rSquar3d

Ah, but that's not the only consideration I pointed out (and I think you mean Ralph Bakshi). Yes, he knew and he loved, but did he have the technical know-how (although he did patent a retrospective point-of-view drawing method)? Did he have the talent and potential in the first place (talent meaning in terms of interpretation and potential in terms of personal ability and audience)? Meh, looking back, it seemed to me that some of the locations or themes in Peter Jackson's older movies seemed to be preparations for making LOTR. Also, Bakshi suffered from the fact that the audiences during the time of his LOTR movie was, well, not really interested with LOTR; only the die-hard fanboys really wanted an LOTR movie, and it failed miserably because its interpretation did not really cater to them. In films, along with the translation of one medium to the film medium, there are so many considerations, and I seriously doubt there is one true comprehensive listing of all these. However, I can arguably say that the following are some of the most important ones: Director and crew's knowledge and passion about the material Inherent talent and potential in director and crew, esp. editors and screenplay writers Quality of the source material Potential audiences, as well as their possible reactions to one version/interpretation or the other The technology available The actors available and their appropriateness to the roles Willingness of the producer to fund the project There may be more that are just as important, although I can't think of any more at this point in time.

Ah, this is an issue of perception. Meh, better no plot rather than a fake plot. >

Lovely. Though I would have preferred more stellar editing (MLG-esque if you know what I mean). And I miss Hell March 2 (my fave version). Or the music could've been a bit more epic (not that I have anything against using C&C tracks). >

Eh? Well, I'll just explain... There's no good or bad side in SC or SC2 either. Each side has a role to play in the future; indeed, Infested Kerrigan (the self-proclaimed Queen Bitch of the Universe >), and considered by most to be one of the biggest antagonists in the SC universe, is actually fleshing out to be the messiah of that universe (kinda like a Kane that will screw you for fun >), and the mystery still deepens because, well, it's not even sure if she's gonna save them all or screw them (which won't be the first time >). And remember, SC and RA both fleshed out sub-genres in RTS gaming. Both games were released about two years apart, and each made a different impact in gaming. Not to mention that each went in very different directions. An RTS is, after all, just something that requires strategic thinking in a real-time, not turn based, environment. What other elements are thrown in (combat style emphasis, sci-fi or realistic, etc.) don't really matter. It's still an RTS, a real one. Both are great series (and with SC I mean the game series with -craft suffix >).

My point was covered in a certain book I found a long time ago, in relation to the translation of one medium to another. Books to movies is a similar relationship, BUT it is much harder (supposedly) to pull off, since the expectations are much, much greater. Why? First of all, as I keep on saying, a book may have as many imaginary movie versions or visual translations as there are readers. Second, it is certainly subject to lots of interpretation in terms of visuals and characters. Lastly, modifications become a necessity in book to movie medium transition, owing to length (with books, days or weeks are allotted for storytelling; for movies, just a few hours). Games to movies are much easier to pull off. Why? First of all, there are already visuals, vocals, characterizations, etc. which are readily fleshed-out in-game; this makes for a more universal visual interpretation and expectation of a movie. Second, modifications are less necessary, especially in games that are cinematic/storytelling heavy (i.e. Starcraft, POP, Halo); what becomes necessary is the shortening or removal of long gameplay-based sequences (i.e. long firefights that have little narrative, puzzle solving that is dragging and with little dialogue, etc.). The similarities are that the director and the screenplay writers are translating mediums of storytelling that often take hours or even days to tell a story to one that is very different in a sense that you have only a short span of time to tell the same story. Also, a movie which is taking source material from another medium, regardless of which medium, will always have the challenges of heavy expectations and significant constraints; expectations since people want it to be as good as the source material/medium, and constraints due to time, budget, and other movie production-related factors. @Nyerguds, time-filling isn't the only thing that occupies a game. First of all, if there is a long and in-depth story, and a lot of characterization, then that's a lot of material already; good screenplay writers will utilize that. Second, already existent in-game cinematics can be translated to the movie medium effectively, and with possibly longer lengths (though just the right length still) for dramatic effect. Third, puzzle and action sequences (which may be considered filler) can be utilized in the movie, BUT a good editor and screenplay writer will always know to shorten it, keep it related to the overall story. With good direction, screenplay, and editing, as well as a crew familiar with the source material and dedicated to what they're doing, it is more than possible to translate a game successfully into a movie format. @D14810, it's not only Lord of the Rings. Technically and story-wise, the Twilight saga and Harry Potter saga have been translated well (although for the latter, imo, only the first 3 movies were acceptable translations). Also, do not look at just the source material (although that's also important); look at the crew, and what set the LOTR crew apart from others. They were talented, sure, but they were also dedicated, they wanted to make a good movie, they knew what the best translation of the source material into the new medium would be, AND THEY KNEW AND LOVED THE SOURCE MATERIAL. Knowing what material you are sourcing from, and loving that very material, motivates you and gives you an understanding that would enable a very successful translation from one medium to another.

