Lemme tell you something about Shogi

You know when you have a great game, right? A solid game with an established identity that is so set in stone that it doesn't need improvements or iteration because at this point to do so would be like... cultural assassination or something! I mean we like our games that have stood the test of time, our Mario's and our Space Invaders, but we need a little something extra sprinkled into those recipes in order to keep us interested, right? That's just the natural order of things! But what if there's a game with even more of a shelf life than even Mario? An evergreen sort of game! Well that would be totally beyond reproach if such a game existed, but I guess that would really depend on how much more staying power we're talking than that 40 year old franchise. How about a game so unanimous that it's basic rules and makeup haven't warranted an update once in the past 600 years? That would be pretty impressive, no?

Well that's the case with Chess- the true duelling game of the dark ages requiring a level of thought I am apparently anathema to. I can barely figure out what my next hour is going to be like, let alone devise and execute a twenty step plan to lure my enemies into the perfect position to capture one of their bishops. But I know of the game, who doesn't? Castles and Kings and Queens and Bishops and Knights and that one weird rule where the pawn can move two spaces in it's first turn but only at the beginning of the match sometimes. Or castling, a rule I'm positive that no one outside the professional circuit understands, and I don't think it's even allowed in professional tournaments anyway. (No, apparently it is. It's just such a rare circumstance that any professional would have to resort to it that we never see it.) 

What I'm trying to establish is that Chess is the kind of game that is sacred at this point. Dating back at least 1500 years in some form or another, we've really done all we can getting to the core of the game at it's best, right? Because in most places in the world it is played with the same rules, using the same pieces, upon the same board. You would have to be crazy to stubbornly cling onto some antiquated ruleset simply for the tradition of it- and in doing so inflict your 'crazy golf' version of traditional chess that makes me question every impulse to keep existing in this hellishly accursed world. That'd be real messed up if you did something like that- Asia! That's right, this is a diss-track on Shogi. Don't know what Shogi is? Stick around, you'll regret you ever learned!

So when you've played through every single Like a Dragon game- some of the rigors of Japanese society are going to stick around in your grey matter, for the simple fact that it is a franchise dripping with minigames all based around cultural touchstones. And snowball fights. Them too. As such I have bashed my head against Mahjong, tried a few hands at Pachinko- and never once want to touch Shogi again in my life. I can take games of chance, comprehend my failure to be lucky as it translates to my real world circumstances- I am no stranger. But when it's a game of strategy, of skill- I like to think a guy as stubborn as me can bash his head against the wall long enough until it caves in. That some essence of the game will click if I just push it long enough. But just like when I went against Milena: Blade of Miquella- I was in over my head from the get-go.

Let's explain this. You ready for this? I mean you aren't, but you ready to pretend that you are? Good, let's go. So you know Chess. Everybody does. Simple board, two opponents, two rows of symmetrical forces- except, whoops! First change. Now there are three rows, and the forces aren't symmetrical. I mean they mostly are, but that middle line, which consists of only two guys standing on their lonesome, like the arches of a Torri gate? Yeah, they're different. Who knows why. Anyway, the game pretty much plays the same only with much more rigid troop movements. Lancers can only go forward, for example, unless they reach the lines (back three rows) of the enemy at which point every force develops limited full directional movement- basically making them surrogate kings in their own right. Oh, and you can summon units from the dead.

Did you read that? No, I mean I assume you read it- but what I mean is did you understand it? You couldn't have because you haven't shut down this page and declared I'm a liar because that sounds insane. But it isn't. That's in the rule book. Enemies that are killed (or 'captured', I suppose) can be placed back on the board. Which is... not the most insane part. That would be the fact that you are placing the enemies units back on the board as your own! Yep, that means when you capture that Bishop, it's now your Bishop! By some utterly nonsensical farce of nature, the prisoners of war totally flip on their kingdom within the same battle! What kind of rent-a-thug asshats are these kingdoms warring with anyway? They find their armies on Wish.com or something? Geez! And of course, this means that when you're losing in Shogi- you're really losing! Bad!

But what if I just slapped you around the face with another dunk of cold water? What if I just blew your tiny little mind? What if I said that wasn't the craziest part? You would be forced to declare I have lost my mind and am currently dancing around the land of faeries with my head up their glittery behinds, right? Except no, I'm not. The most insane part is that you can place these resummoned units anywhere on the board! That's right I said anywhere. And just for the sake of clarity- anywhere includes behind enemy lines. Which makes Shogi the Anime-version of chess where entire goddamn battalions can instant transmission behind the unit wall with a pithy "Sorry kid" before wiping out your entire line and calling it a day. And anyone is supposed to make sense of this utter chaos we call a tactical game? I'd have better luck going to actual war.

