[gray pierce]

Originally Posted by cbman

I think you should rest your case as it belongs in a different trial. You've totally misunderstood my point.

Games and film are different mediums. Their respective stories are designed to suit and complement that medium. Different mediums have different advantages and disadvantages.

I think it is the same point you're just categorizing it differently. Sure each medium has it's own advantages and disadvantages but does that mean we should just leave it at that. I honestly belief we should explore those disadvantages and improve the medium.

A film (or book) doesn't have the limitation of having to include puzzles and suchlike into the narrative, destroying the pacing.

In my opinion when a puzzle destroys the pacing you'd better leave it out no matter how ingenious it is. I think just how many puzzles you put in a game depends on what kind of story it is you want to tell. If you're making an Indiana Jones type of AG you get lots of puzzles because that belongs in this type of story. In adventurenovels and movies the main characters are often solving puzzles such as deciphering somethinghundred year old clues left by a forgotten civilization or famous person, or dodging traps in dark and ancient tombs. So you'll have lots of that in a game as well. However when you're making a taunt thriller the last thing you should do is break the pacing. You could integrate a small break from the action in wich the main character is focussing on a completely other activity rather than the main storyline. This is often a common element in novels and films as well. An example of that would be the cookie puzzle in Still life wich in essence was completely redundant but I think the developersput in to give the player something else to focus on rather than the main storyline.

Most crucially, a game is interactive and a film isn't. That gives very different requirements for how a narrative is told. In a sherlock Homes game the character of Sherlock solves mysteries at the player's speed. In a film the viewer solves mysteries at Holmes' speed. You can't just shift a plot from one to the other and expect it to be equally thrilling.

This is indeed a very good point you're making however it's not an absolute rule. What if the character has prior information the player doesn't have. That means that you're actions set in motion a whole stream of thoughts yet ungraspabble to the player.

Why is there this obsession with turning everything into somethigng else (especially films)? If you like the original then why would you want to see it cannablized (bastardized) in a different form? That is doing the artistry of the original work a supreme disservice.

There are many good bookadaptations. Pick any Dennis Lehane novel and you'll see I'm right. An adaptation doesn't have to cannabalized. It's just more limited than the novel or game. Smpily because a film is generally much shorter than a novel or a game. Also films tend to spur new interest in the source material. So honestly if they release a horrible BS adaptation but spurns a lot of interest in the game series and possibly in AGs, how can that be a bad thing?

Equally, i have no interest in a game that wants to be a film, such as Heavy Rain. That is a story being told in the wrong medium because the creator doesn't have the capacity or means to produce it in the correct medium.

I have not played Heavy Rain so I can't specifically comment on that but from what I've read it's just a game that pays a lot of attention to the (changeble)narative structure and the psychology of the main characters. How can that be "wanting to be a film"? Games should have a strong story and characters. The fact that most of them don't really doen't mean it's a charactaristic of the madium.

Rather than my argument disregarding or disrespecting the artistry and craft put into a game I would argue that the kind of mentality that says 'this would be so cool as a film' is doing that because it is implicitly implying that the story can only achieve its full potential in the film medium. After all, if a story is perfectly conceived then what could be added of worth by transferring it to other media? It's this 'everything of worth must become a film' mentality that degrades other media. Broken Sword is fine as it is - as a game. As a film it wouldn't stand out.The things that make it special would not be replicated in film.

You have a point there. I indeed do not believe a story can only achieve it's full potential is a film. However I do belief Broken Sword would make a good adventuremovie. Indeed perhaps not the best but there are so many movies that aren't considered a masterpiece but are however highly enjoyable so what's worng with that?