Do video games really need movie adaptations?

Do video games really need movie adaptations? It’s a simple enough question which you can give a simple enough answer: No. They don’t ‘need’ them, but do they actually do anything worthwhile? In other areas of art (Yes, I am including video games as a form of art) there is a lot of cross over in this regard, the most notable being novels adapted into films, Gone Girl being the most recent successful example of this. There is certainly success with book to film adaptations, and whether this taking from books is or isn’t a problem is something to discussed at a later time, but for now, the question is can there be success with video game film adaptations?

The recent precedent that has been set with Video Games adaptations isn’t promising. Who remembers Doom? You don’t? Then you’re one of the lucky ones, you didn’t have to see one of the most revolutionary and significant games get made into a laughable action film. It even had scenes where the shots were in first person POV as if you were playing the game, which far from being a homage, was just an example of the lack of experience in adapting a game into a film. Another significant recent adaptation is the resident evil franchise, which may be one of the most successful video game adaptations, albeit not very good but successful nonetheless, due to the amount of money it made. The problem with both of these examples, however, is how they transverse the mediums; Doom was poor because it tried to show, literally, a video game as a film, and Resident Evil only found mild success from completely changing the plot from the games. Neither were true adaptations, so neither was truly successful.

There is another way to look at this question, and it is in view of films that are inspired by video games. While they are not real adaptations, there are many examples of successful films, good films, being created from this approach, the most obvious being Tron. Tron was inspired by pong, such a simple concept, and yet it became a somewhat groundbreaking film that was well received. The digital aspect of pong and the emphasis of shapes, is very noticeable in both the original Tron and its sequel, Tron legacy. This taking of a simple concept is a lot easier to transform into film, due to the ability to build upon the simplicity of the concept.

Finally, it would be apt to look at some upcoming video game adaptations, specifically, Assassins Creed and Uncharted.  For all the details that have been released, it would be difficult to say outright whether these films will be good or bad. However, what I can do is say why these films could be the first of many to be successful adaptations. Recent video games such as Assassins Creed and Uncharted are generally more concerned with both story and cinematics, and for that simple reason they could be good films because they already possess what is important in films. The gaming industries recent trend of popularity towards both AAA games and indie games both lend themselves to the adapting process by taking the story from AAA games without having to deal with the complexity of interwoven game mechanics, and the ability to build upon the simple basis laid out by simpler indie games.

So, do we need movie adaptations? As games get ever closer to filmic standards anyway, probably not, but as they are going to happen anyway, it’s nice to some evidence to suggest they won’t suck massive balls.

Conor M.

Does Assassin's Creed Still Need The Animus?

Ever since the 2007 release of the original Assassin’s Creed, I have been enamored with this long and successful franchise - the freedom of movement, the historical setting, the sandbox style assassinations and of course, the ever cool, hidden blade. I sunk dozens of hours just roaming around 12^th Century holy lands, creating my own stories that usually descended (ascended?) into leading useless guards on a dangerous dash across the rooftops. It was a flawed game, but one that I have so much time and adoration for.

One element of Assassin’s Creed that always stuck with me was the modern day sections of the game that put you in the shoes of Desmond Miles, an ex-assassin thrust back into the on-going war between Assassins and Templars. Apart from the fact that Desmond was as bland as an especially boring potato, this modern day story kept me interested enough that I wasn’t cursing when I was dragged out of my historical romp to wander the Abstergo labs.

This tradition continued right through to Assassin’s Creed 3, with the idea of two secret organisations vying for power as well as a colourful cast of supporting characters (I’m looking at you, Shaun Hastings) keeping me invested enough to genuinely enjoy the obviously less developed modern story. The end to Desmond Miles’ story, as rushed and a hackneyed job as it was, signaled an end to Ubisoft genuinely trying to tie the franchise together with a coherent modern story.

Well, Black Flag did at least try to make you care about present day. You played as a mute, nameless character in first person as you worked for Abstergo Entertainment, an evil video game corporation – not looking at you EA. You are coerced into hacking various points of the office by a familiar sounding voice – none of it seems important or relevant right up until the final moments when the voice is revealed to be none other than a reincarnation of the Sage you are chasing through the high seas of the Caribbean. It was a nice little reveal but I still wasn’t interested, nor did I care enough about this story to feel anything but annoyed when I was dragged out of 18^th Century.

Unity’s attempts at telling a modern day story were pretty much non-existent, with Ubisoft opting for a ‘let’s go find a sage’s remains’ tale that was laughably under-developed and forced, right up until the conclusion when it became a full blown hilarious joke as you discover that the whole ‘sage remains’ thing was a complete non issue in the first place. No big revelation, no cliffhanger and no attempt to coherently link these entertaining ventures into history all mean that the animus has just become a crude reminder I am playing a video game.

Assassins Creed games are great because of the fantastic sandbox worlds that Ubisoft create for us to explore. We become heavily invested in the realism and scope of these worlds that we feel a living, breathing part of it – and the animus breaks that immersion. I don’t want to be constantly reminded that I’m not in revolutionary Paris, or renaissance Italy just so Ubisoft feel better about calling these collections of games a franchise. We already know of the endless war between Assassins and Templars and that is the only link we need as we go from new entry to new entry.

Ubisoft has even started to use the animus as an excuse for Unity’s technical problems. See a couple hundred clones in Unity’s impressive crowd tech? That’s just animus programming. Wondering why everyone in Paris speaks with immersion breaking British accents? Oh, that’s just the animus doing its thing. Why doesn’t Napoleon have a face when I speak to him? That lovable animus and its hilarious mistakes, when will it learn eh?

In short Ubisoft, if you aren’t going to bother trying to tell a decent modern day story then drop the animus, reinvest in some new HUD and menu designs and give us an Assassin’s Creed world that we can immerse ourselves in for hundreds of hours without thinking we are playing a video game. Seriously, reality is pretty shit.

Alex A.