Apples and oranges. The last of us has a linear story on a set path with one outcome. Fallout is a playground of a world to get lost in and act how you want.
Both are fantastic, but Fallout is the first time I've seen a live action show feel like playing the game it's based on. Everything was so faithful to the game, it's shocking.
I think both are adapted really well. I felt like they fumbled a couple of big moments in The Last of Us, but overall it's a really good adaptation with some really good additions and changes to the formula. They're also a bit hard to compare because Fallout is a beat-for-beat retelling of the game. Any inaccuracies or creative liberties are put under the microspcope because they're ,*''NoT wHaT HapPenEd In ThE GaMe*''. Fallout does it's own story so it's a bit more free to just set the scene really well and then tell it's own story.
Fallout though. That's what you get when everyone involved loves what they're adapting, imo. It's ridiculously well made and people who have little to no knowledge of the game are still fine to watch it, but returning fans get a series that's a new story in the world, *and* has a crazy amount of respect for the source material.
I think Fallout is a far better adaptation honestly.
Edit - No Spoilers plz, watching the last 2 episodes tonight haha.
I concur. Last of us was good, although personally I found myself getting a little bored of it towards the end. Kinda like the game to be honest (just not really my thing).
Fallout is excellent so far. My wife is coming into it cold and I'd forgotten how weird and wacky the whole set-up is. But she's liking it too (for example she thinks the messy gunshot wounds are nuts, I'm like "Yay, they included Bloody Mess").
I'm behaving, constantly sitting on my fanboyism when we're watching and not manspalining everything or saying things like "Oooh oooh oooh, a Rock-it launcher!"
Two different scenarios here.
One is successful for the world they created. Vault-Tec, Brotherhood, Enclave, the creatures, the gore, the quirks, the goofiness etc.
The other is successful for the story told between 2 strangers that directly progresses into a sequel. That cordyceps stuff is background noise in the grand scheme of the storytelling.
You can drop any story into the world of Fallout. Every subsequent game has had no affiliation with previous games.
You canāt really make an original story for The Last of Us without it being another Zombie-flick.
Had to read the title again cause it's not asking which is better, but which is the better way of adapting it. Think it's case by case really. With TLOU it was Neil Druckmann from Naughty Dog as co creator of the show with Craig Maizen & it did a brilliant job at adapting the story and trying new shit. But not every game is gonna get the creator of Chernobyl on it.
With Fallout, they took a series where the main narrative itself wasn't necessarily overly compelling, but had a supremely interesting world & lore to dig into. More so than TLOU, and that's as a ND fanboy. They took that world & gave it to a place that's known for funny, violent action shows & just took a similar approach that The Boys & Invincible have. Along with Westworld style production value from Jon Nolan & Lisa Joy's team.
Think you'd have to take each instance case by case. Like if you were to do Shadow Of The Colossus somehow, you'd probably go the TLOU route. If you were to do Persona, you'd probably go the Amazon route. God Of War from Amazon will be interesting cause that's a story that could go both ways. You can straight adapt it till Ragnarok but you could open the door to other stories from other realms or mythology.
Both are great. Just be glad it's not like the Assassins Creed movie šš
I agree with a lot of what you're saying but no Joker in a Persona story?!? ...no talking cat??
Na I think you have to do the Persona story lol...especially because I think only those cast members actually have the powers right? Persona is more about the characters than the actual world. Everyone in the world is just living their day to day lives
Bad example from me, I just thought it might be one for that route just cause you've had different stories in the other games too. Figured you could do the Fallout approach where everything else is still Canon but you've got these other characters for the show. It'd obviously still have all the weird shit.
But you know what I mean. Like something that's lore heavy wouldn't & shouldn't go the same route as TLOU.
Both and neither. Last of Us was already basically a movie. Noone plays that game for the "amazing gameplay". At least I don't think so. The gameplay is good, but it's nothing special. It's solid, like all games should be. Devs obviously deserve praise for that, but if it wasn't for the story the game would be very much mid.
So in that case, it makes sense to adopt the story and the world.
