Messages

Hehe, it was funny.

On a related note, there's a modified version of the original song about Australia. Ironic, since the original song was written by America's greatest folk legend.

I enjoyed the second one immensely. I thought it'd be a typical summer popcorn fodder movie, but it turned out to be way more enjoyable. I usually shun the blown-out blockbusters, but I'd say this movie rises above the normal comicbook standard and becomes a real movie.

Yeah, it is me, you retards. Cause every fake character is me. No one else has the potential to do something so sinister.

I wouldn't call Alice as innovative as Dune II either. I was just using it as an example to demonstrate that how substantial a computer game is doesn't depend on how well it captures the substance of the original.

Which was intended to support my original argument that American McGee's Alice wouldn't have been any more substantial by hewing closer to the original in tone.

But like I said, that's very rare.

I did, and -- honest truth -- the only thing that resembled an argument addressing this issue was your statement that the action, psycho-thriller and parody elements worked against each other. As for Capt Mostly, I thought we had already dispensed with his argument that McGee didn't "get" the Alice stories. It's probably time to let this point go, though.

I don't think any one dispensed his argument. I still think it appears valid, and I've backed-up with reasons why (see my "12 Angry Men" example).

Let me put it this way: Would 'To Kill A Mockingbird" make a good action platformer if it was set in the future, and Atticus was some kind of Judge Dredd-like character armed with a shotgun ready to defend Tom Robinson against Alabama redneck robots? Or would Hemmingway's 'A Farewell to Arms' make a good war game ala 'Call of Duty'? Or even make Virginia Woolf's 'Mrs Dalloway' into a game (which I'm sure is possible, if difficult)?

In answer, possibly -- you could make a good platofrmer out of each. But it's also a little like raping the corpses of Harper Lee, Hemmingway, and Woolf. And like I said, it's very rare you get a game that capturesthe same amont of substance as the original.

Right. But that's not a matter of capturing the substance of the original, but rather of creating an entirely original substance of its own. Just take an example like Dune II, which fails completely (because it doesn't even try) at capturing the substance of the book, but is a very substantial game on its own terms.

But I wouldn't classify McGee's Alice as innovative as Dune II. McGee's Alice was a run-of-the-mill actioner (granted, a very playable run-of-the-mill action) whereas Dune II changed the way strategy games were played. Before Dune II, most strategy games were turn based affairs and a lot of them used that hex-map feature. Dune II made them more exciting. And it also paved the way for games like Command and Conquer and Warcraft.

Don't much care for your tone there, mate. It's more likely a matter of us having a different idea of what I'm asking you to explain. I've seen you argue why the game doesn't work as a parody of Alice, but not (at least until the paragraph above) why it doesn't work as a dark reimagining of Alice.

Settle, matey. My tone t'was nothing more than a joke. My point was you don't have to ask me to explain why a "dark Alice" doesn't work because I already have in my previous posts. Not only that, Capt Mostly explained reasons too. Have a re-read of the thread. Maybe it'll make more sense now in hindsight.

I wouldn't think of that as a parody, but as an Alice-themed arsenal.

But portraying the characters from the original in a grotesque fashion is what making a dark version is all about. Again, I don't see that this makes it a parody.

Why can't it be both?

I should state first that my comments regarding parody were in reference to a previous poster who brought up the idea that the game was a parody, so I'm following his train of thought here. But I do conceed that the game contains elements of parody and I think my examples justify this. They are motifs to create a mock-up of the original book.

And sure, it can be both, but what I am saying is it doesn't work well as both. It creates an uneven tone. As I said before, you've need to have a good sense of writing in order to achieve merged genres. And, in my opinion, McGee's Alice didn't pull it off to well.

To use some of my previous examples, Hitman has a serious tone -- no question about that, and it succeeds. Meanwhile, Grand Theft Auto 3 has a very black-comedic and farcical tone -- after all, it's a satire on urban society (and the violence within), and it too succeeds.

But Alice? Is it a pumped-up actioner? A parody? A psychological drama? You see, it's trying to be too many things at once, and in the end you can't really accept it as any of those things because it's too muddled. In other words, the themes of one tone are conflicting with the themes of another tone.


