There are ways this can be worked around, of course. Writers can build a character from scratch, and throw them into the world that the video game envisioned, but that then leads to problems of its own. Without that flexibility of character, instead the plot has other matters to contend with, and the drive and desire of this newly fleshed-out lead may not align with what the game initially created. It can cause a tonal shift of the overall plot, with Doom a perfect example of a film that failed to capture the same gut instincts that the game provided.The best video game movies know this, and adjust accordingly. Mortal Kombat is an ensemble cast of cartoonish characters in both the film and the games, and so a slight tweak and a shift towards a little bit of extra camp did the film a world of good. For all its faults, Resident Evil knew when to cut characters and when to change them. Meanwhile, Silent Hill did make some odd changes to be sure, but it took the core concepts of the plot, retained those main themes and desires of the characters, and streamlined it into a solid horror movie.It's not only the character-versus-player dichotomy that causes issues though. Games are also unique in their pacing structure, as the participant has so much more control than in any other media. They have authority over the actions of the characters, in come cases even control over the path of the story itself. In cinema, viewer control comes (at most) from pressing pause, while the reader of a book can only control the text itself by reading at their own pace. In both cases, the core story, and all of its intricacies, isn't going to change.So, there are some subtle difference in of what makes a game or a movie fun. Games rely as much on reflexes or active thought as in sound and visual design or acting talent. For some gamers, their favourite moments within the medium come as prolonged shootouts in action games, a particularly fearsome puzzle to overcome, or a long, silent journey in a role-playing game. In short, games are an entirely different beast from the media that have come before them. In a way, it's as difficult to adapt a daydream to the cinema as it is a video game.
There is a serious difference in the ways that games and films think about plot, which may explain why so many video game adaptations fail from a story perspective. Mass Effect is seen as one of the best examples of strong video game story, but a lot of that framework comes from the lore of the universe itself. There is a flavor to Mass Effect that cannot easily be matched within a straightforward movie narrative, developed over information logs, dialogue options, and even by living in the game world for such a long time as a player. A movie adaptation would need to find a way to push that space epic into a smaller runtime, alongside finding a way to build its central, action-heavy story into a cohesive overall plot.
But even more straightforward, linear games would struggle. The previously-mentioned Gore Verbinski's film fell apart.
This is equally true of Assassin's Creed. Although even the most ardent of fan is unlikely to put any of the Assassin's Creed titles alongside BioShock in of storytelling, there's still a deep immersion to be found in Ubisoft's series. However, this is in part down to the framing of the Animus, the virtual reality machine that allows the core gameplay of Assassin's Creed to exist. Within the games, everything is a simulation, a fabrication two layers deep - a game within a game. Take that away from the unique medium of the video game and it loses its lustre.
This, of course, leads to one conclusion: to make a good video game movie, changes have to be made. However, choosing the right changes is a thin line to walk, and there are plenty of adaptations that differ heavily from their source material yet have changed entirely in the wrong way.
Perhaps the best case study of this phenomenon is 2008's Max Payne. On paper, Max Payne should have been an easy choice for a film adaptation. It had a decent action-noir plot in place already, with a tired undercover cop following a mystery with some genuine personal pain behind the story. On top of that, the game itself was built on set pieces that would not have felt out of place from a film itself. It should have been an easy win.
However, the changes made completely ruined any potential the film had. Bizarre tweaks were made to the core story, throwing what was already a good pastiche of the hard-boiled detective out of the window and replacing it with something unnecessarily convoluted. Max Payne retained the most difficult aspects of the game to adapt, and threw out the framework that should have turned it into a solid action movie.
Other movies have had the same problem, but in different ways. Warcraft sequel would probably be a much more cohesive film, with the groundwork already completed.
Making a video game movie work takes brutal decision making, and potentially even a disconnect from sentimentality. Silent Hill might be one of the better video game movies, but even then the film may have been better suited by skipping the first game altogether and instead going to the more terrifying sequel, forgoing the convoluted explanation of what Silent Hill is and instead purely focusing on what the inscrutable location does.
Time and time again, cuts are made to make these films less difficult, sticking to the middle ground while maintaining those elements from the games that fail to work in a cinematic format. A prime example is Doom, which cut the demonic elements of the plot to make it more palatable while fumbling both action and horror and keeping its core character base as a squad of cookie cutter space marines. In effect, most video game movies fall into the same traps as David Lynch's Dune, retaining (and adding) the inexplicable while refusing to budge on elements that are detrimental to the film as a whole.
In spite of this, there's still a wealth of potential behind the Tomb Raider franchise. The recent reboots come closer to the Max Payne realm of thinking, an already-emotive story with strong characters and clear motivations in place. The 2013 release, fantastically written by Rhianna Pratchett, delivers a punch beyond many games of the same ilk, and in a manner that should ideally align itself well to a movie adaptation. The word 'cinematic' is thrown around too much in the video game sphere, but 2013's Tomb Raider and sequel Rise of the Tomb Raider certainly deserve it.
Indeed, the 2013 game itself led to criticisms over the difference between player action and the core plot, and this dissonance could lend itself well to film. Cut out the repetition of shooting villains with a bow and arrow, and instead focus on the turmoil, struggles, and victories of Lara Croft herself and there's the potential for a breathtaking thriller to be had. With Tomb Raiderdrawing inspiration from the last two games, it's ideally those impressive moments of great storytelling and gripping set pieces that shine through.
It won't be long before the dust settles on the film's release, and viewer opinion is able to be fully gauged. We will then be able to find out whether Tomb Raider has been able to avoid the pitfalls of the video game movie adaptation, or whether it will just be another name in the long list of disappointments. At the moment the critical reception has put it at the top of the video game movie pile, even if results have been mixed. Hopefully, Tomb Raider will be able to buck the trend, and instead provide a case study in exactly how video game movies can be done.
Next: Tomb Raider Isn't Really A Video Game Movie That's Why It's Good