Aaaah. What I meant was the exact day, not the season. Hehe.

As it says, 7 hours to go before Christmas here in the Philippines (GMT+8). It's been crappy though. Not much to do yet. Though I do hope to gain a few kilos in weight after this evening (yes, I am undeniably thin and light). I'll upload some of our pics to spread some Christmas cheer (provided I have enough time to take pics, that is >). How's your Christmas and Christmas Eve? >

Exactly my points! If you could stay loyal to a book that, hey, has as many movie versions as there are readers (at least, this is how it goes for books since, after all, each and every reader has his/her own visual interpretation of the book), is very long, and pull it off with still having the same story, the same (if not similar) depth, and make a big buck without ****ing the original story up, then you could do that for a game! All I'm saying is that the POP movie sucked because I had a distinct feeling that the director and screenplay writers haven't even played POP, and therefore had no idea what the **** they were writing and directing for. Peter Jackson read LOTR, and he is a fan; he knew what he was doing. The people who raped the POP intellectual property? I doubt they even had an inkling on what POP is. Which is really the do-or-die factor in all adaptations from one medium to another; it's a matter of making the right compromise between the materials, still staying loyal to the original (without sacrificing your medium), making modification when necessary, and having a crew, or at least screenplay and direction team, that knows the source material WELL. I say RIGHT compromise because nothing should be sacrificed for nothing when it comes to adapting something for another medium (in LOTR, Peter Jackson sacrificed bits that would have taken long, but were not super significant cogs in the story, therefore maintaining the integrity of both the story and the movie). I say staying loyal to the original because, hey, if you're sourcing something, actually USE it, not just ride on the material and name of the source and make your own ****ed up stupid ass bull**** story (as was the case in POP). Lastly, I say know the material well because, hey, the two aforementioned salient points actually need a guy who knows both the story, and the needs of his medium (in this case, film), to make the right decisions, and come up with the best possible output.

I think the balance was still great in C&C3, although indeed, players were forced to be aggressive, and turtling became less effective, and steamrolling got a boost. Dunno about the old games though; it seemed to me that spamming and power weapons still took a huge chunk. I mean, with RA2, Apocalypse or Prism+Guardian IFV or Magnetron+Mastermind+Gattling Tank spams were more than perfect, and ended up facing one another (and becoming a shooting gallery; who shoots first, more and fastest wins). In RA1, Medium Tanks or Heavy Tanks, supported by Rocket Soldiers, or maybe Mammoths, ended up becoming my spam (with a mix of naval and aerial support, but not so much). In TS though, spamming was greatly discouraged; no super tank units, only specialist units. TS was probably the most balanced C&C in my opinion. C&C3 though took me in with the variety it presented me; I could try and rush (usually with Nod), turtle (usually with Scrin), or steamroll (often with GDI). However, the Mammoth in this iteration was simply too powerful; it could face down a tripod head-to-head (it swallowed Avatars whole), and with railguns, it was night unstoppable in massed numbers. Best counter became superweapons, Devastator Warships (hit and run), a similar Mammoth spam, or Nod bombers. But when you combine it with other units, that's when C&C3 shines; large maps + combined forces + no pop cap=large, epic battles. Pathing problems were, for the most part, nonexistent in SC2, although builder units sometimes got stuck when you constructed near solid objects (let's say a large wall; often happens with SCVs). In C&C, however, it has been a consistent issue. Balancing was pretty ****ed up in C&C4 though; in fact, it was practically nonexistent. At least in C&C3, balance only disappeared when people didn't want to have fun, but focused on wanting to win. And yes, Starcraft 2 is pretty, no? >

Hahaha!, Meh, we had Red Horse, tequila, and a bit of vodka last night. My girl had some margaritas. Hehe. I think Christmas has already come and passed for everyone in the world. >

Yeah, well, that's not much of a problem for me. What's good for one isn't necessarily good for all, after all; it's a matter of perception. Meh, I love Windows 7; it's my OS of choice at this point. Here's hoping Microsoft keeps it up, and doesn't come up with a Windows 8 that feels like a Vista 2.

