A general rule that I like to follow before posting these blog posts is, and this might not appease everybody, but to post a bit of disclaimer before I go off expressing possibly unpopular opinions, so here it is. I personally am a huge fan of the Assassin's Creed franchise and Ubisoft as a whole, and have been for some time. Ubisoft has made some of the more unique experiences to ever grace gaming such as sands of time, AC, and Far Cry, to name a few, and I love them for this. You're entitled to enjoy the games that I criticize here just as I am entitled not to, it's a buyers market after all, and I'm not trying to personally attack anybody who plays or enjoys these games, their just my opinions. That said, let's dive in.

So, if you're a Ubisoft fan such as myself, or just a fan of games in general, you've likely heard of or experienced the notable decline in Ubisoft games over the past few years, a trend that has taken me and many others by surprise. Ubisoft, a company that was once at the forefront of gaming innovation, has recently seemed to have lagged behind in production, releasing multiple broken and sloppily produced titles over the last 3-4 years. This all started, in my opinion, with the release of AC Revelations, a game that has often been credited as the catalyst in Ubisoft's fall from grace. While many may contribute this to a yearly release issue, a problem which I somewhat agree with but will get into later, it's important to remember that 2 and brotherhood, games which I believe were of a very high quality, were all also yearly releases, being pushed out in 2009 and 2010 respectively. None the less, I still attempted to keep an open mind as to the quality of the series, being a fan of it after all, thinking to myself, "hey, it's only one game, a rough patch in an overall great series, it won't be like this forever, right?". Unfortunately for me, AC 3 only worsened my fears, launching with countless bugs, a bland protagonist, and strange and reworked gameplay. Ac Black Flag would eventually go on to suspend some of my fears, and was easily one of my favorite games of 2013, though most of my praise came for the games sailing portions rather than the the games land exploration, which I again found rather boring overall. Black Flag gave me hope for the future, but, as I would soon learn, my faith was wrongly placed. It was soon announced that not only would the AC series be sticking to their now seemingly stale yearly release schedule, but that they would now be releasing two games at once. i don't want to sound like a snobby idiot here, but my first thought in this situation was that they were doing this for profit and that neither of the games would be very enjoyable. Unfortunately for me and other fans, this prediction proved to be true, as both games were widely renowned as critical failures on release, one being a buggy and disjointed experience, and the other being a literal copy and paste of a previous game.

I was still holding on to hope for Ubisoft overall, and I would often cite the fact that Far Cry 3 was one of the best games 2012 when people would bring these types of accusations against Ubisoft. That said, while I did enjoy Far Cry 4, I can see it for what it is, again essentially a copy and paste of Far Cry 3 with shiny new textures and some minor additions like elephants and gyrocopters. So what is the issue with Ubisoft in its current state? i personally believe, and this is a theory that has been propose by others, that its decline is directly tied to its financial policy. I've said it before and i'll say it again. Games can not bring innovation and originality when your primary concern is profit. Over the years, i've seen Ubisoft shift from a developer and publisher who praised and championed the idea of quality over quantity, hosting multiple studios with each bringing unique experiences to the gaming world. While Ubisoft still does host and support many game studios, there has been a notable shift in policy over these past few years, with the publisher seeming to lean more on the side of financial quantity over the usual product quality that they are known for. games that before took multiple years to develop and held individual styles, such as the Far Cry series, are beginning to have smaller and smaller release date gaps, one need only look at the time between the releases of 2-3 and 3-4 to understand that, a release window that was cut down by half and may only be decreasing. The developer is even proved to have created separate E3 specific graphical files for their game Watchdogs simply in an attempt to awe users by its graphical prowess likely in an attempt to elicit more buys. These issues are only worsened by perhaps one of the worst parts of Ubisofts distribution policies, the infamous U Play system, The U Play system has been plagued by poor latency and bandwidth from the start of its launch, and its necessity to play Ubisoft games has often been criticized, as it typically faces errors in downloading and playing games at launch, and issue not typically found in other services like Steam. And now, with the recent announcement of AC Syndicate. I like many other fans, am wondering to myself, "Is it too late?". The state of Ubisoft, as far as i'm concerned, is pretty deplorable. Their yearly AC release schedule has seemingly backfired, despite the implementation of multiple development teams, and forced DRM and third party hosting have left many users and fans chaffed by current Ubisoft policy. As a standing fan of the series and company as a whole, I sincerely hope that they can pull themselves out of this apparent rut that they've fallen into, and they eventually may. Who know's, maybe Syndicate will be the kick in the rear that thae company needs to get back on track, or maybe it will be another disappointment in a long line of apparent failures for the company, but, as far as I can tell however, it's really not a great time to be a Ubisoft supporter