Shogi is the product of a stubborn madman who saw how the rest of the world was sanitizing his game and bitterly fought to retain his quirk eccentric variation until it entered the point of 'national heritage' and now cannot be amended. I truly believe that a study into Shogi mastery could double as an exploration into the minds of people incapable of participating in the Turing test for the simple reason that their minds don't operate like Human's either- so the AI would be totally stumped about which party was meant to be artificial to begin with. I hold my inability to be anything other than crap at Chess as a point of shame, but my utter bewilderment with Shogi is a badge of pride- because it means I retain some slither of Humanity in my twisted little head. 

The Hollywood/Video Game conundrum.

Get ready for a rant.

Video games are popular. Movies are popular. Match made in heaven right? Only no. Time and time again we see the cinematic pursuits of video game properties crash and burn whilst we can but  just watch shake our heads like disappointed Daedalus'. What is it that makes Video Game movies so universally awful? Is it some inherent incompatibility of the mediums? Poor choice of source material? Lack of understanding of the source material? How about just a blatant disregard to the basic tenants of movie making? All of the above and more I'm afraid.

As a self-proclaimed video game aficionado I've taken it upon myself to watch these blunders whenever they pop up and am always surprised by a complete breakdown of coherence that these projects always display. Either the story stops making sense, or the direction, or the dialogue and so on and so forth. Every time we are forced to endure these blunders, us gamers are left wondering "what went wrong", and "why didn't you just...". Of course making movies is never that simple. Many factors go in to making a movie that the average Movie goer will never see or even think about. Factors that get in the way and complicate and obfuscate. So many factors, in fact, that I'll fairly sure that Video game movies will never capture the heart of their material, never be as faithful as we want them to be. But then the question needs to be asked, why does Hollywood insist on making them?

$116 Billion is your answer. In 2018, Reuters published a revenue report which means that now we can officially call Video games the most profitable form of entertainment in the world. Hollywood doesn't just want that money, it needs that money. Oftentimes, big video game companies will justify their more insidious and money grubbing antics by claiming that the rising cost of video games would outpace their revenue if they didn't. This is obviously a very weak lie. In terms of Hollywood, however, this is more accurate. Hollywood has reached the point where it has more money than sense in it's noggin. They are spending hundreds of millions on too many big budget movies for them all to make their money back and so the industry is hemorrhaging money when it doesn't need to. In May of this year the movies: Aladdin, Rocketman, John Wick 3, 'Godzilla: King of Monsters' and Detective Pikachu all came out in the same 4 week stretch. The biggest loser of that high budget showdown was Godzilla with a domestic take home of $100 million. And May was one of the better months for this kind of box office slaughter. Just look at April when Endgame came out. I don't even need to list any other movies because you already know they all failed in the wake of that juggernaut.

So Hollywood had the idea of bringing gamers into theaters. Afterall, they're used to spending so much more on maintaining their own hobby, so why can't Hollywood get a little bit of that pie? Sound logic on paper, but sorely lacking in execution. Out of all the Video Game movies that we have to look forward to in the coming years, the most promising ones are the movies we have seen nothing of yet, because we know that once we do we'll realise just how bad it'll actually be. The Uncharted movie is rumored to have Tom Holland on board. That's an alright choice, I guess. The upcoming Mortal Kombat movie has just confirmed that it'll be R-rated and feature fatalities. What? Am I supposed to applaud you for doing the bare minimum for getting the source material right? Okay, I'm sounding a little jaded but I have cause. Hitman, Tomb Raider, Street fighter, Super Mario Bros, DOOM, Rampage and Prince of Persia have all been gutted when given the 'silver screen treatment', why should I expect any less from these movies. Also, I've seen the Sonic the Hedgehog trailer so I know better than to expect anything watchable from Hollywood.

Things have gotten so bad that many fans are scared to see what becomes of their favourite franchises when the hit the big screen. the Monster Hunter movie has been smart enough to show us mostly nothing but you just have to read the synopsis to get those alarm bells a-ringing. Sure, they managed to faithfully render at least one Monster. Good job, Capcom have been pulling that off for years now. Then there's Sonic. Oh, Sonic. Look how they've butchered my boy! Nothing about that trailer was right. That design. Enough said. That script. Laughable, and not in the good way. The music. I'm not sure whether to blame Jeff Fowler for putting 'Gansta's Paradise' in or Coolio for allowing it.