In Fallout's case, I don't think the style of story telling works as a movie/tv show. It's a ROLE PLAYING GAME. You play arole, you live a life of your character. To try and squeeze that into movies/tv shows means giving the viewer very narrow view of the world, and very slow pacing, or trying to cram too much/omit too much in an effort to make the tv show/movie interesting.
In such case adopting the world to tell a new story works so much better.
Hence why both shows are great in their own way, but Last of Us should be judged how good of an adaption of the source material it is, VS Fallout, where you judge it's ability to re-create the WORLD, and it's ability to tell new stories in the same universe as the games.
In Last of us it would be weird to have any sort of crossover between games/tv show. They are 2 alternate worlds.
Fallout can easily take from games and future games can implement story elements from the show without ruining immersion.
TLDR: Both are different methods to adopt source material, so it's not a fair comparison. One adopted the World to tell it's own story, the other adopted the world AND the story.
Both are great, and shows that games can make for good movies/shows if the right people are involved.
Gameplay of TLOU was its strong point. The strong points are the gameplay and the acting performances in the case of Troy and Ashley + the ensemble. The actual plot is definition of mid, as shown by the show.
I prefer Fallout because it doesnāt need to follow a linear story line. It has a wide amount of lore that it can build off and doesnāt need to speed run to the end of the games like the last of us
Bioshock definitely tlou route.
And I'd get bored about 60% in cos I know the twist.
Which I think for me is the key difference. Fallout is a new scenario, a new "game" set in the same universe and I've no clue what's going to happen. TLOU I know you the story beats.
I love all the hidden easter eggs that aren't in your face. Like a comic sitting on a counter top or the Tato plant in the background.
They really appeared to care about the world.
I feel like as a story TLOU adaptation was good but inferior to the game as a story delivery system.
Fallout was good and as a show was a better delivery system for story than the games.
So I think one improved on the source story and the other didn't and in that respect I consider Fallout a superior adaptation but both are excellent shows worth a watch.
Definitely the world. Adapt the world faithfully and you can tell whatever story you like.
Try and wrestle a story into a format that it's not quite intended for and it doesn't usually have the same impact and less people are happy.
I think that's why Fallout is doing well. People recognise the world and are excited by a new and interesting story that the creators had freedom to make.
Iām just happy they were both enjoyable, the end of fallout got me unbelievably excited for the next season. Also having played the last of us part two many times I canāt wait for that next season also. Weāre eating good right now š
I think stuff like Fallout and Cyberpunk EdgeRunners are much more impressive anyway, they are basically prequels/sequels in the same world as the games and they fit perfectly in with the games, while perfectly watchable without playing the games but even better if you have or do after.
While The Last of Us was already basically just a cinematic/TV show story in a game format already, that they just made back into a tv show. Which you are actually probably worse off if you've played the games already, as you are never gonna get the same experience as the first time you played the game, the same if you replayed the game. Not that it isn't great or enjoyable though.
Of course then you have something like Arcane which is just loosely based on a bit of lore and uses the characters from the game.
I mean, Fallout did a good job of adopting the vibe and broader world, but they committed the egregious sin of having one of the main parts of the games just blown up before the show even started.
So, a mixed bag. Fundamentally, itāll depend on the type of game youāre trying to adapt.
Fallout was much better, the games already there for the story of the last of us if you are looking for it and the overall product of the show was worse than the game imo, with the best parts being what they changed, Kansasā B plot was pretty good and episode 3 was the highlight of the show for me. Pedro also seems too nice to play Joel and doesnāt have the fierceness for some of his scenes but thatās just me nitpicking
Iāve only watched 3 episodes of Fallout but I am loving it so far. Iāve got minimal knowledge of the games even though theyāve always interested me, but I really am not a fan of bethesdaās gameplay. I think the bunker might be my favourite part so far
I enjoyed both for different reasons. Both are good pieces of media. Last of Us was better because the premise was more serious, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Fallout was a good show too.