Technically, no, it's not C&C. But it is a good game, better than the so-called "C&C4"

It's kind of like a paradox. You rewind time, but then, there's such a thing called "destiny" in the POP universe, so it sums up to nothing. In between the end of Sands of Time and Warrior Within, the prince discovered that, upon rewinding a whole lot (way before the war between Persia and India), there was the Island of Time, and there was the Empress of Time. Kill the empress, stop the sands from being created. So that's what the prince did, and he ended up creating it because the sands actually form when the Empress dies. So he does another damn rewind as a Sandwraith, and saves the Empress instead; happily ever after supposedly after that. However, in Two Thrones, the Empress is killed (yet again), this time by the Vizier, who managed to take over India and lead it to victory over Persia. At the end of Two Thrones, the prince finally accepts his "destiny," doesn't bother to change it anymore, and instead retells the whole fiasco to Farah (princess of India), starting from the events of Sands of Time, and so, we go back to the first scene of Sands of Time. So it's a never ending-cycle or rotation. It's pretty deep, actually, and the lines were kinda nice in-game. The movie version is the exact opposite of that.

Ah, yes. That's them ****ing up C&C4. I was excited with all the walkers, the return of cyborgs, and the prospect of finally seeing and end to the Tiberian arc of the C&C franchise, but after realizing what ****ed up game C&C4 was, I didn't bother to finish the game anymore. I read the whole story on C&C Wiki. Saved me the trouble and frustration of finishing a story not worth a rat's ass and working through it using a ****ed up gameplay system. @Nyerguds, I envy ya. You didn't need to waste any money on it, LOL. Meh, I always have high hopes for C&C games. Even Generals, which faced either so-so ratings or slightly above average ratings. But this was a whole new class of bull**** money making. But hey, at least it came on one DVD; it simplified the throwing away process. > (and yes, I did throw it away; I have no intention of playing that piece of **** EVER AGAIN) [EDIT] Forgive the insane amount of expletives used. I'm just so damn pissed about C&C4.

His solo sequences could be shortened, owing also the constraints of the movie medium. The problem is if the story will get ****ed up or not. The way the story was handled in POP was just plain crap. Not to mention, a few minutes into the movie, you do know that the story ISN'T THE REAL ONE FROM THE POP GAMES. You can actually go so far as it borrowing elements and characters from POP, then giving them another story altogether. Then, that would have been okay if it weren't for the fact that the story was too cheesy, the action sequences not even half of POP: SOT's, and I ended up wishing the prince would just die so I wouldn't have to watch that wretched drivel anymore, and instead play POP. @Nyerguds, your last complaint is actually kinda explained by the first three games in the POP series, especially Warrior Within.

Ah, now that's something. I never really leave the PC for too long, even when copying. When there's a prompt, I just often use "do this for the next x conflicts," but that doesn't apply to everyone anyway.

It was pretty okay for me, the mass bases. It set C&C apart even further from other RTS games, mainly because it rewarded large bases and skillful management of defenses. However, it became a nuisance when it comes to Nod, what with all their stealth abilities. But base crawling isn't too bad, as long as the maps were big. The problem comes in when it comes to the fact that Nod is better equipped in terms of base defenses for large bases (stealth, no friendly fire), and GDI was ill-equipped to take advantage of that playing field. I love how games become epic in scale when it comes to C&C, even with the old ones, thanks to the ability to mass large forces, and lack of pop cap. C&C4 really ruined the hell out of it; what the original C&C began (and took the series about slightly less than a decade to establish), C&C4 ruined in one release. Btw, I just thought about it. Spam fests were pretty easy to counter; spam with counter units. A good combination of counter units and standard units, however, would pwn any force in Generals (unless its a steamroll of Emperor Overlords; then you'd be forced to spam counter).

