[QUOTE="ChiChiMonKilla"][QUOTE="no_submission"][QUOTE="THEWINDWAKER10"]

Sony. Hands down. They got too cocky, and let them get ahead of themselves.

FatalDomain

People are still buying PS3's, when retailers start sending PS3's out into the Arizona desert where all the Atari Jaguars are then you can start the violin music, but until then Sony is still pretty much in the game.

Sorry to inform you but last gen systems sales serves no purpose this gen (you dont see other companies touting sale figures for old products do you? The 2004 Mercedes is eating up the sales charts!!! Sounds silly doesnt it?). And we as gamers know the real reason why the PS3 passed 360 sales this month so no real accomplishment there. I find it funny how Sony fans will make a sales comparison with the 360 but forget to add that the Wii stomped everyone in sales...OOOoooh the PS3 sold well for a few weeks whoopty doo, my friend....Thats like celebrating your favorite fighter finally got in a good combination on the opponent, but ignore the fact he is being brutally beaten the entire bout.

As for your claim that Sony owned E3 07, thats just a opinion shared by few but the majority felt that the entire show was dull and boring with no clear cut winner.

Game On...

Thats because no other companies in the gaming market have sales figures on last gen consoles to tout:)

And I think the biggest "fall of grace" was Atari followed by Nintendo followed by Sony. Atari killed a whole market, cmon, instant win there:P Nintendo were the big thing but then they lost it all to the playstation(all though now it seems they are taking it all back) Sony was the big thing, Playstation was "cool" and popular. Everyone wanted a playstation and loved sony but then sony ruined it all with crap PR and pricing their console too high.

[QUOTE="TriangleHard"][QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"][QUOTE="TriangleHard"]

Yes TIME is certainly very important in storytelling.

That's how much detail you can put in, and being restricted in amount of details you can put in certainly hurts.

Why do you think book is always better than the movie counter-part?

Seriously, you need to go study more yourself

FrozenLiquid

Hmm.... -thinks to himself-

Ah yes!

The Godfather, originally a novel, is far superior to its book counterpart according to many people.

Here's another one: 2001: A Space Odyssey. More thought provoking than the book could ever get you to do.

The only people that think the Lord of the Rings books are better than their movie counterparts are those that are fanatic about the books. I myself am a fan of the books, but I appreciate the movies for being damn good, and equalling what was mentioned in Tolkien's writing.

Ok, I mucked up. Time is important. What I meant was length. If length was the most important thing about stories, the longer a movie is, the better it'd be. King Kong 2005 is deemed inferior to the 1933 version because it's so bloody long and melodramatic. It took 2 hours worth of film and put it into 3 hours. No good.

Pirates of the Caribbean 3 is long, boring bullsh**. There are many movies in the hour and a half mark that totally destroy that 2 hr, 50 minute piece of crap.

Sure, I'm going to study more, because i don't know enough personally. But when you have studied Citizen Kane, The Matrix, the Godfather, Apocalypse Now..... Asian films like Pulse, One Missed Call, Brotherhood of War.....European films like Amelie and Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrells.... video games such as Halo and Knights of the Old Republic.... then you can come and tell me to study stories yourself. And I don't mean studying them in class time. I meant studying them in your own time. Perhaps you can write 100 leafs worth of notes on Halo just like me. Then maybe you'll learn a fraction of what stories in all mediums have to offer.

Ok I also got little carried away too. I even mentioned Old Boy when the movie was much better than original manga.

However, in most cases many people do generally recieve the impression that the book is better than movies, because it is difficult to put large amount of information within 2 to 3 hour limit. If you study about literatures and films that much, you should know how difficult that is.

I also study lots of films, books, and less extend games. I've watched Amelie, Apocalypse Now, Tales of Two Sisters, JSA, etc etc etc. I also have read many books like Art of War, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Norse Mythology etc. I think there is absolutely no reason why my opinion should weigh less than yours.

Yes, that's the impression, because most people don't realize how hard it is to translate novels to film, and games to film, and vice versa.

Translating a novel to film does not mean simply re arranging the dialogue, trimming out bits because it doesn't fit et voila. I could do that within a day. That's what Steve Kloves did with Harry Potter, and it completely butchered the HP stories (although I like Harry Potter 3, because Alfonso Cuaron is awesome).

When people say film adaption, they don't really adapt. They rather.... translate. Adapting is to change the pace, show things in a different way (because you have a visual medium on your hands, why tell when you can show?).

Most script writers, in fact almost all of them, are only there to cash in a few dollars. Hence "translating". What most people don't realize in the film medium, or they choose to ignore this because it requires more work, is that dialogue is only 10% of communication. The other 90% is purely visual.

Watch Marlon Brando's performance in the Godfather. Most of his character comes through the way he acts, not what he speaks.

IMO Harry Potter 3 was the worst out of all the Potter movies. IT just totally ruined the Harry Potter atmosphere. Children of Men was pretty good though.

It certainly isn't Western.

I have an Asian film here that is very similar to Metal Gear Solid in terms of style. It's OTT just like Metal Gear.

