I wanted to know more about Desmond, whose past lives you were re-living. When that game ended with a conclusion to Altair's story but pretty much cut off Desmond's mid flow, it was pretty jarring and I was just glad that I already had Assassin's Creed 2 lined up to play. The sequel probably had the best mix of both timelines as you finally got to do some interesting stuff in the present day but also quickly formed an attachment to the new character Ezio. Your returns to the present day were also scripted regularly, which broke up the action nicely.

Brotherhood broke away from this approach and let you return to the present day whenever you wanted but despite there being some interesting present day sections at the start, there wasn't really much reason to come back otherwise. The same was true of this game, where there were a few vague interactions with Subject 16 - the previous occupant of the Animus device, whose puzzles you have been solving for 2 games and some abstract first person levels, that are supposed to give some insight into Desmond's past. Despite being largely optional, it seemed like the focus of the game as a whole was on Desmond and his need to accept the mistakes in his life, though to me it never felt like he had much to feel sorry for. The ending of the previous game, which was probably what you would most want to find out about was brushed over quickly and then barely touched again, which I found pretty disappointing. The game ends on Desmond stating that he knows what needs to be done, but the rest of us are still in the dark.

All that was left that really interested me was wrapping up Ezio's story and I don't really feel that this was done satisfactorily either. It starts off well, with the introduction of a number of new characters, including a likeable assassin called Yusuf. I felt that he and Ezio worked quite well together, with Yusuf having some similar qualities to Ezio in his youth and showing a fair degree of cheek to his 'mentor'. I was quite surprised that Ezio didn't just turn around and deck him at any point. While the portrayal of Ezio as an older man wasn't exactly realistic (though some of the sci-fi leanings go some way to justifying it), I thought it was nice to see older characters even attempted. On the whole he was a bit closer to the character I originally loved after being fairly unmemorable in Brotherhood.

There is also his love interest Sofia, a bookshop owner who is almost 20 years his younger. As digital romances go it wasn't too bad, you could say it was quite subtle as neither party seemed to be directly pursuing the other, it all seemed to flow along quite naturally. Ezio has finished his personal journey of revenge so it felt like the bulk of his story was about his pursuit of knowledge and whether he could let other people into his life while still being an assassin. While playing I couldn't exactly remember his previous romantic history, I got a little confused between his most recent love interest and his 'greatest love' who was pretty much retconned into Brotherhood through flashbacks. I guess that his relationship with Caterina Sforza was never going to reach a conclusion due to her being based on an actual historical figure but it felt a bit weird that this was just dropped without much explanation.

I felt a little short changed by where Sofia and Ezio's relationship is left at the end of the main storyline (my wife even more so). It hints heavily that they get together but it's not really confirmed - though I'm not saying I wanted a hot coffee mini game or anything like that. I've completed all of the additional challenges I can stomach so I'm pretty sure there's nothing more to be found out about them within the game. I was expecting something, even if it was just a flash forward scene of him and his kids after the credits (to paraphrase Mr. Plinkett: "Don't any of you f**kheads tell me that it was explained more in the novelisation or some animated short film, what matters is the game"). It just seems a bit disrespectful to discard the character who has been the best thing about the series for three games so easily. I'll still be watching out for Assassin's Creed 3 later this year and it could well benefit from the fresh start a new main character will allow. I'm just a little sad to see Ezio go out with such a limp conclusion and his own acceptance that he was only ever the caretaker of these Revelations.

Comfort Gaming

Another series that I finally got around to playing last year was Assassin's Creed. Unlike Mass Effect I had a pretty good idea of what the series was like and the reviews I had read of the first one never really made me want to investigate further. But with Revelations on the horizon I thought it was worth a try and I figured I might as well start from the beginning. The reviews of the first one weren't wrong, it was incredibly repetitive and I really had to push myself through it. It didn't help that the main character was virtually unlike-able and while you are introduced to him at full power, in the time old Metroid fashion, all of your cool moves and weapons are stripped from you after the intro, to be arbitrarily dripped back to you after each mission. I traded it in soon after finishing it - safe in the knowledge that I would never want to go back and try to get all of the achievements.