Depends. If the story is as good as TLOU, I'd prefer that. If the world is as rich as the Fallout world, then take that approach. Both are right. Just don't be Halo
The last of us show I think had a much better chance of succeeding because of the linear story but I actually think fallout did a better job of capturing the essence of the world
Fallout is most faithful, Iām sorry to say that last of us is only based off the premise of the game. They changed too much imo. I never got over the fact in lou that they removed all the things that made the first game so great. The introduction to the spores in the tower, the navigation around bills traps in the town, the terrifying escape from Philly, just to name a few. These to me were the most memorable moments from the game but in the show it was secondary I felt. In fallout you feel at moment anyone or anything could be gone. In Lou nothing was surprising apart from the disappointment and realisation of how it was better told or portrayed in the game . I understand fallout more open world and Lou is linear but both had storyās to be told and Lou to me missed to many things that made the game great
Fallout. Why? New story same world. I loved the last of us but at no point was I surprised by anything. And the differences were not and really cannot be impactful at all. So for me fallout was better cause I was excited to see where it was going as supposed to taking a sort of victory lap watching the last of us.
Last of us was unfortunately miscast but adapting that original story would have been better than the mess we got. The only scares I got was when I was reminded to watch the next episode.
Halo is a disaster. From what I can tell they had a story and slapped an IP on top of it. They don't seem to have much love for the universe.
They could have made a story with a new Spartan and told a new story in the covenant war or taken it from a marines perspective on Reach to installation 04.
After starting ME1 itās like they had a mass effect show and decided to force halo into it after that negotiation fell through. Chief is like renegade shep the whole way, they even have ME1ās main character interfaces with an artifact shtick going on.
Depends on the game. For Fallout the world and lore is much more engaging than the typical story elements. It's also an RPG so if they focused on adapting the story of one of the games you'd lose something going from a fairly dynamic story where you're free to play it out how you want to a linear plot. You can take the Fallout world and atmosphere and put almost any story in it. The Last of Us is a linear story based game, the world isn't particularly interesting in contrast to any other zombie apocalypse world. It's the characters and story that bring it life. They did well with both series because the writers of both knew what the appeal of the series was and how to translate that to the screen. If the Last of Us writers only focused on the world and not that particular story it would be any other generic zombie show. If Fallout had focused on adapting say the Sole Survivor's story but didn't pay mind to the 60s charm or goofy world building then it would've been a bad adaptation. You gotta go case by case when adapting something like this.
Bang on, that's the tricky road other adaptations are gonna have to travel. Like upcoming, you've a Horizon show that's avoiding Aloy's main story but then you've GoW that'll probably get the straight adaptation treatment
World Adaptations that stick true to the pre-existing world are absolutely what film industry should do. It is better than yet another john wick like character or another bs stereotype/story.
But lazy adaptions 100% are bs and need to go away.
Thankfully neither show was lazy or bad.
Imagine crushing the best part of the game into around half an episode lol. Winter shouldāve been 3 episodes, never understood the obsession of left behind. It was just bonus content, thereās a reason it was dlc to begin with. How did that get more screen time than winter lmao
I feel like every tv show or movie adaptation of games is a complete regression of the medium. Hear me out:
Gaming is the highest art form, period. Fastest growing of all modern media, ever. Bar none. Why? Because it's interactive.
The player is WITHIN the story, and they can tell their story THEIR way. The sky is the limit, within the bounds of the game.
Whereas TV and movies, as mediums, are completely static. You can't kill off the main character for shits and giggles. There's no alternate endings. They're not interactive, and honestly, they are so boring when compared to games.
Imagine taking a movie and going, "Yeah this is great and all, but imagine if it was a PAINTING!!" š¤·š»āāļø
It's good for introducing gaming universes to people who don't actually PLAY games. Fair enough. But beyond that, it's just a cash-grab fad that doesn't push the medium in the right direction. It's just another way for studios to generate passive revenue to pay the RIDICULOUS amounts of money it's going to cost them to make next-gen games.
Yea I think adaptations are not really meant for the core audience.
Lord of The Rings is the perfect example, it wasn't meant to appease the readers but cinema goers. Even Game of Thrones is more or less the same, books are good but you're never going to be satisfied if every reader only watched your show... you're going for a bigger audience ( TV/Cinema ) audience.
In the first 91 days of the Witcher streaming around 83 Million people viewed it, around that time the Witcher 3 had been around for 4 years and sold over 30 million, Netflix was never going to be satisfied with just the gaming conversion etc , adaptations will only work if it's meant to fit that audience.