I'd like to preface this little post by first stating that I myself don't like sports overall. I'm not a very physical person, I'm a bit of a pacifist, and they just really don't interest me overall. That said, if you enjoy sports, it's your choice, and, as I always say, do what makes you happy. However, as I seem to be seeing recently, my primary hobby/passionate obsession, games, have begun to permeate into the sporting world. I first noticed this around last year, when I was flipping through the TV channels and noticed suddenly that ESPN was in fact airing a MOBA competition, with full commentary, coverage, and everything. This left me a bit dumbfounded, as I had never heard of such a thing, but I gradually soon began hearing of aired and followed competitions like these more and more frequently. I myself was quite impressed by this, seeing my hobby slowly spread to other potential fans throughout the world. But as I began to see this more and more, I began to realize that there were more and more people in the athletic community who were taking very active stances to prevent this from happening. This all came to ahead today as I was considering what I could write a blog post about, when I got my daily update from Gamespot regarding the days top stories, the first of which was in regard to a rather obscene radio host who had raked pro gamers over the coals on his talk show The Herd, claiming that he would quit his job if he were ever asked to cover such an event. With further research i've learned that yes, this is a show hosted by a "Loose Cannon" type of guy who likes to act unorthodox in order to elicit responses from his audience, and yes, he was likely blowing his response out of proportion, but it got me thinking "Do games really have a place in the athletic community on a certain level, and if so, in what situations?". So first, let's get the basic information out of the way. Dictionary.com describes a sport as "An athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature". So what is competitive gaming? It is generally two teams or players COMPEATING against each other in competitive multiplayer games, such as fighting games, FPSs, MOBAs, etc.. The key thing to take away from this, as if the capitalization weren't enough, is that, much like the definition states, these players are taking part in a competition to see who can best the other. It may not require physical strength, but there are some sports like NASCAR that also fit this category, and the games that these people are playing require skill. So yes, overlooking some minor discrepancies, competitive gaming could be considered a sport, and, should ESPN be willing to air it, I don't see any reason why it would be any different to watching cars go around in circles (No offense to NASCAR fans, that's just how I see it).

And yet, despite the growth and popularity of this community, there are still some who see it as a personal offense to their way of life and sportsmanship, such as the subtle and open-minded Colin Cowherd, who feel that they need to rant and shout and stomp their feet at any new from of sport they they don't deem personally acceptable in their chosen career. This likely stems from the fact, and I've said this many times now and may be beating dead horse, that games are for children, and not worthy of any real recognition or respect. This is a bit of a rant for another time, but the short story is that many people still see games as a dumb kid's hobby, not as competitive or artistic forms of media that can be entertained by a wide age group. While i'm also willing to accept the reason that games are pretty different when compared to most sports, this undoubtedly is one of the primary contributors to this particular mindest. A man goes out and buys his son an E rated game about cartoon bubble wars for Christmas and soon gets the idea that these things are just for kids, and who can blame him when that's his only exposure to games. But the fact of the matter is that making such a broad generalization about games and gamers doesn't do the community justice, just as me making a biased claim about sports wouldn't reflect the diverse community and types of athletics in the sporting world. As such, it's just immature and rather ill informed for somebody to bash the hobby of another just because they don't agree with their view or idea, and such thinking only fosters animosity between people. After all, both communities are about bringing people together, sharing passions for their own forms of entertainment, and entertaining their fans, and a union of the two would should only generate mutual enjoyment, not animosity. I know I may seem like an idealist, and you'd probably be right for calling me one, as I myself don't find sports or super competitive pro gaming personally entertaining, but at the end of the day we all want to be able to sit down an enjoy the things we love doing, and if what you do is structured in such a way that it can be grouped and shared with others, I don't see why that would be so bad.