As a game, it's a decent diversion. But I don't rate it highly as I do for other games. As I say it lacks substance, and I think that partially has to do with the fact it was an adaptation (some prefer the term "re-interpretation") of a classic book -- trying to make something as memorable as the original Alice in Wonderland is a difficult (but ambitious) goal. And I think this adaptation/re-interpretation leads to problems as to what it actually is in temrs of genre, which muddled it. Plus, I felt it tried to be too "in your face", whereas games like Hitman or Deus Ex can be very subtle and clever about things.

Perhaps this is just my game snobbery shining through, but I do look at certain games as "higher" forms of entertainment. I believe games can make very personal statements and make people feel emotions similar to watching a movie, especially in the games I've mentioned throughout this post. In other words, there's a subsurface level that I enjoy certain games.

But I just didn't feel that way with McGee's Alice.

I don't want to trash the game, because in honesty it's a better game than a lot of the crap that's out there. But that's just how I see it: as a game. Nothing more.

My argument, more carefully stated, is that the substance of a book or books cannot be captured in a computer platformer. Your counterexamples have two serious problems: a) They're not adaptations of books (HHGTTG started out as a radio play, and although BR the game takes elements from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, it's mainly based on the movie), and b) they are not platform games.

(a) is being a little picky, because they're still adaptations of better-known media forms. But I conceed with (b), I neglected the "platform" elements. (A lot of us have been mis-reading in this thread. Hehe)

As you further discuss, yes, adventure games and RPGs are more suited to such adaptations. However, that doesn't mean you can't have a platform game (or arcade, rather) that has more substance than a movie or book. A good example is Robocop 3. The film was dire, but the game conversion by Ocean was quite an extraordinary use of 3D graphics for its time and very playable.

I'm afraid I don't follow. Isn't this a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't argument? Either it's too shallow or it's trying to be too deep?

I'll elaborate. I think it tries too hard at presenting its multi-facetedness. There are other games out there that can do a better job without trying so hard. Where McGee's Alice is attempting this dark parody of Alice in Wonderland, it's still just a hack-and-slack action game. A game like Hitman or Deus Ex has extra elements compared to the standard action game, but they're a little more hidden (consider it a subtextual ideology, if you will). Whereas Alice is in-your-face, Hitmen and Deus Ex are more subtle in presenting psychological trauma or political discourse. It's not a case of "too shallow" or "too deep", but just "it tries too hard".

I think I must have missed that explanation; I can't see it anywhere in the thread.

Is this another example of mis-reading in this thread, or just ignorance? I've spent the last few posts in this thread explaining why. If you've missed my explanation, than perhaps you should re-read my posts very carefully. If you still are having trouble, perhaps a reading comprehension course might help.

Could you give some examples of this ridicule?

For example, the weapons that Alice uses are a parody of certain items or motifs in the game. I.e. a pack of cards, or the flamingo/croquet racket.

Also, the look of well-known characters are portrayed in a grotesque fashion that lampoons the original story.

But like I said, it's difficult to ascertain whether the game wants to be a parody or an in-your-face action game. That's one of the reasons I thought McGee's Alice wasn't done too well (this should also partially answer your previous question).


Redrum:

I maintain that your view on the Gabriel Knight books is a bit prejudiced - no one talks about them, no one mentions them, no one seems to have read them, ergo they're likely not as good as the game. Yes, it's another way to tell the story, but if you read GK2, you might be in for a surprise...

Don't get me wrong. I'm not at all debating the quality of the novels. I'm sure they're well-written and tell a decent story just as well as GK2. However, from the fact that hardly anyone talks about them (I didn't even know they existed until now) shows there's not a big demand for them. It's hard to trust something when you know so little about it. It's different to something like Myst, where the book adaptation is a littleÃ,  more well-know (and in a lot of ways, as well-known as the game). I've read a lot of positive feedback about it and from what I hear the book has a lot of substance, perhaps more than the game (which isn't hard as the game is a little limited).

Having said all that, I am still a little bit prejudiced in my view of the GK2 book in a another way. You see, I wasn't as much a fan of GK2 as I was with GK1 or 3.

In these cases, it's all a matter of interpretation - adaptation always is. Really, when you think about it, an "adaptation" might even try to explore the original in a brand new way, one that never occurred to the original authors. SOme argue that spoils the entire experience (I do, for one); others say it's the best was to explore new points of view. Such is life.

I agree. There was a Nic Cage movie called Adaptation that dealt with this very same principle. However, my view is I didn't think Alice was adapted very well, despite the noble exploration of ideas by the authors.