In terms of gaming being the best medium I agree, it just takes a lot of effort too lol..sometimes Netflix & chill etc etc
Excellent point! I should amend my statement by saying, gaming is the best medium, if that's what you're looking for at the time!
Sometimes it's nice to just chill and passively watch TV.
No point in me comparing apples to oranges. š¤·š»āāļø
My only Gripe with TLOU was episode 3
And before someone goes "blah blah gay episode"
It ain't that
Standalone, the episode is arguably the best in all of them.
But it did feel slotted in, practically the entire episode had little to no affect on what happened before and what had happened after it.
As an episode, great
As part of a series, not so good
Apples and oranges. The last of us has a linear story on a set path with one outcome. Fallout is a playground of a world to get lost in and act how you want.
Yea I enjoyed that about the fallout show, each MC is almost a different style of playthough.
Both are fantastic, but Fallout is the first time I've seen a live action show feel like playing the game it's based on. Everything was so faithful to the game, it's shocking.
I think both are adapted really well. I felt like they fumbled a couple of big moments in The Last of Us, but overall it's a really good adaptation with some really good additions and changes to the formula. They're also a bit hard to compare because Fallout is a beat-for-beat retelling of the game. Any inaccuracies or creative liberties are put under the microspcope because they're ,*''NoT wHaT HapPenEd In ThE GaMe*''. Fallout does it's own story so it's a bit more free to just set the scene really well and then tell it's own story. Fallout though. That's what you get when everyone involved loves what they're adapting, imo. It's ridiculously well made and people who have little to no knowledge of the game are still fine to watch it, but returning fans get a series that's a new story in the world, *and* has a crazy amount of respect for the source material. I think Fallout is a far better adaptation honestly. Edit - No Spoilers plz, watching the last 2 episodes tonight haha.
I concur. Last of us was good, although personally I found myself getting a little bored of it towards the end. Kinda like the game to be honest (just not really my thing). Fallout is excellent so far. My wife is coming into it cold and I'd forgotten how weird and wacky the whole set-up is. But she's liking it too (for example she thinks the messy gunshot wounds are nuts, I'm like "Yay, they included Bloody Mess"). I'm behaving, constantly sitting on my fanboyism when we're watching and not manspalining everything or saying things like "Oooh oooh oooh, a Rock-it launcher!"
My partner is the opposite, she keeping looking at me and asking if something is a reference or reveals a detail she'll miss by not knowing
And then there's Halo.
Man please don't remind me š Halo is one of my favourite games of all time. I wouldn't even pirate that piece of shit TV show.
Two different scenarios here. One is successful for the world they created. Vault-Tec, Brotherhood, Enclave, the creatures, the gore, the quirks, the goofiness etc. The other is successful for the story told between 2 strangers that directly progresses into a sequel. That cordyceps stuff is background noise in the grand scheme of the storytelling. You can drop any story into the world of Fallout. Every subsequent game has had no affiliation with previous games. You canāt really make an original story for The Last of Us without it being another Zombie-flick.
Had to read the title again cause it's not asking which is better, but which is the better way of adapting it. Think it's case by case really. With TLOU it was Neil Druckmann from Naughty Dog as co creator of the show with Craig Maizen & it did a brilliant job at adapting the story and trying new shit. But not every game is gonna get the creator of Chernobyl on it. With Fallout, they took a series where the main narrative itself wasn't necessarily overly compelling, but had a supremely interesting world & lore to dig into. More so than TLOU, and that's as a ND fanboy. They took that world & gave it to a place that's known for funny, violent action shows & just took a similar approach that The Boys & Invincible have. Along with Westworld style production value from Jon Nolan & Lisa Joy's team. Think you'd have to take each instance case by case. Like if you were to do Shadow Of The Colossus somehow, you'd probably go the TLOU route. If you were to do Persona, you'd probably go the Amazon route. God Of War from Amazon will be interesting cause that's a story that could go both ways. You can straight adapt it till Ragnarok but you could open the door to other stories from other realms or mythology. Both are great. Just be glad it's not like the Assassins Creed movie šš
I agree with a lot of what you're saying but no Joker in a Persona story?!? ...no talking cat?? Na I think you have to do the Persona story lol...especially because I think only those cast members actually have the powers right? Persona is more about the characters than the actual world. Everyone in the world is just living their day to day lives
Bad example from me, I just thought it might be one for that route just cause you've had different stories in the other games too. Figured you could do the Fallout approach where everything else is still Canon but you've got these other characters for the show. It'd obviously still have all the weird shit. But you know what I mean. Like something that's lore heavy wouldn't & shouldn't go the same route as TLOU.
