Dorkiness delivered promptly.

Word vomit from the brain of Trent Seely.

Ask a Dork: Video Game Movies VS Movie Video Games

“Do you think we’ll see a higher quality output in video game-movies or movies based on video games first? Why?”

I think there are a few very specific reasons as to why movie based video games tend to be terrible. For instance, there are usually short development timelines to be met and a narrative that is already set in stone by a different party. Just saying, there isn’t a ton of creative freedom for the developers of games based on movies. And that hurts the inevitable cash in. Which isn’t to say that all movie games suffer (The LEGO Movie is excellent top to bottom), but most just don’t have a chance.

It’s a different story for movies based on video games. Generally speaking, when these beasts suck out loud it isn’t because the timelines are too strict or there isn’t any freedom to work with. Rather, there may be too much freedom. I suggest that a number of film studios don’t understand the games they base their movies on. In the cases of Street Fighter (1994), Resident Evil, Silent Hill, House of the Dead, Bloodrayne, Alone in the Dark, Super Mario Bros., and Wing Commander, the problem across the board was that there was a disconnect with the source material. These projects ventured so far, narratively, from what the games did that they were nigh unrecognizable.  That hurt everything from the motivation of the characters to the quality of the dialogue.

I think we’re entering an age were more video game publishers are taking their IPs seriously. I’m sure in the case of the Assassin’s Creed movie Ubisoft wants to ensure that the core story being communicated falls in line with what the series has already established. The same could have been said about the film based on Bioshock, which was – again – shelved because they studio didn’t feel they could deliver on presentation without having an infeasible large budget. That’s important. You can’t compromise an IP’s traits and expect to deliver a satisfying movie.

Thankfully, we’re also heading towards a future in which film studios and special effects are capable of doing much more with smaller budgets. Technology just progresses that way. To that point, I believe that we may someday see many excellent movies based on already excellent games. I can’t say the same for video games based on movies, though. Sadly. 

Anonymous asked:
Why do you hate on Phil Fish over twitter? Is it because he's successful and your jealous?

Roll. My. Eyes.

You know who else was successful and hated by many?



Not saying Phil Fish is Hitler or anything like that, just illustrating a point that you can hate someone without knowing them on a personal level and be completely justified. Jealousy doesn’t even enter the picture.

The YouTube documentary “This is Phil Fish” went a long way to distinguish the difference between the Phil Fish that the media presents to us and the way Phil Fish actually is. The crux of that documentary’s argument was that we don’t really know Phil on a personal level and therefore cannot assume that he is an asshole. This is incorrect.

You see, a person isn’t defined by what they say about themselves. They also are not defined by what others say about them. The truth, when you really boil it down, is that PEOPLE ARE DEFINED BY THEIR ACTIONS. 

Is Hitler remembered today for his fiscal policies? His contributions to the pioneering of cinematographic technologies? His efforts towards animal protection? His status as a conservative catholic? His anti-smoking ads? His contribution to worldwide infrastructure due to the development of the modern freeway? No. To this very day he is remembered as the man responsible for the genocidal Holocaust as well as the deaths of millions at the hands of his war machine. 

Do you think that people should be excused from their actions due to their creative contributions? I don’t. I apply the same logic to Phil Fish.

I don’t care that he created FEZ. I don’t care that he’s supportive of equal representation in video games. I don’t care that he has supported a number of other indie studios in trying to get their games published. 

It is Phil Fish’s actions that are really important, and they aren’t pleasant. I don’t even refer to his strong opinions, which are often delivered without tact or empathy.

Here’s a snippet of what he has done:

  • He’s yelled at PAX East 2011 attendees for inadvertently breaking his game when it wasn’t finished. 
  • He’s refused to fix save state problems in his game and told the people who supported him by buying it to “deal with it.”
  • He’s publicly put journalists and media outlets on blast and called them “parasites” in numerous instances. Even though they are responsible for his career. 
  • He told a Japanese gamer that games from his country were terrible. He then went on to refer to the gamer as though he was responsible for his country’s games. 
  • He’s claimed that LP-ers and video game reviewers are actually just stealing from him and owe him money. That it is basically pirating to include footage from FEZ in a video. 
  • He’s publicly accused Polygon of being corrupt for covering indie dev Kevin Dent, only to be implicated in a racketeering scandal along with the Indie Games Festival (which is currently being investigated by the FBI). 
  • He called gamers ungrateful for buying his game and that they should have paid $90. He’s also publicly called gamers “the worst fucking people.” 
  • Victim shamed a sexually abused person who came out against Zoe Quinn. Claimed that no one wanted the victim around anyway.