Disclaimer: The opinions that I express here that almost all video game movies are awful are just that, opinions. I'm not trying to personally attack you're favorite film, and, if you like any of these movies, it's your choice, these are just my opinions and you're entitled to your own as well. Thanks.

So after using Gamespot for quite some time and being active in the forums, I've come to realize that I haven't really spewed any of my thoughts out in to a blog post yet. So, I thought to my self, why not try to write one? And for my first topic, why not tackle two things you love that seem destined to fail when placed together: films and games. So without further delay, here goes nothing.

The Issues

So, as many of you likely will know if you've ever seen a video game movie, you've probably left the theater thinking to yourself "That really wasn't that great, but what went wrong?". There may have been some talented actors in it, and it may have stayed true to the games vision, but you really didn't enjoy it as much as the game, did you? And, more importantly, why didn't you? And you're not alone in saying this. Almost every video game film, if not every one, to ever be released has been a critical and financial flop, generally making a very small profit when compared to other wide release films and financial success standards.Just look at some of the examples, like the erroneous and dumb in all the wrong ways Super Mario Bros film, the professional but boring Prince of Persia film, the flat and odd Need For Speed (though notably noble for creating a whole film based on a game with nameless and plotless car drivers) or the strange and hyperactive Hitman adaptation, and don't even get me started on the nauseatingly dumb Dead Or Alive movie, with its dumb and hilarious towel scene, which, out of good faith for Gamespot, I won't link here.

But what is it about these adaptations that make them so poor and bland. Well, in my seemingly infinite free time, I've boiled it down to three main points that I will lay out here for all to see, and, who knows, maybe somebody who knows somebody might pass this information along to a director or filmmaker considering creating a video game movie.

Issue One: The Story

This first point ties in a bit with a latter point, but it's enough of a criticism to be considered a point of its own. A thing that a lot of directors and writers seem to do when adapting a game is that they do just that, adapt the full game. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but the issue is that games are already pretty cinematic on their own. Games aren't like books where you there are tons of details to play with and the author rarely, if ever, gives you a cannon description of what a scene or character looks like. This allows directors and writers to create their interpretation of the world based on the authors description and nothing little to nothing else. The problem with games is that they present you with a cannon image. Games don't expect you to create an image of what a character looks like, they simply show you because he is the character and you need to see him to be him. The issue here is that this leaves little avenues open in the way of creative interpretation for a director to play with when adapting a game to the screen, as they are confined by the rules and appearance of the game, which is is already there for players to see. It's for this reason that you often feel as if you've just watched a scaled down and thinner version of something that you've already played and seen, and that you really didn't need a film for the game at all. To emphasize this, I'm going to present two examples of film adaptations, one from a game, and one from a book. The first film is that of the Mortal Kombat adaptation from 1995. While many, myself included, commend this film for it's loyalty to its subject matter in creating something that felt as if it had stayed true to MKs core details, there really were no creative liberties taken in the process of making the film separate or unique from the game. You weren't surprised by how a fight between Subzero and Scorpion looked because you had already seen it unfold a hundred times on screen. You weren't in awe by how massive and intimidating Goro was because you had already seen him tear through his enemies before in full detail. Contrast this now with the Lord Of The Rings films of the 2000s. The appearance of Sauron and his menacing appearance was shocking to many fans because they had never seen him outside of their minds. The battle of Minas Tirith was electrifying and amazing because you had never seen it presented to you in any other form other than words on a page, The problem is that games are naturally cinematic, and it's hard to truly be original or awe inspiring when you're simply taking details that fans have already seen and porting them over in to a live action format, rather than images made up entirely in the fans minds. The story may be on a bigger screen, but, at the end of the day, it's essentially the same experience that you could get at home or, depending on the time, at the arcade.