Yep, but the lack of pop cap was an even bigger thing that defined C&C. Pop caps were seen in virtually every other game, and Starcraft had one of the most challenging (as well as smallest) ones, and this forces an emphasis on quality over quantity, micromanagement, and guerrilla or highly tactical (tactical meaning small-scale) warfare. C&C, on the other hand, initially disposed of that, and put an emphasis on mass battles, huge single bases (expansions were rare, and often were united with the main base), and more of strategic (strategic meaning large-scale) warfare. Not to mention it was the only game wherein turtling becomes a REAL tactic. Whether or not the one unit per factory change is good or bad is subjective. I think it's good for C&C, since the emphasis is on large battles. However, having that ability, yet also having a pop cap, drained the vitality out of C&C and made it feel like just any other RTS out there. Plus, the node control method of gameplay feels too much like Warhammer 40,000's Strategic Control Point game mode, which involves the capturing of points, as well as a similar resource gathering method. Generals began a slump in some terms, but changed for a bit when Zero Hour and the following games came out, but all the possibilities of still being C&C and yet new were killed by C&C4.

Well, actually, C&C in the past redefined the genre as Starcraft did. Both pushed it in different, wildly amazing possibilities; Starcraft with its focus on tactical warfare, spellcasting, and micromanagement; C&C, on the other hand, focused on large-scale battles, made turtling a real tactic (which was all but impossible in Starcraft unless you are playing Terran vs. some noobs), and made for long, epic games. At least, that was how it went until about the time of Generals. Since then, the series has been in a downhill slump, gameplay-wise, though C&C3 and RA3 managed to up it a certain notch (and the story was getting a bit better, even for Generals). It did seem like a revitalization of the series. Then came the abomination called C&C4. The word "twilight" seems to fit it nicely; EA seems to be hell-bent on bringing the twilight of the C&C series. Now this one didn't just ****-up gameplay-wise; the story bombed, other RTS games had better graphics, etc.; the only component worth mentioning was the music, which was kinda above-average. But the awards it was nominated for were exactly what it deserved; it disappointed us as a sequel (hence "Most Disappointing Game" and "Least Improved Sequel"), and it really has to win Least Improved Sequel at least in my opinion. Why? It's not even least improved; IT HASN'T IMPROVED ONE BIT. Ranting aside, let's just hope that some enlightened EA exec makes a realization and tries to put forth a Renaissance of sorts for the franchise. And succeeds. Now that would make come back to playing C&C, hardcore.

Aaah, but the Lord of the Rings is pretty hard to translate into movie form, very dragging (yet GOOD) in book form, yet Peter Jackson translated it into movie form, with modifications, but stayed oh so loyal to the story that NO ONE can possibly not love him for how he interpreted the source material. Books and games are hard to translate, but books are harder. Not to mention that games already have a universal visual imprint, while books, well, there are as many possible visual interpretations as there are readers. And I mean, if they made it a 2-hour movie, started a trilogy (going with Sands of Time first), and put there money-making schemes second to creative integrity, it would have been breathtaking, just like the game was when it came out. Now, for Half-Life (since we are digressing), I think it might work. I say might because, again, if it doesn't hearken back to the game and the emotions it brought out of those that played it (and these emotions aren't limited to gaming, remember), then it'll suck. But if it does hearken, then boy, we'll have a saga that might chronicle the whole Half-Life storyline (one movie would be HL, the next HL2, so on and so forth). I do suggest, if they really will go ahead with it, to have Neil Bloomkamp (he did an amazing work with Halo: Landfall, and that's even for my dad who hates Halo, as well as District 9) and Peter Jackson (he does amazing work with CGI direction and story interpretation, and maybe they should bring along his screenplay writers from LOTR) for best effect.

11 hours since it was Christmas here. Had a nice night. > Merry Christmas again to all you guys at CNCNZ!

It's pretty nice. Kane looks like a santa with a hidden agenda. >

Merry Christmas! May you have more nukes, Tiberium, Kirovs, Aircraft Carriers, and Mammoth Tanks to come. >

Aaah. Meh, I'm famished. Just some pancit (dry noodles fyi), grilled fish (tuna mind you), some roast chicken, and cake. No chocolates and alcoholic drinks yet. Hehehe. *Insert evil grin

Haha. Merry Christmas, you lucky bastard. Meh, it's a family affair today. Although I will be going out with my girl in the middle of the night for some drinking with our buddies. Hehe. Btw, just 3 hours and 23 minutes more to go. >