Yeah, because is SO hard to add widescreen/higher resolution support and sell it... =)

It's not a mistake that a screen writer makes, it's a fact. There are some games which genuinely have enough depth. But, it's a completely different medium which relies heavily upon user interaction to tell a story. Assuming that there's one to tell. Outside of RPGs and adventure games, there just isn't that much story in your typical game.

Also, a game which can be translated readily to the silver screen is generally a game which fails as a game. Games are not supposed to be linear. The way that a plot works in a game is fundamentally different from the way that it works in a movie. Sure you do have games like AC and Infamous which effectively force the player to play the proper plot, that isn't usually the case.

And if you've played those games, and paid attention to the plot, you'd notice that screen writers would have to add a ridiculous amount of fluff in order to fill out a movie or for it to even really make sense as the original counts on things just happening to work.

Sampling bias. People you know are not representative of the population at large. Also, you're mistaking what cult comedy means. I could definitely be wrong about that, but everything about the movie screams cult comedy. I haven't taken a survey, but the fact that you can still get a comedy, even in the US, speaks volumes about the fact that there are people willing to buy it or at least watch it.

As for South Park, oh please, that show was good for a couple seasons well over a decade ago. It's a different genre. Plus, it's clear to me that you just outright don't get the film if you're bitching about it being unintelligent. The games weren't intelligent, the movie is just keeping with the spirit. And did a damn good job of it.

I'll have to watch some of his other films, but it really sounds like this is just a case of let's pile on more of it because clearly he can't make a decent film.

Your ignorance amazes me once again. And since you apparently didn't bother reading or understanding my previous post (nor video games, for that matter) it would be a waste of time pointing out what you didn't get.

It's not really ignorance, you should learn to write better. You're using qualifiers there without actually defining the qualifier.

And yes, for certain types of games, there's more than enough material, but those tend to be the sorts of RPGs that I thought I had mentioned in a previous post at some point in this thread.

No I don't. My mistake is assuming that the person I'm talking to has a higher level of knowledge about the topic in question.

You see, that's another thing. I talked about "subtle storytelling techniques limited to video games", you just repeat "only RPGs and adventures have much story" - dude, even if you have barely an idea what I meant by "subtle storytelling techniques" you really can't return to talking about adventures and RPGs which mainly use the most primitive of methods to provide plot: dialogue (which obviously is not among those I'm talking about).

An example of what I meant was telling stories through level design which can mostly be found in plot-driven shooters. I.e. BioShock 1 & 2 provide lots and lots of information about three different ages of Rapture through the surroundings. The architecture tells you what Rapture looked like in its glory days, tells you about the events that lead to its fall and obviously shows you the consequences. You will also find smaller details i.e. within the apartments that tell small separate stories of their own. You will not just find blood and dead bodies, you will also find furniture that got knocked over, broken dishes and even personal items. A small static room in a big game provides enough content for multiple scenes in a movie, huh. Another thing is of course storytelling through game mechanics but I really don't want to get into that now.

The point is that if film makers actually played the games and actually did so with any passion they'd find lots of content to work with. As I already said (and you didn't seem to notice that I said so since you repeated the same thing), undoubtedly "translating" from video games to movies is hard work, in my opinion much harder than from literature but it's ridiculous if film makers get the impression that they have nothing to go on and then start thinking up random and pointless stuff to fill the gaps - deeper analysis of the games (or even just friggin' playing them) will basically always provide enough content to at least inspire them to introduce own content that carries the spirit of the source material.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Reread what I posted if you're going to bitch about my reading comprehension. I think I was quite clear about my qualifiers.

As far as the topic goes. I happen to be an actor, well essentially retired now, I don't act any longer. But, I do happen to know the craft and have familiarity with how things work. And yes indeed most games do not have enough content in them to make a game. I've also spent quite a bit of time studying films on a technical basis.

So, don't patronize me, I've got a pretty good idea as to what does and does not work as a film. I might not always be right about it, but when I say that the typical game doesn't have enough story to make a film, there's a reason for it. Most developers place a higher priority on graphics than they do on plot. Yes, there are games that do place a high priority on story as a part of the game play experience, but it's not what I personally would consider typical.

There are some genres which are more story laden than others, but I stand by the assertion that most games do not have enough content to fill out a movie without resorting to using them as a setting and set up.

I never said that only RPGs and Adventure games have stories. I said that it's more common for those genres to have it. There you go. That's what I said.

Also, unless I' really misunderstanding what you're saying, you're confusing story with setting. Those details are setting and unless they're really notable, they're not going to make it into the film at all. A film only gets to have a handful or so of subplots before you get a jumbled mess that the audience can't follow. Some directors are better about managing subplots than others are, but at the end of the day, every subplot is supposed to be tied up by the end of the film. And the audience has to be able to keep track of each sub plot through out its individual story arch.

In this case, if there isn't a direct tie to one of the characters it's almost certainly going to be left out of the film. It might make it in as backstory or for the purposes of setting the tone, but those sorts of things don't typically make for a good film. They're fascinating and I love subtle details, but they don't get the writer any closer to having a script.

A good screen writer only includes things in the screenplay that will move the plot forward. Unless I'm really misunderstanding what you're talking about, those things don't move the plot along. They add to the immersion of a computer game, but don't really move the plot along. I remember similar details in FO and FO:NV and absolutely loving them, but they would never be included in a screen play about either of those games. They're just not something which is involved in the plot of the game.

I'd recommend reading anything by Blake Snyder or Syd Field, they've got some of the sharpest insights into this area of anybody I've ever seen.

But anyways, I have better things to do than argue about this. I would seriously suggest reading those books if you don't believe me. Because they do a really good job of explaining how and why stories work as movies.

The real reason for pissing is so you can put yourself out if you are on fire. By aiming straight up of course.

I loved the humor in Postal2. Esp when cats (which I love) started falling out of the sky. I saw the movie which had quite a few good chuckles. Much better than something like Shreik if You Know What I Did Last Friday the 13th, which I could not bare to watch past the first couple of really stupid and unfunny scenes.

I honestly believe that the devs first came up with the idea to piss on other people's faces to provoke sick situations and then noticed that it could be used to put yourself out. However, I mostly used pissing in self-defense (wow, that's one of those things I didn't think I'd ever say).

On a different note: I thought Shriek was quite hilarious. Me and my brother couldn't stop laughing because of how crappy it is. It's so bad that it's almost good, at least when you're watching it with at least one good buddy and some beer. ^^

http://store.steampowered.com/app/223470/

could i plz have postal 2

wakalo - FUCK OFF!