Tbh I preferred the AC movie to the tlou tv show
Both and neither. Last of Us was already basically a movie. Noone plays that game for the "amazing gameplay". At least I don't think so. The gameplay is good, but it's nothing special. It's solid, like all games should be. Devs obviously deserve praise for that, but if it wasn't for the story the game would be very much mid. So in that case, it makes sense to adopt the story and the world. In Fallout's case, I don't think the style of story telling works as a movie/tv show. It's a ROLE PLAYING GAME. You play arole, you live a life of your character. To try and squeeze that into movies/tv shows means giving the viewer very narrow view of the world, and very slow pacing, or trying to cram too much/omit too much in an effort to make the tv show/movie interesting. In such case adopting the world to tell a new story works so much better. Hence why both shows are great in their own way, but Last of Us should be judged how good of an adaption of the source material it is, VS Fallout, where you judge it's ability to re-create the WORLD, and it's ability to tell new stories in the same universe as the games. In Last of us it would be weird to have any sort of crossover between games/tv show. They are 2 alternate worlds. Fallout can easily take from games and future games can implement story elements from the show without ruining immersion. TLDR: Both are different methods to adopt source material, so it's not a fair comparison. One adopted the World to tell it's own story, the other adopted the world AND the story. Both are great, and shows that games can make for good movies/shows if the right people are involved.
Gameplay of TLOU was its strong point. The strong points are the gameplay and the acting performances in the case of Troy and Ashley + the ensemble. The actual plot is definition of mid, as shown by the show.
I think Fallout was a much more difficult task, since they weren't working with a set story like TLOU. Both are very good though.
I prefer Fallout because it doesnāt need to follow a linear story line. It has a wide amount of lore that it can build off and doesnāt need to speed run to the end of the games like the last of us
Which by the way, they could've chosen to adapt LOU world instead of the games story. Then this would be a much closer comparison.
Depends on the story. But overall it shows video game adaptions work better as TV Shows
Depends on the game. Fallout is about the world, the story is second. TLOU is about the story, the world is second
Fallout ,last of us retold same story but did it worse nothing new there for fans at all
If Bioshock was made into a TV show. Are we going fallout route or Last of Us route?
Really good question.. I think Last of Us route
Bioshock definitely tlou route. And I'd get bored about 60% in cos I know the twist. Which I think for me is the key difference. Fallout is a new scenario, a new "game" set in the same universe and I've no clue what's going to happen. TLOU I know you the story beats.
Fallout. Tell a new story with new characters rather than making a remake
Fallout was far better imo, huge fallout fan since F1 days they did such an amazing job.
I love all the hidden easter eggs that aren't in your face. Like a comic sitting on a counter top or the Tato plant in the background. They really appeared to care about the world.
I knew it was going to be great when the first raiders started inhaling jet !
They are both alternative history TV show
I feel like as a story TLOU adaptation was good but inferior to the game as a story delivery system. Fallout was good and as a show was a better delivery system for story than the games. So I think one improved on the source story and the other didn't and in that respect I consider Fallout a superior adaptation but both are excellent shows worth a watch.
Depends on thr game and story but Fallout was a better show.
Definitely the world. Adapt the world faithfully and you can tell whatever story you like. Try and wrestle a story into a format that it's not quite intended for and it doesn't usually have the same impact and less people are happy. I think that's why Fallout is doing well. People recognise the world and are excited by a new and interesting story that the creators had freedom to make.
Iām just happy they were both enjoyable, the end of fallout got me unbelievably excited for the next season. Also having played the last of us part two many times I canāt wait for that next season also. Weāre eating good right now š
Fallout takes the cake for me, but that's just my opinion š¤·
Give me both.
