Video game movies suck, and that’s a fact. No, seriously, they all suck – every worthless last one of them. Silent Hill is about as good as they get, and it still isn’t worth the price of the DVD. Unfortunately, not one of the upcoming ones look any better. Why is that? Is there hope? What can be done to fix movie adaptations of games? Or, am I just babbling?

Read on for my musings on what’s wrong with game movies and how to fix them.

Why is it that game movies fail? It really is a combination of unique factors. The most obvious one is the staff working on these adaptations. Even if we ignore Uwe Boll, most of the people who have brought us the game-to-movie adaptations just aren’t that talented. Or if they are, whatever talent they have is wasted on these movies. This does somewhat come down to the fact that games are licensed properties. The most talented people in Hollywood usually aren’t actually interested in working on someone else’s franchise. They aren’t the only ones to blame, however – the source material generally deserves just as much of the shame.

The vast majority of games just don’t make good movies. They may make a wonderful interactive experience, but that doesn’t translate to a medium that just isn’t interactive. You generally get as much out of a game as you put into it, and without that two-way connection, the movie has to rely on the story and setting of the game. The vast majority of games would collapse if they had to rely on story alone. For a case in point, I present Mario. Mario jumps around a mushroom kingdom in order to save a princess. He jumps. He jumps a lot. That’s about it. Mario succeeds as a game because it is fun. The controls and levels are fine-tuned to perfection, so the lack of a story is forgiven. The movie adaptation of Mario fails on so many levels that it has found a sort of second skin as a “B” comedy. Really, the film itself has so many shortcomings that aren’t due to faults in the source material, but could anybody else have done a better job? I’m not sure that it could ever work as a movie.

Most games fall into this same trap. In fact, the vast majority of games have either no story, or a crappy one. This isn’t a problem in many cases. If the gameplay makes up for it, not every game needs a deep storyline. Would Mario benefit from an award winning narrative? Now, many games would benefit from a better story, but, believe me, that’s another rant entirely. The point is that for a movie adaptation to work, the game needs a story, setting, and characters that are entertaining enough to enjoy without the interactivity. What’s left? Role-playing games immediately spring to mind. That entire genre relies on spinning a good yarn and convincing you that you are someone else. RPGs, both eastern and western, are known for their compelling narratives and believable characters.

Would RPGs work as movies? Honestly, I’m not so sure that many of them would. The problem is length. Even when the gameplay portions are axed, most RPGs have hours upon hours of cutscenes and story bits. Your average Final Fantasy game would never work as a movie, there’s just too much there. Firefly was one of the best things to ever hit TV, but Serenity suffered as a movie because the cast was too big. The Serenity cast is tiny compared to the list of main and supporting characters in many RPGs.

How does all of this relate to Children of Men and Half-Life 2? Well, I’m glad you asked. I saw Children of Men about a month ago and absolutely loved it. What really struck me while watching it was how much it reminded me of Half-Life 2. Obviously, I’m not the first person, nor the last, who will give it mention. The two properties share a similar setting and common themes. What also struck me while watching it was the fact that both Children of Men and Half-Life 2 share a common narrative structure. When you boil it all down, both represent a journey from point A to point B where various story hooks and action bits occur at times intervals. When you think about it, nearly every game follows this exact same structure. However, fewer movies do. Most movies follow a linear plot, but they aren’t fundamentally about getting from one place to another. Even if split into unique levels, loads of games are all about the journey. Why does this work in Children of Men when so many actual game adaptations fail?

It once again comes down to those crucial three elements – story, setting, and characters. Children of Men delivers because it presents us with an intriguing setting - bleak futures in which a tyrannical government rules with an iron fist have been done to death. On the other hand, however, Children of Men presents us with a realistic and believable future. It isn’t a huge stretch to see the future in the film as our own future. It is both different enough and familiar enough to keep us going. Likewise, the characters in Children of Men are all interesting. They are all believable and well written. None of them fall into overt stereotypes. These very same things are the reason that Half-Life 2 succeeds. The gameplay is fun, but it doesn’t really do anything that other shooters haven’t done better (the gravity gun being the exception). Half-Life 2 is memorable because of the story, the setting, and the characters. It isn’t just the writing; the AI and animation are so good that Alyx was one of the few characters that I honestly cared for in a game. The other factor that would make Half-Life 2 perfect for a movie adaptation is its length. It is long enough to be worth every penny, but it is still short enough to work as a movie.

Can a good game movie be made? I think the answer is yes, but there are several factors against it. Most games don’t have good enough writing to work outside of the interactive format. Of those that do, some are just too long. However, if it has the right mix of plot elements and is given to a talented director, we just might see a good adaptation someday.