If Metal Gear Solid became a film it would appeal to the Asian scene more than the Western scene. That's why if there ever was a Hollywood version it'd suck. The studios would put their grubby paws on it.

I dont know, I havent really paid any attention to whether the games have a Western or Asian feel to them but there wasnt any part at all in the games that made me thing "Whoa, thats so Asian:P"

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"][QUOTE="TriangleHard"]

Yes TIME is certainly very important in storytelling.

That's how much detail you can put in, and being restricted in amount of details you can put in certainly hurts.

Why do you think book is always better than the movie counter-part?

Seriously, you need to go study more yourself

jg4xchamp

Hmm.... -thinks to himself-

Ah yes!

The Godfather, originally a novel, is far superior to its book counterpart according to many people.

Here's another one: 2001: A Space Odyssey. More thought provoking than the book could ever get you to do.

The only people that think the Lord of the Rings books are better than their movie counterparts are those that are fanatic about the books. I myself am a fan of the books, but I appreciate the movies for being damn good, and equalling what was mentioned in Tolkien's writing.

Ok, I mucked up. Time is important. What I meant was length. If length was the most important thing about stories, the longer a movie is, the better it'd be. King Kong 2005 is deemed inferior to the 1933 version because it's so bloody long and melodramatic. It took 2 hours worth of film and put it into 3 hours. No good.

Pirates of the Caribbean 3 is long, boring bullsh**. There are many movies in the hour and a half mark that totally destroy that 2 hr, 50 minute piece of crap.

Sure, I'm going to study more, because i don't know enough personally. But when you have studied Citizen Kane, The Matrix, the Godfather, Apocalypse Now..... Asian films like Pulse, One Missed Call, Brotherhood of War.....European films like Amelie and Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrells.... video games such as Halo and Knights of the Old Republic.... then you can come and tell me to study stories yourself. And I don't mean studying them in class time. I meant studying them in your own time. Perhaps you can write 100 leafs worth of notes on Halo just like me. Then maybe you'll learn a fraction of what stories in all mediums have to offer.

Your kidding, those movies were awesome. The first time you see them they are simply amazing. I have to admit I couldnt see the last 2 for a second time because of how long and boring they became. I can still see the first one as many times as I like though.

[QUOTE="akif22"]

have to say MGS

MGS3's story in particular was amazing, especially how it blended fiction with real historic events, like the cuban missile crisis and other 60s cold war stuff

FrozenLiquid

It would certainly make a good, yet bizzare film. It'll have an asian flavour to it though, naturally.

Not really, MGS games arent really...Asian. I dunno how to define them, its obvious that Kojima is proud of his Japanese nationallity by a few remarks in the game but there isnt any Japanese feel or anything to them.

[QUOTE="TriangleHard"]

Yes TIME is certainly very important in storytelling.

That's how much detail you can put in, and being restricted in amount of details you can put in certainly hurts.

Why do you think book is always better than the movie counter-part?

Seriously, you need to go study more yourself

FrozenLiquid

Hmm.... -thinks to himself-

Ah yes!

The Godfather, originally a novel, is far superior to its book counterpart according to many people.

Here's another one: 2001: A Space Odyssey. More thought provoking than the book could ever get you to do.

The only people that think the Lord of the Rings books are better than their movie counterparts are those that are fanatic about the books. I myself am a fan of the books, but I appreciate the movies for being damn good, and equalling what was mentioned in Tolkien's writing.

Ok, I mucked up. Time is important. What I meant was length. If length was the most important thing about stories, the longer a movie is, the better it'd be. King Kong 2005 is deemed inferior to the 1933 version because it's so bloody long and melodramatic. It took 2 hours worth of film and put it into 3 hours. No good.

Pirates of the Caribbean 3 is long, boring bullsh**. There are many movies in the hour and a half mark that totally destroy that 2 hr, 50 minute piece of crap.

Sure, I'm going to study more, because i don't know enough personally. But when you have studied Citizen Kane, The Matrix, the Godfather, Apocalypse Now..... Asian films like Pulse, One Missed Call, Brotherhood of War.....European films like Amelie and Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrells.... video games such as Halo and Knights of the Old Republic.... then you can come and tell me to study stories yourself. And I don't mean studying them in class time. I meant studying them in your own time. Perhaps you can write 100 leafs worth of notes on Halo just like me. Then maybe you'll learn a fraction of what stories in all mediums have to offer.

I agree with LOTR movies being a crapload better than the books. And yes, I have read all the books:P

FrozenLiquid, just wondering, have you ever played the MGS series?

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

Depends on what you mean by best, and also what your tastes are.

Want *** stories? Go for Japanese games.

Want engaging sci fi? Go for Half Life.

Want something a little more deep? Try Halo.

Want something interpretive? Try Shadow of the Colossus.

Uzumaki_Naruto5

Im gonna try and stay open minded but uhh...Halo wasnt too deep to me? I havent played the Halo2 Campaign but I have played the Halo1 campaign and the story was average to me and pretty much everyone says Halo 1 had a better story than 2?

Just bringing a post back from the front page so we can stay kind of on topic here(and im curious how you think halo's story is deep)