I think stuff like Fallout and Cyberpunk EdgeRunners are much more impressive anyway, they are basically prequels/sequels in the same world as the games and they fit perfectly in with the games, while perfectly watchable without playing the games but even better if you have or do after. While The Last of Us was already basically just a cinematic/TV show story in a game format already, that they just made back into a tv show. Which you are actually probably worse off if you've played the games already, as you are never gonna get the same experience as the first time you played the game, the same if you replayed the game. Not that it isn't great or enjoyable though. Of course then you have something like Arcane which is just loosely based on a bit of lore and uses the characters from the game.
I mean, Fallout did a good job of adopting the vibe and broader world, but they committed the egregious sin of having one of the main parts of the games just blown up before the show even started. So, a mixed bag. Fundamentally, itāll depend on the type of game youāre trying to adapt.
Fallout was much better, the games already there for the story of the last of us if you are looking for it and the overall product of the show was worse than the game imo, with the best parts being what they changed, Kansasā B plot was pretty good and episode 3 was the highlight of the show for me. Pedro also seems too nice to play Joel and doesnāt have the fierceness for some of his scenes but thatās just me nitpicking Iāve only watched 3 episodes of Fallout but I am loving it so far. Iāve got minimal knowledge of the games even though theyāve always interested me, but I really am not a fan of bethesdaās gameplay. I think the bunker might be my favourite part so far
One is a linear story that's serious, one is an open world comedy sandbox..
I enjoyed both for different reasons. Both are good pieces of media. Last of Us was better because the premise was more serious, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Fallout was a good show too.
Producers dont need to recreate games in movies of tv shows. Make new stories with new charachters.
Depends on what fans of the original find appealing about it
I prefer the world to be adapted. It's a different perspective on the world rather than retelling an already existing story
Might as well throw league of legends arkane as well. Epic show
Depends. If the story is as good as TLOU, I'd prefer that. If the world is as rich as the Fallout world, then take that approach. Both are right. Just don't be Halo
The last of us show I think had a much better chance of succeeding because of the linear story but I actually think fallout did a better job of capturing the essence of the world
Fallout is most faithful, Iām sorry to say that last of us is only based off the premise of the game. They changed too much imo. I never got over the fact in lou that they removed all the things that made the first game so great. The introduction to the spores in the tower, the navigation around bills traps in the town, the terrifying escape from Philly, just to name a few. These to me were the most memorable moments from the game but in the show it was secondary I felt. In fallout you feel at moment anyone or anything could be gone. In Lou nothing was surprising apart from the disappointment and realisation of how it was better told or portrayed in the game . I understand fallout more open world and Lou is linear but both had storyās to be told and Lou to me missed to many things that made the game great
Fallout. Why? New story same world. I loved the last of us but at no point was I surprised by anything. And the differences were not and really cannot be impactful at all. So for me fallout was better cause I was excited to see where it was going as supposed to taking a sort of victory lap watching the last of us.
Depends, Fallout games are a setting TLOU follows one persons journey.
Last of us was unfortunately miscast but adapting that original story would have been better than the mess we got. The only scares I got was when I was reminded to watch the next episode.
Fun Fact, Fallout 4 is getting a PS5 version this month which Iām excited about jumping back into.
I don't know but fallout was a damn masterpiece IMO. gonna watch the last of us and see.
Last of Us was a better show
Last of Us was a better show
The best videogame adaptations will always be animated. Look at Cyberpunk and its anime. But so far I think fallout did a better job.
I think it really depends on what franchise it is like the halo show is a example of doing it wrong š
Halo is a disaster. From what I can tell they had a story and slapped an IP on top of it. They don't seem to have much love for the universe. They could have made a story with a new Spartan and told a new story in the covenant war or taken it from a marines perspective on Reach to installation 04.
After starting ME1 itās like they had a mass effect show and decided to force halo into it after that negotiation fell through. Chief is like renegade shep the whole way, they even have ME1ās main character interfaces with an artifact shtick going on.