And then of course the intro video to the second one pretty much told me everything I would have needed to know to get up to speed with the plot anyway... sigh. I also felt that the opening section of AC2 was what I expected to be the ending of the first one. I was pretty disappointed at the time in terms of how abruptly it ended but it was an early sign that the second one could be much better. In contrast to the original protagonist Altair, you are introduced to Ezio as a youngster (well technically at birth) and I think you're therefore more accepting that you don't have all of the assassin's skills yet. The game begins with simple tutorials but these all form part of the story and help you get to know your new character by doing rather than being told i.e. He can hold his own in a fist fight, is reasonably acrobatic, has a competitive relationship with his brother and a taste for the laydeez. Not the most original character traits in the world but I found him quite unique in terms of player controlled characters in video games and after how bland Altair was it made a refreshing change to just be playing someone instantly likeable.

So three paragraphs in I'd best actually make some kind of reference to the title of this post. I hate to use such terms but in the past I would have probably fitted into the 'Hardcore' gaming stereotype, I didn't see much point to games that didn't really take some amount of skill and effort to complete. But as I'm getting on in years and my reactions don't quite seem to be quite what they used to be, combined with less time to play games in general I'm finding it tougher and tougher to get through games. Vanquish for example I've been trying to complete for about a year and whenever I load it up I've forgotten how the controls work and spend about half an hour trying to get back up to speed, getting killed repeatedly in the same area I got stuck on last time. I'm seriously considering restarting it on easy so that I can blast through the whole thing in a much less disjointed fashion...

By contrast, aside from a few optional side missions, I don't think I've ever felt challenged much by the AC series. The free running controls, while not perfect, mean that you don't have to think about timing pixel perfect jumps and can just concentrate on where you want to get to. The fighting can be made more complicated if you want but most of the time it's enough to simply block and then reversal attacks in a very generous time frame - Street Fighter it ain't. Despite all this I'm loath to describe Assassin's Creed 2 as a 'Casual' game though as I still felt pretty invested in it, which is why I felt that 'Comfort Gaming' described it better. The whole game just has a wonderful atmosphere from top to bottom, quite literally in terms of the design of the cities from the streets to the rooftops. The music is some of the most gorgeous and relaxing I've heard in a long time, it really put me in mind of Secret of Mana on the Super Nintendo, which had probably my favourite music of the 16bit era. And on top of that you have the completionist pleasing gradual upgrading of your home villa, gaming meta humour and a storyline that keeps you interested despite some fairly outlandish twists.

I wasn't as impressed by Brotherhood, I felt that it took it just that little bit too far in terms of being a game that virtually plays itself. The characters and storyline seemed to take a back seat and the gameplay felt like it took a step back towards the formulaic repetition of the first game. While I could see myself 100% completing AC2 one day, Brotherhood would possibly send me over the edge (or into a coma). After catching up on the first three games I've actually not got around to playing Revelations yet unfortunately. I've heard mixed reviews, with most of the positive ones being from people who liked Brotherhood, which isn't exactly a positive to me. However from the trailers I have seen, Ezio at least seems to show a bit more character again, with a different feel due to his age - he really does feel like a character that you've seen grow through the series.

So while I doubt I'll completely abandon more challenging games I think for me especially it's good to chill out now and then. I'm known for having a short temper games wise and when you're playing something and stuck repeating the same section over and over, not making any progress and generally increasing your blood pressure you start to wonder why you're continuing. At the end of the day most people are playing for relaxation or entertainment and I don't think there's any shame in playing a game that caters exclusively to that (probably not something I would have said in the past). I'm not saying to give up on something as soon as it gets difficult - I guess like anything in life, a bit of variety is usually good for you.