Issue 2: The World

As stated before, this ties in with the previous point regarding the story, and yes, it may be more of a tip than a criticism, but I still feel that it's a strong point and that it should be expressed. One of the biggest things that writers and directors seem to overlook is just how massive and detailed these games that they're adapting are. A majority of these games have massive and fully realized worlds that can provide all matter of inspiration and opportunity from a creative standpoint, yet, they are, for the most part, never taken advantage of, with the majority of films again being a direct adaptation of the game itself with little to no differences thrown in. A notable and promising exception to this seems to be the new HALO: Nightfall series, taking place separately from the games but still holding multiple tie ins and even using other characters. If you were to write a Mass Effect film, and yes, one is in production, do you think you, as a writer or viewer, would have more fun seeing the same Commander Shepard story you've seen a hundred times play out on screen, or a different film, still grounded in the same universe, but with a new plot, enemies, and cast of characters to follow and connect with. It seems that directors and writers alike are ignoring these opportunities for originality and flexibility and instead reaching for the easiest and least creative option possible. The real way to create a truly unique an engaging game experience is to allow for the writers and directors creativity and vision to shine. If the studio picked a poor team then it will show, and if they chose well it will also show, but don't hide behind another's work because you're afraid to look deeper in to the world of the game. play the game some, think about the story and what made the characters work in that setting, and make it your own, not a sloppy adaptation of somebody else's work.

Issue 3: The Gameplay

This final issue is a bit hard to find a way around it, because it's at the core of every game. While the story may have been great to see unfold, one of the primary reasons that these games being adapted are so great is due to the fact that the developers knew how to blend story and gameplay seamlessly to craft a great experience. The issue here is, short of making a strange and likely infinitely flawed interactive movie, there really is no way to incorporate this essential piece of the game industry in to a film without it seeming strange and out of place. Each game has a certain flavor to its gameplay that works with the story to create one cohesive and enjoyable experience. This can be anything from wandering the world like in most games, player choice in the plot in RPGs, or even direct cut scene control. In a film, however, this kind of immersion and choice is nowhere to be found. Where you might feel that you are controlling Adam Jensen in Deus Ex and that you are guiding him on your own path, though it's still a path decided for you by the games developers, you are completely disconnected from the characters on screen in a film, leaving you helpless and giving you no more choice other than yelling at the screen like a mad man to influence the characters actions and plot. Again i'm going to go to the MK example to provide an example of this. In an actual MK game you feel the tension of the matches on a whole other level. Every hit you take is your fault, ever strike you make is your doing, and every tense and down to the second fatality is a reward for you the player. Now imagine watching this unfold on a screen in front of you with none of your input. this is how the MK film feels overall. There isn't any viewer action or decision, and, while you could argue that there is tension, it's a lot less immediate and dire, as you haven't put yourself in any dangerous situation, the writers and directors have. This overall makes game films feel a lot more shallow and bland overall, and create, again, what often seems like a less effective version of what you could get at home without buying a ticket to a film or watching events unfold without your control. The film takes away your input and your eye for detail, you no longer feel like you exist in the world and are exploring it yourself, but that you are viewing the thoughts and experiences of another a far less personal experience than if you were to play the actual game.

while I can see how the idea of video game movie adaptations might appeal to some, the errors made so far and inherent challenges faced when bringing a game to the screen are numerous, and typically limit the film's success. Unfortunately, however, with the advent and rise of games in popular culture, the temptation for many studios to publish such films is ever increasing, attempting to capitalize on the success of the growing demand and market of games. These future films have also faced the same challenges and many seem poised to make the same mistakes as their predecessors, along with numerous production challenges seemingly being faced even in the creation of these films, with many already the subjects of delays and rewrites, signs that typically spell trouble for a film at release. Hopefully, however, these films and their creators will be able to learn from past mistakes in time to save their products, and we may one day see a decent game adaptation hit theaters.