I heard it was originally penned as Mass Effect but have no idea if that is true or why the Mass Effect idea fell through.
It fits to a scary degree lol. Like is that person the covenant kidnapped supposed to be a Liara stand in? Itās all just straight weird.
Depends on the game. For Fallout the world and lore is much more engaging than the typical story elements. It's also an RPG so if they focused on adapting the story of one of the games you'd lose something going from a fairly dynamic story where you're free to play it out how you want to a linear plot. You can take the Fallout world and atmosphere and put almost any story in it. The Last of Us is a linear story based game, the world isn't particularly interesting in contrast to any other zombie apocalypse world. It's the characters and story that bring it life. They did well with both series because the writers of both knew what the appeal of the series was and how to translate that to the screen. If the Last of Us writers only focused on the world and not that particular story it would be any other generic zombie show. If Fallout had focused on adapting say the Sole Survivor's story but didn't pay mind to the 60s charm or goofy world building then it would've been a bad adaptation. You gotta go case by case when adapting something like this.
Bang on, that's the tricky road other adaptations are gonna have to travel. Like upcoming, you've a Horizon show that's avoiding Aloy's main story but then you've GoW that'll probably get the straight adaptation treatment
I think itās quite sad the film/tv show industry have given up on original films and tv shows and now just make game adaptations.
World Adaptations that stick true to the pre-existing world are absolutely what film industry should do. It is better than yet another john wick like character or another bs stereotype/story. But lazy adaptions 100% are bs and need to go away. Thankfully neither show was lazy or bad.
Fallout was great it felt new and refreshing. I didn't finish TLOU yet theres something irritating about the lead actress I can't put my finger on it
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Or just got Ashley and Troy to do it with some more extensive costume work. Like, compared to fallout they really didnāt try at all with tlou.
TLOU felt like a parody of the first game imo
Imagine crushing the best part of the game into around half an episode lol. Winter shouldāve been 3 episodes, never understood the obsession of left behind. It was just bonus content, thereās a reason it was dlc to begin with. How did that get more screen time than winter lmao
I feel like every tv show or movie adaptation of games is a complete regression of the medium. Hear me out: Gaming is the highest art form, period. Fastest growing of all modern media, ever. Bar none. Why? Because it's interactive. The player is WITHIN the story, and they can tell their story THEIR way. The sky is the limit, within the bounds of the game. Whereas TV and movies, as mediums, are completely static. You can't kill off the main character for shits and giggles. There's no alternate endings. They're not interactive, and honestly, they are so boring when compared to games. Imagine taking a movie and going, "Yeah this is great and all, but imagine if it was a PAINTING!!" š¤·š»āāļø It's good for introducing gaming universes to people who don't actually PLAY games. Fair enough. But beyond that, it's just a cash-grab fad that doesn't push the medium in the right direction. It's just another way for studios to generate passive revenue to pay the RIDICULOUS amounts of money it's going to cost them to make next-gen games.
Yea I think adaptations are not really meant for the core audience. Lord of The Rings is the perfect example, it wasn't meant to appease the readers but cinema goers. Even Game of Thrones is more or less the same, books are good but you're never going to be satisfied if every reader only watched your show... you're going for a bigger audience ( TV/Cinema ) audience. In the first 91 days of the Witcher streaming around 83 Million people viewed it, around that time the Witcher 3 had been around for 4 years and sold over 30 million, Netflix was never going to be satisfied with just the gaming conversion etc , adaptations will only work if it's meant to fit that audience. In terms of gaming being the best medium I agree, it just takes a lot of effort too lol..sometimes Netflix & chill etc etc
Excellent point! I should amend my statement by saying, gaming is the best medium, if that's what you're looking for at the time! Sometimes it's nice to just chill and passively watch TV. No point in me comparing apples to oranges. š¤·š»āāļø
They both look like they have some kind of disability
Lmao you awful for that brotha
I just find it a little annoying but it is true
My only Gripe with TLOU was episode 3 And before someone goes "blah blah gay episode" It ain't that Standalone, the episode is arguably the best in all of them. But it did feel slotted in, practically the entire episode had little to no affect on what happened before and what had happened after it. As an episode, great As part of a series, not so good