I don’t care that I don’t know the guy personally. People who aren’t assholes don’t do these things. Phil Fish is an asshole, and I’ll feel however I damn well please about him. Sorry if that turns you off.

Also, you spelled “you’re” wrong. 

your is a possessive adjective, indicating ownership of something

  • That is your sock.
  • Where is your potato?

you’re is a contraction (combination) of you and are

  • Do you know what you’re doing?
  • You’re stupid.

The two are not interchangeable.

Ask a Dork: Destiny

"Do you see Destiny as the future of FPS on consoles? If not, what is the next evolution you want to see in the genre?"

It’s hard to predict the future of any genre of video gaming. In the same way that history is defined by the victors, the trajectory of gaming trends is usually defined by video game success stories. Considering that Destiny, a game that hasn’t actually had a chance to rack in any real sales, is already being labeled one of the biggest new games of the decade I would say that it has a good chance of twisting the paradigm of first-person shooting video games. After all, the limited beta alone was played by 4.6 million gamers and it is apparently one of the most pre-ordered games in GameStop history. That’s a pretty big deal. Also, it’s made by a game company that almost single-handedly changed the face of FPS multiplayer. That being said, it is hard to say how things will go post-launch.

It’s one thing that we haven’t seen any reviews yet. It’s another that we don’t know how the game will be supported in the long term. And that’s a big part of whether the Destiny model will be adopted by other companies.

Let’s talk about that model for a second. What exactly does Destiny do differently? Well, Destiny is an FPS that looks aesthetically similar to Halo, but the way it is played is much more varied. It’s an epic action adventure that claims to feature a cinematic story that allows the player to unravel the mysteries of the universe and reclaim what was lost at the fall of humanity’s Golden Age. You play as a Guardian of the last city on Earth, able to wield incredible power. You are pushed to explore the ancient ruins of our solar system, defeat Earth’s enemies, and become a legend. It is a FPS, but the adventure elements are more akin to that of Borderlands or Mass Effect. Similarly, you can personalize and upgrade every aspect of how you look and fight with a nearly limitless combination of armor, weapons, and visual customizations. Your character can be used in the main story campaign, Tower mode (a social space), the Crucible (competitive multiplayer), Strike (an infiltration mode), and Explore (free-form exploration). The world is always online, and you can venture out into it alone or join with others. To that point, many people have claimed that Destiny is really an MMO FPS. Which has some basis, but I have no real opinion on the matter.

To be clear, I like this. I like the fact that RPG elements are being woven into a highly polished first-person shooter. I like that I’m allowed to enjoy a meaty story mode alone (suck it Titanfall). I like that competitive multiplayer has a ton of unique modes that utilize your customized character – even if the balancing of special moves is still off. I like that Bungie has introduced enemies and removed others during the beta to adjust the experience before release. I like that the world itself feels well designed and alive. The only things I’m not sure about are (1) story quality and (2) if the different modes will actually blend well.

Destiny is throwing a lot at the wall and I’m honestly not sure it is all going to stick. Now, it could just be me, but I get the feeling that this game is made of a bunch of well-polished parts that may not add up to a truly engrossing whole. The game keeps advertising itself as “seamless” – as though all of these modes and elements add up to a perfect hybrid. I’m just not sold on that yet. And part of it has to do with post-launch stuff.

Will the game be great at launch? It’s hard to tell. I haven’t heard much regarding the quality of the main campaign, which is actually important to non-competitive gamers like me. I also haven’t had the opportunity to do a lot of free-form exploration in the game. It could all be great day-one, but I think we’re past the point where FPS games can just have a campaign and three multiplayer modes. DLC needs to be in the mix. New locations, customizable gear, and missions need to be continually added to the game to keep it alive and enjoyable. I’m not sure how long Bungie is going to be supporting this game post-launch, but I can’t see Destiny being a poster child for next gen FPS games unless it is supported for a good while.

If day-one press is good (impressions, reviews, etc.) and sales are there (5 million +), there is a good chance that Bungie will redefine what it means to be an FPS with Destiny. However, many online games have done something different and had large day-one crowds only to fall apart months later. The Old Republic, The Elder Scrolls Online, and All Points Bulletin all come to mind. I think a number of developers will hold off creating a similar type of FPS until Bungie can demonstrate that people are still playing Destiny in droves years later.

With that all in mind, I applaud Bungie for putting so much into this game. I still have no clue as to the quality of the finished product, but I can’t say that I know of a different way that the FPS genre could have evolved. They made playing easier to join and less linear – two things that I do think are the future of FPS. While I acknowledge that the game is going to suffer from hype-fatigue (people will agonize about how overrated it is/was for months), I still think this game as a lot of promise. And I’m going to play it.