Most times, yes, but not all the times. The films Dolores Claiborne and Mysery are an example of this, and Rosemary's Baby as well. Also, The Dark Eye allowed me to explore a whole new side of Poe's tales. And most times it's not in the adaptation - it's in what once can consider to be the original, i.e., which have you seen first. Most people stick to their first version of... of whatever, and so when the new thing in the new medium comes and explores other ways (sometimes nicely, sometimes outrageously) they almost automatically dislike it. It's not about what's the original story, but what's the original story FOR US.

Yes, but like I said, it's rare that an adaptation surpasses an original. It happens, but it's rare.

However, I disagree with your view of "People stick to the first version of what they see". I saw the film LA Confidential before I read the book. The film was brilliantly done, but after I read the book I felt the book was miles better. Perhaps, this is more to do with the limitation of adapting an epic novel into a 2 hour film.

Likewise with games. I've played The Black Cauldron, and liked it, but I've never seen the Disney film or read the book. But I'm guessing the both film and book are better than the game. Call it a hunch.

Is that some kind of sneaky masturbation metaphor?

I can kinda see where Mr Threepwood is coming from. I often wonder, if the original Donkey Kong or Space Invaders or Wolfenstein 3D was re-released, would it be worth paying for. It's open to debate. Like someone else said, I think it depends on how much enjoyment you get out of it.

shbazjinkens: A lot of developers justified the price of games by including all those treats within the large packaging. Now they've reduced packaging, but the games are still as expensive.

Bascially, yes. There's no real "right" way of setting things up. I remember someone releasing a set of game design templates that you can print out and fill-in to help your creation process. However, you can pretty much do a similar thing in Word.

In fact, as an example, Chrille once showed me the design docs for the first chapter of Pleurghberg 2. They were written in Notepad. 

There are tutorials around the place.

IMO The best thing to do is just make a game based upon the knowledge and theory you've aquired from playing other adventure games.

[with that of two books]

DG, I think you mis-read me - I gave examples of original games with substance, because of the sentence which read

I think it's pointless to compare the "substance" of a computer platform game with that of two books. Of course the game is not going to be as substantial!

The issue here isn't changing a story from one medium to another - that issue has been debated between books and movies for years. The issue is the assumption that a computer game is less substantial than the book. Just like with some movies, that's extremely limiting, and so I gave examples of games that were actually much more substantial in games than some books around, and even focused on a case where the games spawned the books. Yes, you're right, the books came AFTER Gabe Knight, that was part of my point. And I must say I'm confused by you saying you don't think the books are as substantial as the game when you haven't tried them! Here's an advice - skip GK1, if you like, but you should give the book GK2 a go. Really.

The GAME Black Dahlia was based on a novel? Are you sure? I think it's an original story, inspired by the Black Dahlia case and the Cleveland Torso Murderer case - all real-life facts.

I haven't mis-read your point. More so, I questioned your examples. As Snarky said "I think it's pointless to compare the "substance" of a computer platform game with that of two books". (I think you neglected the bold part).

Firstly, the issue of adaptation from one medium to another is related to this issue. Substance is related to adaptations, and after all this discussion started with comparisons between Alice the game and Alice the books.

Yes, there have been debates as to which are better: movies vs films vs games. However, what I'm trying to get across is that once you release original material, the adaptation into other formats reduces the perceived substance. For example, despite whether such-and-such book(or movie)-to-computer game is a great game, most rarely live up to the original book (or movies). There have been a few rare cases (one game springs to mind: Fate of Atlantis lives up to the substance of the film trilogy, and makes a worthy "fourth story" for the series).

However, having said this, it's also the same when original computer games are adapted for films. Look at Mario Brothers, Street Fighter, Double Dragon, and Tomb Raider. All have great substance as computer games, but as films they don't live up to the original in terms of substance.

This applies to your example of Gabe Knight. You can say you're "confused" to my declaration of GK novels not being as good as the game without reading them, but that proves my point -- I haven't read them, and I doubt a lot of people have read them compared to the amount of people who've played the game. When someone says "Gabriel Knight", does one think of the game or the book? Most likely (and this is just a guess), it's the game. Why? Because as good as the novel is, it doesn't live up to the original game. More people remember it as a game.

