Marshall2288 said:
Thats a good point, Stoo. I guess I would rather a game because it would provide 10+ hours of Indy story line that 2 hours.
Marshall, while I'm no expert on video games these days, wouldn't that be 10+ hours of 'gameplay' on the first go rather than actual story? Once a player learns how to get through each level, the next time around it won't take as long, therefore, the story becomes shorter with each replay.
Does anyone know how long it takes to run/walk through "Infernal Machine", "Emperor's Tomb" or "Staff of Kings" once you know exactly what to do? Is it possible to finish either of those games in the span of about 2 hours?
No Ticket said:
That's really limited to whether or not they're open to playing a video game. Anyone can play a video game.
The KIND of game I'm talking about, an Indy game akin to 1313, would never make it on the Wii. That's not a powerful enough console. But there's definitely going to be even more impressive things video games are capable of in the next generation (starting around fall 2013) that will make them basically like playing a movie. They are already capable of nearly cinematic experiences on 360 and PS3.
Hi, No Ticket. Not "anyone" can play a video game. As I wrote above, I
want to play "Staff of Kings" but
cannot because it wasn't made for computers. To play this imaginary, new Indy video game, a person would need the appropriate console & a TV (or a computer with proper system requirements) plus the game itself. (Some people don't even own a television.) To see a movie, all a person needs is about $15 or less and a way to the theatre...or wait for it to be shown on TV.
Re. the Wii not being powerful enough: So Wii owners will have to buy another system just to play this new "Star Wars" game?
This raises another issue as to why it would be better to have a new Indy movie instead of a game.
Video games have a limited lifetime. Computer-based games eventually become incompatible & unplayable (although some can be made to work with a lot of research and futzing around). Console-wise, you need to keep all of your old, outdated units (which I consider junk eating up space. Got rid of my Atari 2600 and Atari 400 years ago).
Meanwhile, films as popular as Indiana Jones will ALWAYS BE AVAILABLE to see with little or no effort at all!
Montana Smiff said:
I just checked this out - and I'm reading "third person". To me that's generally a waste of a game. First person is the only way I can get into a game and really experience its world.
Smiffy, I agree that first-person-point-of-view is very immersive but for a new Indy adventure, I want to WATCH my hero do his thing and not look out of his eyes. In a third-person-perspective, the player is essentially looking at the back of the character's head & body most of the time
*. This is another reason why I'd prefer a 5th film over a game. I want to see Indy's face.
*This may not be the case anymore so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
---
When Jonesy9906753 wrote "it would give the fans a little more of what they deserve", he might have been assuming that all Indy fans are video gamers. Here at The Raven, it's obvious that many are but Ravenheads who post are only a miniscule percentage of people who like Dr. Jones. Out of the MILLIONS of folks who went to see "Cyrstal Skull" - from kids to seniors - I'd venture to guess that the overwhelming majority would probably prefer a movie over a game.