Seriously, how did things get this bad. How have we reached the point where Video Game movies are consistently the worst possible representation of their respective franchises. Has it always been this way? Well, yes actually. Who remembers 1993's Super Mario Bros? Follow up question: Who wishes that they didn't? I'd imagine that with the games of the early 90's being as rudimentary as they were, material for a Video Game movie must have seemed fairly sparse. Most games were simple in story and execution, not cluttered with characters, plots and overarching themes. So here's an idea, just don't make a movie of it. But that wasn't good enough for 90's Nintendo when they decided that their plumber needed his silver screen debut. What resulted has gone done as a cinematic war crime and for good reason. In fact, you could say Video Games movies have gotten better since Mario, it was that bad.

I'll go on record to say that, despite their general awfulness, I do harbor something of a soft spot for 1994's Streetfighter and 1995's Mortal Kombat. Yes, they were both comprised of equal parts cheese and ham, but they are at least enjoyable to watch at least once in your life. Streetfighter bought us Jean-Claude Van Damme playing an American marine with a strong Belgium accent; and Raul Julia bringing gravitas and class to some truly crappy lines. Mortal Kombat, on the other hand, boasted a cast of hammy actors coupled with martial arts and a fundamental misunderstanding of the phrase 'Flawless victory'. Out of every video game movie that has released, I think these two had perhaps the most solid premise to build from. Not that they did much with that opportunity, but the final product at least had a right to exist.

Now lets move on to something that has no right to exist. A real pet-peeve of mine. The two Hitman movies. Two! Twice some idiot in a board room was presented with a game fundamentally ill suited to be a movie and went "Why not?". I'll tell you why not: Hitman and Hitman: Agent 47, is why not. Hitman is a game where you play a genetically engineered clone lacking in remorse who specialises in 'causing accidents' to kill his targets. It's not an action game. It's not a spy game. It's essentially a next-level puzzle solver with dozens of variables for the player to consider. The allure of Hitman comes from the freedom of approach, or rather, the illusion of freedom of approach. The player is still given the confines of the area and situation that they have to operate within, but they are made to feel as though all the world is their weapon to work with. The Hitman movies are action movie trash. They have none of the charm, unique game play, or spectacular design of the games they claim to be based on. They are an embarrassment to the Hitman name.

Hitman wasn't the only Eidos game to get a movie on based on it. Square Enix must have been really hard up in the 2000's because we've got 3 Tomb Raider films now. And none of them are good. I know that the Angelina Jolie movies garnered some praise (Or at least the first one did) upon first release. But this was the 2000's. Everyone's taste was wacky in the 2000's. We allowed 'Catwoman' to happen in the 2000's. Nothing anyone from the 2000's has ever said can be trusted. Alicia Vikander's Tomb Raider isn't the worst thing in the world, either, but it just isn't good. I watched it last year and I still can't remember what magical MacGuffin Lara was meant to be after. All I remember is thinking "Well that was a waste of time" once the credits rolled up.

That is the prevailing takeaway from all of these films. They are all just a huge wastes of time and money, and why wouldn't they be? Video Games are designed for the purpose of being entertaining. Yes, occasionally they can challenge you intellectually, but at the end of the day they have to be fun enough to keep you on that controller or behind that keyboard. Films, on the other hand, need something more than base entertainment. They need to have a purpose or a function, else they risk feeling meandering and pointless. I'm not saying that there is no space for a cross over somewhere in that venn diagram but no one has managed to pull it off yet.

Will the upcoming Metal Gear Solid movie be any good? It should be, given that the game was built around feeling like a movie. But then, why even make a movie? If the game already feels cinematic, what is there left to adapt? I suppose they can cut it down to fit theatre length, rip out some of the fourth wall jokes, and steamroll over the hours of lore that helped establish the Metal Gear world. There's your movie. Soulless and decrepit. Slap that in the cinema than act surprised when the audience rejects it and go back to the games. Now, I'm no Soothsayer, but in 5 years or so we'll see just how spot on I am.

Whenever I go off on one like this I feel obliged to remind everyone that I'm not doing it out of hate. I'm doing it out of passion. I don't hate movies. I don't love movies, either. But I do love games. And I hate it when games are made into a laughing stock by movie makers who find themselves heading projects that they don't understand and therefore cannot translate for a wider audience. Everyone suffers as a result. The studio suffers, the fans suffer, the franchise suffers and the reputation of Video games as a whole suffer. It all just seems so much headache for terrible returns. Hollywood is already doing a fine job of shooting itself in the foot in recent years, why does the gaming industry have to put it's neck on the line too? Let's just leave the demon to it's demons; and keep video games as video games.