As for the Black Dahlia, while it wasn't a direct adaptation of Ellroy's novel, the novel was still used as part of the inspiration for the game (http://www.cdmag.com/articles/010/003/black_dahlia_preview.html). That's why I thought you mentioned this game. If not, then why add it? I mean, you say it's a game of substance. Great. But compared to what? You see, this whole issue began with the comparison between Alice as a book and Alice as a game adaptation. That's why issue of adaptation from one medium to another is related to this issue (or, in fact "the issue").

That's why I'm also confused with your addition of Grim Fandango, since there's nothing to compare it with in terms of substance (i.e. there's no Grim movie or Grim novel as far as I know).

You see, you do bring a valid point to Snarky's comment, but I'm merely just questioning your examples since it's a little hard to relate two of them to comparisons of substance between games and books (or rather as I see it, original source material [such as Alice in Wonderland or Gabriel Knight] compared toadaptations [like McGee's Alice or the GK novels]).

Gigli

need I remind anyone of names such as Gabriel Knight, or Black Dahlia? Or, once again, Grim Fandango? The fact that they're games doesn't means they're less substancial, on the contrary, I'm here to tell you the Gabe Knight games are way better than the books (although the Beast Within novel is truly superb! Much better than the first one, and a fine achievement in itself).

I always thought that the books were based on the games.

And having said that, I feel the books seem to have less substance than the games (but I can't make a decent judgement because I haven't read the books, so I'm going on gut instinct here).

I also thought GF was an original game and wasn't based on a novel.

But Black Dahlia was based on the James Ellroy novel, yes.

I am one of the few who thought Monkey Kombat was one of the easiest bits of MI4.

However, I also thought it was one of the most retarded bits.

I think Western and Sci-fi are almost the same genre...that of exploration. Instead of harsh deserts you have the cold of space. Indians (Native Americans) are replaced by aliens. Six shooter is replaced by a laser (as noted before).

Aye, that's why I said some ideals are the same between the two.

However, there is a lot that separates them. For example, Westerns are a genre that reflects on the past. Sci-fi reflects on the future. And a lot of the motifs of each are different. In Westerns, you have that common motif of riding off into the sunset on horseback. In Sci-Fi, the motif is the opposite: flying off in a spaceship into deep space ala The Starship Enterprise.

There was a Futurama episode which combined the two genres.

Yes, I own it on DVD.

Keep in mind that the creators of Futurama have had A LOT experience in writing for animated TV series. Plus, most of them have Ph.Ds proving they're totally ultra-smart and can do things no ordinary men can do. 

Mel Brooks also combined Comedy and Western genres. But keep in mind, he's Mel Brooks.

I prefer "Dank and Scud".

Still funny though.

Would combining the two work well or fail miserably?

It can work, but you have to be careful how you do it or else no one will take it seriously (even if you're doing it as a joke). Attempts at modernising Westerns have worked in the past. For example, look at Easy Rider. However, while some ideals of Westerns and Sci-Fi are the same, keep in mind that there are just as many that are different.

Remember the movie Toy Story (and Toy Story 2)?

Notice how Buzz became a more popular toy than Woody?

You see, the whole Western genre died out when man visited the moon. Like Stinky Pete says in the second film, everybody became more focused on space exploration (Westerns were more focused upon land exploration and land frontiers and we've pretty much mapped our entire world). As evidence, notice the decline of western films and the rise of sci-fi films. It's very rare you get profitable Western films, mainly because there's no interest in them anymore.

It sucks because some of my favourite films are Westerns.

[What is a Photoshop Phriday?]

What is a Photoshop Phriday?

Photoshopping isn't drawing a completely new image -- It's editing images to create a new image, such as editing one image or combining several images.

Also, you don't have to specifically use Photoshop -- Paint Shop Pro, MSPaint, or any other programs can be used.

See this link:
http://www.somethingawful.com/photoshop/

And for other examples, see here:
http://www.worth1000.com/

The two above websites should give a fair idea of what is involved.

-----------------------------------------------

In November, the US will vote for a new president. If you've looked around the web, you'll probably see campaign banner ads here and there.

So, let make our own.

For example:



Your mission, Mr Phelps, is to photoshop together a banner for an AGS election campaign. You can use any AGSers in your campaign (even yourself if you're feeling vain). However, the purpose is to make a pursuasive argument for whatever candidate you choose.

Good luck!

- D.G. "I am not a crook" Macphee